The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dispossession by stealth > Comments

Dispossession by stealth : Comments

By Stephen Hagan, published 25/10/2005

Stephen Hagan asks how impoverished Indigenous Australians will be able to pay for private home ownership.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I think you are drawing a long bow here Stephen. The capacity to leverage land ownership into an income stream, like rent, and to borrow against a portion of it, has been the key to every economic take-off by every community or people that have done so.

All it is doing is providing blackfellas with the capacity to rent money. And you are insulting the intelligence of your own people by suggesting that they could not make the intellectual leap between paying house rent and paying money rent.

Indeed, the great irony of your statistics is that most of the blackfellas who don't currently own a home are paying rent anyway. And many of them haven't bought a home because it could only be done on land other than their own. And, regardless of the perversity of it, this other land must be bought and paid for as well.

So the amounts your loan calculator indicated are not additional outlays that must be found. They are, in most part, amounts they are already paying as rent. It is dead money. And people soon realise that the more mortgage payments they put behind them, the more those payments end up in their own hands.

Rental payments increase with inflation, and that same inflation, over time, makes mortgage payments easier and easier to pay until they don't need to be paid at all. At the moment, the economies of blackfella communities are leaking money badly. And this is the best way to plug the biggest leak. And surprisingly, brewing your own beer and sharing/bartering with your own ones, is the next best.
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 10:24:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to me its a question of who's selling who out.

yeah there'll be white fella's looking for 'opportunity' or 'location', but there's just as many blackfella's there too looking to skim the cream off the top before they give back to their mob.

so who's selling who out, is the black man more justified in ripping off his own mob over the white man who's doing the same thing?

its all good and well to pontificate on this and that, its a different matter to walk the talk and talk it too.
Posted by kalalli, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 8:04:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven
speaking as one who has observed the indigenous land situation in Sarawak and Sabah (formerly British North Borneo) I tend to agree with your assessment on the surface.

"Land Grab"..... Let me outline some happenings. The largest Indigenous group of Sabah are the Dusun/Kadazan, They actually own most of the land. There is no law preventing them from selling it to anyone. Many of them take out large unsustainable loans, and when they cannot repay (the often borrow to finance a 4wd which they figure they will use to take paying passengers) they end up forfeiting their land to the Chinese financier and become his "employed worker" on what was their land. Unless of course he sells it.

Sarawak has a different situation. Native land CANNOT be sold to non natives. So, the ever creative Chinese, looking for land to expand on near the towns, will often MARRY an indigenous person who will hold the land in their name.

Not knowing about the Howard proposal in detail, I think it could be very dangerous for indigenous Aussies who might fall prey to the 'short term gain' approach, if it allowed borrowing, then forfieting, and the Banks would be the new owners of the land, which they can then sell to anyone.

Native land, currently held as communal, should be protected in perpetuity, and if it is turned into private land which can be sold, it should be only available to Indigenous people.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 27 October 2005 6:08:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD

I applaud your erudite and succinct post. Although I am not fully au fait with issues of native title, your comments and Stephen's article make a lot of sense to me.

Native title should remain as such into perpetuity.

Finding solutions to home ownership is difficult - I am having enough trouble coping with my own mortgage at present. On Newstart if I was renting I would receive a rental allowance, however paying a mortgage means no additional assistance at all - this double standard would also effect indigenous aussies.

Thanks

Scout

(formerly Trinity)
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 27 October 2005 9:51:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the orientation of Hagan's comments in this article. The question needs to be asked and answered "how are Indigenous Australians going to pay for a mortgage regardless of value?" Please don't respond with comments like "they get a job like other Australians!!" or words to this effect. The ABS data indicate that we have the highest unemployment levels when compared [proportional] to other Australians. The corollary of this is that the same data indicates that our fulltime permanent employment levels are significantly less than those of other Australians. If you disaggregate the data you will also see that within this range there are few of us who are earning a salary/wage large enough to sustain regular monthly mortgages and have some money left over for basic necessities. I am not claiming that this view is exclusive to the Indigenous community alone, as I am aware that Australians in general are having a tough time paying for their home. But, the PM John Howard's current two star Indigenous performers Messrs Pearson and Mundine seem to propagate the elusive dream that home ownership is possible here and now regardless of whether this is a viable option or not right now. Okay, guys, its time to wake up! Here is a hint. Revise your advocacy to focus upon the PM John Howard to direct government resources to ameliorate private sector investments to create jobs so people can earn enough to eat and pay for a mortgage as well. Stick this in your policy pipe and smoke on it!
Posted by Christopher Davis, Thursday, 27 October 2005 11:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys are assuming that the same circumstances that have produced the house inflation in suburbia will apply under native councils. The main problem of affordability for most of Australia is the influence of the planning staff who drive up the price with excessive regulation and so-called minimum standards that force people into houses they cannot afford. The one thing that A&I Councils can do is inject a bit of common sense into the system so people can actually build the house they can afford and expand it when they can afford. They might even consider building their own. I am, it is slow going but it sure beats barbie world.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 27 October 2005 1:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus, despite regulatory devices used to transact house prices, income remains one of the central drivers of demand and supply regardless of the geographic location. Current dialogue on reforms to the [Indigenous Australian] welfare economy suggests that the onus is upon the poor to pay for mortgages with survival money. This is living in a barbie world. I do not have an arguement with correct use of welfare dollars, i think most caring people would have similar thoughts. It does not necessarily matter where Indigenous Australians live [survive] the fact remains that like everbody else, we should be working, when we are not, and there are reasons for the existence of this parlous state of affairs. Not all of which have to do with the individual not possessing the will to work because of high consumption of grog and other drugs in families and communities. Mind you, I do not support consumption of drugs other than for legitimate reasons and I think it okay for people to consume socially acceptable levels of alcohol. However, there are other issues such as racism that, despite the bland public denials, also impact upon full employment of Indigenous Australians. Even in remote regional locations this can be acheived to a greater degree now than at present. Take a good hard look at the community organisations ie Councils/shires, associations, shops etc and you will find that the majority of the top paying jobs are occupied by non-Indigenous Australians. Have another hard look at so called "community" organisations based in towns and cities, mostly [from my experience] in northern Australia, and you will find the same pattern. Calculate the gross income earned from each of these positions and you will start to think in millions per year. Income that could have been going into Indigenous Australian households to pay for mortgages. No, Perseus this is not only about clever use of resources for home ownership, the picture is much bigger than that.
Posted by Christopher Davis, Thursday, 27 October 2005 4:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do you pay to own a house when you have no job, are on CDEP or Social Security, and the only jobs offered are for non-indigenous people because they have the qualifications that you do not have?
In remote areas, the government provides only those basic services they can get away with providing, and no more. Most of these positions are held by non-indigenous.

Both Christopher and Boaz are more realistic. Stephen is on the right track, this is only a 'slick' way of getting the land, rather than going in 'boots and all' and taking it.
Geli.
Posted by geli, Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:33:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christopher, I agree 100% with your concerns about community groups etc. But no further. My farm is in one of the most "disadvantaged" parts of the country, if dole/pension percentages and income per capita are any guide. But that doesn't mean that it is a depressed economy with serious disadvantage.

It has numerous unauthorised dwellings, upmarket "chook pens", domes, teepees and at least one "designer pigsty". Many would be rated by a council tightarse as "substandard" but most are a credit to the hard work and innovation of the builder, who has often financed the work with little more than dole money.

The district has one of the finest local "mutual benefit networks" where the price of getting your bathroom tiled is a day or two laying deck boards. One tree is cut for house frames and another goes to the portable mill operator. In this way a small amount of funds for purchased material, like second hand roof iron, generates work for half a dozen people. Some of it is "financed" by short term debt, informal agreements between parties to make good at a later date.

Like the Japanese once observed of the Italians, they appear poor but live very well, while we appear rich but live poorly. They also experimented with communal ownership of land a decade or two ago and found it wanting. Most now use a mix of commons and private land because it works best. They only use the attributes of main stream life that suit their circumstances.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 28 October 2005 10:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus

in rural areas, you have nailed the best solution to this I feel.

Its more natural also, and emphasizes the human relationship aspects of mutual self help, rather than the cold dark night of Bank finance.
I would not wish a mortgage on my most despised enemy.

The Italian migrants had a few clues. Came here with nothing, but came often as kinship groups. One person would buy a BIG double story house with lots of rooms, and a few families would stay there, all contributing to the payments, which if you think about it, would reduce dramatically the repayment time and interest load, until one family, then another, could move out and repeat or stand by themselves etc.

Bottom line, the answer is family and kinship, and community.

If I may indulge in a mild vulgarity -SCREW the banks and all they stand for ! Acts chapter 2 is a MUCH better solution. ("No one said what they had was their own, but each gave as he had abundance, and there was none among them who had need") ..

Pericles remined me that this was very close to "Marxist" dogma, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".. but there is a very VERY important difference, for Marx it was forced government policy and collectivization, for the early Christians it was a matter gratitude towards God, and of love for one's fellow man and fellow believer.

The indigenous have a wonderful possession in kinship. I hope they use it for their benefit.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 28 October 2005 6:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have got me wrong, BOAZ-David. I am not anti-mortgage. They are a tool like any other and all tools must first be easy to use and re-use. The bigger they are the harder they are to wield. But like stones, small ones can be thrown a lot further than large ones. But if they are too small then they can be blown off course by wind and have no impact when they hit the target.

