Indigenous Australians

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The recent Closing the Gap <a href="https://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/" target="_blank">report</a> has highlighted the lack of progress in Indigenous affairs since the apology to the Stolen Generations a decade ago. Although not a specific target, safe, appropriate and affordable housing is acknowledged to be a fundamental building block for improving the well-being of Aboriginal people and closing the gap on many of the target indicators. For these reasons, it is unfortunate to learn the Commonwealth may be seeking to withdraw its support for remote Indigenous housing programs.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-and-policy-bulletins/216" target="_blank">Our research</a> and that of others provides evidence these programs are producing significant improvements. A sustained Commonwealth commitment to remote housing programs is essential for closing the gap.
Crowding and inadequate housing are linked to poor physical and mental health. They result in higher rates of infectious diseases such as rheumatic fever and eye and ear infections, emotional stress and conflict in the home.
<a href="http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/Publications/housing-health.pdf" target="_blank">A New South Wales study</a> demonstrated that in communities whose housing was improved, the rate of hospital admissions for infectious diseases was 40% less than in communities where no housing improvements had taken place. Other research has shown that poor housing has negative impacts on educational and employment outcomes.
Job is only half done
The central role of housing in Closing the Gap was acknowledged in 2007 when the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) established a 10-year A$5.5 billion remote Indigenous building and refurbishment program. This aimed to bring living standards in remote Indigenous communities to the same standards as comparable locations elsewhere, and to improve the management and maintenance of houses.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206712/original/file-20180216-131006-15s0ul7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A Commonwealth review found houses like this one built under the remote housing program had improved conditions in Indigenous communities. Author provided
Last October, a federal government review of the remote Indigenous housing program found crowding has been reduced and housing management is more consistent and effective. But the job remains half done. Importantly, levels of household crowding (no more than two persons per bedroom) in remote communities are still around 37%.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-and-policy-bulletins/216" target="_blank">Our research</a> tells a similar story. Crowding remains high in some locations. There are problems of fairness and efficiency in the application of mainstream rent settings. There are also questions about the most effective model of housing delivery and who should be responsible for it.
However, in the five communities we examined in three states, we found the program had led to significant improvements on a range of indicators. This was particularly evident when the housing was managed by an Indigenous housing provider that employed Indigenous people and provided a culturally adaptive service.
The complexities of remote settings mean that for these gains to be maintained and continued, the Commonwealth needs to maintain its commitment. Delivering and maintaining housing in remote locations is costly, so subsidies will be needed in most regions.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206711/original/file-20180216-131024-1rywae9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206711/original/file-20180216-131024-1rywae9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
On the road to the APY Lands in South Australia, a remote region where the costs of providing and maintaining housing require subsidies. Author provided
Commonwealth oversight is also essential to ensure appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place. Monitoring and quality assurance procedures are needed to maintain standards.
The building and refurbishment program was revised and renegotiated with the states and the Northern Territory in 2016. That program ends this June. To date, there has been no indication of what will replace it.
Most worrying are reports that Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland have been advised that remote Indigenous housing is a state responsibility and that Commonwealth funding may end when the current program ends. Even in the Northern Territory, which had seemed quarantined from these developments because of the extent of the housing crisis in remote communities there, there are signs that the Commonwealth may withdraw its commitment to addressing this.
If this is true, it’s likely the political commitment to improvement will wane, investment will decline and gains in housing standards will reverse.
At risk of losing hard-won gains
In 10 or 20 years’ time, we might once again be looking at a housing crisis in remote Indigenous communities.
To avoid such a policy failure – and its implications for Indigenous well-being – it’s time for governments to recognise that real progress can only be made if they stop turning Indigenous programs off after they have been positively evaluated. They need to accept that improvements will be slow and what’s needed is incremental, consistent and preferably bipartisan commitment over the medium to long term.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206714/original/file-20180216-130997-5b4sr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206714/original/file-20180216-130997-5b4sr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Improvements have been delivered to remote communities, like this playground in the East Kimberley region, but much work remains to be done. Author provided
Current arrangements for remote Indigenous housing are not perfect, but our work suggests that, at this stage, a hybrid model is likely to be most effective. This is one that involves a partnership between state housing departments and knowledgeable, preferably Indigenous, third-party providers delivering a culturally appropriate service.
There are also opportunities to explore new models of housing delivery. These could leverage off the Indigenous estate and engage with the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community housing sector. Any model should contribute to the sustainability of communities by maximising opportunities for local partnerships and employment for local Indigenous people.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91835/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Without ongoing Commonwealth engagement and investment, remote Indigenous housing policy risks remaining stuck in a depressing cycle of government neglect, public crisis, too-rapid policy development and change, and a return to failure. It will become yet another sorry example of political agendas obstructing good policy.
Daphne Habibis, Associate Professor, University of Tasmania
Peter Phibbs, Director, Henry Halloran Trust, University of Sydney
Rhonda Phillips, Adjunct Research Fellow, Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR), The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-wont-close-the-gap-if-the-commonwealth-cuts-off-indigenous-housing-support-91835" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Main photo: A remote community in the Cape York region of Queensland. Author provided
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

