Aboriginal-led development – the case of the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust

ABSTRACT

This case study explores the developmental practices and institutional environment which have supported the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust to build a sense of Aboriginal agency and ownership over efforts to promote development in remote central Australia. Drawing on interview data with practitioners and Aboriginal participants, the study demonstrates that flexible, adaptive practices which embrace learning and prioritise respectful relationships in pursuit of culturally appropriate fit-for-purpose governance is conducive to supporting Aboriginal-led development. The study further identifies the importance of institutional settings that enable this work, including relational leadership, long-term commitment, risk appetite, creating space for reflection and adaptation, and appropriate recruitment. It also identifies the constraints on the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust (WETT) within the contemporary political economy of Indigenous affairs, which limit the extent to which such practices and institutions can, by themselves, further Aboriginal-led development approaches.

Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institution, self-determination, locally led development, Aboriginal-led development, governance, adaptive practice, authorising environment

1. Introduction

A growing body of research suggests that advancing Indigenous agency, participation, and decision-making control are critical elements of effectively addressing the enduring poverty, marginalisation, and disadvantage experienced by Indigenous peoples (Eversole, McNeish, and Cimadamore 2005; Jorgensen 2007). Research with Indigenous communities across the globe demonstrates the links between participation, leadership, and ownership of developmental initiatives and improved outcomes across a wide range of wellbeing indicators including economic development, education and health, cultural maintenance and revitalisation, suicide prevention, and social-emotional wellbeing (see, for example, Cornell and Kalt 1998, 2; Lavoie et al. 2010; McCausland et al. 2021; Smith and Hunt 2008; Wilson et al. 2019). Collectively, these studies demonstrate ways in which Indigenous agency over the definition, implementation, and evaluation of wellbeing interventions can be more effective in achieving their aims and delivering improved outcomes for Indigenous peoples than alternative approaches. Consequently, building a rich understanding of what it takes for Indigenous leadership and governance over such interventions to prosper is an urgent task to enable effective responses to the significant disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people globally.

In Australia, as in other colonised Western countries, self-determination has remained a fundamental aspiration of Indigenous peoples in the face of centuries of dispossession and disempowerment (Maddison 2019). Despite this longstanding aspiration and the evidence demonstrating its importance to enhanced wellbeing outcomes, Indigenous governance remains highly constrained in Australia’s contemporary social-political context (ibid). A complex array of legal, regulatory, and policy barriers limit the scope in which effective and legitimate forms of Indigenous leadership and governance can emerge while an elaborate and hierarchical public policy environment brings an excessive focus on measurement, accountability, and administration at the expense of delivering culturally appropriate processes and outcomes valued by Indigenous peoples (Hunt 2008, 42; Moran 2010). Furthermore, there is limited literature that examines how Aboriginal-led development can be effectively supported at the local level and the implications for the policy and practice of Aboriginal development more broadly.

Against this backdrop, the Central Land Council (CLC) has been working alongside Warlpiri traditional owners and educators in remote central Australia to seek to reclaim authority and agency over development through the establishment of a trust fund for education governed by and for Warlpiri people. The Warlpiri Education and Training Trust (WETT) has been operating since 2005 with governance and administrative support provided by the CLC. Prior research has demonstrated the contribution of WETT to enhanced self-determination alongside a host of developmental outcomes including improved Warlpiri employment, school participation and youth leadership, wellbeing, and strengthened maintenance of Warlpiri culture and language (Disbray and Guenther 2017, 29).

This paper examines the perspectives of Aboriginal people engaged in the WETT program and the practitioners working alongside them to shed light on local definitions of success, the practices that help achieve it, and the institutional authorising environment that has enabled these practices to flourish. The author anticipates that it will be of interest to those working in institutions that seek to support locally led development, brokering across world views and cultures, as well as those operating in the unique context of remote Indigenous Australia.

2. Background

The Central Land Council (CLC) is an Aboriginal representative body and a statutory authority established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to administer Aboriginal land rights in central Australia. The CLC, which is governed by a group of 90 elected Aboriginal traditional owners, is one of the most advanced and comprehensive expressions of Aboriginal self-government in contemporary Australia (Levitus 2009). The CLC provides a diverse suite of services to support Aboriginal people to reclaim and manage their traditional lands in line with its commitment to self-determination and Aboriginal control over the future of Aboriginal communities and outstations across its region (CLC 2021, 8). This has included facilitating negotiations and agreements between Warlpiri traditional owners and resource development companies over mining on Warlpiri land and its associated compensation.

The origins of the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust lie in a request made in 2001 by a group of Warlpiri teachers, most of them women, to the then Director of the CLC David Ross. The request centred on accessing some of the incoming mining royalties which were being paid out to individual families and redirecting them towards education initiatives for the benefit of all families in the Warlpiri communities. Mr Ross, himself an Aboriginal man, was aware of the negative effects that can result from individual royalty distribution, such as conflict over financial allocations, and subsequently championed the idea (Campbell and Hunt 2016, 4). In 2003, an opportunity arose when CLC renegotiated the agreement for the Granites gold mine. The new agreement between the traditional owners, the CLC, and the mining company included a provision to establish a Trust into which an additional royalty payment would be paid annually by the mine for locally determined education programs in the four Warlpiri communities of Lajamanu, Nyirrpi, Willowra, and Yuendumu. These four remote Indigenous settlements are connected by hundreds of kilometres of unsealed roads and a population with shared ties to the Warlpiri language and ancestral lands.

At the outset, CLC agreed to act as the agent for the traditional owners in managing the Trust’s finances and administration and supporting its governance. The directors of the Kurra Aboriginal Corporation, the membership entity representing traditional owners of the mine site, were established as the trustee with the role of providing cultural authority and allocating funds for WETT’s education investments. At the same time, an advisory committee was established to harness specialist local education knowledge in the design and monitoring of WETT’s programs and to make funding recommendations to the traditional owners (Campbell and Hunt 2016, 6–7). While trustees were elected from the Kurra Aboriginal Corporation based on their traditional ownership ties to the mine site, Warlpiri advisory committee members were initially elected from a regional professional teachers association and later in community elections.

As the WETT got underway, it became evident that there was some confusion about the Trust among the members of the Kurra Aboriginal Corporation and not everyone was supportive of royalty money being directed to community benefit projects (ibid, 4). Whenever meetings of the corporation were held to discuss WETT business, fierce challenges were directed at advisory committee members and CLC staff (ibid). There was a small but vocal minority of traditional owners who advocated to reverse their decision to approve the direction of royalties into the Trust (ibid). Despite the contestation, the newly established advisory committee forged ahead with the ongoing support of the CLC, commissioning community-wide consultations to identify education priorities and shape up project ideas, and eventually making its first funding commitments in 2005. The consultations assisted WETT to establish its programs in response to community aspirations for education, including programs across five priority areas; children and families, language and culture in schools, secondary school support, youth development, and community learning centres.

Over this period, the CLC established a Community Development Unit with the aim of promoting broad and sustainable social, cultural, and economic benefits from land use income, and to promote cohesion, capacity, and empowerment (ibid, 1). The Unit employed mostly non-Aboriginal “outsiders” to facilitate meetings of WETT’s governance groups, broker partnerships and contractual relationships for the delivery of WETT funded programs, and oversee the administrative and financial management of the Trust. As the Trust developed, CLC worked with the advisory committee to develop a capacity building program for the Warlpiri advisory committee members. Over time, as demonstrable outcomes could be seen within the Warlpiri communities from WETT’s investments and the concept of investing royalty income in community benefit projects became more familiar, trust between the advisory committee and traditional owners grew and conflict and tensions lessened.

The leadership of Warlpiri educators in establishing WETT paved the way for the broader uptake of the application of land use income towards community benefit projects across central Australia, supported by the CLC’s Community Development Unit. This represented a significant shift within CLC practices which had historically focused on the distribution of land use income to individual families.

3. Methods

Research for this article was undertaken as part of a master’s thesis study exploring the enablers and barriers of the WETT program’s attempt to deliver Aboriginal agency over development in the remote central Australian context. Data were collected by the author, a non-Aboriginal practitioner–researcher, at the time employed by the CLC as a senior officer supporting the WETT program. As such, the author had established professional relationships with each of the research participants. Warlpiri members of the WETT advisory committee were involved in setting the agenda for the research, reviewing the data, and providing feedback on the draft findings. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used for data collection, informed by the Indigenous technique of yarning, involving the telling and sharing of histories, stories, and information with the potential to centre Indigenous knowledge systems and ensure culturally safe research (Walker et al. 2014, 1218).

A total of 19 interviews were conducted across three groups including 11 Warlpiri participants in WETT’s governance groups, five staff (past and present) of the CLC with diverse roles overseeing WETT’s operations, and three academics who were members of the CLC’s community development advisory group. The interviews sought insights into the experiences, aspirations, and perspectives of those involved in the program to make sense of the different ways that meanings are experienced by those involved in the program (Yeboah and Daniel 2021, 78). Interviews were transcribed and data analysed using a grounded theory approach seeking to identify key responses from interviewees in regard to the research questions about what worked, what didn’t, and why (Urquhart 2017).

The author, as a non-Aboriginal researcher, has sought guidance and feedback from Warlpiri participants throughout the research. This research has also been conducted in recognition of their desires for this story to be told, in particular to non-Aboriginal audiences and organisations which seek to support Aboriginal people in remote Australia.

4. Discussion

The discussion is structured to first address the perspectives of success from participants in the WETT program; second, the practices contributing to success; and third, the elements in the surrounding institutional environment which enabled and constrained these practices.

4.1. Perceptions of success in the WETT case study

A significant finding of this research is the high value placed on Warlpiri ownership and control within the program. The research identified that Warlpiri people had achieved a high level of control and ownership of WETT and that this was perceived to be the most significant achievement of the program by all respondent groups. Warlpiri respondents in particular emphasised the personal and collective pride this ownership generated while outsider academic and staff respondents pointed to its relative uniqueness in a context where similar structures of control and agency are rare.

The creation of meaningful learning opportunities emerged as the second most significant achievement of the WETT program, corroborating previous findings on WETT’s contribution to improved Warlpiri employment, school participation and youth leadership, wellbeing, and strengthened maintenance of Warlpiri culture and language (Disbray and Guenther 2017, 29). Warlpiri respondents were unequivocal in valuing the learning opportunities that WETT had created for their communities, as well as for themselves through participation in WETT’s governance. While recognising these achievements, some staff and academic respondents placed caveats around demonstrable education outcomes attributed to the “messy, complicated and political” context surrounding remote education which was seen to limit the progress towards WETT’s vision for bicultural educational attainment.

Respondents identified as a third criteria of success the development of processes which ensured WETT business was conducted in a culturally “right way” which enabled the governance groups to “use money wisely” while actively participating and maintaining good relationships with each other, their kin, community, and CLC staff.

The distinction in these perceptions provides an important insight into the different outcomes valued by diverse actors operating across an intercultural divide in Aboriginal-led development processes. A key finding is that success was not narrowly defined by metrics relating to educational and training attainment, and, in fact, the limitations on these outcomes were questioned by some non-Indigenous respondents. Instead, the maintenance of appropriate engagement and authority processes and relationships which achieved cultural-fit within the Warlpiri domain was highlighted as a key criterion of success. This finding aligns with research that demonstrates the importance of practices which prioritise relationships and respond to the expressed preferences and outcomes of Indigenous peoples (McCausland et al. 2021) and the need to go beyond pre-determined quantitative metrics to understand local perceptions, values, and meanings when evaluating developmental interventions (Wehipeihana 2019). The developmental practices that were seen to be productive in generating these highly valued outcomes are discussed below.

4.2. The practices which enabled WETT to progress Aboriginal-led development

4.2.1. Cohesive Warlpiri leadership

Respondents emphasised that WETT’s strength came from a clear shared vision among Warlpiri members on its advisory committee who also shared a cohesive and collaborative way of working together which included providing each other ongoing peer-support. As one Warlpiri respondent put it, “everyone knew where they were going”, and another, “we always knew we were a team, so we supported each other all the way”. Warlpiri participants pointed to a history of working together in the education system as a strong foundation for working cohesively in WETT. This demonstrates the role of existing networks of shared values, vision, and histories as agents of social change and illuminates the important role of bonds of trust and friendship among women’s coalitions for social change (as identified in Spark and Lee 2018, 5–6). Support from peers on the advisory committee was identified as a key to enabling members to learn about governance and grow in their roles through their participation on WETT, a dynamic which was demonstrated in the following quote:

It’s WETT is making us confident to speak up in front of lots of people. Long time (ago) we were really shy, I was really shy, but now I feel really confident. (Warlpiri respondent)

The learning and growth journey that many Warlpiri respondents articulated in the study demonstrates the potency of collective processes to support empowerment at both the individual agency level as well as the ability to influence broader social situations (Kabeer cited in Rowlands 1997, 21–22). Respondents from all groups identified how this was a key to WETT’s sustainability as a model through which younger members were supported to grow in their roles on the committee through such peer-support.

4.2.2. Long-term trusting relationships between Warlpiri leaders and outsiders

Respondents pointed to long-term trusting relationships, sometimes characterised as friendships, between Warlpiri participants and CLC staff as critical to enabling WETT’s success. Warlpiri perspectives which emphasised the value of “Yapa and Kardiya¹ working together” demonstrated the ways in which Warlpiri and non-Aboriginal people employed through the CLC found productive ways to work together cross-culturally. Warlpiri respondents identified open communication practices among CLC staff of sharing information, responding to questions, and being available for phone calls as helpful practices which contributed to trust. Warlpiri respondents also emphasised the two-way learning that took place within these relationships in which they learnt about corporate, Western governance practices and CLC staff learnt about Warlpiri governance practices and culture. Misunderstandings and miscommunications within these relationships were seen as a key challenge to WETT, at times leading to frustrations, such as when “sometimes the staff don't listen to us”, and language and cultural differences led to misunderstandings and confusions. High levels of trust among participants were seen as critical to enable openness and to navigate such misunderstandings productively. Trust was also seen to create an environment in which Warlpiri people could feel comfortable to take a leading role, as demonstrated in the following quote:

That’s how it makes it successful, people that work with us for a long time and people that we know and trust. (Warlpiri respondent)

The case study validates evidence of the value of long-term commitment by outsiders working in relational ways in support of Aboriginal-led development (Moran 2006, 163; McCausland et al. 2021). People in such roles have been characterised by Martin and Martin (2016, 226) as “outsider–insiders” through their depth of understanding of the local context and intimate relationships which enable them to influence evolution in group norms, such as in support of broad community benefit beyond kinship groups. While critiques exist to challenge the role of non-Aboriginal professionals in Indigenous self-determination (for example, Land 2015), these findings suggest that outsiders working in ways that prioritise trust and accountability and make space for Warlpiri knowledge, language, and worldviews were found to be valued by Warlpiri participants and brought a skillset which was also highly valued by those participants, notably in this case administrative and financial management skills.

4.2.3. Fit for purpose governance processes

Respondents pointed to a diversity of fit-for-purpose governance practices that had enabled WETT to function effectively. Examples included the regularity and repetition of meeting procedures which enabled committee members to grow in familiarity with the process and a confidence to participate and take the lead, such as through chairing a meeting. Respondents also emphasised the importance of ensuring that meetings included sufficient time for discussion in the Warlpiri language and translation and incorporation of Warlpiri governance principles. Staff respondents emphasised their role in translating important information such as the WETT “money story” in visual and culturally relevant ways. This echoes findings from other research on the importance of governance institutions reflecting local cultural values and beliefs (Smith and Hunt 2008). A further example provided was the adoption of rules for WETT processes which set clear shared expectations for each of the participating groups and supported mutual accountability:

WETT’s got rules for the members, very important rules. And I think it’s those rules that helps committee members to be strong. It’s learning to respect one another. It’s learning to trust one another. (Warlpiri respondent)

4.2.4. Brokering stakeholder relationships

Respondents discussed a range of achievements and challenges related to their engagement with external stakeholders and the role of CLC staff in brokering stakeholder relationships was a key practice which emerged in the case study. A strong positive role was attributed to consultants who provided access to new information, ideas, and innovations in participatory ways that did not undermine local control and decision-making authority. One staff respondent emphasised that this was made possible by consultants being brokered by staff with long-term relationships with Warlpiri and the “skill and ability” to support groups to identify their own priorities, thereby mediating the power dynamics between Aboriginal participants and outsiders with technical expertise.

In contrast, respondents identified a range of challenges in the relationships with partner agencies² that were contracted to deliver projects with funding from WETT. These responses illustrated a disabling and unsupportive policy environment in which institutions routinely operated in ways that clashed with Warlpiri priorities for education. This led to low levels of trust, as demonstrated in this quote:

those bosses (from NT Government) really don’t know what we trying to do in our community for our kids and their education. (Warlpiri respondent)

Challenges with program partner organisations ranged from poor communication to disagreements about operational issues, challenging personalities, and high rotation of staff. Warlpiri respondents valued working “together as a team, with respect”, and expressed a desire for more collaborative working relationships with these organisations. One Aboriginal staff respondent observed that staff in partner organisations at times misunderstood Warlpiri decision-making characteristics, such as “being reserved, not taking the lead in speaking, waiting your turn”, which clash with Western perceptions of leadership, and the ways in which this limited the partners' responses to WETT’s aspirations for service delivery.

The experience of WETT aligned with other cases in the literature which highlight the contestation between Aboriginal priorities and those embedded in often rationalist technocratic institutions which too often fail to be informed by the lived experiences of Aboriginal people and communities (Bulloch, Forgarty, and Bellchambers 2019). The evident limitations on partner capacity to deliver on Warlpiri-identified priorities for education pose a significant dilemma to Aboriginal groups with access to resources in pursuit of development paths that privilege Aboriginal priorities and world views. The challenges inherent in this context ensure that practitioners face a challenging but important role in mediating effective partnerships and networks that can address and overcome the limitations to productive collaborations across the intercultural divide.

4.2.5. Reflection, learning, and adaptation

Respondents identified a range of processes that supported ongoing reflection and learning and assisted in navigating the challenges, contradictions, and power dynamics inherent in this highly relational work. Examples of reflective practice provided by staff and academic respondents included regular facilitated reflections, biannual meetings with a reference group, and independent monitoring to collect feedback from Warlpiri program participants. Warlpiri respondents spoke of the highly valued role of consultants in gaining community input and providing “good ideas” as well as the emphasis on learning through participation in WETT meetings and CLC staff explanation of “hard words and what [they] meant”. Academic respondents commented that through a combination of these practices, WETT had been allowed to evolve over time based on feedback collected from Aboriginal people about how the program was going, and the lessons learned through a supported reflective practice within the CLC team and “learning from failure”. An example of adaptation to WETT’s governance included changes to the make-up of the advisory committee, such as the addition of Warlpiri youth representatives to support succession planning as founding members started to reach retirement age. These lessons mirror findings in the international development field about appropriate practice in responding to complexity through approaches which focus on testing, learning and adapting approaches throughout the program cycle, and the use of monitoring and evaluation processes which can support this (Faustino and Booth 2014:ix, Laws and Marquette 2018, 12).

