Presented by Daniel Featherstone, General Manager, Indigenous Remote Communications Association

1. Presenter: Daniel Featherstone
General Manager, Indigenous Remote Communications Association
Research Masters candidate, Murdoch University
Towards a Policy for Remote Indigenous Media and Communications

2. • Why won’t the current NBN model address the unmet demand for basic telephony or
overcome digital divide issues in remote Indigenous communities?
• Why has Digital Switchover resulted in the abolition of BRACS community TV broadcasting
of local language content, and transferred the maintenance costs for the satellite equipment
needed to access TV services to households?
• Why did the Indigenous Broadcasting Program reduce to supporting radio broadcast
delivery during a critical change period to convergence and multi-platform delivery?
• Why did the introduction of a National Indigenous TV service result in the loss of the
Indigenous Community TV service it was intended to build upon, with almost none of the
the $80 million of funding to date going to remote producers?
• Why does the primary remote media employment program, the National Jobs Package, pay
the same wages for senior broadcasters as new trainees?
• Well intentioned policies, poor outcomes for remote Australia.

3. Irrunytju (Wingellina) Community

4. Ngaanyatjarra Media
“Media is one of the most powerful tools for
cultural maintenance. We have the choice
to empower ourselves and strengthen our
sense of identity, cultural ownership and
self worth. By making our programs in
language we are able to watch and hear
the type of programs, stories and music
we enjoy. When we hear our own voices
on radio and see our faces on TV, it makes
us feel proud of who we are.”
(Ng Media Strategic Plan 2003-6)
Began 1992 as Irrunytju Media, based on
cultural video recording & community radio
Grew into RIMO supporting 15 RIBS (BRACS)
communities with a range of programs:
• regional radio broadcasting
• video & TV production
• training & employment
• IT access facilities & training
• music development
• language / cultural programs
• cultural events & music festivals
• telecommunications
• technical services
• archiving
• regional coordination and support

5. Pilbara and
Kimberley Aboriginal
Media
Top End Aboriginal Bush
Broadcasting Association
PitjantjatjaraPitjantjatjara
YankunytjatjaraYankunytjatjara
MediaMedia
Central AustralianCentral Australian
Aboriginal MediaAboriginal Media
AssociationAssociation
Pintupi Anmatjere
Warlpiri Media
Ngaanyatjarra
Media
Torres Strait IslandsTorres Strait Islands
Media AssociationMedia Association
Queensland RemoteQueensland Remote
Aboriginal MediaAboriginal Media
Remote Indigenous Media Organisations

6. Part 1:
History of remote
Indigenous media
& policy development

7. 1980:1980: AustraliaAustralia’’s first Aboriginal owned and controlled radio station Centrals first Aboriginal owned and controlled radio station Central
Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA 8KIN) started broadcastingAustralian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA 8KIN) started broadcasting
1982:1982: National Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting Association (NAIBA)National Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting Association (NAIBA)
established, continued until 1985established, continued until 1985
1983:1983: Anthropologist Eric Michaels begins 5-year AIAS TV study at YuendumuAnthropologist Eric Michaels begins 5-year AIAS TV study at Yuendumu
1984:1984: Ernabella Video and Television established, initially as 1-year TAFE programErnabella Video and Television established, initially as 1-year TAFE program
1984:1984: Warlpiri Media Association formed following video training programs in 1983Warlpiri Media Association formed following video training programs in 1983
October 1984:October 1984: DAA Taskforce releaseDAA Taskforce release ‘‘Out of the Silent LandOut of the Silent Land’’; recommended; recommended
BRACS program to enable remote communities to insert of local video and radioBRACS program to enable remote communities to insert of local video and radio
programs over the incoming mainstream TV servicesprograms over the incoming mainstream TV services
A Brief History of Remote Indigenous Media

