"Historically schemes which saw public houses transferred to Indigenous ownership have failed because they did not lead to a change in behaviour and an increased sense of responsibility. When people are given some choice and a degree of control over the construction of their house, they feel a greater sense of ownership than if the houses are simply given to them"

Yeah well - the "culture" ( that word that the PC set keeps bleating when it suits but as soon as it doesn't the "racism" word comes out) of these people is NOT one of "permanent" housing. They were nomadic hunter gatherers who constructed rudimentry shelters. Today in a stage of transition there are those still coming to terms with the concept of solid structures and staying put (and the shift in behaviour this requires - eg. upkeep, waste management), those who are no more than neanderthal vandals and everyone in between.

Then again there are those who embrace contempory society and lead ordinary productive lives within wider communities - but we don't hear much about these 'aboriginals' because they are no longer 'victims'.

Perhaps the solution is to construct very large sheds, one end enclosed with (industrial strength)kitchen and bathroom facilities and the rest of the space left bare so that the occupants can 'camp' have their fires etc. One for every family group as determined by the community.

If smaller 'nuclear' families wish to upgrade to whitey housing, let that be negotiable. If houses get wrecked - don't replace them. Let the culprits live under the shed until they can rebuild at own expense.

Hey now - that would a good and fair solution for every one who abuses the taxpayer funded public housing scheme. Bring it on! One such facility in every suburb .... Great for the homeless as well.

B@$t@&d Devine_msm I was halfway through my post when I read yours. I would have been up for plagueism. Though I would have be a little less PC or inappropriate. That course wasn't available (or thought of)when I went to school.
We do have the same problem with the ferals in rented properties, as seen on Current Affairs programs, as well. These people need to be forcably re educated.

when you don't work to pay for something you rarely respect it. That is largely why aboriginal housing is often trashed. I have seen this first hand many times over. Whether it is setting up aid agency 420 in order to allow people to spend their pay (dole money) on alcohol or giving new 4wd's only to be abandoned the principle remains the same. There is in fact little despair when prison is often a more pleasant place than the house you live in has been trashed and food is scarce because money has been blown. As long as we keep playing pc games in order to grandstand before the inept UN throwing untold more billions won't fix the housing problem. Generally the workers among the indigenous respect things like any other workers. Unfortunately many family members don't. Making vandal proof housing is just a challenge to many to work out how they can destroy them especially when you are nomadic and have intention of staying only as long as the current relationship last.

No truer words that what Sue finishes with:

'It is time to abandon the failed policies of the past and try something new.' Don't hold your breath with a Government with more spin than any other for a long long time.

Runner's points are pretty bang-on. Goodwill, optimism and substance moderation helps most people to respect community assets. However, some unfortunate folk just can't help but foul everybody's nest. For them, the responsibility of personal ownership, provided by savings from their own industry, may be the best answer.

At the rate we spend money on committees, flying everyone with an opinion around the country, reporting, more meetings and on and on the gravy train goes with nothing at all resembling a solution coming out.

We could just get Marriott or Hilton to build big 5-Star hotels here and there, have the indigenous ones move in and be waited on hand and foot, board and lodging for free.

While another hotel is built next door to move into every few years as the old one is trashed and needs refurbishment.

So housing and employment will be created.

let's face it, we'll never get out of the current cycle of trying to get indigenous people to "become responsible" by our measurements, so if we really want to look after them - why not give this a go.

At least all the hand wringing about the conditions they live in will stop.

Also, the gravy train stops and the money gets spent, and accounted for, wisely.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it's just my opinion.

You people just don't see the reasons behind why these projects fail.
The indig people have only a couple of generations of urban living.
They are embedded in culture that that did not require a permanent house.
The only indig that do reasonably well are the crossbreads, and the more the better.
The true indig is as far away as you can get from urban life.
They just don't understand that you have got to go to work to make a living.
As i have said before the only hope for the young people is separation from their elders.
You can not live an indig lifestyle and be an urban dweller at the same time.
All of this so called help has got is booze drugs petrol and paint can sniffers.
It's all about their culture
To help a real indig is to destroy their culture.

Sarah

This is not very good. And the responses are very poor. All comment and no fact. I suggest you get out in the bush, look around, talk to people, spend some time, get involved. Give up the rhetoric and the ideology - its bad for your health

Zelig.I suggest you get out in the bush, look around, talk to people, spend some time, get involved.

