Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Analysis of water provision to remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia through a social
justice lens
Samantha Shepherd (20527001)
School of Environmental Systems Engineering, the University of Western
Australia
Supervisor:
Rita Armstrong
School of Environmental Systems Engineering, the University of Western Australia
November 2012
2
This thesis is presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering (Environmental) at The University of Western
Australia.
3
Abstract There are approximately 300 remote Aboriginal communities many of whom are without an
adequate water supply in terms of sufficiency, quality, and regularity of supply. The purpose
of this study is to reach a critical understanding of the challenges and obstacles facing
government and other agencies in the provision of potable water to remote Aboriginal
communities with the aim of clarifying how engineers and non-‐‑engineers can work together
to improve the provision of what should be considered a basic human right: drinkable water.
The current model of service delivery was analysed from a human rights and social justice
perspective, following the principle that water is a basic human right and essential for life.
Secondly, that if there is public agreement on the importance of self-‐‑determination for
Aboriginal people, then it is should be a priority to allow these communities to determine
their own futures and make their own decisions. This is important in the development of
Aboriginal society.
The methodology used in this research included:
a) a literature review of the material relating to provision of water to remote Aboriginal
communities (Government websites and reports);
b) interviews with engineers working in water provision; and
c) interviews with members of a self-‐‑supplied community (Mingullatharndo) to get an
insight into a community struggling with water supplies and to find what has limited
them to getting the service they desire.
There are many obvious challenges to supplying water to these communities such as the
difficulty of installing and maintaining water treatment technologies in remote areas that
do have regular power supplies. There are particular problems associated with servicing
small communities that often fluctuate in size (less than 50), This research has, however,
demonstrated there are other factors which complicate this issue in Western Australia:
inadequate funding; state-‐‑commonwealth politics about responsibility for essential
services programs, and the tendering process involved in the delivery of essential
services. Engineers need to be aware of these challenges if they are to understand how to
go about improving water service delivery to remote Aboriginal communities.
4
Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Aims and objectives ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Methods/approach ......................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Background ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 History ............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 Colonization ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.1.3 Self Determination Era ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Formation of Remote Indigenous Communities ...................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Small Remote Communities (less than 50 people) ............................................................ 16
2.2.2 Mid-‐‑sized Remote Communities .......................................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Large Remote Communities (200-‐‑1000 people) ................................................................. 17
2.2.4 Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC) .................................................................. 17
2.2.5 Outstations ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.3 History of Governance .................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.1 Government Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 18
2.3.2 Legislation Issues .................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Health and Water ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Health outcomes for Aboriginal Australians ..................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Quantity of water .................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.3 Quality of water ...................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.4 Diseases linked to water supply ........................................................................................... 23
2.4.5 Water supply interventions to improve health .................................................................. 25
5
Chapter 3: Provision of water to remote Aboriginal Communities ............................................. 27
3.1 Remote Aboriginal Communities in Western Australia .......................................................... 27
3.1.1 Outstations and small communities .................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Medium and large communities .......................................................................................... 29
3.1.3 Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC) .................................................................. 29
3.2 Water supply in remote areas ...................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Quality of service .................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.2 Water Testing and Treatment ............................................................................................... 31
3.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 32
3.2.4 Water Restrictions and their causes ..................................................................................... 33
3.2.5 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 Remote Area Essential Services Program (RAESP) .................................................................. 34
3.3.1 The Funding Framework ....................................................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Services ..................................................................................................................................... 36
3.4 Challenges ....................................................................................................................................... 38
3.5 Underlying Issues effecting the delivery of water to remote Aboriginal communities ...... 39
3.5.1 Legislation ................................................................................................................................ 39
3.5.2 Licensing .................................................................................................................................. 40
3.5.4 ATSIC ....................................................................................................................................... 41
3.6 Government Programs .................................................................................................................. 42
3.6.1 Government Planning ............................................................................................................ 42
3.6.1.1 Bilateral Agreements ....................................................................................................... 42
3.6.1.2 National Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 42
3.6.2 RAESP ...................................................................................................................................... 42
3.6.3 CHIP ......................................................................................................................................... 42
3.6.4 NAHS/CHIP ............................................................................................................................ 43
3.6.5 TRRP ......................................................................................................................................... 44