8. April 1985:April 1985: First local TV transmission begins at Yuendumu andFirst local TV transmission begins at Yuendumu and
Ernabella – described asErnabella – described as ‘‘fighting fire with firefighting fire with fire’’
August 1985:August 1985: AUSSAT B1 satellite launched; B2 in Nov 1985AUSSAT B1 satellite launched; B2 in Nov 1985
1986:1986: Eric MichaelsEric Michaels’’ reportreport ‘‘The Aboriginal Invention ofThe Aboriginal Invention of
Television: Central Australia 1982-6Television: Central Australia 1982-6’’ releasedreleased
1987:1987: Imparja TV wins bid to become Commercial TV ServiceImparja TV wins bid to become Commercial TV Service
for Central zone, begins broadcasting January 1988for Central zone, begins broadcasting January 1988
1987:1987: BRACS begins in 81 communities, with equipmentBRACS begins in 81 communities, with equipment
designed and installed by Telecom between 1988 and 1991;designed and installed by Telecom between 1988 and 1991;
poor design and limited training led to lack of usepoor design and limited training led to lack of use
1991:1991: DAA Indigenous broadcast policy paper proposes fundingDAA Indigenous broadcast policy paper proposes funding
for Indigenous Media due to social justice functionsfor Indigenous Media due to social justice functions
1992:1992: Broadcasting Services Act 1992 includes the object:Broadcasting Services Act 1992 includes the object:
““to ensure the maintenance, and where possible, the development ofto ensure the maintenance, and where possible, the development of
diversity, including public, community and Indigenous broadcasting, indiversity, including public, community and Indigenous broadcasting, in
the Australian broadcasting service in the transition to digitalthe Australian broadcasting service in the transition to digital
broadcastingbroadcasting””
A Brief History of Remote Indigenous Media

9. December 1992:December 1992: National Indigenous Media Association of Australia (NIMAA)National Indigenous Media Association of Australia (NIMAA)
established with members in print, radio, TV and video, multimedia and filmestablished with members in print, radio, TV and video, multimedia and film
January 1993:January 1993: ATSIC releases first Indigenous broadcasting policy, 5 key areas:ATSIC releases first Indigenous broadcasting policy, 5 key areas:
1) Equity 2) Cultural restoration, preservation & growth 3) Efficiency of Communication 4)1) Equity 2) Cultural restoration, preservation & growth 3) Efficiency of Communication 4)
Employment 5) Enhanced self-imageEmployment 5) Enhanced self-image
1993:1993: BRACS Revitalisation Strategy established for recurrent training, R&M, andBRACS Revitalisation Strategy established for recurrent training, R&M, and
operation costs; BRACS extended to 20 more communities, total of 101 sites.operation costs; BRACS extended to 20 more communities, total of 101 sites.
1994:1994: NIMAA recommends 8 regional Indigenous media organisations toNIMAA recommends 8 regional Indigenous media organisations to
coordinate the BRS & ongoing regional training, support and management.coordinate the BRS & ongoing regional training, support and management.
April 1996:April 1996: ATSIC review into development of ATSI Media led toATSIC review into development of ATSI Media led to ‘‘DigitalDigital
DreamingDreaming’’ report in 1998 (Dr Helen Molnar et al)report in 1998 (Dr Helen Molnar et al)
19971997: National BRACS Review undertaken by Neil Turner; completed 1999.: National BRACS Review undertaken by Neil Turner; completed 1999.
19981998: Imparja digital uplink enables 6 regional radio networks via Aurora satellite: Imparja digital uplink enables 6 regional radio networks via Aurora satellite
September 1999September 1999: First test broadcasts on Imparja: First test broadcasts on Imparja’’s Channel 31 by Warlpiris Channel 31 by Warlpiri
Media, PY Media and PAKAM, entitledMedia, PY Media and PAKAM, entitled ‘‘Feeding the BeamFeeding the Beam’’
A Brief History of Remote Indigenous Media

10. 20002000: Productivity Commission report into Broadcasting recommends exploring: Productivity Commission report into Broadcasting recommends exploring
the feasibility of an Indigenous Broadcasting service.the feasibility of an Indigenous Broadcasting service.
20002000: DCITA establish: DCITA establish ‘‘Networking the NationNetworking the Nation’’ funding (from 1funding (from 1stst
Telstra sell-off)Telstra sell-off)
for innovative communications solutions for remote/ regional Australiafor innovative communications solutions for remote/ regional Australia
December 2000December 2000: Release of: Release of ‘‘The Belonging NetworkThe Belonging Network’’, ATSIC/NIMAA feasibility, ATSIC/NIMAA feasibility
reportreport’’ into the development of a National Indigenous Broadcasting Service.into the development of a National Indigenous Broadcasting Service.
February 2001:February 2001: Remote Media Summit in Canberra; end of BRS programRemote Media Summit in Canberra; end of BRS program
September 2001:September 2001: NIBS Conference at Rockhampton; NIMAA foldsNIBS Conference at Rockhampton; NIMAA folds
October 2001:October 2001: Indigenous Remote Communications Association established atIndigenous Remote Communications Association established at
Remote Video Festival in Umuwa; establishment of ICTV proposedRemote Video Festival in Umuwa; establishment of ICTV proposed
May 2002:May 2002: Indigenous Community TV broadcasts begin on Ch. 31 by PY MediaIndigenous Community TV broadcasts begin on Ch. 31 by PY Media
Sept 2003Sept 2003: Australian Indigenous Communications Association established: Australian Indigenous Communications Association established
April 2004April 2004: DCITA sets review into viability of an Indigenous Television Service: DCITA sets review into viability of an Indigenous Television Service
A Brief History of Remote Indigenous Media

11. 20052005: RIBS TV Transmitter rollout enables 147 remote communities to get ICTV: RIBS TV Transmitter rollout enables 147 remote communities to get ICTV
20052005: DCITA announces $48.5million over 4 years for National Indigenous: DCITA announces $48.5million over 4 years for National Indigenous
Television service, toTelevision service, to ““build on the Indigenous Community Televisionbuild on the Indigenous Community Television
narrowcasting servicenarrowcasting service”” andand ““carry substantial programming for remotecarry substantial programming for remote
audiences and made in remote communitiesaudiences and made in remote communities””
2006:2006: Indigenous Broadcasting Program Review reduces IBP to radio onlyIndigenous Broadcasting Program Review reduces IBP to radio only
July 13 2007July 13 2007- NITV launched on Imparja- NITV launched on Imparja’’s channel 31; ICTV taken off airs channel 31; ICTV taken off air
2009:2009: Indigitube launchedIndigitube launched
November 13 2009November 13 2009: Launch of ICTV on Westlink channel as weekend service: Launch of ICTV on Westlink channel as weekend service
June 2010June 2010: Review of Government Investment in the Indigenous Broadcasting: Review of Government Investment in the Indigenous Broadcasting
and Media sector announced, alsoand Media sector announced, also 11 year extension of NITV fundingyear extension of NITV funding
February 2011February 2011: Stevens Review (IBMS) report released with 39 key: Stevens Review (IBMS) report released with 39 key
recommendations; only 2 enacted to date (no government response yet)recommendations; only 2 enacted to date (no government response yet)
2011:2011: Digital Switchover via Direct-to-home model begins in QueenslandDigital Switchover via Direct-to-home model begins in Queensland
December 12 2012:December 12 2012: NITV launched as free-to-air channel on SBSNITV launched as free-to-air channel on SBS
March 18 2013:March 18 2013: ICTV launch as full-time channel on VASTICTV launch as full-time channel on VAST
A Brief History of Remote Indigenous Media

12. Part 2:
Examples of
‘one size fits all’
policy outcomes

13. National Broadband Network
Why won’t the current NBN model address the unmet demand for basic
telephony or overcome digital divide issues in remote Indigenous
communities?

