The Block
Imagine if you will a block of units. It’s a public housing block owned by the government. Let’s say the block is ten stories high with twelve units on each level. The units themselves are mostly three bedroom one bathroom affairs. The block looks like it’s in pretty bad condition from the outside and seems older than its actual age of about twenty years.
Police services have identified that the residents of the block are regularly committing a variety of serious offences. Some residents are charged and convicted, others are not. Eventually the government gets wind of the block and decide to investigate.
During those investigations the government encounters a range of issues. To begin with each three bedroom unit houses an average of seven people. The median age of the occupants is forty with fifty seven percent of them male and forty three percent of them female. Sixty eight percent of the occupants are unemployed.
Whilst forty one percent of people don’t drink, fifty nine percent of people do. Unfortunately of the fifty nine percent who drink the majority of them consume over eight standard drinks per day. The people who do not drink are of course still adversely affected by those who do. The result is that sixty two percent of the residents have prescribed medication. Ambulance officers report that in almost all cases where they are required to attend at the block the patients are intoxicated.
A variety of support services have reported that the women in the block are twelve times more likely to be the victims of assault. People in the block are four times more likely to suffer sexual abuse although eighty eight percent of them go unreported. Incidences where twelve year old girls are placed on birth control medication are not uncommon.
When you examine the recent (entirely justified) furore about violence against women can you imagine the outrage directed at the government if that government were to do nothing about the block. When you examine the recent, (again entirely justified) horror uncovered by the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse how could a government allow this block, which it funds, to continue.
As the more perspicacious of you have no doubt determined this ‘block’ actually does exist. Well ok, the block itself doesn’t exist but a number of communities of a similar size exist. They are the remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia which many social commentators are so completely against closing. The East Kimberly Homelessness Project (2014) provides a detailed analysis of the issues confronting these communities (1).
There are some very good reasons to keep these communities open. Perhaps the best of these is that should one of these communities be closed, there is no guarantee that the raft of issues experienced by the residents will abate. What is more likely is that the residents will simply move elsewhere carrying their issues with them thus negatively affecting the new communities they settle in.
A less convincing reason is that these communities facilitate the resident’s cultural tie to the land. The accepted historical opinion is that whilst some Aboriginal communities lived in semi-permanent villages the majority of the tribes were semi nomadic. The existence of fixed remote communities in no way facilitates the Aboriginals traditional role as custodians of the land.
Furthermore to imply that living in a fixed community with modern amenities whilst more than half of the population consumes alcohol to excess on a daily basis is in any way related to historical aboriginal cultural traditions is absurd.
On the other side of the coin there are two main arguments for closing these communities. The first of these is a fairly straight forward economic argument. The cost associated with providing services to these communities is significant. Could that money be better spent providing better health and education services in areas with a higher population density thus assisting a greater number of West Australians?
The economic argument for closing communities is in my view a poor one. Closing the communities will reduce the direct cost of funding those specific communities. However it is likely that much if not most of the existing costs will simply be transferred to other communities as the problems experienced by the communities move when the residents move to other communities. They do not simply disappear.
The second argument for closing these communities is based upon the fairly obvious risk to younger people living in these communities and the harm the lifestyle chosen by many inhabitants does to themselves and those around them. These concerns have has been well documented over a number of years by a range of reports and investigations by both Federal and State governments.
It’s the resistance from some people to the medical arguments that I find most baffling. The West Australian Police Commissioner went on the public record pointing out the fairly obvious health reasons as to why these communities might be closed (2). Labor MR Ben Wyatt responded by questioning the source of the commissioners claims and stating that he had been unable to find the source of the claims. It’s the Robinson Report (1999) Ben, which is also supported by Gordon, Hallahan & Henry (2002). A paper by Janet Stanley in 2003 provides a good overview (3).
Whilst some Australians remain in denial, most are deeply uncomfortable with the existing situation in remote Aboriginal communities. The current situation should not be allowed to continue. It is difficult to argue that the existing communities are not adversely affecting the health of the residents.
Ideally the solution should empower the Aboriginal people to continue their traditional role as the custodians of the land. However this should be done in an economically sustainable way. Above all the solution should provide a safe environment for the Aboriginal people as opposed to the quite clearly harmful existing one.
With that goal in mind I would suggest the following comprise solution. A small number of the existing communities, which historically have been gathering places for the Aboriginal people, should be expanded and enhanced. These will become centres where the Aboriginal people can celebrate their culture and share it with other West Australians and foreign tourists. These centres will have full health, power, policing and social services which will provide not just the required support for the residents but also local employment for residents.
The remaining smaller communities will not have power, health, police and social services provided. Basic community housing will remain but the housing will be modelled on shared community accommodation rather than a number of smaller free standing dwellings.
By providing both these options Aboriginals can engage in their traditional semi nomadic lifestyle of travelling between communities. They can also to engage the services they require when required by returning to the larger communities periodically. Alternatively Aboriginals can chose to stay in the larger communities and those doing so will have greater exposure to job opportunities.
This solution addresses the economic argument by reducing the existing costs associated with providing key infrastructure to several hundred communities. It also provides greater employment opportunities for those seeking them. It may even provide a further economic boost as there would be construction associated with the expanded and enhanced communities.
The people living in existing communities would not be forced into the existing city centres. There would be greater opportunities to better manage the existing problems with alcohol, violence and sexual abuse. The new larger regional centres would also act as safe harbours for those adversely affected by the various issues confronting Aboriginal people.
Lastly adopting this model gives the Aboriginal people the opportunity to share their culture through the larger regional centres and practice their traditional role through the smaller centres. The solution is far more inclusive. It provides choices for Aboriginal people allowing them to continue their relationship with the land and contribute to other West Australians.
Of course at present this idea is little more than a high level plan. Further research would need to be conducted into the expected reduction in costs and analysis would be required to identify potential risks associated with the initiative.
In most business cases there is a default option of ‘Do Nothing’. In this instance I believe the default option is irresponsible. It would represent yet another failure of government to provide for an important part of our community. The ‘Do Nothing’ option should not be considered.
(3) http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/2003-abuse/stanley.pdf