4.2.6. Sharing information with the community

Respondents emphasised the importance of WETT adopting a broad suite of communication materials and strategies to inform community members of their work and maintain relationships. The diverse suite of communication activities WETT adopted included community meetings, posters, DVDs, T-shirts, newsletters, and a painting depicting WETT’s history. Sharing information broadly with the Warlpiri community was seen as critical in overcoming community suspicion and building the legitimacy of the trust in the face of contestation over the allocation of money to WETT. This also supported youth recruitment onto the committee and helped strengthen community understanding of the Trust and how it operates. As one Warlpiri respondent put it, “we don't want to keep it secret; we want to share this.” This finding echoes Sullivan’s (2011, 30) call for greater attention to the ways in which Indigenous services embrace communication, information transfer, monitoring of consent, and input to policy development over broad representation in governance. It also further illuminates the importance of valuing relationality and mutual accountability within efforts to support Aboriginal-led development (McCausland et al. 2021).

4.3. The institutional environment that enabled effective practices to flourish within the WETT case study

The study identified a number of traits within the surrounding institutional environment of the CLC that were conducive to enabling the above practices to emerge. These traits included recruitment that prioritised local knowledge, experience and relationships, training modes which emphasised peer-based learning, and operating modes adapted for the local context. Space was created for ongoing staff and participant learning and reflection through dedicated monitoring and evaluation processes. Staff demonstrated an intentional approach to balancing power dynamics and fostering trust and understanding with Warlpiri participants as well as positively attributing Warlpiri push back to staff recommendations.

Some of these features echo international development literature on the elements of authorising environments for change which promote the value of long-term commitment; risk appetite supported by the organisational leadership; space for learning, reflection, and adaptation; and recruitment and training processes which prioritise staff with local knowledge, experience and relational skills (Booth and Unsworth 2014; Bulloch, Forgarty, and Bellchambers 2019; Denney and Roche 2019, 20). Further literature points to the value of welcoming push back in ways that enable genuine local leadership to emerge (Denney and Roche 2019).

One of the prominent institutional factors identified in the study was the leadership of Mr David Ross, the CLC’s Director between 1989 and 2019. Respondents identified that Mr Ross was a well-respected long-term employee of the CLC with a reputation for championing Aboriginal advancement and overseeing strong corporate governance. It was observed that this enabled him to overcome resistance from Aboriginal constituents in the community and effectively support changes internal to CLC practices. As the Director of the CLC, Mr Ross had the ability to allocate organisational resources towards staffing to establish and support the Trust. These contributions were supported by the elected Aboriginal council who both employed Mr Ross and provided the authority for him to establish this approach to working towards community benefit. Respondents further identified that Mr Ross created an environment in which staff had the flexibility and trust to work in ways that they deemed fit for the context and to adapt over time. He enabled an internal work culture where staff felt valued for their work, contributing to strong staff retention. Warlpiri participants emphasised Mr Ross’ “unwavering support” and encouragement of their role in and leadership over the trust, as demonstrated in the following quote:

And he (David Ross) made his leadership to spread to a lot of people and to a lot of things and a lot of programs. (Warlpiri respondent)

The elements of the authorising environment identified above align with Andrews, McConnell, and Wescott’s (2010) concept of a “change space” which identifies the need for acceptance, authority, and ability to enable changes in institutional practices. In the case study, the authority of Mr Ross and the representative council combined with the ability of Warlpiri leaders and CLC staff contributed over time towards a growing acceptance and legitimacy among staff and community members regarding the investment of mining royalties in community benefit projects.

The case study also illustrates the potency of collective and networked leadership consistent with Andrews et al.’s concept of “leadership-led change” as a critical factor in the creation of a “change space” (ibid, 34). Mr Ross’s relational contributions facilitating connections and the creation of a network between Warlpiri teachers, traditional owners of the mine site, and CLC employees emerged as highly effective in overcoming contestation and supporting Aboriginal-led development.

While the above elements of an authorising environment were identified in the study, significant structural limitations and barriers which restrict the realisation of Aboriginal agency and control were also present. Respondents pointed to the lack of Warlpiri staff employed in the program's operations and the limitations on non-Aboriginal staff exposure to the context and lived realities of the Warlpiri communities as a result of being based at the CLC’s head office in Alice Springs. The persistent challenges the group of Warlpiri leaders faced in seeking to further their aspirations for bilingual and bicultural education in partnership with external agencies, as well as the ongoing challenges of navigating intercultural misunderstandings are two further restrictions identified. These constraints help to illustrate the significant limitations on the scope within Australia’s institutional governance systems in which the type of practices and institutional settings outlined in this paper can fully prosper and expand.

