Successes and Failures in Australian Indigenous Housing: Melinda Chan, Jessie Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

Successes and Failures in Australian Indigenous Housing
Melinda Chan, Jessie Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

Bower Studio 2010 Successes and Failure in Australian Indigenous Housing
1970s Policy emphasis on consultation

and self-determination set up inherent
difficulties in delivering quickly on both.
Results in the development of a number
transitional housing of Aboriginal Housing Associations
Read, Settlement
jack thompson foundation project
www.jackthompsonfoundation.com
1940s - 1960s Assimilation policies focused
around housing promise to provide transitional Early 1970s Aboriginal 2000s Development
housing, delivered in stages as populations adapt. Housing Panel (RAIA) of alternative
The policy was neglected leaving those interested established to produce designs approaches in one-off
in transitioning without later phase housing to for alternative styles of housing. collaborative ventures
move into and those who were not interested with It was disbanded in 1978 due to between designers and
culturally inappropriate accommodation. withdrawal of funding. communities
traditional shelters
Read, Settlement
1950 1990
1930 1970 Today
1960s Indigenous wishes 1980s Development 1990s - Today Link between

pre-1930 Missions and
begin to become more of Aboriginal poor health and inappropriate
Government Reserves intended
influential in policy including Housing Boards to housing facilitates the
to control and ‘civilise and
development of Land Rights manage allocation of development of a more integrated
Christianise’ Indigenous people.
Recognition and Native Title state housing approach to Indigenous support
Some groups were allowed more
and the Referendum in 1967 initiatives that focuses on delivery
autonomy and rather than design
set up camps 1972 Family Resettlement
with temporary Scheme (NSW) encouraged
structures such Aboriginal people living on
as the humpy in reserves proposed to be
areas allocated to closed, to migrate to towns
them
SIHIP scheme house

Hind, ‘New SIHIP house stands idle as community waits’
Humpys
Read, Settlement
Melinda Chan, Jesse Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

“
“
There is a need for research into the
architectural needs of Aborigines,
but .... the most immediate need is
to provide decent housing as soon
as possible ....
1976 Report of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders
in Heppell M. (ed.) (1979). A Black Reality: Aboriginal camps and housing in remote Australia,
Canberra : Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies

ADDRESSING DESIGN ISSUES
1. Implications of cultural context on use patterns
House design to suit complex household groups

Memmott, ‘Customary Aboriginal Behaviour Patterns and Housing Design’, in Memmott (2003)
Take2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia
Barker, ‘More than a House’, in Memmott (2003) Take2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia

2. Involve community in process
Skilling local people

Haar, ‘Community Building and Housing Process’,
in Memmott (2003) Take2: Housing Design in
Indigenous Australia
Consultation during development

Haar, (2004) ‘Aboriginal Housing: Has the state of the art
improved?’, Architecture Australia, 93(1).

3. Well designed and well constructed
Design Features of a proposal by Build Up Design

Scally, ‘Outstation Design:Lessons from Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation in Arnhem Land’, in Memmott (2003)
Take2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia

Q: What can we learn from the past treatment of &

government policies for Aborigines?
How has this provided a framework for
Aboriginal housing today?

Fringe Camps: ‘Humpys’
James Stirling, State Library of Victoria (Accession Number: H84.458/112 Image Number: b15931)

Kahlin Compound, Darwin, 1930s
“
Separation.... of indigenous community from
the non-indigenous community... to allow the
populace to die out
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/essay_9.html
(May 2010)

“
Assimilation.... giving the opportunity for
”
Indigenous people to be like non Indigenous
Australians....
Read P. (ed.)(2000). Settlement: A history of Australian Indigenous Housing, Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

‘Roper Mission 1937’
http://epress.anu.edu.au/aborig_history/transgressions/html/ch09.html
(Accessed: May 2010)

“ Self Determination.... means that indigenous

people should be able to decide for themselves their
own goals, lifestyles, and priorities that might not
necessarily be the same as those preferred by the
wider community...
Gunstone A. (2008). ‘Reconciliation and Australian Indigenous Health in the 1990s: A Failure of Public Policy’, Bioethical Inquiry, 5.

1. Commonwealth
supplies most funds
2. States
distribute & administer funds
3. Indigenous Community Housing Organisations

management & ownership of housing projects are vested in complex
structure of housing boards, corporations & trusts
4. Local Governments
responsible for housing organisation & maintenance
Hughes H. (2007). Lands of Shame: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘Homelands’ in Transition, NSW: The Centre for Independent
Studies Limited.

‘Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory’, (2009). HousingWORKS, 7(4).
e-year leases over 64 NTER in the Territory aimed to improve and visitors. The outstation policy remains
nities by operation of the expand the delivery of services to towns unresolved and is still the subject of
n Territory National Emergency and communities across the Territory. consultation.
se Act 2007”5. The shires, rather than Indigenous
New Melinda
funding arrangements
Chan, Jesse Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Stephfor
Westbrook
Community Housing Organisations
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/07/2910728.htm?site=news (accessed: May 2010)

1. Cultural Design Approach 2. Environmental Health Approach
3. House-as-Process Philosophy

2. Environmental Health Approach
_Aims to develop an understanding of the critical relationship between

poor aboriginal health and housing technology.
_Case Study- Paul Pholeros, Paul Torzillo and Steph Rainow, “The UPK
Report” for Healthhabitat & “The National Indigenous Housing Guide”.
Negampa Health Council, “UPK Report”, South Australia, 1987.


Australian Government, “National Indigenous Housing Guide”, 2009.

