What's so shocking about this? This performance by the labour government is completely in line with the competency they have shown so far with regard to BER, Roof insulation, etc. Need I go on?

Dkit

FAHCSIA seems to have a major leadership problem. Nonsense like the Yuendumu flyer is endemic in their operation. Obscure acronyms breed like rabbits, and even more obscure in-house jargon passes for thought and analysis. FAHCSIA doesn't seem to have a competent communications manager, let alone an intelligent grasp of the kind of research needed to measure the success or otherwise of their programs. They display no communication skills and little common sense.

As for the Yuendumu LIP meeting, only three local Aboriginal people turned up; one of these is the Indigenous Engagement Officer (off-sider to the resident FAHCSIA Government Business Manager) in the community, and another is married to him. The IEO made the pertinent point that FAHCSIA and other government & NGO agencies are trying to do too much consultation and planning about too many things all at the same time, and the tiny communities don't have the resources, time or motivation to respond to all this busywork.

Stay warm
Dan

Could you call it a catastrophe or just normal madness . Are ALP's subjected to Health Checks , are they all alcoholics or just mentally impaired .
This is very sad for the Aboriginals who were conned into believing a fair go was at last at hand . As for the Minister she will get to spend more on Make Overs than the poor Aboriginals will get .

Utilising the tools of bureaucracy has not does not and never will work when dealing with remote Aboriginal Communities without consultation and empowerment with the Communities as entities.
It is not only an exercise in housing people, It is a process of emergence into the 21st Century with introduction to skills, formal education, employment,responsibility and obligation without offending Clan protocols.

The consultation goes much further than a fly in - fly out whistle stop tour by a minister. It requires a permanent executive officer, employed by Government who liases with the local Committee and satisfies acquittal of project funds.

Such an Executive Officer must possess special communication skills and stamina to work in such an environment without being burnt out after 6 months with Stress.

Far more than 7 have been burnt down by residents in WA Regional centres. This makes a minus figure. Another lot of broken promises from the spin merchants.

Jack Wareford is entirely correct. The Rudd/Macklin record in Indigenous affairs is a disaster. Basic policy settings, inherited from Howard and Brough and followed with slavish enthusiasm by Macklin, are wrong, will not work, and simply waste time and money. Macklin is simply not up to the job, and seems to have been captured by her advisors. Assimilation is the underlying game, and forcing people out of the bush into large dysfunctional settlements, naively called 'growth centres', and to the fringes of urban areas is the real objective. Policy is ideological, callous and unjust. Implementation is amazingly bureacratic, culturally inadept and messy.
No houses are to be built on over 500 communities in the NT ever under current Commonwealth/COAG policy. So much for closing the gap.

Twenty people to one house, is this overcrowding? Or is this a combined income of $4,000 a week? Surely some builder would build three (3) houses for $2,000 a week guaranteed? ( think bags of flour and kangaroo ) Then after about five (5) years the houses would be owned. That would be five (5) to a house. At four rooms each, extra toilet and shower, a lounge or sleep-out for the extra person. Compatibility? everyone keeps changing around until the right combination. And the income is back (with indexation) to about $5000 a week. This model could be passed on. And people to be encouraged to live twenty (20) to a house to start off. The Commonwealth Government to give full support with financial incentive or concession via Centre-link. And State and Local Governments to provide and maintain necessary services. The housing problem will, solve itself !
Arthur Bell.

Aboriginal Peoples have Lived and even Thrived in central Australia as elsewhere for many thousands of years Without Anyone Building Houses For Them ! Our ancestors built their own Gunyahs when and where it was necessary. As with most cultures based on hunter gatherer traditions. What about the old, " home is where you lay your head "?As many simply lay down and slept next to the fire. As many of us do today ! But according to the Aboriginal Victim Industry (A.V.I) including misguided and Out Of Touch Aboriginal Academics, we were, are, ALL HOMELESS PEOPLE ! And also we were, ALL LIVING in POVERTY ! WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT ! So air-conditioning with multiple showers and toilets is the way to go according to the AVI. Many with a vested interest in this area. What about ( selective?) cultural appropriateness ? Also, air-conditioning is known to cause a lot of respiratory problems. What if this increases and people start dying because of this ? No doubt the AVI will find someone else to blame as they are very PROACTIVE (one of their latest favourite words ! ) in this area ! ( blame apportioning )Or is it a case of, don't you worry about that we will just need , More Community Consultations and of course, More Money! ( in other words it fits in with their agendas ! ) (( they may even have planed it this way ! ))
Arthur Bell.

