Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Dispossession by stealth

By Stephen Hagan - posted Tuesday, 25 October 2005


As Henry O (1862-1910) US short-story writer said: “It was beautiful and simple as all truly great swindles are.”

Oh - the great Australian dream to own one’s home. For many the simple thought of arriving at their paved driveway after a hard day at the office, pressing the remote control to open the double garage door and entering the pre-programmed ducted air-conditioned brick home situated on a hectare with views, via an internal access, is just a dream.

It really can happen if only you follow the music of the pied piper.

Advertisement

Pied piper Johnny Howard, introducing the debate on Indigenous property rights in the Northern Territory which he hopes will spark a shift to private home ownership and enterprise culture for Indigenous Australians, says “trust and follow me” as he plays yet another entrancing tune on his pipe.

The 2001 census showed that households with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders were much more likely to be renting a home than purchasing or owning it outright. The statistics revealed that 63 per cent of households of Indigenous people were renting (compared with approximately 27 per cent of other households); 19 per cent were purchasing their home (compared with 27 per cent of other households); and 13 per cent owned their home outright (compared with 40 per cent of other households).

Despite the supreme optimists saying that homeownership is within everyone’s reach, the ABS statistics reveals otherwise, with an uninspiring true picture of the battle Indigenous families would have to go through just to meet their monthly repayments from their meagre wages, after essential household bills (electricity, phone, fuel, food, clothing, schooling and sporting expenditure) have been deducted.

In the census, the mean (or average) gross household income for Indigenous peoples was $364 per week, or 62 per cent of the rate for non-Indigenous peoples ($585 per week). The ABS has stated, “this disparity reflects the lower household incomes received by households with Indigenous person(s), and the tendency for such households to be larger than other households and hence for the gross household income to be lower”.

For Indigenous persons, income levels generally decline with increased geographic remoteness. In major cities and regional areas, average incomes for Indigenous persons were approximately 70 per cent of the corresponding income for non-Indigenous persons. This declines to approximately 60 per cent in remote areas, and just 40 per cent in very remote areas.

You be the judge on whether it is feasible for anyone on $365 per week ($1,460 per month) or at best a dual (husband and wife) income of $730 per week ($2,920 per month) could meet the following monthly repayments, based on the current Commonwealth Bank Standard Variable rate of 7.32 per cent (principal and interest) over a 25-year period.

Advertisement

As a guide only, click on the following site and then click on the home loan calculator to do your own calculations on a figure within your own price range.

If pied piper Johnny is genuinely committed to making homeownership a reality within Indigenous communities he should provide adequate resources, as identified and costed by the community, to enhance economic and community based enterprises that will foster an increase in their average income.

"The whole thing is bound up to be a great failure," long-time director of the Central Land Council David Ross told The Australian journalist Stuart Rintoul, (8/10/2005), suggesting that education is a much greater issue with "at least two generations running around uneducated".

What chances have those generations who are uneducated got of managing a home loan with all its complex rates of repayments including fixed, variable, discounted variable or interest only loans, plus house and content insurance and default payments for dishonoured cheques and so on?

But is homeownership really the agenda of the prime minister? - I think not.

As for his federal policy of 99-year leases within Indigenous communities I support the views of Palm Island Council chairwoman Erykah Kyle's description of the move as “a land grab”.

The question needs to be asked: why the debate on leasing arrangements? A leasing arrangement is currently possible under the existing Aboriginal Land Rights Act since 1976, with Kakadu and Uluru national parks being two conspicuous examples. Stuart Rintoul reports the prevalence of petrol-sniffing among Uluru's traditional owners at Mutujulu hardly makes a strong case for leases leading to improved social and economic conditions.

In Alice Springs, David Ross says the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act could prevent traditional owners from having control over future commercial developments on their land under sub-leasing arrangements and will create divisions between Aborigines.

It is the oldest trick in the world, divide and conquer, used sparingly by the ruling class to sort out their Indigenous population, when urged on by big business. I guess that may well be the motive of pied piper Johnny in introducing the debate on Indigenous property rights.

And if you think non-Indigenous people won’t live in large Indigenous communities, try driving through rural and remote communities and see who occupies the large imposing homes on the outskirts of town, strategically positioned along river or beach frontage, with the mandatory doberman roaming the large enclosure to ward off uninvited guests. Money will lure people to work and live anywhere.

I can clearly visualise the beautiful beaches and the sweeping views of Yarrabah, Palm Island, Cherbourg, Wreck Bay, Framlingham, Raukkan, Beagle Bay, Melville Island and Oyster Bay, to name a few, being leased to wealthy businessmen. Lost forever will be the unlimited access of the traditional owners to their lands for cultural or recreational pursuits. Impeding their access to centuries of traditional rights will be large business enterprises and resort style homes legally fenced off under newly acquired leases for 99 years.

As the old saying goes “possession is nine tenths of the law”.

Pied piper Johnny’s commendable home ownership tune is intended to fascinate and mesmerise but to me it is surely a furphy while the real jewel in the crown, Indigenous land rights, are being legislated away.

“It was beautiful and simple as all truly great swindles are.”

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Hagan is Editor of the National Indigenous Times, award winning author, film maker and 2006 NAIDOC Person of the Year.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Hagan

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Stephen Hagan
Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy