Opinion & Commentary
Aborigines shut out on home front
Among the multitude of policy failures in Aboriginal communities, public housing is poorly designed and constructed, with few of the amenities that most Australians take for granted.
The Rudd government has talked about promoting homeownership and ‘closing the gap,’ but this is more rhetoric than reality. Until land tenure issues are addressed, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders will have little choice but to continue subsisting in public housing.
During the last 30 years, billions of dollars have gone into building new public houses – but not into maintaining them. Few houses last more than ten years before they need to be replaced.
This has created a vicious cycle of unmet need. Current construction rates can’t keep up with demand. As a result there is a chronic shortage of housing in most Indigenous communities. Some houses have as many as 35 people under one roof. Not surprisingly such living conditions increase the risk of infectious diseases and infections.
The continual failure of government programs to improve the living conditions of those in remote indigenous communities through public housing suggests that alternative options need to be considered.
In marked contrast to public housing, private home ownership provides many benefits and responsibilities. Research shows that having a home may provide the incentive to get a job, stay in employment, or look for a better paying position.
But lack of private property rights on communal title land has prevented Aborigines from becoming homeowners. Without individual title over land banks will not provide financing for home loans.
Whether Indigenous Australians living on communal title land can afford to become home owners or whether they will live long enough to pay off the mortgage is beside the point. Under the current land tenure system even Aborigines with good jobs cannot buy a house or build on their own land.
The Howard government’s package of reforms to encourage homeownership included the Home Ownership on Indigenous Land (HOIL) scheme. Under the scheme potential purchasers only need to have a small deposit to access a range of concessions, including zero interest rates for some borrowers. These concessions enable even low income Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to purchase a home.
But before the HOIL scheme can be fully implemented individual land tenure arrangements need to be in place. Three years after it was established only one HOIL loan has been granted.
To allow individual ‘ownership’ of land the Howard government introduced 99-year leases over communal title land in the Northern Territory. But head leases were to be held by the government not communities. Fearing this was a ruse to steal their land, few communities signed up to one.
The Rudd government appears to have abandoned the notion of 99-year leases—putting them in the too hard to negotiate basket. Instead they have focused on securing ‘block’ or ‘housing’ leases to establish secure title for the new public housing. Communities are being told that if they want new houses they have to agree to lease the land to the government. It is not at all clear how these leases will lead to private home ownership.
Rather than the government controlling the process, communities should hold their own 99-year leases. ‘Community leases’ could operate like company title, with eligibility rules and conditions for membership. This way, communities could feel secure that their land is still under their control and enjoy the benefits of private homeownership.
But at the moment, the Rudd government is reverting to failed policies of the past with rent-to-buy schemes. Public housing may be made available for tenants to purchase as part of a rent-to-buy scheme as is the case in Wadeye. But this is something of a Clayton’s choice. Although enabling a lucky few to become homeowners, this does not give people much choice about the types of houses they can buy. Simply converting rents into mortgage repayments is unlikely to motivate occupants to become more committed to the maintenance of their homes over the longer term.
Public housing is also incredibly costly. Building two new homes in the Northern Territory cost the government nearly $900,000 – far more than their market value. Houses will have to be heavily subsidised if Indigenous families are expected to buy them.
In Queensland, new legislation to introduce 99-year leases involves charging traditional owners to lease their own land! This is a major disincentive for home ownership. Indigenous families are unlikely to build their own houses as mortgage payments will be higher than rent for public housing.
Instead of putting millions of dollars into more public housing and then selling these houses at below cost, the government should step back and give communities the opportunity to decide how they lease their land and what houses they want to build.
Aboriginal leader, Galaarway Yunupingu has already shown that he has the drive and vision to make positive changes for his community. The Gumati clan of north-eastern Arnhem are working in partnership with a Tasmanian Forestry company to learn logging and saw milling. Eventually, the wood will be used to build houses for the community – in what Yunupingu hopes will create a future for Gumatj men and women.
Sara Hudson is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her paper From Rhetoric to Reality was released by the CIS in March.
