|
Aboriginal fringe
dwellers in Darwin:
cultural persistence or culture of resistance? William Bartlett
Day BA (Hons), UWA
|
|
5 February 1997 Dear Greg
You have mentioned
that there are precedents for complaints continuing after the death
of the complainant. I maintain that despite the tragic and premature
death of Mr Bunduwabi, this is a complaint which should stand.
This is because the wrongful eviction from Lee Point, as documented
by Mr Pinney, noticeably affected Mr Bunduwabi's health and the stress
of resisting repeated attempts to forcibly evict him, at the very least,
made his last eight weeks very stressful.
|
|
As stated in the complaint
Mr Bunduwabi believed he had a right to be at Lee Point both traditionally
and under Australian law, remembering the area has a long association
with Aborigines and has been used continuously as a campsite for at
least 15 years. I believe there is no hope of conciliation between the
parties, based on Mr Pinney's defence.
The NT Government appears to hold
to a position that Mr Bunduwabi was not treated differently to 'anyone
else'. What other people are expected to live without sufficient available
water for washing, within the city boundaries? The camps at Kulaluk
and Lee Point are the direct result of Government policy. When
Aborigines camp in the most shocking conditions without water or any
amenities out of the public eye, nobody cares. This shifting
of responsibility is a form of discrimination as I argued in our response
to the Darwin City Council.
The Trespass laws in this case are
mostly directed at Aborigines who have traditionally been allowed
to camp around Darwin. The camps exist because of a failure to provide
a special need; the pressures on the more established camps comes
from the enforcement of Government policies; the increase in homeless
Aborigines living on the Kulaluk lease is because these policies and
programs are not in force there. All responsibility is shifted to
ATSIC.
|
|
Mr Bunduwabi's needs were different
to non-Aboriginal campers and his connections to Lee Point were different
to non-Aboriginal campers. 'The personal cultural values' of the late
Mr Bunduwabi are an issue in this case, despite Mr Pinney's dismissal
of them. When Mr Pinney states that it was Mr Bunduwabi's 'personal cultural
values' which caused him to reject [alternative accommodation] he highlights
an absolutely crucial legal question. Anti-discrimination laws were
put in place to recognise the rights of minorities against 'everyone else'
(although we all undoubtedly belong to one minority or an other). The
recognition of these cultural values is what this case is about and Mr
Pinney's statement shows he has failed to understand this. In the past
the NT Government has acknowledged Aboriginal cultural values, in the
recognition of a need for more town camps. Australian law has also recognised
that the indigenous inhabitants have special rights (ie Native Title).
Anti-Discrimination is all about difference,
a fact which Mr Pinney has failed to recognise. He states that 'such
a facility is not available to anyone else'. On that principle, there
would be no wheelchair access because 'such a facility is not available
to anyone else'. I question who is the 'anyone else' of this phrase? Is
it the dreaded white Anglo middle class male? Certainly Mr Bunduwabi was
not 'anyone else'. He was a physically disadvantaged traditional Aboriginal
single man who needed the support of an extended family and chose to make
Darwin his home. His needs were not recognised.
It is natural that Mr Bunduwabi would
reject offers from Territory Health Services. The history
of the institutionalisation and segregation of lepers and their traumatic
experiences in those institutions has yet to be told. Mr Bunduwabi would
not talk about these experiences, although he had fond associations with
the staff and doctors. Mr Pinney's response shows a lack of sensitivity
to Mr Bunduwabi's feelings.
|
|
I maintain that a full hearing would
prove that there is ample evidence that people have been permitted to
camp at Lee Point and establish elaborate dwellings there for many years.
The sudden change in policy resulting in forced eviction without
written notice or legal recourse is still causing confusion and
hardship because a new camp takes many months to establish, especially
after the loss of so many possessions, fixtures etc.
Mr Pinney still cannot understand why
Lee Point has advantages to Aboriginal campers. It has been often stated
that the lack of water, access, toilets and showers was the cause of discomfort
at Fish Camp, Ludmilla. Lee Point provides these facilities which should
be the right of all citizens. Because of the original eviction and the
determined return to Lee Point, Mr Bunduwabi was living under a single
tarpaulin in some of the wettest weather Darwin has experienced. Undoubtable
wet clothes and wet mattresses caused ill health as did the dust and lack
of washing facilities at Fish Camp. For these reasons I maintain that
this is a case of the most callous discrimination leading to the most
tragic results. To drop the complaint would be to negate the determined
effort of Mr Bunduwabi to stand up for his rights.