6
Chapter 4: Water provision to Mingullatharndo, a self-‐‑supplied community ........................... 45
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 45
4.2 Mingullatharndo in the local context .......................................................................................... 46
4.2.1 History of the area .................................................................................................................. 46
4.2.2 Current Situation .................................................................................................................... 48
4.3 Foundation of Mingullatharndo .................................................................................................. 48
4.4 Benefits of Mingullatharndo ........................................................................................................ 52
4.4.1 Health ....................................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.2 Leadership ............................................................................................................................... 53
4.4.3 Alcohol rehabilitation ............................................................................................................ 53
4.4.4 Jail rehabilitation ..................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.5 Child protection ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.6 Indigenous Economic Participation ..................................................................................... 55
4.4.7 Art and cultural artifacts ....................................................................................................... 56
4.4.8 Cultural Awareness Programs ............................................................................................. 56
4.5 The Problem ................................................................................................................................... 56
4.5.1 Contamination ........................................................................................................................ 56
4.5.2 Impact on the Community .................................................................................................... 57
4.6 Solutions .......................................................................................................................................... 58
4.6.1 Regularization ......................................................................................................................... 58
4.6.2 Adsorbsia ™ Arsenic removal media .................................................................................. 58
4.7 Comparison of Solutions .............................................................................................................. 59
4.7.1 Health Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 59
4.7.2 Maintenance and repairs ....................................................................................................... 59
4.7.3 Future needs ............................................................................................................................ 60
4.7.4 Capital Cost ............................................................................................................................. 60
4.7.5 Overall assessment ................................................................................................................. 61
7
4.8 Comparison with a RAESP community ..................................................................................... 62
4.8.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 62
4.8.2 Water Issues ............................................................................................................................. 62
Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 64
5.1 Framing the issue ........................................................................................................................... 64
5.1.2 Case Studies ............................................................................................................................. 64
5.1.3 Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................... 64
5.1.4 Health ....................................................................................................................................... 64
5.2 Debates about the Significance of remote Aboriginal communities ...................................... 65
5.2.1 Benefits and costs of living remote ...................................................................................... 65
5.2.2 Government categorization of remote communities ......................................................... 66
5.3 A Social Justice approach to the problem .................................................................................. 67
5.3.1 Human rights .......................................................................................................................... 67
5.3.2 Social Justice for Aboriginal Australians ............................................................................ 68
5.3.3 Self-‐‑determination .................................................................................................................. 69
5.4 Technical Aspects of Social Justice .............................................................................................. 70
5.4.1 Appropriate technology ........................................................................................................ 70
5.4.2 Past Inappropriate Technology ............................................................................................ 72
5.5 Changing Legislation to facilitate a more equitable service delivery .................................... 74
5.5.1 Western Mechanisms ............................................................................................................. 74
5.5.2 Appropriate Standards .......................................................................................................... 75
5.5.3 Negative Effects of Changing Legislation ........................................................................... 77
Chapter 6: Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 79
6.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 79
6.2 Possibilities for future research ............................................................................................... 80
References ............................................................................................................................................. 81
8
Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview It is astounding that in 2012, in one of the most affluent countries in the world, there are
communities without an adequate water supply. Most of those communities are Aboriginal
and myself being an Aboriginal person from the Kimberley region, am intrigued as to why
this is so and how this can be resolved. There are many obvious challenges, such as adequate
funding and research, to delivering potable water to remote communities that rely on
groundwater. Preliminary research has, however, demonstrated there are other factors
which complicate this issue in Western Australia: these include land tenure, state-‐‑
commonwealth politics, and the tendering process involved in the delivery of essential
services. The research also indicates that it should be possible to resolve these issues if the
state government takes greater ‘ownership’ of the Remote Area Essential Services Program,
and if legislative changes were made to clarify where state and commonwealth
responsibilities begin and end. The purpose of this study is to reach a critical understanding
of the challenges and obstacles facing government and other agencies in the provision of
potable water to remote Aboriginal communities with the aim of clarifying how engineers
and non-‐‑engineers can work together to improve the provision of what should be considered
a basic human right: drinkable water.
During the homelands movement in the 1970s the Commonwealth provided money and
infrastructure for Aboriginal communities to be established on their own ‘country’ (ie the
land to which they have a spiritual connection). It was agreed that the State Government
would repair and maintain that infrastructure. In 1987 the Commonwealth decided that the
State and Territories would provide homeland dwellers with the same basic services that
they provide to other citizens but the States and Territories then argued that it was too costly
to provide (Blanchard 1987). Since 2000 there have been many bilateral agreements between
the State and Commonwealth Governments for the funding of repairs and maintenance for
essential service infrastructure in remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia.
There are approximately 300 remote Aboriginal communities in WA. Of these, 91 comprise
between 50 and 1000 people and these are serviced by the Remote Area Essential Services
Program (RAESP); 45 are Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC) that are connected to
town water supplied by the Water Corporation but are responsible for the infrastructure
9
inside these boundaries (some ATBC are serviced by RAESP); and then there are 174 small
communities (less than 50 people) that are self-‐‑supplied (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
The Remote Area Essential Services Program (RAESP) provides water testing and treatment,
installs bores and equipment such as pumps, reticulation and storage tanks. They visit each
community every 6-‐‑8 weeks to conduct maintenance and are available for emergency repairs
for RAESP communities and even the self-‐‑supplied communities. The challenges for RAESP,
and the service providers who carry out capital works maintenance, are how to maintain
water quality and pressure in remote areas generally, and particularly in areas where the
groundwater has high nitrate levels.
There have been many infrastructure surveys done on remote Aboriginal communities in
WA since 1999, but the data is limited to communities with populations larger than 50
people (Beard 2009). This has left a gap in research on small communities of less than 50
people. A study by Beard 2009, however, looked at 24 communities in the West Kimberley
region that had populations of 50 people or less. The study found that 15 of the 24
communities in the survey reported water quality issues, (Beard 2009). These were mostly
due to harmful microorganism, such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa, contaminating the
water and making it unfit for consumption. Interruptions to water supply was another big
issue with frequent water restrictions due to mechanical failure and health risks as a lot of
communities do not have a backup supply (Beard 2009). 75% of the communities studied by
(Beard 2009) recorded water restrictions in the studied.
A survey by the Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee (2008) gave the
overall picture of water issues in remote Aboriginal communities. This survey recorded data
for all Aboriginal communities in WA and found the overall satisfaction in water supply in
2008 was 77% (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). 17% of
communities are classified as having inadequate water, which is defined as a water supply
that needs to be carted or the supply is interrupted from a collapsed bore, pump failure or
drought (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). The study also found
that 49% of those communities that aren’t connected to town supplies have untreated
drinking water and 52% do not have regular testing (Environmental Health Needs
Coordinating Committee 2008). Small communities (less than 20 people) in particular rarely
disinfect their water with 89% not disinfecting (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
10
1.2 Aims and objectives The aim of this research project is to:
• Investigate the delivery of water to remote Aboriginal communities in WA;
• Explore the challenges faced by engineers in the delivery of water to remote
Aboriginal communities in WA;
• Identify whether the service of water is at an appropriate level for the needs of
Aboriginal communities in WA;
• Identify if the service can be improved in the future, realistically considering factors
influence the service delivery.
1.3 Framework The theoretical framework I am using to evaluate the current model of water delivery to
remote Aboriginal communities is that of social justice specifically in the context of
Aboriginal Australia. Professor Mick Dodson, Co-‐‑Chair Reconciliation Australia and past
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner states: 'ʹAt the most basic
level, for Indigenous peoples, social justice means that our lives will not be dominated by a foreign rule
of law which fails to adequately support or take into account our unique identities and aspirations. It
means that our voices will enter into a dialogue from which all peoples in a society negotiate the type
of society they live in'ʹ (Dodson 1993). This definition is quite specific and focuses on the
unique identity of Australia’s Indigenous people. This research is also framed by ideas about
social justice in the broader context. Donna Riley’s book on Engineering and Social Justice
(2008) discusses different social justice theories but they all have certain arguments in
common that shape an overall picture of social justice as ‘the struggle to end different kinds
of oppression, to create economic equality, to uphold human rights or dignity, and to restore
right relationships among all people and the environment’ (Riley 2008). There are many
streams of social justice that have been shaped by different movements of people seeking
justice (Riley 2008). One that sets out the framework for this research project is a ‘rights
based approach’ which addresses what people deserve or are entitled to (Riley 2008). This
research project will use these principles of human rights and social justice to evaluate the
current model used to provide water services to remote Aboriginal communities in Western
Australia and to suggest where improvement could be made.