Strange but that's exactly what I have done all my life until recently. That's why I agree whole heartedly with all the posts so far. PC & appropriatism is what is keeping our indiginious people where they are. You can't just say, "this is what needs to happen,X, X, X." No it has to be said in such a way that nobody knows what anybody is getting at. The shuckesters move in & "aquire" most of the money & the rest is spent having meetings about how it all should be worded so nobody can make any sense out it it all.

I doubt wheather you have ever been off the tar Zelig. Either that or your one of the bleeding hearts that cry over everything all the time just to show everybody how empathic you are, but really don't have a clue.

Gee a lot of you posters are talking like you are blind, not able to read. A bit dumb too because Indigenous Australians survived all the rough stuff associated early colonisation, some of which are proposed here. Talk about doing the same thing and expecting a different result being madness.

Do any of you need a hand to cut some eye holes in the hoods of your white sheets.

The problem has very little to do with Aboriginality, and everything to do with remoteness. If I lived on the dole 500km from the nearest tradesperson, my house would soon be a shambles too.

As I have suggested before, the solution is to draw circles of 100km radius around urban centres and say: "If you live inside these circles we will do our best to look after you. If you live outside them, you are on your own."

If Aboriginals have religious reasons for living elsewhere, that's fine, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill, any more than they should pay for North Shore matrons to be driven to service at St. Andrews, or fund a synagogue for the Jewish community in West Woop Woop. Believers should indulge their religious beliefs with their own money, not mine.

As usual Aka is full of scorn and bile and racist remarks about white hoods, trying to suppress any debate.

Got any ideas for how this can be solved Aka, or is the status quo just fine with you?

You want something, you destroy it and want more, and of course the government has to comply.

I know we expect too much when we expect anyone to be grateful of actually look after what has been demanded and given at great cost to the taxpayer when it comes to this topic.

All the taxpayer gets is finger wagging about what happened in the early days of colonization, hello it's 2009.

Are you part of the aboriginal industry,is that why you want things to stay the same and have no contribution?

Jon J you write

'The problem has very little to do with Aboriginality, and everything to do with remoteness. '

Sorry you are wrong. Much of it has to do with attitude towards European culture and working for things being a dirty word. I have met numerous aboriginals who live within 100 kilometres of a regional centre and have never had any intention of working. We now also have a generation of whites (mainly children of druggies) who also think the tax payer owes them everything.

rpg,
its kind of funny that you don't like my sense of humour. I think its odd that you can see a 'race' in a white sheet or hood, it is merely a piece of cloth.

In your earlier post i think you almost got a handle on things when you talked about all the money being wasted flying people around and paying high priced consultants, but then you kind of lost it. You see the folk that have had their snouts in the Indigenous housing trough are not Indigenous Australians. So there fore the rest of your arguement sort of doesnt gel.

I am not responsible for trying to educate you,so I don't see why you expect it, and there is sufficient info on the net and in libraries if you are interested.

The provision of clean water, nutritious food, basic human rights, secure shelter, education, health care, law and orde are expected by Australian citizens. I would suggest at the very least the first 3 of these are not being provided so lets start there and build on it.

I note you don't like to think of colonisation and see it as a past event - it is not.
If you insist on whinging about taxpayers paying, despite all Australians paying tax, you might want to think of the money as 'conscience money' or 'land rent'.

Sara,

Your article was about everything but policy. Criticizes everything but old liberal policy how about developing an actual policy goodness knows they could do with one or 10.Or maybe explain the one you apparently favour.
Like the Liberal Party we know your organizations values "to gain power".
In an essay at uni this would get 'T for try again or fail'.

PS a bit of real experience/understanding of the issues would help too.

Jayb

I am not sure if you want to enter into a competition about who has been around the bush the most. I can assure you I have spent a lot of time 'off the tar' and still do, and that I am no bleeding heart. However I dont go along with all the self indulgent stuff about PC etc. It is always easy to blame others and I suupect that is what you are doing. PC is just another form of ideology and I think there is a fair bit of that in a number of the comments. My suggestion is sit back, cool down and try to be objective and dispassionate. The situation of Aboriginal communitiies is varied - there is no one comment or description that fits all situations. My problem with the original article is that it is more comment than fact, more rhetoric than reality.

aka. You see the folk that have had their snouts in the Indigenous housing trough are not Indigenous Australians.