2.1.2 FRAMING 2.1.3 LININGS
EXTERNAL
Wall and roof framing is standard prefabricated fully welded pressed metal stud system. External walls - custom orb, ‘colorbond’ finish.
Roof - custom orb, zincalume finish
Bottom plates are fixed to slab with mechanical anchors. Bottom plate is spaced off concrete Skylight panels – polycarbonate clear.
surface with polyurethane spacer and ‘aclor’ break to protect against corrosion. All walls and roof insulated with R2.5 insulation and sarking
Healthhabitat, “Prefabricated Ablutions Unit”, 2009.

3. House-as-Process Philosophy
_Aims to firmly situate housing design and provision within the broader
framework of an Aboriginal community’s planning goals and cultural
practices, as well as its socioeconomic structure and development.
_A self-constructed housing model.
_Involves participation, consultation, choice, training, demand driven.
_Community participation in the design and constrution process should

help foster compatibility between housing typology, planning, orientation
and the occupants as well as fostering a sense of pride in the new home.
Memmott Paul, “Aboriginal Housing has the State of the Art Improved?”

_Case Study- Paul Haar, St Paul’s Village, Moa Island, 1986-88.

_Key Parameters: -Small and achievable scale of works
-Generous time frame
-A few truly committed and self-motivated prospective owner-builder families
-A genuinely and unaimously supportive community council
-Modest financial support with no strings attached
Memmott Paul, “Aboriginal Housing has the State of the Art Improved?” Haar Paul, “Community Building and Housing Process: Context for Self-Help
_Design Approach _Construction Process _Community Response

_Reflections
Smith Stephanie, “Self Built” in Architecture Australia Sept / Oct 2008.


References
Australian Government, “National Indigenous Housing Guide”, Canberra, 2009. Hughes H. (2007). Lands of Shame: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘Homelands’ in Transition, St
Leonards, The Centre for Independent Studies Limited.
Barker G., Irvine A., Pholeros P., Rainow S., Short T., Sowerbutts T., Torzillo P. (2008) ‘The state of health
hardware in Aboriginal communities in rural and remote Australia’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Lea T. (2008). ‘Housing for Health in Indigenous Australia: Driving Change when Research and Policy are Part
Public Health, 32(1). of the Problem’, Human Organisation, 67(1).
Boﬀman Andrew, “An Architecture of Listening” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 90-94. Lea T. & P Pholeros (2010). ‘This is not a pipe: The Treacheries of Indigenous Housing’, Public Culture, 22(1).
Manning C. (2004). ‘A Helping White Hand: Assimilation, Welfare and Victoria’s Transitional Aboriginal
Brice G., Harris R., Hassan R., McNeece-Neeson M., Monten H., Radford A., Van Der Byl M. (1999). ‘The Easy Housing Policy’, Labour History, 87.
Street Myth: Self harm among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal female sole parents in urban state housing’,
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(1). Mc Donnell J. (2005). ‘Land Rights and Aboriginal Development’, Quadrant.
Commonwealth of Australia. (August 2009). The Senate Proof, Strategic Indigenous Housing and Memmott Paul et al, Take 2: Housing design in indigenous Australia, Royal Australian Institute of Architects,
Infrastructure Program, Speech. Canberra, 2003.
Creating Jobs on the Homeland, (No author cited), Published in Territory Q, October 2009, ps. 40-43 Memmott Paul, Gunyah Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, UQ Press, Brisbane,
2007.
Dillion, J., and Savage, M., House Design in Alice Springs Town Camps, from Take 2; Housing Design in
Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003. Memmott Paul, “Aboriginal Housing has the State of the Art Improved?” In Architecture Australia, Jan / Feb
2004.
‘Fixing Houses, Busting Myths’, (2008). Architecture Australia, 97(1).
Memmot Paul, “Culture and Delivery” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 61-65.
Fred Hollows Foundation, (2004). ‘Housing and health hardware’, Indigenous Health in Australia.
Memmott, P., Customary Aboriginal Behaviour patterns and housing design, from Take 2; Housing Design in
Go-Sam Carroll, “Indigenous Design Paradigms” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 53-59. Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003.
Gunstone A. (2007). ‘Reconciliation and Australian Indigenous Health in the 1990s: A Failure of Public Policy’, Negampa Health Council, “UPK Report”, South Australia, 1987.
Bioethical Inquiry, 5.
Neutze M. (2008). ‘Housing for Indigenous Australians’, Housing Studies, 5(4), pp485-504.
Gumatj Corporation, Press Release, 7th August, 2009
Pholeros Paul, “Housing for Health or Designing to Get Water In and Shit Out.” In P Memmott (ed.) Take 2:
Haar Paul, “A Self Help Approach to Remore Area Housing”, In P Read (ed.) Settlement: A History of Australian Housing Design in Indigenous Australia. Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003.
Indigenous Housing. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 2000.
Pholeros Paul, “Housing for Health” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008 pp 61 – 62.
Haar Paul, “Community Building and Housing Process: Context for Self-Help Housing.” In P Memmott (ed.)
Take 2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia. Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003. Reed P. (ed.) (2000). Settlement: A history of Australian Indigenous housing, Canberra : Aboriginal Studies
Press.
Heppell M. (ed.) (1979). A Black Reality: Aboriginal camps and housing in remote Australia, Canberra :
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Smith Stephanie, “Self Built” in Architecture Australia Sept / Oct 2008.
Hind R. (2010) ‘New SIHIP house stands idle as community waits’, ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/ Wigley, B. and J., Remote Conundrums, The changing role of housing in Aboriginal communities, from Take 2;
stories/2010/05/11/2895773.htm, accessed 24/05/2010 Housing Design in Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003
www.jackthompsonfoundation.org

The text ‘Take 2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia’ (Paul Memmott ed. RAIA 2003) includes a
series of essays outlining approaches architects have used to address the call for indigenous housing.
What are the main issues architects must resolve? How have the ideologies that drive housing
projects been adapted to suit this clientele? What key issues set aside a successful project from a less
successful one?
 Housing as important to improving general wellbeing of aboriginal communities
 Housing delivery has been approached in a number of ways
‐ 1950s/60s assimilation  transitional / staged housing
‐ 1970s self‐management / self‐determination  conventional housing became
symbolic for equality with non‐Indigenous Australians
‐ 1990s / design guidelines for indigenous housing addressing (poorly?) cultural,
climatic and technological requirements, based on post‐occupancy studies
‐ Reminiscent of 1950s guidelines
‐ All have overly simplistic view with a one‐size‐fits‐all approach
‐ 2000s development of 3 paradigms; Cultural Design Paradigm, The environmental
health paradigm, Housing as process philosophy
 Most commentators acknowledge the importance of community consultation and / or
involvement in the process, to varying degrees, for success
 Incredibly complex systems within which appropriate housing develops
 There is a need for research into the architectural needs of Aborigines, but .... the most
immediate need is to provide decent housing as soon as possible ....
 Modest and flexible, to support changing spatial relationships
Key consideration categories
 Understanding use patterns
‐ Designing for “traditionally oriented lifestyles” (Memmott) requires a thorough
understanding of both the day to day (practical) and cultural (phenomenological)
needs.
‐ Relationships between people / groups is a key determinant of overcrowding, not
necessarily simply the number of people.
‐ Use of space may not be that envisaged by designers eg. Bedroom as sleeping room
/ store / food store etc. / seasonal differences, living rooms as sleeping spaces with
mattresses for sitting on during the day
‐ Demands of kinship / sharing ethic
‐ Household composition / type / size and flexibility of this grouping
‐ Internal / external space integration and usefulness
‐ The importance and integration of domestic dogs
‐ Hearth activity – distinct and symbolic (cooking / heating / ceremonial)
‐ Accommodating external cooking practices
‐ External orientation of behaviour (outdoor living / semi enclosed spaces)

 consultation / involvement / Equipping community to maintain their homes
‐ Separation of occupants from process results in them becoming ‘housing recipients’
‐ Involvement of occupants can foster a feeling of ownership
‐ Providing basic training during construction helps to maximise potential for ongoing
self‐maintenance and reduces downtime if something does go wrong.
‐ Involve wider community in decision making processes as occupancy may be fluid
and a number of the community members may spend time living in the house.

 Well designed, well‐constructed outcomes
‐ Design to accommodate conflicting needs regarding privacy, security, safety and
surveillance (visual and aural).
‐ Acknowledge demands of kinship / sharing ethic in design decisions.
‐ Allow flexibility of design to accommodate avoidance rules
‐ Respect the suitability of traditional structures – windbreak / enclosed shelters /
shade structures
‐ Accommodate external cooking practices
‐ Attention should paid to the overall design of the community to ensure spatial
relationships are taken into consideration
‐ Location and relationship of toilets and wet areas to main living spaces (internal or
external)
‐ Locate wet areas toward periphery so as to minimise disruption to the rest of the
house if services are not working
‐ Install fittings and finishes that are appropriate to their context (easily maintainable,
good quality, robust)

Bibliography

Indigenous Housing Special Issue, (2008). Architecture Australia, 97(5).
Haar P. (2004). ‘Aboriginal Housing: Has the state of the art improved?’, Architecture Australia,
93(1).
Heppell M. (ed.) (1979). A Black Reality: Aboriginal camps and housing in remote Australia, Canberra
: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Hind R. (2010) ‘New SIHIP house stands idle as community waits’, ABC News,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/11/2895773.htm, accessed 24/05/2010
Lea T. & P Pholeros (2010). ‘This is not a pipe: The Treacheries of Indigenous Housing’, Public Culture,
22(1).
Memmott P. (ed.) (2003). TAKE 2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia, Red Hill : Royal Australian
Institute of Architects.
Read P. (ed.) (2000). Settlement: A history of Australian Indigenous housing, Canberra : Aboriginal
Studies Press.

Melinda Chan
Bower Housing Presentation

Question: What can we learn from the past treatment of and government policies for Aborigines?
How has this provided a framework for Aboriginal housing today?

Separation:
Until the 1930’s, indiscriminate killings of Aboriginals were commonplace to segregate
indigenous communities from white settlements. The indigenous community, however, did not die out.
Survivors, whose land and traditional way of life was taken away, formed fringe camps on the outskirts
of towns, where the economic activity provided potential employment for aborigines. These camps
were known as ‘humpies’.
‘Humpies’ took the form of make‐shift shelters constructed of natural and introduced materials
such as corrugated iron. Considered an ‘eyesore’ and ‘breeding ground for disease’ by the non‐
indigenous population; local governments turned these camps into ‘controlled compounds’ surrounded
by barbed wire fences. In 1911, the Kahlin compound was established, consisting of the make shift
shelters of the original humpies, but also including rudimentary structures that adopted European
aesthetics.
The Kahlin compound served as a place for indoctrination of the benefits of British civilization,
but Kahlin’s inhabitants suffered strict punishment, poor schooling, inadequate nourishment and
overcrowded living. The Kahlin compound would serve as a blueprint for institutions seeking to
westernize the indigenous population.

Assimilation:
Other forms of exclusionary policy and behaviors led to the formation of missions, established
early in the history of colonization and often led by the Christian Church. However, by the 1900’s, the
activities of these missions become more historically significant and were mostly managed by the state
governments. Aboriginal communities were institutionalized and separated into ‘family units’ and
fragmented further by age and gender as part of policies focused on assimilation and fragmentation.
Children who were separated from their families under these separation policies are now referred to as
the ‘Stolen Generations’.
In accordance to assimilation policies developed under the Commonwealth government, a
transitional housing model was first developed in the Northern Territory in 1939. The idea was grounded
in the belief that a staged approach would aid the indigenous people move from their traditional camp
arrangements to more conventional ‘European Housing’ located within townships. It was not until 1951
that the policy was put into action, a political need to demonstrate that Aboriginals were being assisted,
that they could share the same customs and beliefs from Western culture, and that adequate measures
were being taken for Aboriginal advancement.
Early transitional housing consisted of simple structures with earthen floors, a single room,
metal walls and roof with no services. This model served as a template from which consequent stages
could include additional rooms, floor materials and services. Once inhabitants could demonstrate proper
usage of this housing, they could transition to more conventional European housing. However, due to
the mismanagement of the program, it never proceeded further than the first stage, and it was
concluded that ‘Aboriginals were not ready for housing’. Examples of transitional housing have often
been criticized as failing to respond to climatic conditions, and were merely ‘sweatboxes’ that failed to
provide fresh water or bare necessities.
Self Determination:
Until the 1967 Referendum, Aboriginal Welfare had not been part of major national policy.
Previous outcomes focused on ‘assimilist’ policies were abolished as they were received by the
aboriginal community with resistance and considered outdated and racist. In 1968, ‘assimilation’ was
replaced with policies of ‘self determination’ and ‘consultation’.
‘Self determination: indigenous people should be able to decide for themselves their own goals,
lifestyles and priorities that might not necessarily be the same as those preferred by the wider
community’
From the 1960s onwards, Aboriginal housing policies have been grounded in principles of
consultation and cultural sensitivity, ideologies that continue to be developed in current government
policy. Furthermore a surmounting urgency was placed on providing adequate housing for Aborigines to
meet policies that placed emphasis on social equality.
The allocation of Aboriginal housing responsibility can be divided by four stratified layers.
1 The Commonwealth
The Commonwealth supplies funding to support Aboriginal housing.
2 The States and Territories
The states and territories administer Aboriginal housing
3 Housing Boards, Corporations, Trusts (Indigenous Community Housing Organizations)
Ownership is vested in the various Indigenous Community Housing organizations that take control of the
management, administration and maintenance of housing.
4 Local Governments
Local Governments have control over infrastructure and housing organization and maintenance.
Much criticism occurs within the 3rd and 4th layers of the housing strata. From the 1960s a
number of organizations, both state and community oriented were formed to provide housing for
Aborigines. An overwhelming amount of funding injected into housing in the 60s and 70s led to an
increasing formation of housing programs and associations to accelerate output. By 1975 there were
over 49 housing organizations working in the Northern Territory, engaging with architects, builders and
local communities to achieve their construction targets and meet the needs of the denizens for which
they were providing housing. An inquiry made by Price Waterhouse Coopers in 2004 found that there
were over 612 Indigenous Community Housing organizations administering in excess of 21,000 houses.
The number of organizations with differing agendas raises questions as to the alignment of policies and
efficiency in procuring Aboriginal housing.
The Indigenous Community Housing organizations (3rd Strata) have been criticized for their
failure to meet the demand and needs of Aboriginal housing. This can be attributed to the lack of co‐
operation within this housing administration strata and waste of resources spent on competing housing
programs. Furthermore the Federal and State Governments’ failure in developing appropriate policies
in higher strata has also been blamed.
An example of an outcome failure is culturally insensitive housing. This has arisen from a lack of
consultation with Aboriginal communities, and recognizing that communities migrating from rural to
urban environments have unique needs and requirements. The level of integration into non‐indigenous
communities and ties to traditional Aboriginality will vary, ultimately affecting requirements and
housing outcomes.
In remote locations such as the Northern Territory, there has been additional criticism of failure
to provide healthy housing stock. Audits by HEALTH HABITAT have revealed that 80% of problems are
due to faulty construction and lack of supervision, which lead to inadequate health hardware and
maintenance of houses once inhabited. Such findings have led to the development of healthy housing
schemes that will be addressed in the following case studies.
NT Emergency Response 2007
Australia’s largest current housing funding scheme commenced in 2007 with the Federal
government providing support for indigenous communities’ growing demand for appropriate housing in
the Northern Territory. The scheme allows circumvention of administrative red tape embedded in
aboriginal housing, and hopes to provide a faster response to increasing demand. The program’s goals
include adequate housing, addressing a range of issues associated with the procurement of housing
(health, safety, culture, economic security and infrastructure.) Furthermore the program must align with
the government’s policy of self‐determination which is ‘regarded as essential to ensuring the functioning
of Indigenous communities’ (Tibu Vube Bromley, EO, NT Shelter).
The budget for the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (infamously known
as SIHIP) is $672 million. The program aims to deliver 750 new houses, 230 re‐builds (costing on average
$200 000 each) and 2500 refurbishments (an average of $75 000) in 73 indigenous communities within
the Northern Territory by 2013.
Currently there is much hostility targeted at the slow procurement of housing to date. Rural
housing continues to be under the spotlight due to the costliness and slow delivery of such programs. As
there is little or inadequate infrastructure in rural areas much of this needs to be installed which is a
costly process. To add to already high costs, construction in rural areas is driven up through the tender
process as there is much aversion to working in remote areas and few companies with the expertise to
do so. Finally the programs is faced with the difficult task of managing and supervising the work in these
areas to ensure that builders aren’t cutting corners and that buildings are being built for durability,
sustainability and are serviceable well into the future.
From the assessment of government policy addressing aboriginal housing, 3 paradigms have emerged as
potential solutions. These will be discussed by Frank and Jesse through the analysis of relevant case
studies.
Bibliography
Barker G., Irvine A., Pholeros P., Rainow S., Short T., Sowerbutts T., Torzillo P. (2008) ‘The state of health hardware
in Aboriginal communities in rural and remote Australia’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
32(1).

