Building houses in remote

indigenous communities is the latest move by the current federal government in their attempts to "lift" the well-being of these communities.

The cost is said to be $4bn over the next ten years. They will build two hundred and seventy houses a year - at a cost of $1.5m a house. $1.5m? That alone should be ringing alarm bells about the scheme. Even allowing for the extra cost of building anything in a remote area that seems excessive.

Something similar was tried more than two decades ago under another government. They took the advice of the now defunct ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander Commission) and built some houses in a remote community. It did not work. The houses have been trashed.

One major reason for it not working was because the houses were built where there was no work. They were built where people said they wanted to live because it was "their" land but they had no means to support themselves there.  And they are doing the same thing all over again. They are building houses where there is no work, where there will be no work. 

"Oh but this is where they want to live," is the argument being put forward, "They have the right to live on the land they consider their tribal land, the land to which they have a connection. We need to provide housing where people want to live."

No, we don't. You provide housing if people have no other choice. It might sound harsh but this has to be an economic decision as well as a lifestyle decision.

My parents were required to teach anywhere in the state. The Senior Cat had some tough schools, much tougher than many of his colleagues. He was regarded as the Education Department's "trouble shooter", the person sent in to sort out issues and then be moved on. We lived in some remote places and yes, housing was supplied. It was not supplied to all teachers. Young single teachers lived with families. They often shared a bedroom with the students they were teaching. In one place they lived in caravans parked next to the houses the government had supplied to people moving in to clear land and farm. We lived in the most basic of fibro asbestos housing. In one place the house was so poorly built there were tree growing under the house because the land had not been properly cleared. The bedrooms were so small Middle Cat and I spent our time there sleeping on a mattress on the floor. There was no running water or electricity when we arrived.

We put up with all this and many other issues because we had to. The place we lived in has barely grown in the past fifty years. There is a silo there now that was being built when we left and that is the only reason the population increased. It will not increase in any other way because there is no work there. The farms are being consolidated as young people move to where the work is.

In other remote areas other young people are also moving away because there is no work. According to the last Census the communities in which it is proposed to build these houses are also smaller than they once were. People are drifting away, even those who claim great cultural attachments to the land. They are moving to areas where life is more comfortable and a lettuce does not cost $11. They want all the stations available on the television set not the single station which supposedly caters to their interests. They want the doctor and the hospital. 

Those of them who are concerned about such things also want opportunities for their children. They want their children taught in English in schools that have more facilities. That may be the most important issue of all.

So why are we going to build houses in those areas? Is it really what people want or need? Or has it got more to do with people who live much more comfortably in the city and who have employment telling us something else? Is this really about "preserving the culture" of the wrongly named "oldest living continuous culture on earth"? If it is then that is nonsense. We may not like it but the "traditional" culture and way of life no longer exists. Building houses is not going to help that but employment might help to preserve what remains.