A couple on $400/week dole would pay 25% or $100/wk rent in public housing. This would also service a $55,000 mortgage. It would buy nothing in suburbia but with a good network and own labour, could be levered into a $150,000 house on ones own block of land. But it is only possible if you already have the block, as birthright, and as security.

Once you have a few people doing the same thing you end up with a situation where the bartered labour comes close to a full time job. With the value of the exchange calculated at market rates. And one thing is certain, whenever someone goes to all the effort of building their own home, you can be damned sure it will last longer than the ten years mentioned by Noel Pearson.
Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 29 October 2005 1:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus (et al) the barter and trade model has its place in the world, for some [mostly Anglo-Saxon] cultures aspects of this model might be appropriate, hence why, according to you, this seems to be preferred for your neighbourhood. In this context it is not difficult to understand why the notion of reciprocity has appeal. However, Indigenous Australians, particularly Aboriginal [First Nations] people of Australia, our traditional mode of production was premised upon centralised power strctures, men made the big decisions about who got what and when. There are remnants of this mode evident amongst many of our contemporary societies across Australia. I am only acknowledging the presence of this, and, I am also fully supportive of approaches towards equilibrium. We have to deal with [amongst many other issues] our transitional roles as a matter of urgency. On the surface, Pearson's reciprocity seems to be oriented towards the model apparently in use where you live. Yet, his manifesto attempts to juxtapose both modes and present these as the only option. This is all that is offered. Read the subtext or apply discourse analysis to his exhortations, you will find plenty of unreferenced broad statements that lack depth to be considered credible analysis. Those of us Indigenous Australians who are older and wise enough know that there is nothing new here. But, journalist apply a media spin to Pearson's policies and hey presto before you know it people are lining up to buy tickets to the show. Now, concerning full employment raised by me in earlier postings on this article. There have been quite a few reviews of Aboriginal employment and training. In particular, the 'Report of the Committee of review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs' 1985. The central point I make here is this. We want jobs. Regardless of where we are living. Without training and development into full employment our people will continue to swim in the same bucket of welfare fertiliser regardless of "new" policies of so called welfare reforms.
Posted by Christopher Davis, Saturday, 29 October 2005 5:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus
didn't mean to misunderstand.. but personally I'm rather reluctant to bring in the idea of 'mortgage' to Aboriginal life, apart from a protective proviso that Banks cannot forclose and sell the land to anyone but Aboriginals. Once its lost in the morass of EuroEconomic rationalism so much more than just the land will be lost.

I guess I'm more sympathetic to the indigenous connection with the land than many of we white trash, as I've married an indigenous girl from Borneo, and have seen pretty much all the issues first hand, (disposession, manipulation, exploitation etc) and I have a pretty good handle on their feelings. Sadly, many WOULD jump at the short term angle (just like us by the way) without thinking of the long term heritage impact.

Christopher, you wrote very eloquently, and I would truly like to know in very down to earth practical terms how you see the

'training and development into full employment'....happening.

Can you give this a real world context, including a particular geographic community, and propose specific approaches to fulfill this ?

I was encouraged greatly to do a search on your name and find you and others in the Indigenous University. How do you see this fitting in with the master plan of development into full employment ?

What cultural barriers/issues if any, do you see, which might cause problems (or actually promote it) with that ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 30 October 2005 8:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have had the opportunity to live and work in some extremely remote communities, and I foresee many difficulties with this supposed solution. The leaders of some of these Comunnities will, due to their having slightly more education, will reap virtually all of the benefits, whilst the less fortunate will lose out again. The difficulty faced by virtually all remote communities is that very few indigenous residents are provided with all of the benefits of their present situation, the problem is the sheer lack of accountability and responsibility.

Until the Commonwealth and State governments have sufficent intestinal fortitude to insist upon each community council and land council being subject to an annual audit, and to the prosecution of any fraud uncovered by it, the lot of the majority will not improve. The individuals currently entrusted with the running of some communities, have in the past been granted carte blanche to do as they wished, with the reult that until the offenders are punished, why should anyone else act more responsibly.

If this annual audit is not undertaken, the income generated from the will inevitably dissapear down the same fiscal toilet, as so much before it. The majority of the residents in the communities where this occurs will be worse off, having received no benefit, and not having their land into the bargain.

The major problem, particularly in the Pitjanjarra lands is petrol sniffing, I have personally witnessed three and four generations of the same family walking along the road sniffing 'sunshine milk' tins. This problem is huge and will eclipse that of the 'stolen generations' within a decade, whilst the 'Pit' lands will be virtually uninhabited.

