I agree with some of what Foxy has said and with a lot that Moondoggy has said.

This is such a complex topic.

Maybe if the migaloos posting here could give us some background information about their first hand experience with murri housing issues then we may better understand some of the root causes of this problem.

As a Migloo, which translates to White Brother, in North Queensland Murri Talk, I have seen the state of houses built in a manner that is just not suitable to the social conditions of the township in which they are built.

Anyone who passed through Doomagee about twenty years ago, would have seen the exposed skeletons of houses built of fibro cement. Every panel was smashed and the bones were exposed. Wooden floors burn well on a cold night, and were taken up, piled in the middle of the room on the earthen floor, and burned. Windows were punched out.

The solution was to build cement block houses, with concrete floors, and shutters insread of windows. Hard on the fists to punch concrete blocks. I am aware that a clever architect built and designed some suitable housing for some Northern Territory communities. The floors were slatted, so that on hot nights a breeze could flow upwards through the house. The house was raised so water would not flow through during the big wet seasons experienced in Northern Australia. And instead of windows, big shutters were made that could be propped open on hot nights, instead of windows, both keeping the rain out, and providing ventilation.

I haven’t been in the Territory for over ten years, so I don’t know what has happened since. The Territory is an interesting place, with differing ethnic groups, and different reactions in different places. Some aboriginal Australians are model tenants and home owners, but some white people are awful tenants too, and the tenant from hell, is an urban legend.

Part of the problem is grog. I have seen aboriginal women who could give a mouse a lesson in keeping quiet when sober, get drunk, and make enough noise to awaken the dead, all night long. Much of the damage occurs when people get drunk, and some communities have voted themselves dry. It is a complex problem with no simple answers except probably better education in the longer term

Well it looks as though examinator is not going to answer my questions so here they are again for all comers:

Why are some self-managing communities safe and healthy places for women and children (yes, for men too) yet others are not? Why are they different and who makes it so?

Just adding some comment for examinator who thought that long houses (as in PNG) are a solution, many of the problems of alcohol, overcrowding, violence and sexual molestation of minors comes from the itinerant longrassers who take advantage of 'hospitality' through kinship. That is why some communities that have suffered this problem have asked for security in the shape of high chainwire fences with gates to lock shut at night.

Of course you could have long houses for such itinerants but then you encounter the problems that they cannot be located near the houses of the resident community; how to keep order in the long houses, especially at night and who will clean them? Finally, it is impossible to provide enough houses (long or otherwise) to cope with the almost random movement of longrassers.

Housing isn't the first problem. The first priority is to ensure law and order, the next is to ensure that guvvy money is used for the purposes for which it was approved. There are many reports and recommendations of the federal government's own auditor (ANAO), which were tabled in parliament and yet somehow escape mention when indigenous policy is being considered.

One day, hopefully soon, it will not be seen as racist to tell the Truth about problems like this.
Not racist to cry with joy at Rudd's sorry speach yet understand accountability and education are a must for some of these folk.
I have seen new homes burnt down, floors burnt as fire wood, homes that never have lawns mown.
Never get cleaned or windows smashed replaced.
One day we will not shrink and hide in a corner when the issue some know no better is bought up.
No I do not want another stolen generation, but I do want any child any color to have a chance.
I want better housing for every one who lives in slums.
And I want it soon, but I want it to stay clean tidy and habitable, if that makes me racist?
Tell my nephews and nieces who live in these conditions and face a life no better than their grand parents.
They too dream of a better life.

Cornflower,
Many apologies I didn't have a ready answer and needed some time to think about it.
BtW I am NOT an expert just some one who grew up in both mentalities. Some times I fit neither properly.
The best that I can come up with is that those successful communities is that it is an individual thing i.e. the balance is right.
I am never in favour of the irksome one size fits nobody attitude of generalisation.

Indigenous cultures are in my opinion are finely balanced entities that rely on the tight interrelationship between individuals and the way THE culture works.
As I've said before it is the the 'mass' cultures (MC) that almost mandate emphasis on the individual as opposed to the society. It is also an observation that MC's are unique in that they tend to segment their realities i.e. spiritual, cultural, religion etc. this means they are able to function if one of these elements are non- functioning.
My experience tells me that indigenous cultures seem to work best in small numbers where every individual has a place in the whole.
Small group cultures are a bit like a Rolf Harris painting in which the subject wasn't clear until the last stroke. Take any one away and the whole picture loses focus.

These cultures have controls (taboos) and hidden pressure valves. Remove some elements and you potentially remove the pressure valves, individuals' focus and or controls.
In that context those communities you mention are in balance and therefore work. The issue in my mind is how resilient it is to a key member being removed from the equation due to any number of external influences.

The long house I referred to was because long houses were endemic to the area.
The Adelaide example involved a central courtyard communal cooking area with surrounding bedrooms 8 from memory.

Then again my important point is that each community should have THEIR OWN SOLUTION not some bureaucratic instant sausage machine solution.
The key issue is generalisation is the poison.
Does this help?

Examinator:
"Now given that nature(evolution) devolves(eliminates) unnecessary features why then are there not lessor IQ differences?
what can we draw?
a. Logically then the IQ (smarts etc) are needed/used by the 'primitives'. (their cultures don't inhibit their humanity intelligence empathy etc.)"

I made no reference to IQ or intelligence. You may have believed that this was implied but it wasn't. Furthermore I stated "When there is a large scale attitudinal change within the aboriginal population their situation will rapidly improve". This is inconsistent with any belief in an IQ deficiency.

Examinator:
"Can I humbly suggest that perhaps their culture better suit the circumstances of their natural state"

I aggree with that. That is my point. The problem is that the natural state in which their culture evolved has disappeared. The world has changed around them and it's a case of adapt and move forward with rest of the country i.e. the "mainstream", or wallow around indefinitely going nowhere.