Opinion & Commentary
Is more money for Alice Springs town camps the answer?
The federal government is offering $125 million to the Alice Spring town camps in an attempt to resolve the deadlock over negotiations for 40 year housing leases to the Commonwealth. This works out to be around $62,500 for each resident. But is more money the answer?
Holding out on signing the lease agreement is a strategy that appears to be working for the Tangentyere Council, where negotiations were expected to be finalised by the 4 May. Rather than coming in heavy handed and compulsorily acquiring the land the government has offered more money to try and entice the Council to agree to the deal.
There is no doubt that the government wants to avoid the political ramifications associated with compulsory acquisition, but offering more money, is like rewarding a child with a lolly after they have had a tantrum.
By doubling the amount on offer and extending the due date for a decision until 21 May, the government has signalled that they are desperate to clinch the deal.
The federal government’s continual efforts to cajole and bribe the Council seem pointless and insulting. It assumes that they can be won over with the promise of more money and misses the reason why they have been reluctant to sign up to the agreement in the first place.
The fact that there has been a general reluctance to sign over the land to the Commonwealth reflects the history of the town camps and what they symbolise to the Aboriginal people who live there. For many residents the town camps represent their battle for self-determination. From the earliest days of the town camps existence there have been attempts to remove Aboriginal people from the area – with at least four official round-up attempts and forced evacuations.
Yet, Aboriginal people remained and continued to move into town camps around Alice Springs. During the 1970s residents began to argue for the camps to be recognised as legitimate communities. Over time, the Tangentyere Council successfully negotiating special purpose leases for sixteen parcels of land, which were later converted to leases in perpetuity. Today there are eighteen town camps, with each camp having its own incorporated Housing Association to manage a total of 198 houses for approximately 2000 residents.
When funds were given for a building program back in the 1980s it was a bit like giving car keys to a teenager without teaching them how to drive. Many of those put in charge lacked the skills or experience needed to do the job properly and the program consistently went over budget. After only two years, funding for the housing program was severely curtailed. Arguably from then on, money provided by the government has never been enough to adequately meet all the housing needs of the town camps.
There is no doubt that more money for housing is wanted but not according to William Tilmouth, Executive Director of the Tangentyere Council, at the expense of hard won land rights. What the Council wants is an equal say in how the houses are managed and for the newly registered Central Australian Affordable Housing Company not Territory Housing to run the camps.
However, Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin appears reluctant to go down this road. Concessions have been made to have representatives from the Tangentyere Council on the Steering Committee but Macklin has consistently said that the houses will be managed by the Northern Territory Housing Department arguing that this was what was agreed to in July last year when negotiations for the leasing agreement began.
Instead of focussing on public housing as the only solution for the housing crisis– Macklin should try other options such as encouraging sub-leases for individual ownership of land in the town camps so that those residents who want to become homeowners can.
Research by Indigenous Business Australia last year found that homeowners’ income levels increased in the years after they purchased their homes. The researchers noted: ‘A desire to make improvements to their homes pushed many new Indigenous homeowners to seek higher incomes.’ The study also found that homeowners were less likely to allow their extended family members to stay for long periods and, as a consequence, overcrowding in privately owned properties was rare.
In contrast, there are few incentives for public housing tenants to take responsibility for their dwellings and to care and maintain the houses they occupy. History has shown that simply sinking more money into public housing has not improved living standards in most Indigenous communities. Only when they feel a sense of ownership will people take responsibility and pride in their houses.
Part of the delay in signing the lease can be attributed to the government’s reluctance to view Aborigines as responsible people. If the government continues to treat them as children – or unruly teenagers who can’t be trusted, then they will continue to act that way. What teenager would willingly hand back the car keys they have been given?
Sara Hudson is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her report From Rhetoric to Reality: Can 99-year Leases Lead to Homeownership for Indigenous Communities? was published by CIS in March.