Housing Problem ? (3)
What a screw-up this issue of Aboriginal Housing ! The Aboriginal Victim Industry ( AVI ) is a major contributing factor ( again ! ) These people with a vested interest. For instance on the talk back programne ( murry country radio) up here in Brisbane the other day re the construction and handing over of promised houses, it was stressed and emphasised that, with these new houses, ( also to land-lords ) Cultural Practices must be taken into consideration. ie. When relations come to town for a funeral or wedding, they are accommodated by the people with houses. These Visitors can also come under the umbrella of " extended family " ( and like termites, can be a problem to get rid of ! ) But the house-holders are expected to put up with these minor inconvienences because they, we are " Aboriginal " and it is deemed " Culturally Appropriate " But then the next day at another venue or another meeting, it will be a complete, arse about face! Or in political terminology a " Backflip". And the approach or line by the AVI this time is, This is Outrageous !! This is Overcrowding ! The cause of Sexual Abuse ! and, This is why the houses are damaged ! To many People ! It is the Government's fault ! We demand More Houses for Our people ! And so, Round and Round We Go ! And with no problem solved ! This has been happening all round the Country, and for a few years, this circus ! I think it was Noel Pearson that said " people with no investment in a house will have no respect for it " Was he refering to " The Australian Dream" with Everyone buying their own house ( home ) ? As opposed to someone being given a house ( home ) ? Is this relevant ? ( for more info on these and other issues, whitc.info ) Arthur Bell

ok, ok, I didn't continue reading past the seven houses. Any figures as to how many houses were built in the same time frame by the private sector ?
Are more or less houses being constructed by people who pay for them or are more houses built by Government. It might be better & quicker for people to get their own houses rather than wait for government. Just a thought.

Firstly do NOT construct Aboriginal housing out of timber ....
Second - windows & doors optional but glass a bad idea. Furniture - built in concrete block benches can't be tossed smashed or burned :-)
Third - running water - showers & sink is good. WC is bad. Outdoor longdrop dunnies better prospect.

Lastly - anyone who expects Government and the "aboriginal industry" to work together and produce tangible results with value for taxpayers money should immediately present to their closest Mental Health Unit for assessment of their delusional state ....

Oh, I forgot. Most Mental Health facilities are State run and funded. Good luck with that then ...

Closing the gap with Australia's first peoples is about updating Australian governance.
A female minister fronting men's legislatures of original intent doesn't cut the mustard.
The magic bullet is women's rights from which all else proceeds.
Readiness and attendance is achieved with parliament and corporate management
conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures and committees.

'Men never used to boss over the women, the women are their own bosses.

There is no reason why shipping containers should not be recycled for housing and an additional steel and galvanised 'tropical' roofing could be added in hot areas and to gather rain. Such houses are enormously strong and resistant to the elements (cyclone proof) and especially the termites that are everywhere in Australia.

Containers are in abundant supply and can easily be trucked to wherever they are needed.

Indigenous labour could easily be trained for modification and assembly. Here are some options:

http://www.shippingcontainerhousedesign.com/

http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/containerbayhome.htm

Just out of curiosity, where else in the world do governments build houses on land which is owned by somebody else, where those governments have no control of tenure ?

With the current range of finaincial benefits accruing to Indigenous people in remote communities on their own land, plus royalties, plus generous tax concession in the North, forgive me for asking: why aren't Aboriginal people buying their own homes and/or having them built on Aboriginal land ?

I.e. why is it assumed that governments have any responsibility whatsoever for the building of homes for Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land ? A population of non-Indigenous people stuck out in the sticks somewhere would have Buckley's of getting any government to build houses for them, and to replace them every ten or fifteen years.

