ET-PERTH 3.3 PAPER: Design Issues E | Mon, 4 Apr
ET-PERTH 2.4 PAPER: Renewable Energ | Mon, 4 Apr
ET-PERTH 3.8 INTRO: Housing in the | Tue, 5 Apr
ET-PERTH 3.3, 3.4 COMMENT: Housing | Wed, 6 Apr
ET-PERTH 3.3 COMMENT: Design Issues | Wed, 6 Apr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 13:55:06 +0800
Subject: ET-PERTH 3.3 PAPER: Design Issues Effecting the Applica ... .
National Conference On Technology Transfer In Remote Communities.
Murdoch University 6-7 April 1994
Paper 3.3
Design Issues Effecting The Application Of Health Hardware In Some
Kimberley Aboriginal Community Housing.
Richard Machell,
NBC Aboriginal Corporation, P.O Box 664 Broome 6725
Tel 091 922 305
THE KIMBERLEY HOUSING SITUATION
The land area generally defined as the Kimberley covers approximately
421,150 sq km or almost twice the area of Victoria. The population of the
Kimberley region is approximately 23,000 of which 45% or just over 10,000
are Aboriginal. (A.B.S 1993) This figure is considered conservative in some
quarters and a survey carried out by Australian Construction Services
estimates it as high as 15,252. The A. C.S. survey estimated that some
4,400 Aboriginal people in the Kimberley required housing, approximately
30% of the total Aboriginal population of the Kimberley. Additionally, of
the 1721 dwellings in which Aboriginal people are living within the
Kimberley, 691 are classified as 'improvised housing' accommodating
approximately 5000 people (A.B.S 1993).
At approximately 5 persons per house a total of 900 houses are required to
meet current demand. Population growth, replacement of old stock and
'improvised housing' is not taken into account within this demand.
ATSIC in the Kimberley 92/93 spent $3.6M on 43 houses in remote areas as
well as an additional $1M on renovations to existing houses, new shelters
and ablution facilities. Homeswest Aboriginal Housing Board in 91/92 spent
approx. $2.1M on new housing with a further $5.4M in the 92/93 financial
year, on new 'Aboriginal' housing in both Remote and urban sites. This
represents a total of approx. 90 new 'Aboriginal' houses in 92/93 in the
Kimberley. Spending may vary from year to year, as changing needs are
perceived and funding levels are not guaranteed to a region, although
overall A.H.B spending appears to be fixed at the amount received through
the Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement and specifically nominated for
the purpose of Aboriginal Housing (Crough 1993 P163).
Pressure on housing therefore is extreme and it is not uncommon for up to
30 people consisting of 4 families or more in a single house in some
locations. This may be exacerbated through deaths in communities which may
result in a particular house in which someone has died, being vacated for
periods of up to 2 years.
Both A.H.B and ATSIC Regional Councils allocate approximately $110,000 per
remote housing unit. Amounts less than this are frequently allocated, as
low as $55,000, which severely restricts design and spatial results.
Allocations are sometimes increased in locations which have special design
considerations, i.e. flood prone or extremely remote, although this is not
always the case.
With Regional Councils allocating funds to Aboriginal Corporations on a
submission basis, there is an extreme amount of pressure on them to satisfy
all applications for housing which is obviously not possible with the
limited funds available. It is quite common for funds for a single house
(c. $110,000) to be allocated to a community to start the housing process
or alternatively to allocate reduced amounts, in an attempt to share
limited resources around a region. This generally does not allow for a
satisfactory planning process, is rarely cost effective and often results
in the provision inadequate accommodation. The community itself is then
under pressure to spend whatever funds it receives in an equitable manner
as possible and frequently seeks to gain more for its money in the form of
2nd hand transportable, recycled, ex-mining company houses, with the
uncertainty when they be allocated funds again. The long term implications
of this type of housing in community situations is yet to be determined,
however one can say that they have not been designed for their final
occupants health needs and culturally different lifestyle .
Satisfying a community's total housing needs in 1 funding cycle, on the
other hand, gives economy of scale in construction cost's etc, reduces
accelerated deterioration through overcrowding, allows for consolidated
planning of services without the need for constant upgrade, allows for the
establishment of consistent management systems etc. Whilst this approach is
considered far more effective than the piecemeal approach to housing
--> Maximum number of output lines exceeded, job terminated.