Although Lee Point is included in the Larrakia Native Title Claim, its status is different to the Kulaluk special purpose lease, a fact the Larrakia claimants recognised when they excluded Kulaluk from the claim. The Kulaluk people kindly allowed Mr Bunduwabi's group to move to Fish Camp but it is clearly 'someone else's land', and there is no incentive to establish a more permanent camp there. Mr Bunduwabi felt Lee Point was his place and he felt comfortable there. However, most of Mr Bunduwabi's group stayed behind at Fish Camp, preferring the atrocious conditions there to the threats of police action at Lee Point. It is sad that Mr Pinney feels that policies presented to Federal Parliamentary Committees by the NT Government are irrelevant. It is this attitude which angers Aborigines when States and Territories present needs to Federal Parliament and then do not honour their budgets for improvements in Aboriginal health and housing. This failing is in itself discriminatory. |
|
The Minister for Lands, Planning
and Environment, Mike Reed, has been quoted in the media as saying that
evicted Aboriginal town campers should return to their place of origin.
There has been no previous denial or apology for these repeated statements
which are very hurtful to long-term residents of Darwin. Bob regarded
Darwin as his home and it was his wish to be buried here. He said the
15 Mile Camp was built for his people; however, the houses were gradually
occupied by other culture/language groups (from Humpty Doo). Mr Pinney's
confirmation of people's right to be in Darwin should be a recognition
of their needs.
In summary, the response from Lands,
Planning and Environment has accentuated their perceived right under the
Trespass Act to evict people from Lee Point. This does not answer all
the points of the complaint which has been taken out against the NT Government
as a whole. There appears no hope of conciliation and in the light of
circumstances, I believe the complaint should proceed to the next stage.
I note in the transcript of the hearing
for an interim order, Mr Pinney's concern about confidentiality. In this
case I believe it only serves the interests of the NT Government to insist
on confidentiality of response and reply. As you have stated, suppression
of proceedings is not a requirement of the Act. I therefore believe it
is in our best interests to release this exchange to the media and intend
doing so.
yours sincerely Bill Day
|
|
Extract from ‘Statement of aims and objectives: Fish Camp Community Housing Project’ (Simmering 1999). The Problem Now
(a) Many of Fish Camp's residents
are frail and would qualify for "meals on wheels" and other services designed
to help people look after themselves. But these services are not extended
to Fish Camp. They have no easily found address, meaning volunteer drivers
would probably get lost too often, and vehicle access is a little difficult;
(b) The residents have several
times been disturbed by outsiders who have driven around their campsite
at night or even in the day, and have driven through their camp. Unwelcome
and unruly visitors disturb them and steal their food. The residents have
no way of keeping such people away, no telephone for police, and no address
to give to the police.
(c) Some residents are chronically
ill. One of the reasons some live in Darwin is that they need regular
treatment (e.g: kidney dialysis) not available elsewhere. Although much
more hygienic, hospitals discourage visits by family groups and Aboriginal
people tend to find them stressful places, and to leave them as soon as
they can walk. Most residents are likely to need operations of various
kinds and have experienced difficulty keeping their dressings clean in
a place where there are no ablution facilities or clean places to recover
from treatment.
(d) The residents have no refrigerator
to keep their prescription medicine.
(e) Many of the residents are
very likely to need emergency medical treatment, associated with complaints
like very high blood pressure, epilepsy, recent Tuberculosis infection,
general frailness and others. The residents have no way of calling an
ambulance, and ambulance drivers have in the past found it difficult to
find Fish Camp.
(f) Post is not delivered to
the residents, making them unnecessarily dependent on friends acting as
"care of" addresses. Some residents find this inconvenient and undignified,
and must devote a full day to walking and taking a bus to check for post.
(g) The residents have no telephone
to call taxis, minibuses or otherwise to arrange visits into Darwin for
shopping, banking, medical treatment, having a shower, and other daily
tasks.
(h) The residents have no power
or permanent water supply, no secure place to store food, no refrigeration
to keep food, and no clean place to cook food. They derive almost no nutritional
value from the store-bought products left available to them in these circumstances
pre-cooked fast food and could not afford this anyway. For proper nutrition,
they depend upon, rather than merely supplement their diet with, fish
and other bush food hunted and gathered on the coastal areas, meaning
a large part of their time is spent merely collecting food.
|
|
Existing Housing Options
This group currently has no practical and real housing option. There are various ways low-income groups are housed, but current housing options do not, would not or indeed have demonstrably not worked for this group, because they do not take into account practical considerations dealt with below: (a) Owner-Occupation: This group
cannot afford to buy land or housing. They have no assets and their income
level disqualifies them from borrowing on mortgage. Just like singles,
couples and families on or near the poverty line, this group will not
be housed without state assistance.
(b) Private Rental Market: It
is not likely a private developer could be persuaded to design and build
housing to fit the special needs of this group. Generally private rental
accommodation is designed for single residents, couples and small nuclear
families, and can be easily sold and re-let once a particular lease has
come to an end. A special and necessarily non-mainstream form of housing
would by its nature be unattractive from a private investor's point of
view.
(c) Town camps: These also accommodate
Aboriginal people. Indeed, some in this group have lived at town camps
at times. But town camps do not meet this group’s needs. According to
some residents who have tried town camps, there are "Too many different
groups, fighting between them, no control over who comes and goes, and
new groups form and push out the old".
