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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.