Just asking.

The idea of shipping containers - properly insulated and modified for comfort - has a lot going for it: surely shipping companies would be happy to flog them off to Aboriginal communities at a discount rather than have to cart them back to China ?

Pit-toilets in remote areas would also surely be more hygienic and cheaper for communities to build and maintain ?

Joe

Used shipping containers remain structurally strong, some are insulated (not always necessary depending on housing design) and they are as cheap as chips, just Google used shipping containers.

The availability of small to very large containers and the availability of tested designs delivering flexibility for number of occupants and use, overcome many of the serious problems that are holding up the supply of housing.

This has gone on for years with millions being wasted. Why wouldn't the public be wondering if the various stakeholders are serious and really want housing or not?

SCHEMES like this are about one thing...

"Income Redistribution" from those who have (The Taxpayer) to those who don't... the socialist flunkies who's benefits are not enough now for their lifestyle.

It's never about Indigenous housing.. get real.

income distribution? too superficial.
this one's about power and communication
encompassing tradition from the entire span of human existence.
the outcome will set a precedent for the future of humans globally
and it won't be in converted containers.
essentially Aborigines recognise a women's jurisdiction, europeans don't.
not yet anyway, but will once the republic kicks in.

Whistler,

So what do you mean by 'women's jurisdiction' - and presumably, men's jurisdiction as well ? Why is there a separation ? Are you suggesting that there are issues for women to focus on, and issues for men to focus on, and no common issues ? i.e. women's issues and men's issues - areas, for example, which men keep out of and leave to women, and vice versa ? Can you give us some examples ?

Joe

whistler, "essentially Aborigines recognise a women's jurisdiction"

Having seen how many women, youth and children are treated in many communities I am calling BS on that one. I suspect it is the same push who take advantage of them who have been active over the years defrauding the communities of their money, vandalising shops, projects and vehicles and rolling logs to stall progress. Who else gains from trashed houses and in this case no houses?

A house with a solid two metre high chainwire fence locked from dusk to dawn is not something drunken longrassers want, but that is what is needed to give women and families their own safe 'jurisdiction'.

Loudmouth, all issues impact on both women and men in some form or another but europeans only recognise a men's jurisdiction in which to consider any issue, in men's legislatures, courts and corporate governance.
Consider that a simple majority of the federal parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members and prohibiting all women a vote.
The same cannot be said of men.
Australia has men's legislatures only to which women are admitted under male supervision, the original intent of the Westminster parliament which enacted the Constitution.
With only men's legislatures enacting law, only a men's jurisdiction in the courts interprets law.
Corporate governance follows suit under legislative governance.

Aboriginal tradition recognises both men's AND women's law making assemblies, dispute resolution procedures and economic management, independent and interactive.
Sidelining the entire middle management of Aboriginal communities has wasted billions of dollars and still fails to achieve the cooperation of communities required to achieve stated goals.
Aboriginal tradition is ancient and won't go away, european tradition is in transition.
An equal rights republic with law enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees reconciles european governance effective and productive of all contact with Aborigines for both Aborigines and europeans.
A majority of Australians in a majority of States would have overwhelmingly supported a referendum on a republic recognising equal rights between women and men held this weekend.
The men who established Australia's legislatures never intended they would be anything other than men's legislatures admitting women under supervision.
Women would have to wait until they gained sufficient experience before they could have legislatures of their own in tandem.
Sufficient is the present.

And with respect i really have to say, if you're given custodianship of the most ancient culture on earth and you're approach is to confine its practitioners in recycled shipping containers with pit toilets you really need to take a good hard look at yourself, at the standards you set for yourself, the standards you project on others.
Australians are much more special than that.

Cornflower, the standard which is the outcome of the imposition of european governance is not the standard of Aboriginal tradition.

Whislter,

'... in tandem ... ' So your mens' and women's legislatures would deliberate about precisely the same issues, but 'in tandem' ? (And then what ? And what if the two 'houses' disagreed on an issue ? Who would then deliberate to decide the issue ?) Then why not one single legislature, men and women deliberating together ? Something like we have now, but wit hmore female representation ?

I'm certainly not suggesting that anybody should be 'confined' to shipping containers, etc., but if I were to set myself up on a block of land that I had bought, I would not expect the government to house me, but I would take it for granted that I would have to either build or buy my own accommodation, and one option (given the constraints on my budget) would be a modified shipping container or two - and yes, either a pit toilet or an organic-chemical toilet. I wouldn't expect the government to do it all for me, not if I was on my own land. I certainly wouldn't expect the government to build me a million-dollar house with all the trimmings.

whistler

OK let's have it. What about looking at the designs and telling everyone precisely how they are of a lower standard or structurally inferior to any of the houses you might come across in housing estates.

At the same time you might also show how any house available in Australia could match them for value for money, flexibility, robustness and overall suitability for transporting and erection in remote areas.

It is recycling but so what that is good. The steel doesn't age and it doesn't appeal to termites either.

Again, do communities want houses or not and will that be this year or not? Because I cannot think of any solution that goes anywhere near this idea for supplying good, functional and attractive homes that the communities themselves could modify to suit any needs and special purposes they might have.

I care enough to put forward constructive ideas and I remain very concerned about the mothers, families, youth and children. What is your solution, apart from fantasies about a 'women's legislature'?

Loudmouth, it is wrong to argue that after centuries of men discriminating against women, men can now claim they are the same as women, men and women are different.

An equal rights republic rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with exactly the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.
A cabinet of equal numbers of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the parliament and provides the republic with leadership, while sovereignty resides with a cabinet nominated council of governors-general comprised of equal numbers of distinguished senior women and men.
The States and Territories follow suit, their interests preserved through women's and men's lines of communication, and the courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.
Change is simple, a referendum gives effect, an equitable outcome certain.

Would you expect anything else from a government which took away your law and its protections over housing?
However relevant your solution and Cornflower's may seem to you [and Cornflower], they are of little very relevance to Aboriginal tradition. So the more you promote your solution[s] the more you sideline tradition.
This is not what either of you intend, which is why the equal rights republic comes first after which the housing crisis can be resolved at which time your contributions will no doubt be celebrated as the wisdom of Solomon.

Whistler,

Granted the traditional housing of bark and branches you allude to is cheap and could be supplemented by the occasional cave. Any particular designs you prefer?

http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/housing.shtml

However I doubt it is the sort of housing that is being requested. Your idea of making them wait because the equal rights republic comes first is a bit much wouldn't you agree?

Just being practical and applying some common sense, the wisdom of Solomon is not needed to figure that one out.

Whistler,

Oh, dear. Presuming that your proposed Senate and your proposed House of Reps (why the difference ?) will be deliberating over the same issues, what happens when they come to different resolutions ? Another couple of houses above them, to sort out the mess ? And so on, ad infinitum ?

Or are you suggesting that a women's legislature would deliberate over women's issues, and a men's legislature deliberate over men's issues ? How do you tell them apart ? Why separate them ?

On housing: I wasn't aware that tradition and government-supplied housing went all that well together. One or the other - what would you recommend ?

Personally, I would support Aboriginal people's right to access standard housing in standard ways - i.e. if you own your own land, then you get a bank loan to build your own home on it, without a dollar from government. In the cities, Aboriginal people don't get houses built for them PRECISELY because they don't own any land there. I guess, he that hath shall get, he that hath not shall not, is that it ?

Joe

Whistler,

Meanwhile, Aboriginal people are getting on with business in the urban areas: there are currently more than 25,000 Indigenous university graduates, with record commencements and enrolments (check out DEEWR's higher ed statistics website for first half-year 2009 data) and probably record graduation numbers in 2009, 1500 or more: that's an average of four each day. In the 'settled' areas of Australia, Aboriginal people surely copped a lot worse than anybody currently in the remote communities - would you disagree ? - yet they are picking themselves up and getting on with it, not waiting for perpetual handouts from governments, and blowing their royalty cheques - which urban Aboriginal people can't get.

So, by 2020, there could be 50,000 Aboriginal university graduates - and their families - overwhelmingly in urban areas, while my bet is that people in remote communities will be way-back, still wallowing in self-inflicted despair and violence.

As a long-term self-determinationist going back forty years, I have to conclude that self-determination and the whole Coombs agenda has been such a total disaster that I really don't think that northern communities will recover - apart from individuals, they are stuffed. And it has been all their own doing, there's nobody else to blame: nobody forced them to stop the missionaries' vegetable gardens and orchards and chook-yards, etc., nobody forced them to drink, nobody forced them to stop sending their kids to school: they have done that themselves, nobody else. They will have to wear the consequences of their poor decision-making and THAT is why they will need outside help, for a hell of a long time to come, IF they ever decide up there to want to turn their lives around. It's up to them.

One contributor wants to protect women but sees no merit in empowering women while another is a bloke who reckons he's also a women and appears to have an opinion but no comprehension of how the parliament in Canberra works. They both offer Aborigines housing in the form of a third world laboratory comprised of junk packing boxes foraged from the local tip rather than housing which Aborigines might prefer whatever that might be.
The author of the article under discussion suggests Labor may be complacent in the provision of Aboriginal housing but Labor would appear brainiacs in comparison with what else is available.
A special tax should be struck for citizens who waste taxpayers money with support for solutions which fail to even attempt to win over the hearts and minds of those intended as the subjects of their solutions.
After throwing billions of dollars at a problem over several decades and achieving very little it may come as an awesome revelation that the problem is with the thrower not the throwee, but it's no big deal, could happen to anyone.
As to how many more billions will be wasted on this paternalist nonsense, bring on the referendum.

Cornflour,
I suggest you do a bit more research, there are quite a few documented journal entries (by european explorers) of stone houses. There was a village of stone houses that an explorer did a detailed town map of, and was believed to have housed up to 700 people.

Stone houses were found along the bottom states of Australia, in NSw, Vic, SA and WA.

How is it that you are keen to recommend shipping containers but have not taken the thought to ask why there are only 7 new houses after all this time.

Before you ask, I am not including a web page, as this information is readily available if you are interested, or if you care to look.

Finally, there is men's business and women's business and there are areas that require both men and women to address certain community business.

Why is private home ownership in remote communities so difficult to contemplate ? Surely community councils would have the wits to envisage the allocation, perhaps a long-term lease, of a house block to each resident family (and others who qualify for residence, by affiliation), on which they can build a house which would be theirs to pay for and maintain ? Surely conditions of non-transfer to outsiders could be written into any lease agreement, and other objections overcome easily ?

How would they pay for it, you ask ? A couple of months back, one newspaper story pointed out that, at Mutitjulu for example, each household receives about $ 14,000 per year in royalties from the leasing out of Uluru to the NT Conservation commission. $ 14,000 per year would help to pay off a house - land would be no cost, remember. My imperfect understanding is that Aboriginal people in the NT (and perhaps in the North generally ?) receive mining royalties, amounting to some thousands of dollars per person per year - some body surely can correct me on this.

So why can't those royalty payments (now and into the future) be committed into the future, as re-payments for people's privately-owned houses ? If you like, that future income from royalties be assigned to lending banks in repayment for loans to build those houses ?

In this way, housing (at least in the NT) could be taken out of governments' hands and - in the spirit of self-determination - put back into the hands of the people themselves, the people who are going to be living in those houses, the people who are going to be responsible for their maintenance.

Problem solved.

Joe

Aka,

I take it from the misspelling of Cornflower that you disagree with something I wrote.

If stone houses were built, fine. What is preventing anyone from taking the initiative and doing that now? It is not be feasible for government though.

Apart from that, if you had read my posts it could not escaped your attention that I am concerned that housing has not been completed and millions of dollars of taxpayers money has been wasted.

What solutions do you have?

Cornflower,
the misspelling of your pen name was a result of tired eyes - no hidden agenda.
There have been many solutions put forward but these seem to be studiously ignored, and there have been a lot of problems with converted shipping containers that were supplied for the fly in govt workers. The one that springs to mind was contaminants from the fitouts.

