The Working Paper Series - Ninti One › resource › DKCRC-Working-paper... · Hampton (1998). The five original tribal groups, Kuyani (Guyani), Wailpi, Piladappa (Pilatapa, Biladaba)

2010

Sustainability – A case study of Nepabunna and its environs

Bernard GuerinPaul ine Guerin

Working Paper

66

The Working Paper Ser ies


Bernard Guerin

Pauline Guerin

Contributing author information

Professor Bernard Guerin teaches social and community psychology in the School of Psychology, Social Work and Social

Policy at the University of South Australia.

Dr Pauline Guerin teaches health psychology in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Flinders University of South

Australia.

Desert Knowledge CRC Working Paper #66

Information contained in this publication may be copied or reproduced for study, research, information or educational

purposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source.

ISBN: 978 1 74158 156 7 (Web copy)

ISSN: 1833-7309 (Web copy)

CitationGuerin B and Guerin P. 2010. Sustainability – A case study of Nepabunna and its environs. DKCRC Working Paper 66,

Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs.

The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre is an unincorporated joint venture with 28 partners whose mission

is to develop and disseminate an understanding of sustainable living in remote desert environments, deliver enduring

regional economies and livelihoods based on Desert Knowledge, and create the networks to market this knowledge in

other desert lands.

Acknowledgements

The Desert Knowledge CRC receives funding through the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centres Program.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Desert Knowledge CRC or its Participants.

This is a working paper of Core Project 4 – Sustainable Desert Settlements Research, of Desert Knowledge CRC, Core

Project Manager: Dr Kurt Seemann, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University.

The authors wish to acknowledge the people of Nepabunna, Iga Warta and Copley, as well as other Adnyamathanha we

have yarned with. Special thanks to Kelvin Johnson, Ian Johnson, Simon Duke, and many others who shared their time

and stories with us.

For additional information please contactDesert Knowledge CRC

Publications Officer

PO Box 3971

Alice Springs NT 0871

Australia

Telephone +61 8 8959 6000 Fax +61 8 8959 6048

www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au

© Desert Knowledge CRC 2010

Contents

Contents.......................................................................................................................................... i Figures ............................................................................................................................................ i Tables ............................................................................................................................................. i Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Sustainability – A case study of Nepabunna and its environs ....................................................... 1

General characteristics ........................................................................................................ 3 History.................................................................................................................... 3 Demography........................................................................................................... 5 Family and language .............................................................................................. 6 Population pyramids............................................................................................... 6 People and community........................................................................................... 8 Governance ............................................................................................................ 8

Services ............................................................................................................................... 9 Education ............................................................................................................... 9 Health ..................................................................................................................... 9 Housing .................................................................................................................. 9 Mobility, cars and fuel ......................................................................................... 10

Stocks and flows – an overview........................................................................................ 11 Telephones ........................................................................................................... 11 Water .................................................................................................................... 11 Power ................................................................................................................... 12 Food ..................................................................................................................... 12

Economy ........................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 13 References ................................................................................................................................... 15

Figures

Figure 1: Map of South Australia including Nepabunna............................................................... 1 Figure 2: Map of region showing Port Augusta to the south and Nepabunna to the north ........... 2 Figure 3: Nepabunna population 2008 .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Unincorporated Flinders Ranges Statistical Local Area Indigenous and non-

Indigenous population .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: The Nepabunna Community Council building .............................................................. 8 Figure 6: The main street of Nepabunna ..................................................................................... 10

Tables

Table 1: Total Unincorp. Flinders Ranges Labour Force Status ................................................. 13 Table 2: Aboriginal Population Labour Force Status in the Unincorp Flinders Ranges ............. 13

i

ii

Desert Knowledge CRC Working Paper 66: Bernard Guerin and Pauline Guerin

Abstract

This paper provides a general profile of Nepabunna and its environs. It discusses some of the general features that contribute to sustainability, such as water supply, food, energy and employment. We then focus on the people issues, which seem to be the biggest threat for the sustainability of the region. In particular, suitable employment and education have always been a problem, but the small size of the community is now posing a threat, since there are many unwanted consequences that come from having a small community. We argue that the actual population that supports Nepabunna and that calls it home is much bigger than Census data indicate, and that governments should take that into account when judging whether a small community is too small for essential services.