Oh! you are so wrong. I come from the Burdekin originally & lived in Townsville for most of my life. I've travelled extensively throughout the north of Australia. Believe me when I say the people who run the Aboriginal organizations rip them of something shocking. When they are found out & the organization is disbanded. The same people run the new organization that is set up & so the ripoff process starts all over again. I could name names but that would only get me sued but everyone in the north knows who they are. Because of Political Correctness if anything is said or suggested then the person is automaticaly labeled racist. Hint "Palm Island."+ A grub wouldn't live there, but it's whities fault for the holes in the walls, grafitti, rubbish, etc, not theirs, of course...

Make the houses out of shipping containers. Quick and cheap to transport and the locals can decide the design and layouts.

Train the local men and women to use the few simple tools needed to create windows and so on. Just need a few air tools. Create a central facilities where needed by clans and so on.

Here are some possibilities:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/8/twelve-amazing-shipping-container-houses.html

Innovation and flexibility are needed and what better solution is there to provide quick, durable, low cost, termite proof, cyclone proof housing that the owners can modify to their needs?

Next solution would be to put an 1800mm high chain wire fence in with lockable gates where families are bothered by long grassers - who in some areas are responsible for a lot of the destruction and assaults.

Aka I'll ignore the rest of your silly joke cum rant, clearly we don't share your sense of humor.

This is interesting though - the sense of entitlement you feel when you refer to 'conscience money' or 'land rent', when I "whinge" about taxpayers money.

Do you think taxpayers are merely there to prop up the failed state that is indigenous affairs?

Do you think taxpayers are not entitled to question what their money is used for - this, of course, is a rhetorical question as you have already shown this is exactly what you think.

When my parents came here in the late 40's from Europe as displaced persons, they were not told about the "land rent or conscience money" entitled to the indigenous ones forever.

One day the indigenous people will have to either get over the fact this land was settled by Europeans and continues to fill up with people from every nation in the world, or become museum exhibits.

They cannot fend for themselves and are at the mercy of good will from the government, which is the people of Australia's will.

We care, and we try - yet all we get is ongoing rants like yours, with absolutely no hint of what might solve the awful dilemma.

Rather than constantly coming up with the adversarial tone, try some "reconciliation", you know that means both parties have to come to the table to find agreement, not just one party coming to find out how much the other wants in "land rent and conscience money" as you do.

You see it as a one way street, your way, the "land rent and conscience money" way, have you learned nothing? This problem will not be reconciled till attitudes like that die out.

Perceptive and heartfelt article, Sara,

Is there anywhere in the world where a public housing authority builds and rents out houses on land that it doesn't control (i.e. own or lease) ? And, in this case, who would be living in those houses (on land so brutally torn from the hands of Aboriginal people) but Aboriginal people ?

As for perpetual rent: urban Aboriginal people (the majority of the Aboriginal population) don't have access to land, they are not paid royalties, and mostly they have picked themselves up and are just getting on with living in a modern society, but I don't hear anybody suggesting that they should get payouts in lieu of land, in fact, they don't appear to be getting much at all that other Australians don't get. They pay their taxes, buy their houses and get on with it.

Meanwhile, at least twenty five thousand Indigenous people have graduated from universities across Australia - it will be fifty thousand by 2020. Commencement, enrolments and graduations at degree- and post-graduate-levels are at all-time records. Urban women have made enormous efforts and today, one in every seven is a graduate.

If 'communities' ever create jobs for them, many of those graduates would be willing to contribute, as long as 'community' members were willing to get the necessary skills and do the same. Urban people have done it - why can't others ? Why should anybody feel particularly sorry for them forever ?

Joe

Loudmouth,
"If 'communities' ever create jobs for them, many of those graduates would be willing to contribute, as long as 'community' members were willing to get the necessary skills and do the same. Urban people have done it - why can't others ? Why should anybody feel particularly sorry for them forever ?"

We should not have to create jobs for them. We should just allow them to do the work demanded on thier homelands. For eg I actually just had a visitor who is from Torres Strait and he was saying they want independance because the area makes millions in fishing but the license is awarded to non Islanders. He said the licenses covers almost all northern and eastern Australia. I think the same for mining. We give them some land rights but we steal economic rights. We attach conditon, laws, interfere and say look at all this money we waste. How can there be organic job growth with so many laws, environmental barriers and preference for corporate exploitation? We never say look how much money we make from stealing from this area. I would love to see Australia break up, it is not one country at heart. Many areas could not only be self sufficient but very wealthy sans the southern fascist plunderers.

