makes a lot of sense Don, these buildings are already very much in use across the territory while one firm makes pre-fab modular insulated structures, to cyclone code and individual layouts to order with power points, phone connections, built in cupboards etc also to customer requirements.

In Darwin,government is demolishing 60 units they have allowed to deteriorate that are only 40 years old. This in a situation of desperate families being given tents.

Besides if brick construction is required, the solution is to manufacture on site using local materials and labour using simple brick making moulds as occurred 43 years ago in Kalkaringi

At that time, the people were consulted but of course what would they know ? their preferences to include shaded verandahs was largely ignored

I would rather see people advocating for self built mudbrick or strawbale houses. Not only are they better environmentally they are cheaper and simpler to build that your standard dwelling. They can be very long lasting, easily maintained and quite comfortable in any climate. Much better than your idea for US style "trailer parks'.

At 'the Dreaming' festival http://www.thedreamingfestival.com/ - an amazing international celebration of indigenous arts, music and culture, one of the sponsors associated with the festival displayed an 'outback shelter'. It was well received by the indigenous people who attended, although I realise the festival attendees are a different group to those who might be end-users of such a building. The shelter was cheap, easy to assemble, versatile and available in variants that could be adapted to environments and communities.

Don Allan is right - prefabricated structures exist, are getting better and better in design / execution and are almost infinitely malleable in terms configuration. Have a look. For example - at QT homes, the manufacturers of the Outback Shelter http://www.qthomes.com.au/

The shelter is still in its trial stages but it's a hell of a good idea. Unfortunately they don't have a picture of the prototype on their website.

You can get a heap of them for the $45m administrative cost. For the cost of the SIHIP project you could set up a complete infrastructure / decentralised jobs creation program, avoid the trailer park idea (not a good look mikk), look at an appropriate mix of design and construction and have some left over.

Somebody or some group of bodies is making a shitload out of this rort.

But let's go back one large step - spend a bit of the money asking the communities what they want, where they want it and what function it has to serve. Then make sure you deliver it.

I find it a bit concerning that so much money is being spent to house people in areas in which there is little chance of the community becoming economically viable, thus providing funds for people to build their own houses.

For example if myself and my family chose to move to a remote area with no infrastructure or job opportunities I don't think we would be having a debate on what sort of house the government will provide us. Even if most people do live in areas with preexisting houses etc. many people, such as tradies, must change location to find sufficient job opportunities to survive. Why is this different for aboriginal people living in remote regions? It is the governments responsibility to provide these job opportunities, not to provide free housing.

What sort of houses do aboriginal people want in remote communities? Perhaps we should look to what they had before European settlement.

750 houses for $672 Million? That is almost $900,000 each! What in the world is this government doing with our money? These houses are not on millionair's row are they?
Is this another one of Rudd/Swan's feel good stimulus projects?

The amount of taxpayers' money spent per Aboriginal on remote communities is enough to house them each in comfortable flats or motel rooms with three meals a day and a reasonable allowance for spending money; but as this article demonstrates, very little of it actually gets to the people concerned. Unfortunately the cultural 'choice' to live in remote areas (and who chooses? The old men?) deprives these people of their right to basic welfare and plays into the hands of the well-paid government service industries who can easily spend a week preparing for, carrying out and 'debriefing' from a one-day visit to a remote settlement.

Let boundaries be drawn 100km from Darwin and Alice Springs; and let everyone be comfortably housed within that range on the understanding that welfare stops at the boundary. Let the preservation of tribal homelands be treated in the same way Wiccan or Druidic practices; an amusing hobby which people can indulge in at their own expense -- not mine.