This post is not intended to vilify or defame any person in the communities named, they were named simply for demonstration purposes. of course any resemblence to any person, alive or dead, to my comments is strictly unintentional.
Posted by Aaron, Monday, 31 October 2005 2:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue of what happens if a foreclosure takes place can be dealt with by a system of land off-sets. That is, a block within a community area is freeholded as a house block and is therefore morgagable but in the event of a foreclosure, a block of similar value near the boundary of A&I Council land is handed over for sale, preferably to black fellas only. I doubt there would be many prospective outside buyers for foreclosed blocks in the community area due to the outstanding baggage attached to it.

The issue of developing the capital base to fund home building can also be dealt with by off-cummunity blocks. For each community member that needs finance for their own house the Council can create two blocks, one in the community for the resident and another to be rented or sold for enough to partially finance the residents house. There is no shortage of spots on A&I Council land that could make very exclusive weekender villages, with rents to match.

Of course, care would have to be taken to insulate the community from the influx of ignorant, overpaid urban dropkicks. A requirement for them to only build structures that can be put on a truck and shipped out would help. And a system of measures to remind them who owns the place would also help.

Again, the solution is not what is being done but how much is being done and how. An excess of anything is counter productive.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 31 October 2005 10:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Perseus, so nice to see someone who has thought it through to the point you have.

Check out the tirade by Rancitas in the Noel Pearson comments against me, I think he could learn a lot from you.

Such issues will simply end up as political footballs unless thoughtful people think outside the 'labor/liberal' points scoring loop.

Well done.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 31 October 2005 3:26:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See Land Rights and Development Reform in Remote Australia by
J.C. Altman, C. Linkhorn & J.Clarke.

http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/DP/2005_DP276.pdf

It answers many questions raised in this forum as well as dispenses with many of the ill equipped assumptions made (often in good will).
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 31 October 2005 7:13:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ranier
sure, I can wade my way (if I had time) through a volume..but the easy way, in this medium is for you to give some simple points yourself, having knowledge of this text.

It has to amount to a manifesto/agenda ..something which can be easily stated here.

It worries me that the likes of Noel, is castigated by other indegenous people, for reasons I really don't understand. Is it some kind of 'political camp' thing ? Is he the wrong 'party' flavor ?
I honestly don't know but Rancitas seems to suggest so, and you were not far behind. Is it a squabble about funding ? or 'ministries' competing for recognition ? a territory thing ? Maybe even a CLAN or tribal thing ?

There is a lot not being said here, which I think is coming out indirectly.
So, while we are seeking to interact on the topic, please try to summarize for all of our sakes those interests you feel are the most valuable, and whether you see a realistic pathway to advancing Aboriginal interests... your response will be appreciated.

Using Cape York as an example (because the article is about it) will give it a context.

As far as I can see, NP wants aboriginals to get training and Jobs.
I would like to know his thoughts on exactly 'how' "jobs" are going to suddenly come into being ? Maybe u have a different idea ? lets hear it.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 31 October 2005 8:12:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On a lot of remote communities, indigenous people are living on 'family' grounds, which do not belong to an 'individual' person but to a family-group, as compared to non-indigenous. Surrounding land is still tied in with ceremonial and sacred traditions and culture. Some areas are for general use, while others remain forbidden to men or women and children. What about when ceremonial business is on, and dreaming tracks which cut through country which looks unoccupied and available for sale?
Each indigenous group has its own tradition, culture, and stories about the countryside which reflects their customs - so how are you going to decide who owns the block, who can sell it ?

I think you should all be giving more consideration to your ideas before you leap into 'dreamland', and give solutions when you do not not the full content of the problem. How many of you actually live on a community, not just visit one. How many of you are living in an area where traditional culture still plays a part in the lives of people?
Sometimes by trying to assist, one creates greater problems than solutions by not knowing the subject well, do not generalise about communities, or about different indigenous groups - they are not all the same - except when looked at through ignorant eyes.
Posted by geli, Monday, 31 October 2005 10:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David, in reference to the content of your posting Sunday, 30 October 2005 8:05:39 PM, in particular your offer to me to do something about "real world solutions". I am happy to oblige, however, but not at this point in time. I am at the present conducting a workshop on community development dealing with a number of topics namely community regeneration. However, i will reply via a written article to be posted on this site in the near future. You and others can respond to this then. cheers
Posted by Christopher Davis, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 9:07:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact is and always will be that all migrants,from anywhere in this world,who came here due to the colonisation of Australia,are here living on stolen land,and John Howard still has not asked the true owners, if we all can remain here,until that is done,we for sure are guilty of living in a stolen land.
Posted by KAROOSON, Saturday, 11 February 2006 6:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy