|
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