14. National Broadband Network
“a high speed broadband network that is
planned to reach 100 percent of
Australian premises with a combination
of fibre, fixed wireless and satellite
technologies...” (NBN Co 2012:2)
Issues:
 DTH model based on western household
model
 Very low home ICT access
 Unmet demand for basic telephony not
addressed
 no expansion of mobile telephony; most
appropriate telephony mode (Brady &
Dyson 2009, CLC 2007)
 Existing remote fibre networks not linked to
NBN
 Market model fails in RIC
 No last-mile delivery solution (eg-WiFi)
 Latency and asymmetry via satellite restrict
some applicationsOptic Fibre Footprint
Fixed Wireless Footprint
Satellite Footprint
Transit Links

15. Case Study: Ngaanyatjarra Lands
Telecommunications Project
• 3 levels Government/ community orgs/ telco partnership
• $5.8million project completed 2007
• 400km of fibre optic cable extended to 6 communities
• Satellite solution to 6 communities
• WiFi in all 12 sites

16. The Broadband for the Bush Alliance
Aims:
1.To promote and represent remote regions’ digital
aspirations and priorities.
2.To advocate for best telecommunications
infrastructure and services for remote Australian
communities, businesses and dwellings.
3.To co-ordinate a research network aimed at
addressing knowledge gaps in remote
communications needs.
4.To build capacity of stakeholders to participate in a
digital environment.
5.To share knowledge and experience.
6.To facilitate and support trials/projects/research
aimed at achieving improved digital outcomes.

17. Why has Digital Switchover resulted in the abolition of BRACS
community TV broadcasting of local language content, and transferred
the maintenance costs for the satellite equipment needed to access TV
services to households?
Digital Television Switchover

18. Digital Television Switchover
• Direct-to-home (DTH) model chosen for RICs to
enable all 17 channels of mainstream TV
• No funding option to upgrade local broadcast
facilities to digital, despite recommendation of
pooling of subsidy (Stevens Review 2010 Rec. 36)
• Community TV broadcasting of local language
content ceases; no funding for digital transmitter
• Ongoing maintenance of DTH equipment
transferred to householder (despite Stevens
Review Rec. 38)- prohibitive costs, lack of
coordination with state/ local governments
• Reduced ability to view TV outside of houses
• No redundancy service if DTH service fails
• Gap in accessing Indigenous TV services during
DTH rollout period

19. Why did the Indigenous Broadcasting Program reduce to supporting
radio broadcast delivery when the broader communications sector was
planning for convergence and multi-platform delivery?
Indigenous Broadcasting Program

20. Indigenous Broadcasting Program (IBP)
 IBP began 1987 to support urban, regional and remote Indigenous broadcasting
 By 2006, the sector doubled, yet funding remained the same level- $13.3 million in
2006/7. Demand outstripped funding 2:1.
 Review of IBP in 2006 sought to equalise funding by population band sizes, centralise
RIBS funding to RIMOs, and focus funding on radio broadcasting; All video production
funding to come via new NITV service
Impacts for sector:
 Radio only negated video/TV focus of most RIMOs & stalled moves to convergence &
multi-platform delivery (against industry trends)
 Remote sector urged separate funding program between regional /urban radio stations
and RIMOs/ RIBS to recognise different scope & reduce competition
 Range of programs delivered by RIMOs- video/ TV, ICT, music, tech services, archiving,
culture & language, telecoms – further siloed without coordination

21. Why did the introduction of a National Indigenous TV service result in the
loss of the Indigenous Community TV service it was intended to build
upon, with almost none of the the $80 million of funding to date going to
remote producers?
National Indigenous Television

22. National Indigenous Television
 In 2005, DCITA announced $48.5million over 4 years for a National Indigenous
Television service, to “build on the Indigenous Community Television narrowcasting
service” and “carry substantial programming for remote audiences and made in
remote communities”.
 No delivery platform provided, resulting in NITV replacing ICTV on Imparja channel 31
 Also in 2006, IBP removed video production; all screen funding to come via NITV
 A mainstream programming & commissioning model was adopted by NITV
 Of the $80million investment in NITV to June 2012 (about 80% for content), almost
none reached the remote production sector
 Impacts:
 Loss of Indigenous Community TV platform
 Loss of production capacity and impetus for production in remote sector
 Loss of relevant language-based service for remote audience
 Significant division within the Indigenous media sector
 Drop in production and broadcasting of remote community & cultural content