Commonwealth of Australia. (August 2009). The Senate Proof, Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure
Program, Speech.

Brice G., Harris R., Hassan R., McNeece‐Neeson M., Monten H., Radford A., Van Der Byl M. (1999). ‘The Easy Street
Myth: Self harm among Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal female sole parents in urban state housing’, Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(1).

Fred Hollows Foundation, (2004). ‘Housing and health hardware’, Indigenous Health in Australia.

Gunstone A. (2007). ‘Reconciliation and Australian Indigenous Health in the 1990s: A Failure of Public Policy’,
Bioethical Inquiry, 5.

Hughes H. (2007). Lands of Shame: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘Homelands’ in Transition, St Leonards, The
Centre for Independent Studies Limited.

Lea T. (2008). ‘Housing for Health in Indigenous Australia: Driving Change when Research and Policy are Part of the
Problem’, Human Organisation, 67(1).

Manning C. (2004). ‘A Helping White Hand: Assimilation, Welfare and Victoria’s Transitional Aboriginal Housing
Policy’, Labour History, 87.

Mc Donnell J. (2005). ‘Land Rights and Aboriginal Development’, Quadrant.

Memmot P. (ed) (2003). TAKE 2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia, Red Hill, The Royal Australian Institute of
Architects.

Neutze M. (2008). ‘Housing for Indigenous Australians’, Housing Studies, 5(4), pp485‐504.

Reed P. (ed) (2000). Settlement: A History of Australian Indigenous Housing, Canberra, Aboriginal Studies Press.
Frank Vedelgo-‐-‐
Bower Housing Presentation-‐-‐
Complex cross cultural problem of Aboriginal housing has lead to a number of approaches to indigenous
housing;
1. Cultural Design Paradigm

2. The Environment Health paradigm
3. Housing as process philosophy

Cultural Design Paradigm
Involves the use of model of culturally distinct behavior to inform definitions of Aboriginal housing
needs. The culturally distinct behavioral use of domiciliary space involves typical diurnal / nocturnal
behavior patterns for different seasonal periods, distinct types of household groups, forms of approach
and departure behavior to domestic spaces, external orientation and sensory communication between
inhabitants, sleeping behavior, cooking behavior and use of hearths, characteristic uses of storage for
artifacts and resources. The premise of this approach is that to competently design appropriate
residential accommodation for aboriginal people who have traditionally oriented lifestyles, architects
must understand the nature of those lifestyles, particularly in the domestic context.
This approach has been developed by a variety of practitioners and is analyzed in Take 2. For example,
the first essay by Julian and Barbara Wigley, who outline a number of design conundrums arising from
particular cultural issues.
The environment health paradigm
The attention given to architectural technology and detailing by a number of take 2 authors including
Jane Dillon, Mark Savage, Sue Groome and Paul Pholeros, leads the reader into the second paradigm:
environmental health design. This approach emerged from within Nganampa Health Council in Alice
Springs, which services the Anangu Pitjantjatjara homeland in north-‐west South Australia. Paul Pholeros
combined his architectural skill with those of Paul Torzillo, a doctor, and Steph Rainow an
anthropologist, to develop an understanding of the critical relationships between poor aboriginal health
and housing technology. The resulting document became known as the “UPK report”. Pholeros et al
have produced further books about their work recently under the name “Healthhabitat”. Their work has
also culminated in a commission from the commonwealth government on Indigenous housing to
prepare ‘The National Indigenous Housing Guide’, and their methodology has been practically applied
through a large scale ATSIC project entitled, ‘Fixing Housed for Better Health’, a project involving 1000
houses.
Housing as process philosophy

Despite some contradictions in approach between proponents of the cultural design paradigm and
environmental health paradigm, these two approaches can and should be complimentary. Together
they lead to the third approach, The Housing as Process Philosophy, which aims to firmly situate housing
design and provision within the broader framework of an Aboriginal community’s planning goals and
cultural practices, as well as its socioeconomic structure and development. A proponent of this
philosophy is the architect and builder Paul Haar, who has extensive experience in self-‐help Indigenous
housing projects. The housing as process formula involves the following considerations;
• Participation-‐ ensuring the active participation of both men and women
• Consultation-‐ supporting both the traditional owners and the residents who use and own the
housing to make the key decisions concerning the housing
• Choice-‐ helping to find technology which is appropriate to the community and not the donor
• Training-‐ equipping and training communities to operate maintain and manage their new
housing and infrastructure technologies
• Demand Driven-‐ ensuring that projects match the true demand of the people who will use them.
Case Study-‐ Paul Haar, St Paul’s Village, Moa Island, 1986-‐88.
The project involved the construction of 3 large family homes for people of the local community. Paul
Haar identifies the following key elements, which were present that ultimately lead to a successful
project;
• Small and achievable scale of works

