Aboriginal

Housing in Remote communities:

Why is it important that social and cultural practices be considered in Aboriginal
housing needs and design?

Aboriginal housing needs in remote communities are prescribed within dominant
mainstream Anglo-Australian values and domiciliary behaviours. This has resulted in
housing design that often contradicts the values and domiciliary behaviours of
Aboriginal people. This paper poses the question, Why is it important that social
and cultural practices be considered in Aboriginal housing needs and design? Today
housing plays a crucial role in closing the gap of Indigenous health equality as
availability to housing and its suitability to its occupants is closely related to health
and wellbeing (Bailie and Wayte 2006:178). The cultural and personal dislocation
suffered by Aboriginal people due to colonisation and subjugation has resulted in
Aboriginal people having some of the worst health and social outcomes in Australia.
This essay will investigate literature from leading Aboriginal housing academics
including Shaneen Fantin, Paul Memmott and Ross Bailie. I argue in this essay that
housing for Aboriginal people on remote communities should aim to improve health
outcomes and living conditions. However, it must do so without dislocating
Aboriginal people further by disregarding social and cultural domiciliary practices
that Aboriginal people find positive, part of their culture and conducive to feeling
safe and secure. To begin I will look at the cultural importance of the built
environment and its effects on social and cultural behaviours, and the way that
mainstream housing has been implemented in Aboriginal communities to force
cultural and behavioural change. I will then look at the influence of housing on
health and wellbeing. Finally I will suggest some examples of cultural and social
behaviour and customs of Aboriginal people that influence design of Aboriginal
housing. This will include examples of housing designs that have implemented
culturally appropriate design strategies.

Cultural Importance of the Built Environment:
To begin it is important to see how the built environment can be effective in
controlling and transforming culture and limit a persons agency. The built

environment is a product of cultural beliefs, values and practices (Rapoport

1986:162) and also influences culture, it is a two-way reflective relationship
(Fantin 2013:2). The housing that we inhabit and its architectural features such as
bedroom size, layout, windows sill heights and siting are designed to support the
social and cultural norms that take place within it and as a result can potentially limit
a persons agency if these norms are unsupported (Fantin 2013:2-3 and Reser
1979:77). The built environment also regulates behaviour and sets boundaries as to
what can and cannot take place within it and as a result affects a persons agency to
act or behave in a certain manner (Reser 1979:77-78). Reser affirms that

A house is not simply a physical, structural product in a human engineering,
architectural sense. The meaning of a house, its use, and its effects on human
behaviour are all heavily psychological (1979:93

A persons degree of Agency is influenced by the built environment and can be
inadvertently or intentionally destroyed if the built environment is counter to a
persons social and cultural behaviours. If people have no control over their built
environment, rendering them unable to carry out normal social and cultural
behaviour patterns, the built environment becomes unsupportive and unsuitable
(Fantin 2003:12). Unsupportive housing is detrimental to peoples health and
wellbeing, increases stress and affects the agency of its occupants (Fantin 2003:12).
We need to look carefully at the relationship the built environment has on culture
and agency. When ignored within Aboriginal housing design has affected Aboriginal
people detrimentally and especially so if carried out under government policy.

Housing as Assimilation:
The housing afforded to remote aboriginal communities over the last half century is
typical of Anglo-Australian mainstream, housing shaped with a mind to the nuclear
family that generally do not meet Indigenous families personal, cultural nor
functional needs (Fien et al 2008:71). The Anglo-Australian house is situated within
a particular cultural context, and is reflective of behaviours, values, norms and
climatic conditions of mainstream Australia (Reser 1979:95). Mainstream housing as

I conceive it for this essay, is housing that is built to suit the majority of Australians
housing and environmental needs. It has three or four bedrooms, one living space
and limited outdoor shelter or flexibility to accommodate larger families or visitors.
It is designed to accommodate a single nuclear family. Figure 1 is a floor plan of an
example of mainstream housing built in the Aboriginal community of Wilcannia in
1980.

Figure 1 Example of Housing Built for Aboriginal Families. Source: Memmott 2003:34

Figure 2 is an example of what was referred to as below-conventional state housing
provided to Aboriginal families in Halls Creek in 1980. It is very similar to Western
Australian Housing Commission homes built in the 1960s as shown in figure 3.


Figure 2. Below Conventional State housing provided to Aboriginal families in Halls
Creek. Source: Ross 1987:29.

Figure 3. WA Housing commission homes built in the 1960s. Source:
http://housing.wa.gov.au/HousingDocuments/DOH_Main_Display_Web2.pdf

The mainstreaming of housing in Aboriginal communities was legislated by the

Australian government through Transitional housing policies that came about during
the 1950s and lasted for more than a decade (Heppell 1979:9-10). It was part of
nationwide assimilation policies that came the official policy of Commonwealth and
State governments in 1951 (Rowley 1971:398).

Assimilation policies came out of a view that the government was responsible for
the care and protection of Aboriginal people who through no fault of their own
are backward and unable to look after themselves (Government of Queensland
1956:2 in Heppell 1979:8). Assimilation policies served to transition Aboriginal
people away from their own customary practices and values and into dominant
Western values influenced by particular views about Christianity, nuclear family
living and employment. The home was seen as a central component within this
context (Heppell 1979:8). Transition housing was premised on the assumption that
Aboriginal people would move through three stages of housing and gradually
become domesticated and practiced into dominant Australian values and norms
(Heppell 1979:9).

Recent Aboriginal housing initiatives such as the Community Housing and
Infrastructure Program (CHIP) focus on access to housing and aim to improve
housing standards and health outcomes (Australian Government DFCS 2005:7).
However, CHIP did not consider social and cultural practices in relation to Aboriginal
housing needs and design. This was further reiterated by the 2007 CHIP review that
indicated there was a need for culturally appropriate housing design (PWC
2007:24,89) and concluded that the current Aboriginal housing framework has not
worked and cannot work (PWC 2007:17). Such views are also supported by
Greenop and Memmott who argue that

Housing measures become assimilationist when they continue to prescribe
housing need according to small Anglo-Australian nuclear family norms, and
that such a family will need only one living space, and will behave in
particular ways in their house (Greenop and Memmott 2014:29).



These then are the ways dominant cultural values and practices shaped response to
the perceived needs of aboriginal communities, and influenced the nature of
housing.

Influence on Health and Wellbeing
The failure to consider social and cultural practices in the design of Aboriginal homes
also had the effect of entrenching poor health outcomes. This failure was aided by
existing housing shortages, overcrowding and poor construction and maintenance of
homes. It is evident that Aboriginal people in remote communities have some of the
lowest socio economic and health indicators of any group in Australia, with life
expectancy up to 16 years less (highest in the Northern territory) than non-
Indigenous Australians (ABS 2010:1) and unemployment as high as 90% (Fien et al
2008:6). Suitable housing plays an important role in these statistics as it is a
fundamental requirement for health (Bailie and Wayte 2006:178) and due to the
severe poverty present in remote communities, families are unable to meet their
own housing needs at the same level expected in mainstream Australia (Fien et al
2008:6). There is also an acute need for housing in remote communities that
Memmott assessed was twenty times what could be provided with the annual
Aboriginal housing budget (Memmott 2008:62).

Housing issues that effect health and wellbeing are made more acute in remote
communities due to their size, remoteness and isolation (Bailie and Wayte
2006:178). There are both direct and indirect health outcomes that are all
interrelated that result from housing conditions and design. Direct health outcomes
include infectious diseases, parasites or hygiene related illnesses due to poor
maintenance of health hardware such as washbasins and showers or the materials
used. Indirect health outcomes such as mental health problems, stress and wellbeing
that result from housing not meeting occupants needs and behaviours (Bailie and
Wayte 2006:179 and Fien et al 2008:2).

Furthermore the poor health of indigenous people in remote communities can be

linked to the further loss of agency and subsequent social dislocation (Bailie and
Wayte 2006:178) as a result of past conflict, and relocation, and the breaking up of
family and community ties. This dislocation is further entrenched by mainstream
housing that does not consider the social and cultural practices of Aboriginal people
and has rendered many Aboriginal people without control over their own living
conditions.

Stress is also experienced by Aboriginal households and is influenced by the loss of
personal control over situations or environments (Fantin 2003:12). Fantin suggests
that stress is created if people are not able to continue their own cultural practices
or behaviours and can lead to further mental and physical health problems
(2003:12). This is evident in a study by Catherine Keys of Warlpiri Womens Jilimi in
Yuendumu. Keys found that Warlpiri womens sense of safety and security were
closely linked with their social and environmental surrounds (2003:67). Furthermore,
what contributed to their sense of safety and security was their ability to survey the
sky and ground so they could predict or analyse social and climatic conditions such
as impending conflict or bad weather (2003:67). Another assessment Keys found
that relates to housing design was a preference for older women to sit on the
ground. Womens feelings of safety were jeopardised by mainstream housing that
has windowsill heights above the line of sight of somebody sitting down (Keys
2003:67). Keys suggests that a practical step towards Warlpiri women feeling safe
and secure and accounted for in the design of their homes, would be to lower sill
heights accordingly (2003:67). Keys study shows us that it is possible to incorporate
Aboriginal norms into mainstream housing design. By making small adjustments to
mainstream housing that consider appropriate design strategies it is possible offset
some of the stress of poor design.

Overcrowding
Overcrowding is a significant issue in Aboriginal communities and results in many
health and social problems including family and sexual violence (Wild, R., &
Anderson 2007:31) and directly reduces the rate of school attendance (Silburn

2014:1). Crowding also limits healthy living practices such as hygiene and washing
people and clothes by putting strain on health hardware (Pholeros 2002). The
average size of Indigenous households in Australia is 3.5 (ABS 2005-6) and in the NT
is 8.9, compared to the current national average of 2.7 (Memmott et al 2000:40 in
Memmott 2003:30-31).

In relation to crowding I argue that current ABS crowding data that utilises the
Canadian Occupancy Standard, which is based on the number, age and sex of
household members in relation to the number of bedrooms (ABS 2005) inadequately
examines overcrowding in Aboriginal households. These standards assume Anglo
Australian housing norms of nuclear family living (Greenop and Memmott 2014:4)
and ignore the influence that inadequate housing design has on overcrowding.
Robert Gifford suggests an alternative model for measuring crowding that is based
on the concept that crowding is the experience of a resident rather than a measure
of the density of people within a house (Greenop and Memmott 2014:10-11).
Giffords model allows for the social and cultural norms that take place in Aboriginal
households, such as the customary preference of some families to live in large
household groups and result in different conceptions of crowding and feelings of
crowding stress (Memmott 2003:31). Furthermore, there are well known practices in
Aboriginal communities of extended family living, demand sharing, household
mobility and kinship obligations (Greenop and Memmott 2014:4) that have been
neglected by mainstream house design and not considered in ABS crowding data. As
a result of Aboriginal practices a single house may be doing the job of three or more
houses as mainstream society might conceive their capacity (Memmott 2003:31).

Cultural design paradigm
Knowledge and understanding of the socially and culturally distinct behaviours and
customs important to Aboriginal people, is imperative in effecting positive change
and appropriate design in Aboriginal housing. Some of the practices and customs
that influence Aboriginal housing needs and design include, the separation of
different household groups into mens womens and family houses, kinship system,
socio spatial behaviour, externally orientated living spaces, sorcery, rules of

avoidance and the need to design for flexibility of household types and sizes
(Memmott 2003:29).

Figure 4. Example of a house provided by Tangentyere Council for Alice Springs Town
camps between 1984 86. Architects: Jane Dillon and Mark Savage. Source: Dillon
and Savage 2003:41.

Shaneen Fantin writes about the concerns of galka (sorcery) in the community of
Galiwinku and its influence on house design. Residents voiced their concerns about
the potential danger of galka in relation to specific architectural features. These
features included yard and landscape planning, fencing, external lighting, access

points into the house and yard, and laundry and toilet security and when poorly
designed could impact on peoples daily stress (Fantin and Greenop 2009:5-6).

Figure 5 is a plan of a house illustrating avoidance relationship interactions between
brothers and sisters. It allows for maximum flexibility of access to and from wet
areas (Memmott, Long and Fantin 2000:16). For Fantin avoidance behaviour,

is comprised of a set of culturally prescribed behaviours governing relations
among a variety of kin that manifest in physical and oral restraint. When
housing and other buildings are not designed to consider avoidance
relationships they can unintentionally contribute to shame, aggression and
violence. (Fantin 2003:72)

By gaining an understanding of these issues, architects, planners and policy makers
can provide more appropriate housing to Aboriginal people.

Figure 5. Diagrammatic plan of a house illustrating avoidance relationship
interactions between brothers and sisters. Source: (Memmott, Long and Fantin
2000:16).



Why is it important that social and cultural practices be considered in Aboriginal
housing needs and design?

As I have shown in this essay customary Aboriginal practices and domiciliary
behaviours are part of Aboriginal peoples way of life and are an expression of
identity. Inadequate housing that that ignores Aboriginal peoples social and cultural
practices is adding to the detrimental health of Aboriginal people. Architects Jane
Dillon, Mark Savage and Shaneen Fantin have shown how it is possible to make small
adjustments to mainstream housing design that respond to the social and cultural
needs of Aboriginal people. To design houses that only suit one-way of occupying a
house is both ignorant and assimilationist. Aboriginal people, like Anglo-Australians
have specific social and cultural practices that are affected by their built
environment and need to be considered in the design of housing they live in.

References:

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2010. Life Tables For Aboriginal And Torres Strait
Islander Australians. Found at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/199E22E265BEB950CA257943000CF04
9?opendocument. On the 7th November 2014.

Bailie, R. S., & Wayte, K. J. (2006). Housing and health in Indigenous communities:
Key issues for housing and health improvement in remote Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14(5), 178-183.

Dillon, J, & Savage, M. (2003). House Design in Alice Springs Town Camps. In
Memmott, Paul, and Catherine Chambers. "TAKE 2: housing design in indigenous
Australia." The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill ACT.

Fantin, Shaneen. (2013). Reminding me of home. Culturally responsive design of

landscape and external environments in Indigenous secure and health facilities. 5th
Prison Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance 9-10th Dec, 2013.
Melbourne Session Title: The Plan Phase: what do we need and where?

Fantin, S., & Greenop, K. (2009). Sorcery and spirits: Intercultural housing and place
in Aboriginal Australia. In Cultural Crossroads: 26th International Conference of the
Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-
13). University of Auckland.

Fantin, S. (2003) Housing Aboriginal Culture in Northeast Arnhem Land. PhD Thesis,
Aboriginal Environments Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Fien, J., Charlesworth, E., Lee, G., Morris, D., Baker, D. C., & Grice, T. (2008). Towards
a design framework for remote Indigenous housing. AHURI Final Report No. 114.
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Greenop, Kelly and Paul Memmott. (2014). We are good-hearted people, we like to
share: definitional dilemmas of crowding and homelessness in urban Indigenous
Australia [Draft]. School of Architecture The University of Queensland Australia.

Heppell, M. (1979). Introduction: past and present approaches and future trends in
aboriginal housing. A Black Reality: Aboriginal Camps and Housing in Remote
Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, 65-96.

Keys, C. (2003): 64-71. Housing design principles from a study of Warlpiri Women's
Jilimi. In Memmott, Paul, and Catherine Chambers. Take 2: Housing Design in
Indigenous Australia, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill ACT.

Memmott, Paul. (2003). "Customary Aboriginal behavior patterns and housing
design." 26-39. In Memmott, Paul, and Catherine Chambers. "TAKE 2: housing design
in indigenous Australia." The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill ACT.


Memmott, Paul. (2003). "Customary Aboriginal behavior patterns and housing
design." 26-39. In Memmott, Paul, and Catherine Chambers. "TAKE 2: housing design
in indigenous Australia." The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill ACT.

Memmott, Paul (2008). "Delivering culturally appropriate Aboriginal housing."
Architecture Australia 97.5: 61-64.

Memmott, P. Long, S. & Fantin, S. (2000) Post Occupancy Evaluation of IHANT &
NAHS Projects in the Northem Territory; Cultural & Social Component. Aboriginal
Environments Research Centre, Brisbane.

Pholeros, Paul. (2002). Housing for health and fixing houses for better health.
Environmental Health, 2(4), 34.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (2007), Living in the Sunburnt Country. Indigenous
Housing: Findings of the Review of the Community Housing and Infrastructure
Programme, Final Report- February 2007, Price Waterhouse Coopers,
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/indigenous/programs-chip.htm

Rapoport, A. (1986). Culture and Built Form A Reconsideration in Saile, David. G.
(eds) Architecture in Cultural Change. Essays in Built Form & Culture Research.
University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Reser, J. P. (1979). A matter of control: Aboriginal housing circumstances in remote
communities and settlements. A Black Reality: Aboriginal Camps and Housing in
Remote Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, 65-96.

Ross, Helen. (1987). Just for Living: Aboriginal perceptions of housing in northwest
Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Rowley, C. D. (1971). The Remote Aborigines (Vol. 3). Australian National University

Press.

Silburn, Sven. (2014) How crowded homes can lead to empty schools in the bush.
Source: http://theconversation.com/how-crowded-homes-can-lead-to-empty-
schools-in-the-bush-30971. Accessed on the 8th November 2014.

Wild, R., & Anderson, P. Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of
Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, (2007). Ampe Akelyernemane Meke
Mekarle:" Little Children are Sacred": Report of the Northern Territory Board of
Inquiry Into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse 2007.
Department of the Chief Minister.