(d) Aboriginal Hostels: Members
of this group point out Hostels do not offer a home environment. Indeed
this is not their function. Extended families cannot stay together in
Hostels. They are not sited near bushland, so there is no access to healthy
food sources for this group.
(e) Housing Commission Housing: This has been the group's only alternative to homelessness. The Housing Commission is given the task of meeting state obligations under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements to accommodate low-income groups. The Commission offers flats, units and suburban houses designed for a fixed number of occupants, whether single tenants, couples or nuclear families. Judged from the style of dwellings available, the Commission's target group is clearly urban dwellers whose living needs differ little from those of people who can afford their own housing. Consequently, the Commission supplies flats for single people and couples , and houses for nuclear families, at rents they can afford. The accommodation is basically the same as that for people who own their own homes, or who can afford to rent privately. Historically, the Housing Commission and its inter-state equivalents have built and rented homes for lower income groups, and managed these properties. If a low-income applicant demonstrated he or she could not afford to buy or rent a private house, the state tried to supply a state-managed home at affordable, lower-than-market rent. Housing policy has shifted away from the notion of the state as owner and manager of houses. If a person demonstrates he cannot afford to buy or rent a private house, he would now be encouraged to rent privately, but receives a direct rental subsidy so that the state is effectively paying some of the rent. The subsidy "follows the person, not the stock", freeing government from the duties of a landlord and property manager. This new trend assumes the person’s only housing problem is affordability, and that appropriate housing can be found on the private rental market. But this group differs fundamentally from model or target tenants because: (i) This is an extended family
group, not a nuclear family, comprising a core permanent group of approximately
twelve people. The group feeds and cares for some of its older, frail
members, and for those who are sick, and deals with this as a group responsibility.
The largest Housing Commission homes have four bedrooms, and would not
provide the space needed for healthy living. Standard family homes and
their fittings are not designed or built for heavy wear and tear from
so many people.
(ii) The group often prepares
food and eats together. The group's main source of nutritious food is
shellfish, fish, stingrays, geese, kangaroo, goanna, which they gather
themselves. This is usually cooked outside. Apartment balconies and house
gardens are not designed for some of the activities associated with this
diet, such as butchering game, large-scale cooking, and the noise of communal
cooking. Neighbours in flats or suburban houses would tend to be offended,
and these kinds of activities would tend inevitably to lead to breach
of various lease terms, and city by-laws relating to fire safety.
(iii) The group lives outside
as much as it can. Building structures are valued as shelter from the
rain, as places to secure food and valuables, and as a secure place to
sleep. Housing Commission homes feature family and other rooms as "living
spaces" intended to be places of recreation. They often have carpeting,
multifarious private rooms, European gardens and other features which
many Housing Commission tenants would expect, but which this group do
not need or find irksome. In contrast, verandas, secure fencing and an
approved outdoor cooking area would be more useful to this group.
(iv) The group enjoys frequent
group singing and dancing. Although a log-term Darwin resident, Dulcie
Malimara retains the culture of her upbringing in a traditional Aboriginal
community, and hosts traditional ceremonies, including funeral business.
This is effectively prohibited under Housing Commission leases and the
Tenancy Act, for the noise and overcrowding problems it creates in traditional
European suburbs.
(v) Family obligation means the
group would find it culturally impossible to refuse hospitality to some
family and friends, particularly those visiting Darwin and those in need
for health reasons, if only short term. Housing Commission leases limit
the number of residents in a rented dwelling, often to particular designated
people and to a maximum number of occupants. Friends or family staying
more than briefly would in lease terms be sub-tenants for which Commission
approval is probably needed. To allow such guests to stay can effectively
breach lease terms. The design of flats and nuclear-family homes, and
lease conditions (sensible in themselves) are not suited to this cultural
hospitality imperative, and create difficulties.
(vi) The Elders would need control
of access to where they live. At Fish Camp people have harassed them by
driving through their camp, even when they are sleeping at night. People
have stolen their belongings. Some of the Elders are frail and cannot
keep out trespassers, and need a perimeter fence and lockable, secure
gate for security. Aboriginal people owing hospitality to extended kin
can be vulnerable to abuse of their hospitality, and to being harassed
by plain trespassers. Housing Commission homes do not feature high perimeter
fences, and tenants are vulnerable to losing their leases due to the actions
of trespassers. This objective would be met through design of buildings,
location and legal arrangements as to tenure which provide for:
a. A core group of permanent residents
who will control the right to live and visit, but which allows for additional
people to be sheltered temporarily;
b. Emphasis
on heavy duty necessities such as running water and security, as opposed
to buildings with all features of suburban homes;
c. Open
style living, with less emphasis on small private rooms;
d. Space
for craft work and other group activities;
e. Wheel-chair
accessibility;
f. Proximity
to the sea for food gathering and fishing;
g. Proximity
to bus routes;
h.
Ceremony space in a bush or park setting allowing some distance from
neighbours, as opposed to small back-yards for each resident;
i. Security
of tenure for stable lives.
|
Contents
Appendices
Bibliography
Plates
Maps
Illustrations
Figures