Nepabunna is in the north-east region of South Australia (SA), about 70 km east of Leigh Creek and 600 km north of Adelaide (Figure 1). It is in the Northern Flinders ranges, just south of the Gammon Ranges National Park. The community is in the process of changing its name back to the original Nipapanha.

Figure 1: Map of South Australia including Nepabunna Source: Google Earth

Sustainability – a case study of Nepabunna and its environs Desert Knowledge CRC 1


Nepabunna is home to about 70 of the Adnyamathanha group, who have lived in the area for centuries. They are an amalgamation of tribal groups: Kuyani (Guyani), Wailpi, Piladappa (Pilatapa, Biladaba), Jadliaura (Yardliwarra), and possibly an earlier group called Adnyamathanha. The term Adnyamathanha comes from adnya: stone or hill, and matha: mob. They were collectively known as the people of the hills or rocky country, aptly describing the beautiful, rocky hills that surround the area.

Kin of the Adnyamathanha group live in the town of Nepabunna as well as in the local area, and further away in Quorn, Hawker, Port Augusta and Adelaide (Figure 2). The nearest town is Copley, about 65 km to the west, with the major coal-mining town of Leigh Creek close by Copley. About 5 km west of Nepabunna is Iga Warta, a successful Aboriginal-owned tourist and accommodation setting (http://www.igawarta.com/exper.html ) that was established by one of the Nepabunna (Adnyamathanha) families.

Figure 2: Map of region showing Port Augusta to the south and Nepabunna to the north Source: Google Earth

In this paper we wish to review what we know of the sustainability of Nepabunna from written sources and from a number of field trips talking with and listening to the people of the region. We will focus on what appear to be the key factors for sustainability in Nepabunna. Before homing in on questions of sustainability, however, we need to present an overview of the general characteristics of the people and the region.

2 Desert Knowledge CRC Sustainability – a case study of Nepabunna and its environs

http://www.igawarta.com/exper.html


General characteristics

History There is a long history of the Adnyamathanha people in this region, and a complex history of encroachment by pastoralists, governments and missionaries. More detailed discussions of this can be obtained from a variety of sources, such as Brock (1985, 1993) and Mattingley and Hampton (1998).

The five original tribal groups, Kuyani (Guyani), Wailpi, Piladappa (Pilatapa, Biladaba) and Jadliaura (Yardliwarra), covered a vast area and were known to hold joint ceremonies which included other tribes from further afield, at least until the 1890s. One view is that the various groups had melded from intermarriage and became the Adnyamathanha; another view is that following the devastation from colonisation the remaining people joined together.

The first explorer in the region was Edward John Eyre in 1840, who was searching for new pastoral lands. The first pastoralist arrived in 1851 to Aroona and within a few years Angepena Station and others were being developed. These pastoralists, like others, settled, built camps and houses and farms buildings, put their stock out to graze, commandeered water holes and constructed fencing to keep the animals restricted.

This process fell into a familiar pattern that happened all over Australia. With limited water supplies, the pastoralists settled near creeks and water holes, which were also the most important sites for the Adnyamathanha for the same reason. The stock also tended to ruin the water supplies and eat bush produce needed by the Adnyamathanha. At this point the Adnyamathanha people began becoming dependent on flour and other food from the pastoralists. The pastoralists, however, wrote explicitly in their diaries that they believed the land was theirs and that the Adnyamathanha were intruders who stole sheep, cattle and goods. Most pastoralists had no compunction in shooting these intruders, although there were some who were more compassionate and involved Adnyamathanha as workers, trackers and riders.