11
1.4 Methods/approach This report is based on
a) A critical analysis of published material about the provision of potable water to remote
Aboriginal Communities in Western Australia. This material exists mostly in the form of
government reports, government legislation, and only a few journal articles. The literature
review therefore comprised reports from the State Government (Department of Housing,
Department of Health, and Department of Indigenous Affairs) and the Commonwealth
Government that relate to the provision of water.
b) Interviews with
i) members of a self-‐‑supplied community north of Roebourne; and
ii) engineers who work in the area of essential services provision.
This material will be used to construct an overview of the current state of water provision to
remote Aboriginal communities; to present one case study (Five Mile or Mingullatharndo) to
illustrate the challenges facing self supplied communities with reference to RAESP
communities for comparative purposes. This material will be evaluated within a social
justice framework, which assumes that the provision of drinking water should be a basic
human right.
The report will begin by setting out the historical background of the formation of Aboriginal
communities followed by health issues associated with a poor water supply. The report will
then go into the current delivery of water services to remote Aboriginal communities and the
challenges that affect them. A case study will be presented from the point of view of
community members in a self-‐‑supplied community. A discussion will outline the issues in
regard to all the information found in the research. The report will conclude with
recommendations and possibilities for future research.
1.5 Acknowledgements This study acknowledges the input of knowledge from staff members working in RAESP
and the Water Corporation. Acknowledgement also goes to the community members of
Mingullatharndo for welcoming me into their community and sharing their experiences.
12
Chapter 2: Background 2.1 History
2.1.1 Colonization
The effect of colonization on Aboriginal people in Australia has been well documented and
their experiences are similar to other colonized Indigenous groups around the world. In the
colonial period Aboriginal people lost choices over movement and residence, which was
devastating for people where travel was an important part of life (McGrath (eds) 1995).
Christian missions and Government settlements were established to have more control over
Aboriginal people and transform their lifestyle that conformed to a European one (McGrath
(eds) & Toussaint 1995). British colonization did not just take land from the Aboriginal
people, but also separated families and broke the hearts and minds of individuals (McGrath
(eds) 1995). In these times there were many conflicts, but there are also stories of negotiation,
compromise and exchange between the two peoples (McGrath (eds) 1995). Although the
colonization period was marred by conflicts, massacres and a domination of a people, the
ideas behind the colonization were based on the belief that the British rule would benefit
them (McGrath (eds) 1995). The first Governor of the Swan Colony, Governor Stirling,
proclaimed: ‘on every possible occasion their equality, with all his Majesty’s subjects, has
been urged’ (McGrath (eds) & Toussaint 1995).
The pastoral industry was established in the Kimberley region in the 1880s by the Duracks,
McDonalds and Buchanans (Hunter 1993). Water and resources created disputes between the
Aboriginal people and the Europeans (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
This was especially the case when cattle and sheep were introduced and water holes, that
hold a significant place in Aboriginal people’s lives and culture, were degraded by the herds
of animals. Aboriginal people in the area resisted against the pastoral industry as it required
vast amounts of land, but to no avail and the consequences for the Aboriginal people were
severe (Hunter 1993). Some Aboriginal people then began working for the pastoralists as
labourers (Hunter 1993). The mining and pearling industries also shaped WA as it is today,
with the towns of Derby, Wyndham and Broome established in the 1880s as entry points for
miners and Broome and Roebourne also rich pearling towns (Hunter 1993). The demand for
mining was around a potential gold rush along the Fitzroy River (Hunter 1993). The first
nugget found was in the area around the town of Halls Creek in 1885 (Hunter 1993).
13
1.1.2 Assimilation Era
The policy towards Aboriginal people in 1905 is reflected in the Aborigines Act 1905 that gave
the Government the right of removal of ‘illegitimate’ Aboriginal children. AO Neville was
appointed Chief Protector of Aborigines in 1915. He strictly implemented the 1905
Aborigines Act and tried to absorb Aboriginal people into White society (Hunter 1993).