Despite these important limitations, the case study demonstrates that significant Aboriginal agency and ownership were fostered through WETT. The governance and leadership structures of the CLC, populated with local Aboriginal representatives at both the Director and board levels, demonstrate a unique accountability environment which sets it apart from other organisations engaged in Indigenous development. In the case of WETT, the study identified forms of mutual accountability through mechanisms such as the provision of funding for staff wages.

While staff of the CLC engaged in practices of written reports both up the line to government agencies and down the line to its constituents, accountability did not start and end there but alternatively played out in the everyday interactions between the staff and its constituents. I argue here that these operational structures enabled WETT and the CLC greater freedoms to adapt ways of working in alignment with Aboriginal development aspirations, demonstrating the role CLC plays as a “carapace”: the institutional boundary between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal society which creates a protective space through which Aboriginal aspirations and agency are protected (Rowley in Gyles 2014). This feature leads me to conclude that the accountability and legitimacy processes enabled through Aboriginal organisations are highly potent in driving Aboriginal-led development. This potential of Aboriginal governance and leadership can be enhanced by networked and relational modes of leadership, a risk appetite, and space to learn and adapt initiatives over time. Despite this promise, such initiatives will continue to face challenges in contributing to more systemic change as they come up against the limitations of the political economy of Indigenous policy and institutions in Australia.

5. Conclusion

The findings of this study identify a suite of practices and institutional characteristics that contributed to WETT’s success in building Aboriginal agency and ownership, creating valued learning opportunities, and culturally appropriate governance processes. The practices that emerge in the case study provide some clues for institutional actors seeking to support Aboriginal self-determination and enhanced wellbeing in contemporary settler-colonial nations. Practices that are shown to add value include supporting cohesive Aboriginal leadership collectives; building respectful cross-cultural relationships; embracing reflection, learning, and adaptation; brokering relationships with a broad suite of stakeholders; innovating with fit-for-purpose governance processes; and sharing information transparently with the broader community.

The study further demonstrates a suite of characteristics of the surrounding institutional environment which enabled effective practice to flourish. These include the presence of a networked and relational leadership conducive to creating a change space, long-term commitment, risk-appetite, space for learning, reflection and adaptation, and recruitment and staff management oriented to local knowledge and relationships. Such an environment is shown to enable staff to work in intercultural ways, embrace practices that privilege Aboriginal aspirations and ways of being and knowing, and subsequently facilitate a supported Aboriginal-led development process to emerge. Notwithstanding the presence of effective practices and an authorising institutional environment, the case study demonstrated significant limitations on the scope of WETT to achieve its aspirations. These limitations help to illustrate the highly constrained political economy of Indigenous affairs in Australia which limits the extent to which practices and institutions by themselves can further Aboriginal-led development approaches.

Ethical approval information

Ethics approval for this research was provided by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee with approval number HEC20266.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Data availability statement

Data collated for this study are stored by the Central Land Council. In keeping with the terms of the Human Research Ethical Council approval for this research, these data are not available to a public audience.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Central Land Council.

Notes on contributors

Louise Stanley

Louise Stanley is a former ‘Senior Community Development Officer – Warlpiri Education and Training Trust’ at the Central Land Council. Louise completed her Masters of International Development with the Institute of Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University. Research for this article was undertaken as part of her Master’s thesis study. Louise is currently Manager at Nama Jalu Consulting supporting Aboriginal community-led development projects across Australia. She is also a Research Assistant at the Institute of Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University.

Notes

1 In Warlpiri language, Yapa is a commonly used term to refer to an Aboriginal person or people and Kardiya is a commonly used term to refer to a non-Aboriginal person or people.

2 Partner agencies include both government departments and non-government organisations (NGOs).