Our money, our projects: demand-driven community development through Australia's Central Land Council

15th April 2016

We came to the DLP conference on ‘power, politics and positive deviance’ to talk about emerging lessons from the Central Land Council’s community development program. The program works to maintain Aboriginal identity, language, culture and connection to country; and to strengthen Aboriginal people’s participation in mainstream Australia by improving their health, education and employment outcomes.

Maximising Aboriginal ownership and control over decisions is a core objective. Funding comes largely from Aboriginal people’s own money – for example, from rents from national parks, and royalties from land-use agreements with mining companies – an approach that some have noted may have broader relevance for the Pacific.

Aboriginal artwork (CLC)The Central Land Council (CLC) promotes Aboriginal rights. It is a representative body of 90 Aboriginal people elected from the southern half of the Northern Territory, and it has its origins in the history of Aboriginal struggle for justice and the realisation of rights to our traditional land. It was set up under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976, which gave ownership of most of the Aboriginal reserve lands in the Northern Territory to the Aboriginal communities. They were also given the opportunity to claim other land not already owned, leased or being used by someone else. The CLC region covers 771,747 square kilometres of rugged and often inaccessible areas and represents 15 different Aboriginal language groups.

The CLC’s community development program, which began in 2005, has become one of the largest self-funded and demand-driven development programs of its kind in the Northern Territory.

Compared to much of the work which seeks to support Aboriginal people in Australia, working in this way – where communities decide their priorities and allocate their own income – remains the exception rather than the rule.

We would argue, of course, that in one sense this program is not ‘deviant’ at all - it ‘goes with the grain’ of indigenous political and cultural realities.  However, when our experience is compared to much of the work which seeks to support Aboriginal people in Australia, working in this way – where communities decide their priorities and allocate their own income – remains the exception rather than the rule. 

It is an approach, though, that has brought some encouraging results. In 2013, an independent, government-funded evaluation of CLC’s development work found the following.

  • Between 2005 and 2013, AUD 25.2 million of Aboriginal funds was used for community benefit (in addition to AUD 8 million of leveraged funds). Expenditures grew from about AUD 500,000 a year in the first two years to AUD 5 million a year in the last four. This shows that commitment to the collective spending of community income has gathered increasing support among Aboriginal people.
  • The outcomes of the projects are clearly valued by Aboriginal people and have produced longer-term collective benefits than individual royalty payments. They include: employment opportunities; enhanced training and education outcomes; skills development; improved early childhood development and education; youth engagement; cultural strengthening and maintenance; and enhanced health and overall well-being for kidney patients.
  • Within a context of broader disempowerment, Traditional Owners and community residents across central Australia have been empowered by this program because it creates forums and processes through which a critical mass of Aboriginal people across central Australia are able to analyse, identify and address their self-determined needs and priorities.  People have contrasted their resulting sense of empowerment with their lack of voice and power in relation to their local shire and schools, and government more generally.

What factors have made the program successful?

The review stressed the importance of its context-specific approach. The CDU’s simple and consistent process of community engagement supports a comprehensive understanding of existing skills, capabilities and institutions, and a ‘good fit’ with the local context.

Fostering networks of collaboration, and Aboriginal voice within those networks, has helped overcome difficulties such as outsiders’ poor understanding of local governance mechanisms.

The focus on local power, agency and voice has made sure that the Aboriginal communities – including the less powerful groups within them – are genuinely involved in decision-making. Program staff have helped maximise limited resources by fostering networks of collaboration, and Aboriginal voice within those networks. This brokering of relationships has helped overcome difficulties such as outsiders’ poor understanding of local governance mechanisms and service providers’ weak accountability and coordination.

The CDU’s work has been most successful where community development staff have shown a desire to work in a culturally respectful way, incorporating Aboriginal ways of doing business alongside organisational policies, guidelines and institutional norms.

Finally, regular independent monitoring and evaluation based on quality data has underpinned critical reflection and learning. It supports adaptation to complex and uncertain circumstances and stronger social accountability and community feedback mechanisms.

Of course, the positive tenor of the evaluation needs to be balanced by the reality of the challenges that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people still face in Australia. But we believe the ‘with the grain’ deviance of this program is a reliable signpost towards a different way of doing things.



Images:  Silhouettes, Wirrumanu Aboriginal Community, Balgo Hills, Western Australia (Yaruman5/Flickr); Aboriginal artwork (CLC)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.



David Ross

David Ross

David Ross is Director of the Central Land Council, a representative body of 90 Aboriginal people elected from communities in the southern half of Australia’s Northern Territory. Among the CLC’s many achievements under his leadership has been the creation of the innovative Community Development Unit.

Read more


Danielle Campbell

Danielle Campbell

Danielle Campbell is the Community Development Manager of the Central Land Council. She joined the CLC in 2005 when the Community Development Unit was established and has played a critical role in the design and implementation of the CLC’s Community Development Framework.

Read more

Related items

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from two conferences

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Fiji's Roshika Deo - outlier, positive deviant or simply feisty feminist?

First in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Priya Chattier 1st February 2016