23. Why does the primary remote media employment program, the National
Jobs Package, pay the same wages for senior broadcasters as new
trainees?
National Jobs Package (NJP)

24. National Jobs Package (NJP)
 A transition to work program off CDEP, started in 2009 for arts & broadcasting
 RIMOs have a direct employer relationship and provide training, support, better
wages and conditions for workers than CDEP
 Some issues:
 Wages fixed rate - no tiers or annual increments;
 Not designed for multi-site delivery;
 Fixed 20 hours - not flexible to organisational/ worker needs (like CDEP);
 Most RIMO training & support focussed on NJP workers;
 Added level of administration and reporting.

25. Why ‘one size fits all’ programs typically don’t fit
• Centrally determined, inflexible approach
• Assumptions based on mainstream context
• Failure to recognise Indigenous diversity
• Different experience (ecology) of communications modes and technologies
• Market failure
• Lack of existing infrastructure or services
• Harsh conditions- climatic, environmental, social, political
• Language barriers & cultural differences
• Lack of community participation and ownership
• Community needs and local planning not considered
• Lack of relevant research/evidence to guide policy

26. Part 3:Part 3:
Towards a newTowards a new
policy approachpolicy approach

27. Stevens Review (2010)
“The Australian Government…still lacks a well articulated forward-looking strategy that
takes into account both the potential of the sector and the rapid changes in technology.
The sector is not appropriately recognised as a professional component of the broader
broadcasting and media sector that provides an essential service to all Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people whether they live in urban, regional or remote areas.
It is under-resourced, lacks critical capacity and skills and suffers from being
administered across a range of portfolios.” (p.1)
“In the Indigenous broadcasting and media sector a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not
work given the significant differences between communities resulting from geography,
history and custom. The government’s investment in and strategy for the sector must
be flexible. The overriding objective must be building the capacity of the sector and
giving it the tools to enable it to adapt and take advantage of rapidly converging
broadcasting and communication technologies, the looming digital switchover, and the
enormous opportunities that are being opened up with the rollout of the NBN. A key
outcome must be to engage the creativity and energy of younger Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples.” (p.1)

28. Key points (Meadows 2012:25):
• Indigenous media in Australia has evolved in a policy vacuum, marked by policy
uncertainty and a lack of political will to acknowledge the place of Indigenous
languages and cultures
• Indigenous media as a news topic is virtually absent from broader public sphere
discussion promoted by mainstream media
• The key policy moment in Indigenous media policy was the decision to replace ICTV
with the $48.5million NITV in 2007
• Indigenous media policy advocacy has been marked by competing policy agendas
and tensions between the ‘soft voices’ from the bush communities and the ‘loud
voices’ from the eastern seaboard
• There is a lack of understanding of the media-related practices of policy advocates
and policy managers
• ‘Policymaking is nine-tenths press release and one-tenth substance’ (Althaus et al
2007)
‘When the Stars Align: Indigenous media policy formation
1988-2008’ (Meadows 2012)

29. A new national policy:
 build on Article 16 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and
to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect
Indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of
expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous
cultural diversity. (UN 2008:7-8)
 identify Indigenous media as an essential service (Molnar et al 1999);
 recognise convergence & range of modes/ platforms for media and communications;
 support innovation and enterprise;
 recognise diverse needs and contexts of remote, regional and urban Australia;
 have central tenets of self-determination, language and cultural maintenance, digital
inclusion, professionalism, and social and economic development;
 link to broader Indigenous & cultural policy frameworks;
 be adequately resourced to enable the sector to achieve its full potential.

30. Need for a remote specific policy model
 A specific, flexible policy approach for remote
media and communications to address the
unique context, scope and challenges
 Address the mis-match between existing policy
and current reality in communities
 A development communications approach to
program planning, evaluation & capacity building
 Consider needs of all 1113 remote communities
 Community ownership and participation in policy development- Indigenous people
and orgs as key informants
 Programs driven by local planning and priorities with recipient –based performance
indicators
 Effective change management strategies needed to address a 'crisis of change’
 Inter-connection with other programs –arts, culture, language, land management,
education, health etc

31. Media & ICT Training • Employment • Media Production • Language & Culture Programs • Radio, TV & Communications Networks
Resourcing • Events & Festivals • Repair & Maintenance • Business Development • Regional Coordination • Promotions • Advocacy
Supported by Regional Media Organisation with:Supported by Regional Media Organisation with:

32. Part 4:Part 4:
The role of researchThe role of research

33. Collecting evidence for Indigenous policy making
“Without evidence, policy-makers must fall back on intuition, ideology, or
conventional wisdom—or, at best, theory alone. And many policy decisions have
indeed been made in those ways. But the resulting policies can go seriously astray,
given the complexities and interdependencies in our society and economy, and the
unpredictability of people’s reactions to change.” (Gary Banks 2009:5)
However:
“A preference for hard research data- in particular, quantitative studies- by
government policymakers places the Indigenous media environment in an
invidious position. All of the available research into Indigenous media
processes and practice is qualitative- there are few, if any, numbers involved. It
presents policymakers with the challenging task of making sense of ‘values’
rather than relying on ‘evidence’ in a narrow sense.” (Meadows 2012:26)

34. Qualitative vs Quantitative Research
 Policy makers rely heavily on quantitative research/ statistics => remote media orgs
require data for KPIs and to identify sector gaps and needs (see www.irca.net.au)
 Quantitative data collection in RICs is challenging:
 remoteness/access; variability of context; small sample size; high mobility, household
makeup, cross-cultural communication issues, multiple names, low participation etc;
 Data and analysis can be unreliable
 Qualitative research needs more time & resources, but more accurate, locally specific
and contextualised results; still challenging to achieve
 Some good examples: Meadows et al (2007) ‘Community Media Matters’; Turner
(1998) ‘Review of BRACS’; Molnar et al (1999) ‘Digital Dreaming’; Rennie et al ‘Home
Internet Use in RICs’ (longitudinal study- ongoing); Kral and Schwab (2012) ‘Learning
Spaces’; Brady & Dyson (2009) ‘Mobile phone usage in Wujal Wujal’; Hinkson (2002)
‘New Media Projects at Yuendumu’; Big Hart project evaluations; etc

35. Need for research partnerships
 How do we provide meaningful ‘evidence’ of program outcomes to support
industry renewal and development and promote investment ?
 Communities are research –weary; need relevant outcomes for the community
 We need partnerships with researchers through:
 Program evaluations
 Sector outcomes - social, cultural, political, developmental
 Audience research
 Analysis of availability (quantitative) and usage (qualitative) of ICTs
 Supporting change management
 Building linkages with other programs
 Innovation in the sector – R&D
 Build pathways for information flow from communities back to policymakers

36. A Communicative Ecologies Approach
 An holistic research approach to describe the complete range of communication
media and information flows existing within a community
 Identifies the dynamic relationships between social interactions, culture, discourse,
communications media and technologies for individuals, groups or communities
 Three layers of a communicative ecology (Foth & Hearn 2007:9-18):
1. A technological layer - devices / platforms that enable communication;
2. A social layer- people and social modes of organisation;
3. A discursive layer - the content of the communication
 Research methodology: ethnographic action research & participant evaluation
 Key findings: Programs that build on existing community activities and modes of
communication and technologies are more likely to get ownership and engagement
and have successful outcomes

37. The challenge…
 to develop an appropriate and flexible policy framework which promotes a robust media and
communications sector in an era of convergence, drawing on community needs and
aspirations
 Strategy – a symbiotic relationship of community organisations & practitioners, peak bodies
and researchers working together with policy makers to achieve this aim

38. Remote Media & Communications:
Keeping Communities and Culture Strong