• Generous time frame
• A few truly committed and self-‐motivated prospective owner-‐builder families
• A genuinely and unanimously supportive community council
• Modest financial support with no strings attached
Design Process
By trialing local materials and constructions methods, by viewing slides and videos, by discussing local
climate and by accessing a crude model making technique the owner builder families were able to
develop ambitious house plans in what were effective and enjoyable participatory design processes as
described by Haar.
Construction Process
It took the community 3 years of hard work to complete all three buildings. With Haar noting that
progress on each building site fluctuating enormously from day to day depending largely on the family
head’s talent in maintaining a strong and enthusiastic workforce.
Community Response
The project brought home ownership within the reach of families who were prepared to work hard. The
first 3 self-‐built homes averaged 5 bedrooms each with an enclosed area of 157sqm and an unenclosed
covered area of 145sqm. This cost each family roughly $25,000 for materials and government roughly
$14,000 for construction training input. Meanwhile kit homes with floor areas of 100sqm internally and
92sqm externally were being erected on neighboring islands for $140,000.
Haar also notes that the projects contributed to significant change in the social and political order of the
community, with several owner-‐builders being elected into chairperson roles within the St Paul’s
community subsequent to the build.
Reflections
Haar reflects that the inspiration for this self-‐help approach, which he describes as common sense, lies
with the self-‐constructed shelters and settlement that emerge throughout rural Australia without
external assistance. Stephanie Smith who has undertaken a study of contemporary self-‐built Aboriginal
architecture highlights many examples of these structures. Whilst often lacking in structural integrity
and health amenity these places represent resourcefulness, self-‐expression and hold many lessons for
architects involved in indigenous housing. They are not the hapless hovels so readily depicted by mass
media. Ultimately Haar highlights that a book of practice would be useful, communicating ideas directly
using attractive graphic presentations supported by videos the book could detail methods of
construction which community people, funding agencies and building authorities could adopt for low-‐
cost self-‐help housing.

Bibliography
Australian Government, “National Indigenous Housing Guide”, Canberra, 2009.

Boffman Andrew, “An Architecture of Listening” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 90-‐94.

Go-‐Sam Carroll, “Indigenous Design Paradigms” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 53-‐59.

Haar Paul, “A Self Help Approach to Remote Area Housing”, In P Read (ed.) Settlement: A History of
Australian Indigenous Housing. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 2000.

Haar Paul, “Community Building and Housing Process: Context for Self-‐Help Housing.” In P Memmott
(ed.) Take 2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia. Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra,
2003.

Heppell M. (ed.) (1979). A Black Reality: Aboriginal camps and housing in remote Australia, Canberra :
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Hind R. (2010) ‘New SIHIP house stands idle as community waits’, ABC News,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/11/2895773.htm, accessed 24/05/2010

Lea T. & P Pholeros (2010). ‘This is not a pipe: The Treacheries of Indigenous Housing’, Public Culture,
22(1).

Memmott Paul et al, Take 2: Housing design in indigenous Australia, Royal Australian Institute of
Architects, Canberra, 2003.

Memmott Paul, Gunyah Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, UQ Press,
Brisbane, 2007.

Memmott Paul, “Aboriginal Housing has the State of the Art Improved?” In Architecture Australia, Jan /
Feb 2004.

Memmot Paul, “Culture and Delivery” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008, pp 61-‐65.

Pholeros Paul, “Housing for Health or Designing to Get Water In and Shit Out.” In P Memmott (ed.) Take
2: Housing Design in Indigenous Australia. Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra, 2003.

Pholeros Paul, “Housing for Health” in Architecture Australia, Sept / Oct 2008 pp 61 – 62.
Read P. (ed.) (2000). Settlement: A history of Australian Indigenous housing, Canberra: Aboriginal
Studies Press.
Smith Stephanie, “Self Built” in Architecture Australia Sept / Oct 2008.
Cultural Design Paradigm

• The premise of the cultural design paradigm is that appropriate housing
solutions can only be designed if architects have an understanding of the
nature of traditional lifestyles; and specifically the lifestyle of the community
they’re designing for. A key aspect of this understanding often comes from
recognising what traditions have been retained and in what ways have the
community adapted?
• Prior to an attempt to understand the cultural design paradigm some non‐
aboriginal people felt that any housing would be destructive to the
maintenance of aboriginal culture as there was no previous tradition of built
form. Barbara and Julian Wigley in their essay, Remote Conundrums; The
changing role of housing in Aboriginal communities, suggest that this view
focused on housing as the primary agent of change rather than “recognising
the more important agents such as transportation, land rights, citizenship
and communications.”
• While this observation is focusing on the inability of housing alone to destroy
a culture, I feel strongly that this sentiment needs also to be applied to the
idea of architecture or housing as a saviour for broader indigenous issues.
While the following case studies are classified generally as either “successes
or failures” in one approach or another, even the most successful of housing
strategies will not remain a success without much broader support in terms
of funding, maintenance, education, access to healthcare and reconciliation
as a whole.

TANGENTYERE COUNCIL

• Tangentyere Council manages 18 town camps around Alice Springs
• The Design department in 1980s was part of an integrated community
resource organisation directly controlled by Aboriginal executives and senior
management – unique for an indigenous housing organisation.
• Was considered something of a benchmark in Aboriginal housing design and
practice.
• Housing was designed and assessed using feedback from residents,
community workers and tradespeople and post‐occupancy evaluation
techniques.
• The following issues in regards to designing within the cultural paradigm have
been drawn from both the work of Tangentyere Design and from the analysis
of this housing stock by Paul Memmott.