Other acts such as the Native Administration Act 1936 came in and gave almost complete
control to the Chief Protector of Aborigines over Aboriginal people (McGrath (eds) &
Toussaint 1995). Almost every aspect of people’s lives was controlled in this time, including
movement, property, employment, marriage and alcohol (Hunter 1993). This act was
established under the principle that ‘the destiny of native Aborigines origin lay in the
ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth’ (McGrath (eds) 1995). This
absorption was through the removal of half-‐‑caste children to be taught European ways in
missions, but also through acts such as the Native (Citizenship Rights) Act 1944. This
granted citizenship rights to Aboriginal people that adapted to European lifestyle and
showed the manner and habits of civilized life (McGrath (eds) & Toussaint 1995). However
Aboriginal people didn’t die out, in fact their population increased and their pride in their
identity also grew (McGrath (eds) 1995). In the North West Aboriginal people were forced
into exploitive labour on cattle stations as their traditional economies were lost (McGrath
(eds) & Toussaint 1995). They worked for only for rations, clothes and a place to sleep, what
they did appreciate was the fact that they were able to stay on their land (McGrath (eds) &
Toussaint 1995). The seasonal work in the agriculture and pastoral industries meant they
could also continue their traditions and visit their kin in the off season (McGrath (eds) &
Toussaint 1995).
The restrictions eased with the introduction of the Native Welfare Act 1963, which allowed
people to move around freely and live and work in towns that previously they were
segregated from. In 1969 mandatory payment of award wages to Aboriginal pastoralists led
to a decline of Aboriginal workers being employed in the pastoral industry and so many
Aboriginal people moved into larger centers for employment opportunities (Calma 2009). In
the 1967 Referendum, Australia voted a resounding yes for Aboriginal people to be included
in the Commonwealth (McGrath (eds) 1995). This recognition of rights was then followed by
the self-‐‑determination era.
14
2.1.3 Self Determination Era
The 1970s was a very important decade for the progress of Indigenous Australians rights and
saw in the era of self-‐‑determination (Stephens 2007).
Gough Whitlam brought in this change when he was elected in 1972 and his Government
implemented the policy for Aboriginal self-‐‑determination, ending the assimilation era
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Self-‐‑determination is a right whereby
people can freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development The policy of self-‐‑determination, has been criticized for being
ambiguous, however it is a key step forward for Aboriginal people as it recognizes the
‘equal’ rights of Aboriginal people to determine their own future (McGrath (eds) 1995). This
change in policies led to more assistance to programs to upgrade Aboriginal education and
living standards. The Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority (AAPA) was introduced in 1972
to play a mediating role in Aboriginal affairs, coordinating policies and they also brought in
the Aboriginal Lands Trust (ALT) (McGrath (eds) & Toussaint 1995). From this push for self-‐‑
determination came Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Medical Service in 1973
and the Aboriginal Law Service in 1975 (McGrath (eds) 1995). Regional resource agencies,
land councils, Aboriginal language centers and programs, community schools also emerged
in this new era. In 1975 the Whitlam Labour Government was replaced by the Liberal Party,
who changed the policy of ‘self-‐‑determination’ to ‘self-‐‑management’ (McGrath (eds) 1995).
During the start of this era Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous programs doubled
and there were changes to social security payments that saw payments in cash and land
rights to facilitate the ‘homelands movement’ (Stephens 2007). The Community
Development Employment Program (CDEP) was established in 1976 and allowed locals to
work for cash while providing labour services to their community (Stephens 2007). In 1990
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was commissioned to manage
the programs aimed at self-‐‑determination (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
One of the programs included the support of remote Indigenous communities. The WA
Government was allocated millions of dollars to keep these remote communities afloat.
ATSIC also laid out guidelines for creating an outstation/homeland community with four
criteria:
• secure land tenure;
15
• outstation must be principal residence;
• access to potable water at outstation; and
• support from community organization (Stephens 2007).
The policy also highlighted the fact that these communities should not expect the same
services, housing and infrastructure as existing communities until the population stabilized
and grew. The WA Government in partnership with ATSIC and the Commonwealth
expanded their provision of maintenance and repairs for 48-‐‑64 remote communities (greater
than 50 people) in 2000. They also agreed to commence the ‘Regularization’ of services in
Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC) (Stephens 2007). ATSIC was abolished by the
Liberal Government in 2005 after the announcement a year earlier from the Howard
Government, stating: ‘We believe very strongly that the experiment in separate
representation; elected representation, for indigenous people has been a failure’ (Shaw 2004).
This left a significant void in national representation and leadership for Aboriginal people
(Calma 2009). The most recent development in the history of self-‐‑determination has been a
push from Aboriginal people. Noel Pearson, who is a strong advocate of this, says passive
welfare has undermined Aboriginal law and led to alcohol and substance abuse (Stephens
2007). Many White Australian politicians felt that money had been ‘poured down the drain’
into homeland communities. Senator Vanstone, for example suggested in 2005 that people on
outstations move to larger townships to access mainstream services (Stephens 2007). This
complex history has all led to the creation of the remote Aboriginal communities we have in
Australia today, born out of the will of Aboriginal people to reconnect with their traditional
land and culture.
2.2 Formation of Remote Indigenous Communities There are 5 general types of Aboriginal communities; small communities, outstations; mid-‐‑
sized communities; large communities; and Aboriginal Town Based Communities (Nevin &
Yuen 2006). Every remote Indigenous community is different, as they have been formed by
different Aboriginal peoples that have different beliefs, traditional rituals and laws.
Therefore they have different problems that have come about through different location,
history, culture, and relations to Europeans. Each community must be looked at separately
and this is done with case studies in Chapter 4. The communities have been categorized in
16
this way because of the way they are serviced by the Government. However it is important
to understand that there have been similarities in the formation of these communities by
significant events. The general groupings of the communities can be based on population but
they are also based on how they were formed. Here we outline the significant events that
have led to the variety of remote Indigenous communities we see today. Table 1.1 shows the
categories of Aboriginal communities based on their populations or proximity to a town
center as well as how many of each community type there are.
2.2.1 Small Remote Communities (less than 50 people)
The desire to move back to traditional lands was expressed almost immediately after settling
in centralized settlements due not only to the change in lifestyles but the stresses of living as
‘guests’ on another clans traditional land. This desire, along with the demanding of rights in
many other areas led to a policy change from assimilation to self-‐‑determination, headed by
the Whitlam Government in 1972 (Blanchard 1987). In 1973 the Commonwealth supported
the desire for people to go back and live on their traditional lands and so started the
‘homelands movement’. Grants of up to $10 000 were provided for basic facilities and capital
infrastructure (Blanchard 1987). Many Aboriginal people took the new opportunity of
freedom to return to their traditional lands from which they could live traditionally and
carry out their religious and social imperative to ‘take care of their country’ (Blanchard 1987.
An example of a small community is Kunawarritji, which is near the mid-‐‑sized community,
Punmu (Aboriginal Independent Community Schools 2009). This community was
Table 1.1: An overview of the categorization of the Aboriginal communities in
WA (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
17
established in the1980s, by a group of people from Punmu, itself only a small community at
the time (Hames Sharley 2004). As is evident from this situation, the communities in the area
are interconnected, and fluctuate heavily from people visiting and meeting for cultural
events.
2.2.2 Mid-‐sized Remote Communities
Mid-‐‑sized communities have very similar histories to small remote communities, but the
distinction is based upon their current population, which many factors contribute to over
time. The arbitrary value of 50 people has been made by the Government to set a cut-‐‑off
point for essential service provision. Punmu community is an example of such a community.
It has a population of 160 people and was founded in 1981 by the Manyjiljarra people who
were determined to protect their culture and independence (Aboriginal Independent
Community Schools 2009). As with the small communities the people moved out to their
traditional lands to reconnect with their traditional land and culture, but also to get away
from problems in larger settlements.
2.2.3 Large Remote Communities (200-‐1000 people)
The large communities have emerged from sites of reserves and missions that were
established early in European settlement (Stephens 2007). In 1842, 13 years after the Swan
Colony was established, the Governor reserved land for Aboriginal people to reside and use
(Stephens 2007). Christian missions were also set up during this time and it was thought by
the Government that creating these settlements for Aboriginal people would ‘protect’ them
from the effects of the pastoral and mining industries and drought (Blanchard 1987).