Jon J
"The problem has very little to do with Aboriginality, and everything to do with remoteness. If I lived on the dole 500km from the nearest tradesperson, my house would soon be a shambles too."

Yes, true. Oh honey just popping down to Bunnings. New definition of gone walkabout.

To the Missus,

Who's this 'we' and 'them', 'we give', etc. ? What's with this 'allowing 'them' ' ?!?

Concerning mining on Aboriginal lands, my understanding is that royalties are paid into a fund that is distributed by the Land Councils to communities: perhaps I'm wrong. I remember one student in Adelaide down from the NT, back in the eighties, who was getting one thousand dollars every three months from her royalty entitlements (in addition to Study Grant and family benefits), in the days when a full lecturer salary was $ 20-25,000 p.a. Southern Indigenous students were a bit envious.

Few of those southerners came from a homeland, by the way, or even from a rural community. That's how it still is.

Joe

Sarah makes one critical error in an otherwise reasonable treatment of the issue of encouraging private home ownership opportunity.

Indigenous housing bodies are not and never were public housing. that was one of the problems. they were incorproated bodies who were gifted freehold houses on their own land. However, erroneous assumptions that these were 'public' responsibilites meant that there were continued demands for Government funding for maintenance of houses the public didn't own and had no control of, while the owners (the IHCs) failed (in the main) to collect rent and enforce tenancy obligations. At the very least, making sure that publicly funded housing was iThe average rentwas around $30pw an actual collections were far lower again and the rest of the welfare check contributed to some of the dysfunctions. No wonder they were failing.

Indeed public housing at least brought the tenancy arrangements into line with other public tenants. I suspect the delay in building is, in part, because the landowners will not provide the tenure security over the land. that is, they want free houses that others have to maintain while they don't look after them.

Lets not make the mistake that indigenous people don't want private ownership. Indeed, the 'remote-centric' emphasis in policy overlooks that most indigenous peopel lives in regional and coastal cities and buy and rent homes just like everybody else. That;s why ARIA sought to shift money from mainstream communities where normal housing access existed, to remote townships where public housing was an improvement.

I suspect the issue in remote towns is less about choice in buildng and more about a deep seated cultural addiction to welfare housing models that didn't work - along with hopeless lnd tenure that disenfranchises mostaboriginal people who live there.

If white people lived with the same housing structures average individual wealth would be almost $0, as the major compoent in individual welath reamins the family home.

If you search the abc online news for Indigenous housing you will find lots of info to back up that non-indigenous players are getting their snout full before the funding even hits the ground.

Check out http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/09/2737743.htm for details on where the funding goes for housing.

To debunk the myth of 'free housing' check this news article out http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/21/2631772.htm
The people living in tin sheds, some up to 10 people in one dwelling, are paying $25 EACH per fornight, effectively a tin shed with no facilities is returning the govt $250 a fortnight. Hardly free.

AKA, you need to test your assertions about housing. i am not sure if your post was about my post, but here goes anyway.

Firstly, in the former model I discussed the Government didn't get any funds at all - somebody else did, but they didn't maintain the housing they owned. The houses were, indeed, gifted free to the owner.

Secondly, public housing charges a percentage of income of the tenants. Rarely are all the people in these houses tenants (that's the point) and humbug is rife. If the ten people include children of couse they are not gettng income so no percenage would apply. So the simplistic 10 x $25 simply doesn't hold true. It is more likely to be a percentage of income of he nominated tenants. I would be surprised if 10 adults were in fact paying.

thirdly. Most public authorities allow for remissions for below standard houses.

Indeed, if there were land tenure reforms these people could actually buy/leaseback or rent buy alternative housing. Just as importantly, if NT housing is responsible, and people are paying rent, then they shoudl be held to account.

We need to stop making excuses as the Minister in the ABC story is. He is part of the Executive of his own Government. He could stop it tomorrow if he wanted to (they are a minoity Government) - but he plays the victim card and grandstands instead while his Government waste $700 million per year in extra GST they get specifically in respect of Indigenous disadvantage even before the lions share of the ARIA housing funds.