Search

The current policy debate about the future of small Indigenous homelands communities in remote Australia is being framed in terms of a narrow economic definition of 'viability', with little attention to factors such as the social characteristics of such communities and the health, well-being, and aspirations of those who choose to live there. The debate is taking place in the absence of comparative socio-demographic data on these communities as opposed to other kinds of settlements in remote Australia. This paper argues for a broader conceptualisation of viability. It outlines some reasons why governments might consider helping homelands communities to become more economically self-sufficient rather than starving them of support so that their inhabitants increasingly face a 'choice' between a marginalized and impoverished existence on the homelands and recentralisation in larger settlements. The argument is based on an analysis of ethnographic data from north-east Arnhem Land that demonstrate the social cohesiveness and functionality of homelands communities as compared to larger hub settlements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]