We won't close the gap if the Commonwealth cuts off Indigenous housing support

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The return of land to Indigenous custodians in Australia over the past 20 years is a dramatic shift in Australian land tenure and management. Yet this revolution has, as yet, barely touched urban Australia.
Public and policy discussion about the future of urban Australia is framed as if Indigenous people were not present, and as if cities were not built on Aboriginal land. 
What would it take to think about cities as spaces where Indigenous and non-Indigenous systems, knowledge and values co-exist? What would recognising such co-existence mean for how the future of cities is decided?
<h2>Property and racial stereotypes</h2>
As in other urbanised nations, Australian cities are one of the main engine rooms of the national economy. Wealth creation is possible because of the system of private property rights that makes cities what they are today. 
Property shapes how cities function, how they look and how we live in them. And property fragments urban environments. It chops up the landscape with titles, fences, investment portfolios, development options and planning zones. 
In places like Australia, that system of property is imposed on Indigenous lands. It entrenches non-Indigenous property rights and excludes the people from whom the land was stolen. 
Most importantly, property works against the recognition that cities, too, are Indigenous places. It is a first important reason why the revolution in land titling and management has not penetrated Australian cities.
<h2>Urban areas off limits to land rights</h2>
While more than 30% of the continent has been returned to Indigenous control, almost none of that land is in urban areas. 
In contrast to Canada and New Zealand, it is exceptionally difficult for Indigenous people to gain access to land in urban Australia. There are few opportunities for land grants, and limited chance of success in native title, as recent research shows.
A second reason is racial stereotypes. Indigenous values are able to be acknowledged in natural but not in built environments. 
Places like Kakadu, Uluru and Budj Bim are where non-Indigenous Australia is willing to value traditional custodians’ contribution, knowledge and practice. Yet Aboriginal values in the built environment are virtually invisible. 
These racial stereotypes have been held a long time. They cast Indigenous people in urban environments as “too modern” to make legitimate claims. And they cast urban environments as too modified for ongoing Indigenous cultural connection. 
In jointly managed national parks, Indigenous majorities on boards of management are now a well-established approach. Yet the idea of having Indigenous people as majority decision-makers over urban development options or metropolitan-scale strategic planning is largely unthinkable. 
This is not an Indigenous problem. It is a problem of non-Indigenous racial stereotypes and the power of property rights.
<h2>Cities are political spaces of co-existence</h2>
Cities are nonetheless places where tensions simmer about recognition, reconciliation and land justice. The Tent Embassy in Canberra is perhaps the most symbolic and is an important model for other Aboriginal actions that assert sovereignty such as in Redfern, Perth, Brisbane and during Melbourne’s “Stolenwealth Games”.
The case is similar in other countries. In Vancouver, First Nations peoples issued the City of Vancouver with an eviction notice asserting unlawful occupation of their lands. The action came after the city council threatened to forcefully remove people, many of them Aboriginal, living in a homeless camp in a city park. 
In Honolulu’s Kaka’ako district, there is a direct relationship between the number of native Hawaiians sleeping rough under tarps and the rapid gentrification of their lands by upscale housing developments. 
Canada is also the place where we find some interesting examples of urban co-existence between Indigenous peoples and settler governments. The small city of Iqaluit was declared the capital of the Nunuvat territory in 1999, one of many dimensions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Iqaluit is a multicultural town under an admittedly constrained form of Inuit self-governance.
In 2014, Vancouver City Council declared the Year of Reconciliation. It passed a formal declaration acknowledging that the city was:
"… founded on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and that these territories were never ceded through treaty, war or surrender."
It is more than ironic that this is the same council that sought to remove the homeless camp. 
<h2>On the horizon 
</h2>
In Australia, too, some new opportunities signal possibilities for meaningful co-existence in cities. The settlement of the Noongar claim in southwest Western Australia heralds important opportunities for Noongar access to land and involvement in urban governance in the Perth metropolitan area and beyond.
Earlier this year, the Queensland parliament passed new planning legislation. It makes “valuing, protecting and promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge, culture and tradition” a central purpose of planning.
In Victoria, a recent review of Aboriginal heritage legislation has strengthened the role and powers of traditional custodians in the protection and ownership of their cultural heritage. It makes their role in urban development increasingly important.
How any of these opportunities unfold will depend on the willingness of non-Indigenous systems of urban governance and management to shift over. Allowing genuine space for Indigenous knowledge, law and cultural perspectives on urban decision-making would surely be significant to achieving a meaningful co-existence in cities.
<h2>Imagining different urban futures</h2>
Let’s imagine how urban Australia might be different. 
Imagine if caring for country principles were at the heart of the urban development system. Imagine if the planning and design of public space recognised these are some of the only places that Aboriginal people can access a land base in the city.
Imagine if we used density and zoning tools to provide reparation for land theft and to redistribute wealth. Imagine if mainstream urban planning processes recognised continuing co-existing Indigenous methods of land governance. Imagine if we did urban development in a way that honours Indigenous histories, knowledge and relationships with those places.
Wouldn’t that be a meaningful co-existence worth striving for in Australian cities?
Libby Porter is vice-chancellor's principal research fellow and Associate Professor, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/libby-porter-300183" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Indigenous Australians

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Indigenous Australians

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News