There is a bit of history to consider before asking why there are not stone houses still being built by Aboriginal people. Read up on it, it makes facinating reading.

Aka

The shipping containers are cleaned before being fitted out. However I am interested to know specifically how the designs given in my links posted earlier are in any way deficient compared with other available housing designs that have been contemplated.

It also offers more flexibility in design and the opportunity for indigenous people to get trade skills form assembly, modification, fitout and painting. I should have thought that many would leap at the chance given the opportunity for training, the lack of employment in remote areas and the chronic shortage of housing.

Maybe you are objecting to recycling per se, but a lot of building material is recycled for expensive homes, including old timber from wharves, sleepers from railways and posts from power lines. Warehouses, churches and the like are given new lease of life through conversion to trendy units. Where is the practical difference?

Cornflower,
you seem intent on assuming you know my thoughts.

The contamination was in the materials used in the fit out of shipping containers, I think formaldehyde was a major problem. The heat and enclosed space made it worse.

Under past schemes there are trained people in different communities that are not getting employment building houses - workers are imported into communities, or in the cases where shipping containers are or were used, they were fitted out off site and shipped in complete.

I acknowledge that you are probably trolling, but I will respond to your assumption that I do not care for recycling. My family and I are probably a bit fanatical about recycling materials. I suspect that my husband is fanatical as if he throws anything away it, or puts it into the scrap heap, it has no further possible use.

We have 2 shipping containers on our property, belonging to a friend that he was going to convert. One rusted in a very short time and is unusable. Remember that they are used in a high salt environment and it gets into all the crevices and folded seams. They are built for one trip then they are scrapped, thats why people are trying to find a way to get someone else to use their wasteful rubbish.
Personally I dislike the claustrophobic smallness of the structures.
Why not ask the people who are going to live in the homes what they want and how they could go about doing it a cheaply as possible - I think that there would be some positive and useful ideas.

Oh thats right - no body listens.

Containers can be bought for what ? $ 10,000 for 20ft ones, $ 20,000 for 40ft ones ? Rust-proofed with marine paint, fitted out with windows and doors, rounded out with connecting spaces and verandahs, say three or four connected to each other and hooked up to existing power and sewerage - how much would that cost, all up ? $ 150,000 to $ 200,000 for a 'family' model using three or four 40ft containers ?

And paid for with assigned royalties. So what's the problem ?

Now let's get on to more important issues, like education and employment.

Joe

Aka,

There is formaldehyde in all houses. It is common. Open the windows.

Claustrophobic you say? Have a look at the room size in modern houses and units. Then again, have you never seen the caravans and transportable dwelling enjoyed by many people and paid for out of their own pockets, with weekly site rent still outstanding?

We are talking about low cost, robust, welfare housing. There is no reason why the cost per house should exceed that of the multi-millionaire's canal-front Mac-mansion in a gated community in Sanctuary Cove. Or as is the present case, cost more than a sheep property.

Cornflower,
still sprouting off I see. Open the windows indeed - perhaps it is your eyes that you should be opening - and opening your mind might also be useful.

You make grand assumptions about me and generalise somewhat. Apparently formaldehyde is in new furnishings, timber laminates, plastics etc and dissipate after 10 years or so. 5 years I believe in a new car.

My home and car do not have this problem, they are all too old. I acutally live in an alternate dwelling, a 4 bedroom shed, clad with 2nd hand iron sheeting. My husband and I own our humble home and land outright.

If you are objecting to the prices being claimed for the housing in remote areas I suggest you look at the contractors - not at the people hoping to get a home.

Your sanctimonious questioning as to whether I have seen people living in caravans etc do not reflect well on your reasoning. You actually know very little about me, but I assure you that I have lived in caravans etc that only kept the rain out when it wasn't raining.

Your pitch for shipping containers as public housing is distorted economy as a basic portal frame shed can be made into a very cheap, strong and versatile home for less per sq metre.

You seem to imply that the people are expecting grand homes from this intervention housing scheme. How patronising.

Aka

You have taken personal offence where none was intended.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.