UNDERSTANDING OF DOMICILIARY SPACES AND BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS
• The term 'camp' is used to describe a number of potential elements:
‐ the fire or hearth;
‐ an individual domestic living area;
‐ a dwelling for a family group;
‐ the total open or social space used by individuals or the community;
‐ The undifferentiated use of the term reflects the different notions of
public and private space within the living environment, which still
exist to a large degree today.
‐ Barbara and Julian Wigley suggest that traditionally the shelter
building itself is less important and rather it is the location of the
shelter in relation to the other elements, particularly the fire or
hearth and its relationship to the mythological and physical landscape,
that carries the symbolic meaning to a community's settlement
pattern.

• The framework of a camp, or a living space larger than ones immediate
shelter provides the ability to relocate a household to provide some distance
between members of a community and suggests an implicit recognition of
the dangers of confrontation to a close knit community.

HOUSEHOLD TYPES AND SIZES
• Designing for Extended Families and Transient Residents
• Average number of residents per house = 8.9 and 3.2 per bedroom. Often
up to 12 people and up to 20 at certain times ie. Sporting events or
funerals.
‐ These numbers are sometimes due to overcrowding and sometimes a choice
in keeping with tradition.
‐ Providing extra rooms will not automatically lower the density per room,
instead it may allow for the accommodation of additional family members.
‐ Kinship often requires the sharing of facilities; therefore provision of services,
especially septic, washing, cooking, which are able to cope with large
numbers and flexible spaces which allow for additional sleeping space;
lounge rooms, enclosed verandas for transient visitors.
‐ When houses are at capacity, discrete spaces must still apply to allow for
avoidance issues/independence/visual privacy.
‐ Separating toilets and shower for use by more than one person at a time.

RESPONSE TO SEASONAL PERIODS
‐ Sheltered but sunny places for use during cold weather.
‐ The use of deciduous vines on northern, eastern and western walls to provide
summer shade and winter sunlight.
‐ Semi‐enclosed sleep‐outs, which provide summer accommodation or act as
an overflow space for visitors, with low walls to encourage breezes and
screens for security and insect control.
‐ Provision of portable cooking facilities such as bbqs and preparation benches
and several adequate well drained sites around a camp to allow for the
movement of the cooking fire which is often dependent on either sunlight,
shade or wind direction.

FORMS OF APPROACH AND DEPARTURE

“Footprints in the sand reveal the movement of people and animals around private
and public spaces. Early knowledge of certain people's whereabouts means they can
be avoided. The conventional house offers no such convenience. The doors and walls
can cause surprises, doors require locks for privacy and security, and no telltale
footprint can be left in vinyl or concrete surfaces.”

Wigley, B. and J., Remote Conundrums, The changing role of housing in Aboriginal communities,
from Take 2; Housing Design in Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects,
Red Hill, 2003.

• Kinship and camp behaviour determine the way a community interacts
spatially.

‐ Rules of obligation such as sharing of food – this will effect how people
position themselves within a camp to be aware of when they are entitled to
something.
‐ Rules of avoidance, between men and their mother‐in‐laws or women and
their brothers. Poorly designed layouts + lines of vision, tight corners which
provide no view of someone approaching, and well as inappropriately placed
toilets/wash areas can cause tension in a community.
‐ Rules related throughout life; determine behaviours in illness and death; and
the abandonment of the house of a deceased person is an example of this.

EXTERNAL ORIENTATION
• Living around the house rather than in it.
‐ A sense within communities of being inside too much = hiding away and
being up to no good.
‐ Spaces are required where people can sleep, socialise and eat outdoors but
be protected from the elements and mozzies.
‐ Wide verandas to accommodate groups, with a solid floor raised above the
surrounding earth for painting and other activities that need to minimise
dust.
‐ Provision of freestanding shade structures of cloth or a thatched roof to
provide secondary meeting spaces and additional sleeping space away from
the main house to accommodate visitors.
‐ Trees are used to provide shade, windbreaks + differentiation between areas.

SENSORY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE INHABITANTS
• Watching over the community. Arguments or disagreements are of interest
to all as communities/family groups are intertwined + outcomes affect the
whole community.
‐ Designing spaces to provide views to the outside; so surveillance is
maintained. Indoors providing low windows so those sitting on the floor can
look out and outdoors designing low windbreaks which can also double as
seating or storage.
‐ Inside/Outside spaces; conflict between surveillance of community + also
some privacy, protection from rain, wind, sun + mozzies.

NOCTURAL BEHAVIOURS
‐ Night use of toilet facilities; argument for external position = removal of
waste from house.
‐ Arguments for internal = residents not prepared to use them at night due to
malevolent spirits, violence from other community residents (often alcohol
related), difficulty negotiating path at night, bad weather.

STORAGE USES
‐ Many lockable storage facilities to store food, guns, personal belongings,
electric goods – anything considered valuable. Often food + other possessions
are stored in the room where an intimate family group live, not in a kitchen,
storeroom or cupboard space in the living room etc.
‐ Secure storage for food away from dogs.

FINAL OUTCOMES
Started out as a success‐ perhaps now considered a failure?
Council was focus of insight program on SBS, very critical of condition and provision
of adequate housing as more people move into the camps from the bush.
In 2008 Federal Government provide $50m for housing and infrastructure on the
condition of a 40 year sub‐lease for direct control over housing within the town
camps – a commitment is made to involve the Tangentyere Council and Housing
Association in the management of housing.

The buildings at Tangentyere look very ordinary, many indigenous communities
don’t feel the need for architecture to reflect or make a statement about aboriginal
identity as they feel their culture does this anyway – the buildings are seen as having
little cultural relevance, they are just required to work.

Like any asset, the housing stock requires maintenance, on‐going funding etc. The
lack of this has undermined the early success of the project – residents were
complaining about living in houses 20‐30 years old – a reflection of how badly they
have deteriorated.

HOWROYD “ORGANIC HOUSE” AT LAVERTON, WA.

• Example of the same issues before the “cultural design paradigm” phrase was
coined.
• Attempt to understand the requirements of the group for which the house
was being designed; main factors identified by Howroyd were
accommodation of an extended family unit (8‐25 people) and the desire for
each person to see the stars and a fire at night.
• Result; 12m circular compound largely open to the sky; 2.5m high wall
surrounding it; 50% of the inside wall perimeter was covered to provide a
service core (toilet, shower, sink); 2.7m wide sloping roof‐sloping into the
compound!; painted representation of a goanna on a screen!
• Abandoned not long after completion.
• High walls provide no ability to see those approaching avoidance, segregated
from the community.
• An extremely “enclosing” approach which doesn’t relate well to a desert
location where one of the strongest aspects of the landscape is the horizon,
also providing a view of approaching weather, people etc.
• Not secure, can’t see out and respond to situations.
• Worst result in heavy rain. Inwards sloping roof combined with heavy rain
and wind meant no part of the house was inhabitable during this kind of
weather + everything was left soaked and flooded afterwards.
• Goanna painting was highly insensitive as the goanna is a sacred object and
should not be publicly exhibited.

JACK THOMPSON FOUNDATION
‐ The Jack Thompson Foundation attempts to address the issue of indigenous housing
though a very long‐term and holistic approach. It addresses the delivery of housing
as one point in a much longer process of skill development, developing a sense of
ownership, provision of support and funding and the positioning of Indigenous
Communities in a place where they are able to develop their own future aspirations.
‐ The point of difference between the Homelands Building Project and other self‐build
projects is that the project aims to provide Indigenous Australians with the means to
build their own homes using the “living ground”, the natural resources from within
their homelands such as trees, rock, sand and soil.

‐ Provides skills to enable communities to tackle the building process from start to
finish from
‐ logging and milling
‐ post and beam construction
‐ basic carpentry, plastering, concreting etc
‐ intention for equipment required for the process to be left with the
communities to allow for on‐going building once the initial process is over.

‐ Like the St Paul’s Village Case study, pictorial training manuals and training that
accommodate the literacy levels of participants are being used.
‐ The foundation works with communities at their request and instigation.
‐ One of the communities is the Gumatj Community.
‐ The Gumatj are Yolngu people and timber is being harvested partially from
their own land and also from 850 hectares of land on the Rio Tinto Alcan
bauxite mining lease nearby.

‐ Two houses have been completed, they were a collaborative effort.
‐ Work begun by Jack Thompson Foundation.
‐ Forestry Tasmania has provided training in sustainable timber
harvesting and management, use of the Lucas Mill (portable mill),
sizing and grading of timber.
‐ Building designed by University of Tasmania Architecture School and
Gumatj Corporation Chairman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM.
‐ Fairbrother builders supervised the construction and provided further
training, expertise and guidance to the local workers.

‐ The first house cost $200,000. The second house, with four‐bedrooms was
expected to cost $325,000.

Flow on Effects
‐ Indicators show community improvement in crime, alcohol abuse and
suicide rates.
‐ Many young men entering the workforce for the first time and are
doing so on their own land and working with their own resources –
real sense of ownership + pride.
‐ 12 Gumatj men have now completed their Introductory Training in
Chainsaw Operation, Sawing and Tree felling. They are now employed.
Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) labour was
not used and participation has increased as workers and local Gumatj
men realised they could get paid a fair day’s wage for a day’s work.

Application in other communities
`‐ It seems that the Gumatj community is extremely proactive in creating
opportunities for employment, education and housing. The creation of the
Gumatj Corporation is evidence of this and the work of the corporation
spreads much further than just addressing housing.
‐ Cattle Station; where housing has been built, animal production,
butchering, sale of meat to the local community in an area where
fresh meat is very expensive.
‐ Gumatj maritime division has recently acquired the Yiwarr Seafood
business, has purchased a boat and will start employing people to fish
and fillet before selling it to the local community.
‐ Crocodile farm.

‐ 19 communities have expressed interest in similar milling/build projects.
‐ Do other communities have the motivation and leadership to make such
projects a success?
‐ Do other communities have access to suitable timber stocks?
‐ All these operations serve only small and isolated communities with little
income – all would require backing whether government or private to make
them viable.
‐ The requirement for government backing could, like in so many other
projects add a layer of bureaucracy which this self‐sufficient type of project is
trying to avoid.

www.jackthompsonfoundation.org

Dillion, J., and Savage, M., House Design in Alice Springs Town Camps, from Take 2; Housing Design in
Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill, 2003.

Gumatj Corporation, Press Release, 7th August, 2009

Gumatj Enterprises, Published in Territory Q, October 2009, ps. 40‐43

Heppell, M., Introduction: Past and present approaches and future trends in Aboriginal housing, from
A Black Reality, Aboriginal camps and housing in remote Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies, Canberra, 1979.

Memmott, P., Customary Aboriginal Behaviour patterns and housing design, from Take 2; Housing
Design in Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill, 2003.

Wigley, B. and J., Remote Conundrums, The changing role of housing in Aboriginal communities, from
Take 2; Housing Design in Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill,
2003.

Successes and Failures in Australian Indigenous Housing: Melinda Chan, Jessie Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Successes and Failures in Australian Indigenous Housing: Melinda Chan, Jessie Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Successes and Failures in Australian Indigenous Housing

Melinda Chan, Jessie Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook

1970s Policy emphasis on consultation

1930 1970 Today

1960s Indigenous wishes 1980s Development 1990s - Today Link between

SIHIP scheme house

Melinda Chan, Jesse Fowler, Frank Vedelago, Steph Westbrook