The sad history is that very shortly after the pastoralists arrived, it was deemed necessary for the government to set up ration stores around the Flinders Ranges to feed the Adnyamathanha people, not out of compassion but in an attempt to stop them stealing and eating stock, and to restrict their mobility. Moreover, while there was already a police station at Melrose, by 1856 another police station was established at Mount Serle on Angepena Station near present-day Nepabunna.

It is worth noting the speed of this history. Eyre came through exploring in 1840, and pastoralists were settled on ‘their’ properties within 10 years. Within another 5 years there were numerous stations and the Adnyamathanha people were being forced through killing and beatings to stay away. When they continued using the land and water holes and began stealing the sheep and cattle, Adnyamathanha people were killed by the settlers. When the Adnyamathanha people retaliated, police were stationed there to protect the settlers. This occurred in very quick sequence of only about 15 years.

Another confounding issue was that the whole region had been used for ceremonies by tribes from a wider area, and so there were often large groups moving down from the north and staying for periods of time. This included many who came to dig ceremonial ochre (of the highest quality) from historical mines near Parachilna. Use of these routes inevitably led to conflicts, retaliations and escalation, over the taking of food and in general because the



settlers and their families were likely frightened. Many times the government tried to provide large quantities of meat and flour to stop these large groups taking food along the way.

Brock (1985) gives a typical example of all these patterns: in the mid-1860s some northern tribes going south for ochre took items from a shepherd’s hut on Beltana Station. Eleven Aboriginal people were killed on the spot and another 40–50 died from wounds on their way back north. An inquiry found it was justifiable homicide. Later, in the 1870s, the Sub-Protector of Aborigines took rations to Beltana because of similar incidents on the ochre route, which were made worse because the northern tribes were hungry from a general drought. It was reported that 150 Aboriginal people were camped on Beltana, and the rations were an attempt to stop them pilfering on the way. More rations were promised for the trip back.

The conflicts eventually settled down through attrition, as the Adnyamathanha people were forced to lose their land, livelihoods and social gathering areas. The pastoralists did not really adapt their preferred patterns of living; compromise, to the extent that such a word can be used, was very one-sided.

From the 1870s the story was similarly bleak for the Adnyamathanha people. Mining began in earnest, and usually the special features that interested miners were also part of sacred sites for Adnyamathanha. The coal mine areas of Leigh Creek, for example, were part of Adnyamathanha Dreamings. At this stage the Adnyamathanha people lived on small sections of pastoral stations or near mines for employment. There were several attempts to take children of mixed descent away to mission schools, but these were successfully resisted on the whole. The Adnyamathanha people were fully dependent upon rations and water supplies, since their traditional water supplies were now ‘owned’ by station owners. This was especially a problem in times of drought when many had no food apart from rations and any ‘able-bodied men’ were not allowed to receive rations. Many perished during these times.

In the mid-1920s many Adnyamathanha were moved to Ram Paddock Gate, a section of land near several stations but closest to Angepena Station (Ross 1989). This was primarily so the property owners could keep track of them. Conditions were poor, however, and many disagreements arose. Two missionaries from the United Aborigines Mission (UAM) joined them on the land and built their own huts. Rams Paddock Gate is today commemorated with some plaques and signs near the remnants. In 1931, land near the Nepabunna Rockhole on Balcanoona Station was negotiated for the Adnyamathanha people. This site was not an original camping site but the land and hills all around held sacred sites and special features for Adnyamathanha.

From 1931 until 1973 Nepabunna was run by the UAM. Some of the missionaries were better than others: while many were kind and tolerant, others tried to prevent initiation ceremonies, and most forbade the use of language, something that was common across Australia and in all colonised parts of the world. Some missionaries built good houses and sunk good bores, but others were not as competent in the job and Nepabunna became run-down. Most were somewhat paternalistic and some took too much control over the people. Finally, in the mid-1960s, the people of Nepabunna wrote to the Government asking that the government take over. In 1973, this happened and Adnyamathanha were given freehold through the Aboriginal Lands Trust.



In the late 1940s the impact of the changes expected of Adnyamathanha by both government and missionaries hit home. There was pressure to change their traditional ways and many had already started doing so when they joined the Christian Church. Some of the elders therefore decided to make a clean break: the final initiation ceremonies were in 1947–48 and the final traditional marriages in the early 1950s. This was a courageous decision, however much some people now regret that it happened.

Unlike today, during these periods there was employment in the Flinders Ranges through station work, mining, rabbiting and working on roads and other transport industries. Some people from Nepabunna even set up their own mining and other enterprises. Through the 1950s and 1960s, however, pastoral work became more automated and streamlined, and fewer positions were deemed necessary; mining jobs were also fewer for similar reasons. Racial discrimination in Leigh Creek was rife and most Adnyamathanha men working there had to live in Copley or Beltana, compromising their employment prospects.

Since the 1970s, employment opportunities have dropped dramatically from the state of almost full employment during the 1930s to the 1960s. However, Adnyamathanha have been made carers for a large section of land designated an Indigenous Protected Area called Nantawarrina, enabling them to fulfil their traditional role of caring for country, as well as securing six jobs with the potential for more in the future. They have also gained some access to the Mount Serle area which was key country in pre-colonisation times. Some of the first people employed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as Indigenous officers, during the 1970s, also came from Nepabunna and Iga Warta. This gave people an opportunity for employment while caring for the land.

Demography The Nepabunna Council maintains records of residents of the community. In July 2008 there were 74 people documented as residing in Nepabunna, from infants to an 81 year old, with 41 males and 33 females. In contrast, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007a) 2006 Census reported 49 persons (29 males and 20 females) and 11 families resident in Nepabunna on 8 August 2006. The ABS did not report on any data for the Census Data Collection District relevant for Nepabunna (4010601) in 2006, due to the low population count. However, the Statistical Local Area of the Unincorporated Flinders Ranges (UFR), within which Nepabunna is included, provides some indication of further demographics relevant to Nepabunna. This Statistical Local Area includes a large area of land of 66 335 km2, just north of Port Augusta and as far north as Marree, east to the SA–NSW border, and west to the eastern boundary of the Lake Torrens National park.

In the Statistical Local Area of the UFR, there were 228 people counted who identified as Indigenous (54% male and 46% female) and 817 non-Indigenous people (55% male and 45% female) and a population total of 1,098 persons (including those who did not identify as Indigenous or non-Indigenous). Therefore, 20.7% of the population in this area identified as Indigenous and the only Australian Aboriginal Language reported in this area was Adnymathanha (strictly speaking, Yura Ngawarla). The Aboriginal population of this area is young, with 41% aged less than 24 years, compared with 34% of the non-Aboriginal population aged less than 24 years.



Family and language The resident population of Nepabunna mostly comprises four large families: the Coulthards, Johnsons, McKenzies and Wiltons. It is not clear how many people in Australia consider Nepabunna to be their ‘home’, whether or not they reside there, nor is it known how many people identify as part of the Adnyamathanha group, both within the local area of Nepabunna or more generally in Australia. However, in South Australia, 106 people (57 male and 49 female) indicated speaking Adnyamathanha at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007b) and 47 (27 males and 20 females) of those live in the UFR (ABS 2007a). A further 11 reported speaking an Aboriginal language at home, but did not identify which language. Overall then, 58 people, or 25% of the Aboriginal population in the UFR, speak an Aboriginal language at home, which is much higher than the national average of around 11% and the South Australian average of almost 12% of Aboriginal Australians who indicate speaking an Aboriginal language. The AIATSIS and FATSIL (2005) National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005 reports that in 2001 there were 29 Adnymathanha speakers aged 0–19, 37 speakers aged 20–39, 34 speakers aged 40–59 and 7 speakers 60 or older (107 speakers total). The Adnymathanha language (Yura Ngawarla) is considered to be ‘severely endangered’, but the number of speakers in the young age groups is promising and could potentially position Nepabunna as a rich cultural and linguistic resource for South Australia and Australia more generally.

Population pyramids

Nepabunna Community Population 2008

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80+

Age

grou

p

Percentage

Males Females

Figure 3: Nepabunna population 2008 Source: Nepabunna Community Council records



The population pyramid is based on data from the Nepabunna Council and illustrates the greater proportion of males than females living in Nepabunna and the high proportion of residents aged between 10 and 49. However, due to the very small numbers of people in the community, any slight changes in the population would result in drastic influences on this pyramid. For example, changes to especially the very young or very old population in Nepabunna would significantly impact on the population. Figure 4 shows the population pyramids for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the UFR and reflects some similarities with the Nepabunna population, with overall a greater proportion of males, particularly in the younger age groups, in the Aboriginal population. The non-Aboriginal population of the UFR, is much older, but is also male dominated.

Unincorp Flinders Ranges 2006 Census Indigenous

10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

65+

Age

grou

p

Percentage

Males Females

Unincorp Flinders Ranges 2006 Census Non-Indigenous

10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

65+

Age

gro

up

Percentage

Males Females

Figure 4: Unincorporated Flinders Ranges Statistical Local Area Indigenous and non-Indigenous population Source: ABS 2007c



People and community People in the community clearly state that a serious issue for Nepabunna is the small number of people living there, and the lack of incentives for people to move there. A few people have moved to Nepabunna in their retirement or near retirement, but many more young people move out. Recently, for example, an Adnyamathanha man who was not quite retired visited and ended up staying.

Many people in the community understand that limitations regarding employment prevent people from coming there to live. However, older people in the community believe that there is plenty to do in Nepabunna when the beautiful natural surroundings are considered and they report a long history of activities tied to the environment and land. Younger people, who may not have had a history of such activities, are more likely to suggest that there is little to do in Nepabunna and it is ‘boring’. However, younger people may consider ‘things to do’ as the kinds of activities that would be available in the larger urban centres and that are not available in Nepabunna. For example, there is some talk that younger families are spending more time in Leigh Creek and Port Augusta seeking entertainment. Also, with a relatively small population and with children away all day at school, the impression of being lonely or bored can be increased. Finally, some community members expressed difficulty in organising things to do when they want to organise an event, but this needs to be further explored.

Governance Nepabunna is governed through the Nepabunna Council (building pictured below in Figure 5), an elected group with a Chairperson. Because of the small size of the community, the same people are repeatedly on this Council, or at least members of the same families. This is not a product of cronyism, but reflects the social consequences of small populations.

Figure 5: The Nepabunna Community Council building Source: Bernard Guerin, 2008



Services

Education A primary school operated for many years in Nepabunna but was closed in the mid-1990s. The building is currently used as accommodation for visitors to the community. Closure of the school has resulted in the necessary bussing of children to schools in Leigh Creek. Travel time is approximately 1.5 to 2 hours each way, or nearly 4 hours per day. Children, therefore, leave Nepabunna at 7.30am each day of the school week and arrive back in the community about 4.30pm.

On the negative side, with few or no children in the community all day, the vibrancy and activity provided by children is lacking. The town is quiet and facilities such as the playground are rarely used. It is also a strain on the children who spend over three hours a day on the bus, and it means a long drive for any parents wishing to attend school events or picking up children who would like to do after-school activities and cannot take the bus.

On the positive side, we have heard it said that the children might get a broader education in a bigger school, and that they are not unhappy because they can play a lot more sports with many other children and with a lot more sophisticated equipment at the Leigh Creek School than in Nepabunna.

Health The Pika Wiya Health service based in Port Augusta runs a clinic in Nepabunna. A nurse has been stationed there for many years and one of her sons is also now a trained nurse; he works in Copley and relieves for her sometimes. The clinic has basic equipment and does numerous tests of blood samples and other diagnoses.

Any major injuries or conditions require treatment at either the Leigh Creek hospital or Hawker. This requires the nurse to transport patients, leaving the clinic unattended and the nurse’s skills underutilised while she spends time transporting and waiting for clients. It also can mean a two-hour drive for patients to receive treatment.

Housing The Nepabunna community consists of a main street (Figure 6) with houses and community facilities (Council building, gym, old school buildings, medical centre), with other houses on streets behind the main street on both sides. Driving through the main street of the community gives the impression of an uninhabited community because most of the housing is hidden from view.



Figure 6: The main street of Nepabunna Source: Bernard Guerin, 2008

The 2006 Census reports 54 private dwellings in Nepabunna with 24 (44%) of them occupied. However, the Nepabunna Council reports that there are a total of 21 houses they monitor and that there is a shortage of good houses which prevents some people moving back to Nepabunna. This discrepancy is not clear but probably reflects incorrect Census data and some houses that are empty but inhabitable (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007a). In the UFR, there were 77 Aboriginal households and 320 non-Aboriginal households. While 70% of the non-Aboriginal households were 1- or 2-person households, the majority of Aboriginal households had 3, 4, 5 or 6 persons usually resident. Also, while 80% of Aboriginal households were ‘family’ households, only 66% of non-Aboriginal households were ‘family’ households.

Mobility, cars and fuel Cars are self-owned and bought, and in general are looked after by individual households. On the whole they are well-maintained since they are needed to get most supplies. The Community has a couple of 4WD vehicles and a van. Only the latter is for general use and it must be booked and partly paid for. It is usually used by families or sports teams to travel to Port Augusta or other more distant towns. Many of the children’s football matches are 3–5 hours’ drive away. Anecdotally, it seems that people in general use little fuel and do not travel extensively. The majority of trips appear to be to Copley and Leigh Creek for supplies, including all food and fuel. Other trips are to visit those in hospital in Quorn and Hawker, and to Port Augusta for supplies not available in Copley or Leigh Creek or to visit family.



Travelling to Copley is about 66 km and costs about $25 in fuel because of expensive fuel prices in remote regions. Given that Copley is also the nearest bowser, it costs an extra $25 in travel costs just to fill a tank, although shopping and other activities are usually done at the same time. It was reported by some that families might be going more frequently now, and accessing entertainment and fast foods in Copley and Leigh Creek as well as their staples.

Stocks and flows – an overview

Stocks are aspects of the natural resource base and flows are interventions that make these resources productive in sustaining human life. The relationship between stocks and flows requires human intervention, and therefore depends upon human capital and is impacted by political and technical factors. The settlements discussed in this paper have shown some ingenuity and significant determination in translating stocks into flows.

Telephones The telephone system is a normal landline that is charged accordingly. It is solar powered and has a battery backup. Anecdotally, about half the households have a computer, and only a few are linked to the internet via a modem. The main Council office has a limited range broadband system that gives internet access. With usage becoming more popular, a new system of charging for time and of time limiting is being evolved.

Water The community has three sources of water: bore, rainwater and recycled sewerage. As part of a South Australia–wide study on water supplies, some data have been gathered on this situation and solutions suggested (Pearce et al. 2007, Willis et al. 2004, Willis et al. 2008).

The bore is not suitable for drinking but is used in all houses for all other purposes, such as showering and watering. It has a high mineral content, and while not toxic, will lead to kidney stones and other problems if consumed over a long time. It is not certain how reliable the bore is but most people believe it is a good supply that will last some time into the future. A very recent initiative means that a new, and much deeper, bore is likely to be sunk which could result in a more permanent supply of better water, hopefully more potable.

Rain water is therefore used for drinking, but in summer and sometimes over long periods of drought, rain water can become sparse. Rainwater is collected from the large gymnasium roof and is diverted to large community rainwater tanks. This water is pumped to all houses for inside drinking water. All houses also have smaller rainwater collection tanks (mostly 13,000 L) but these seem to be used only for outside drinking and are not pumped into the house. Household rainwater tanks were installed in such a way that rainwater is only collected from half the roof, resulting in a loss of valuable rainwater. This might be able to be corrected and solutions are being investigated, though this will likely incur much expense.

Recycled sewerage produces a supply of grey water but this has only been used for the bush tucker gardens when they were running. This is out of the town so it would cost too much to pump this supply into town for other grey water uses. In any case, native plants have been planted in most of the town, and they require little or no watering.



Power Unlike some remote communities, the electricity supply is not an issue in Nepabunna, because it runs from a main grid in Leigh Creek. It is purchased at market prices with no subsidy. However, there are occasionally blackouts, and there has been a recent push to resolve this issue.

Food People mostly shop at Foodland in Leigh Creek, the only supermarket in the region. This is about 70 km from Nepabunna. Most families visit about once a week for supplies.

A food basket survey was conducted in Leigh Creek in September 2008. The standard Healthy Food Access Basket, to supply 6 people for two weeks, was $466.02 which is extremely high in comparison to other urban and remote locations (Burns et al. 2004, Harrison et al. 2007).

It is also much higher than that calculated in Pearce et al. (2008): $287.22 in Nepabunna and $248.17 in Adelaide, although these were calculated slightly differently.

Economy

Like most small remote communities, there are few real employment opportunities compared with living in a city. Some community members are on CDEP payments, which involves working on community projects, while others are employed through the Council, on nearby stations, or at the tourist venue at Iga Warta. The Indigenous Protected Area of Nantawarrina provides one full-time job at present managing the lands, and there is a chance of more in the future. There are some opportunities to work at the Beverley Uranium mine nearby, and other uranium mines seem likely to go ahead pending government approval. Finally, there is a bush produce garden and this could be developed as another source of employment for the community.

Below are labour force status data from the UFR for the total population (Table 1) and for the Aboriginal population (Table 2). These data show that while nearly 77% of males and 68% of females were employed for the total UFR area, only 49% of Aboriginal males and 43% of Aboriginal females were employed. Most of those not employed were not in the labour force and very few were in the labour force and unemployed.

Some people in the town have aspirations to build enterprises, notably, a shop and/or a bowser both for travellers passing through to and from Arkaroola, and also for local people to reduce the travel into Copley and Leigh Creek.



Table 1: Total Unincorp. Flinders Ranges Labour Force Status

Employed(a) Unemployed Total labour

force Not in the

labour force Labour force

status not stated

Total

Total UFR Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

15–24 years 52 43 0 0 52 43 19 11 8 6 79 60

25–34 years 52 49 0 3 52 52 5 21 5 3 62 76

35–44 years 86 60 6 0 92 60 5 21 9 6 106 87

45–54 years 112 75 5 0 117 75 10 17 5 3 132 95

55–64 years 61 31 0 0 61 31 7 17 4 3 72 51

65 years and over 12 6 0 0 12 6 11 11 9 0 32 17

Total 375 264 11 3 386 267 57 98 40 21 483 386

Table 2: Aboriginal Population Labour Force Status in the Unincorp Flinders Ranges

Employed(a) Unemployed Total labour

force Not in the

labour force Labour force

status not stated

Total

Aboriginal Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

15–24 years 10 7 0 0 10 7 10 4 0 3 20 14

25–34 years 5 8 0 0 5 8 7 8 0 0 12 16

35–44 years 11 10 5 0 16 10 0 7 3 3 19 20

45–54 years 7 6 4 0 11 6 8 5 0 3 19 14

55–64 years 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 7 0 0 3 12

65 years and over

3 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 3 0 6 7

Total 39 36 9 0 48 36 25 38 6 9 79 83

Conclusion

While these are only preliminary data, they reveal several issues that Nepabunna community must face to ensure its sustainability. The key issues are:

• Finding employment opportunities • Building enterprises for employment • Maintaining the health clinic and perhaps increasing its capabilities through more

equipment and staff • Attracting more Adnyamathanha people back to stay or increasing the events that they

attend • Increasing educational opportunities • Creating cheaper fuel and food options • Finding or enhancing activities for youth • Publicising the positive aspects of living in Nepabunna to encourage residing there.



Despite the small size, however, we argue that the actual population that supports Nepabunna and that calls it home is much bigger than Census data given earlier indicates, and that governments should take that into account when judging whether a small community is too small for essential services.

At a time when many small settlements like Nepabunna are under pressure to close, and their people to be swept away – often to a marginal existence – into cities and towns, there is more to the desert community than meets the eye. The settlement may have only 50 or 60 permanent residents, but it has a network of many hundreds of others who have moved away for work or education, but who can still maintain strong connection to their original home and country. There is therefore an ‘invisible’ population many times the size of the settlement itself making the effective community much larger.

This population returns to the settlement from time to time, and can potentially provide money, social support, knowledge and skills when they are needed; and this population is often deeply attached to its roots. People may come back to their home settlement for an event – a marriage, funeral, a sports meeting or other gathering – but in the process they bring in resources and expertise which help the resident community to sustain. For example, they can provide advice or funding to help with new business enterprises or community facilities.

This means we need to start seeing desert settlements as something much larger, stronger and more diverse than the mere Census data reveals about how many people were living there on a particular night. These settlements have strengths, resources, skills and connections that are not immediately apparent.

While 50–60 people in Nepabunna might seem too small to be sustainable, a recent gymkhana saw about 150 people attending, most travelling 8 hours or more to get there and staying for a few days. If we had a better idea of the events taking place in such small communities over several years, the range of people that seek family, environmental and other benefits from the communities, then we would better appreciate such remote communities as family and spiritual ‘hubs’ for many more people than actually live there. That makes such settlements much more sustainable.



References

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) & Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages (FATSIL). 2005. National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Canberra. Accessed from http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/35637/NILS_Report_2005.pdf 23 October 2008.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007a. 2006 Census QuickStats: Nepabunna (State Suburb) location code: SSC44406 State: SA. ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007b. Languages Spoken at Home (Australian Indigenous Languages Only) by Sex: South Australia. Census Tables, Cat. No. 2068.0 ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007c. Unincorporated Flinders Ranges (Statistical Local Area) SA Indigenous Status by Age by Sex (Place of Usual Residence). Census Tables, Cat. No. 2068.0 ABS, Canberra.

Brock P. 1985. Yura and Udnyu: A history of the Adnyamathanha of the North Flinders Ranges. Wakefield Press in Association with the Aboriginal Heritage Branch, Department of Environment and Planning, South Australia, Adelaide.

Brock P. 1993. Outback ghettos: Aborigines, institutionalisation and survival. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Burns CM, Gibbon P, Boak R, Baudinette S and Dunbar JA. 2004. Food cost and availability in a rural setting in Australia. Rural and Remote Health, 4 (online), pp. 311–319.

Harrison MS, Coyne T, Lee AJ, Leonard D, Lowson S, Groos A and Ashton BA. 2007. The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland. Medical Journal of Australia, 186, 9–14.

Mattingley C and Hampton K. 1998. Survival in our own land: ‘Aboriginal’ experiences in South Australia since 1836. Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.

Pearce M, Willis E and Jenkin T. 2007. Aboriginal people’s attitudes towards paying for water in a water-scarce region of Australia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9, 21–32.

Pearce M, Willis E, McCarthy C, Ryan F and Wadham B. 2008. A response to the National Water initiative from Nepabunna, Yarilena, Scotdesco and Davenport Aboriginal settlements, DKCRC Research Report 36. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.

Ross B. 1989. Minerawuta, Ram Paddock Gate: An historic Adnyamathanha settlement in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Aboriginal Heritage Branch, Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide.

Willis E, Pearce M, Jenkin T and McCarthy C. 2004. Water supply and use in Aboriginal communities in South Australia. Flinders University, Adelaide.

Willis E, Pearce M, McCarthy C, Ryan F and Wadham B. 2008. The provision of water infrastructure in Aboriginal Communities in South Australia. Flinders University, Adelaide.


http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/35637/NILS_Report_2005.pdf

DKCRC Partners

Documents

The Working Paper Series - Ninti One › resource › DKCRC-Working-paper... · Hampton (1998). The five original tribal groups, Kuyani (Guyani), Wailpi, Piladappa (Pilatapa, Biladaba)