Aboriginal people living nearby came into these settlements either by forceful removal,
voluntarily through misconceptions of an easier European lifestyle or forced by hardships
such as drought and sickness (Blanchard 1987). This coincided with the Government’s desire
at the time of creating centralized towns and was achieved by late 1960s (Blanchard 1987).
Bidyadanga is an example of a large remote community; it is in fact the largest one in WA
with a population around 800 people (Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council 2010).
Bidyadanga is situated on land which is home to the Karajarri people and expanded in size
when other tribal groups moved there from the desert as drought and Government policy
forced them off their traditional lands (Wangka Maya 2009).
2.2.4 Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC)
18
Town based Aboriginal communities were set up as ‘native camping reserves’, where the
Aboriginal people were segregated to and while not given the same rights and services, these
camps became dilapidated and in appalling condition (Hunter 1993). By the end of the 1930s
there were 40 native camping reserves created for purposes of segregation. After World War
II more campsites were created as more Indigenous people moved to regional centers for
employment. In 1955 temporary houses were constructed in these camps with toilets and
better water supplies. In 1954 the Native Welfare Act removed laws that kept Aboriginal
people confined in town camps (Stephens 2007). One of the effects of these camps was the
creation of the dependence on the wider society on basic services such as water (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Today there are communities classified as being ATBC
based on their distance to a town. They are either suburbs of the town themselves or
Aboriginal communities up to 10km away. These communities present a very interesting
situation, especially given the social justice lens of this study, however the focus will be on
small and large remote Aboriginal communities.
2.2.5 Outstations
Outstations are defined as communities that are not inhabited all year round (Nevin & Yuen
2006). The division between outstations and small remote communities is not clear however
as both types have highly fluctuating populations (Nevin & Yuen 2006). Again these were
established during the self-‐‑determination era motivated by the desire to be ‘on country’ and
maintain cultural practices. These settlements reflect the movement of Aboriginal people
before colonization and allow them to retain some aspects of this lifestyle.
2.3 History of Governance
2.3.1 Government Responsibilities
During the homelands movement the Commonwealth, through ATSIC, provided capital
funding for infrastructure to be established in the communities. It was agreed that the
responsibilities for the maintenance and repairs would fall to the State Government, after the
communities had been established. In 1987 it was reported that it was the Commonwealth’s
view that the State and Territories would provide homeland dwellers with the same basic
services that they provide to other citizens. The State’s and Territories then argued that it
was too costly to provide (Blanchard 1987). The Western Australian State Government stated
that:
19
‘It strongly holds the view that funds for the development and maintenance of physical services for
homeland communities are clearly the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. The Western
Australian Government accepts that though the major funding responsibilities should be the province
of the Commonwealth, the actual delivery of the services to homeland communities’ (Blanchard
1987).
The Commonwealth though disagrees with this:
‘It is the responsibility of State and Northern Territory governments to provide to homeland dwellers
the general community services which they provide to all other citizens. At this stage, the States and
the Northern Territory are not, according to the Commonwealth, adequately meeting these
responsibilities’ (Blanchard 1987).
This disagreement has extended long after this report, creating doubt over funding and
planning for years. The underlying feeling that fuels this disagreement is that the
Commonwealth was responsible for stimulating the growth of the movement through the
self-‐‑determination policy change and granting of land rights (Blanchard 1987). There has also
been confusion surrounding the responsibility caused by the history of their development
and so State and Territory Governments have been ‘reluctant to step in’ (Blanchard 1987).
Blanchard 1987 points out that the argument that the Commonwealth are to ‘blame’ for the
appearance of homeland communities is invalid and as it was only a response to the wishes
of many Aboriginal people who expressed a strong desire to move to a homeland. The
reluctance of Governments to take responsibility has been harmful to the development of
homelands and also the relationships between Governments and homeland communities. In
WA a step was taken by the introduction of the Western Australian Aboriginal Land and
Community Improvement Program (WAALCIP), which is a negotiation of joint funding for
the provision of infrastructure, land and services (Blanchard 1987).
Since then the State Governments and other departments have had to pool money in an ad
hoc fashion when emergency repairs are needed in remote communities. In 2000 WA
Government with ATSIC and the Commonwealth expanded their provision of maintenance
and repairs for 48-‐‑64 remote communities, greater than 50 people. They also agreed to
commence the ‘Regularization’ of services in Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC)
(Stephens 2007).
20
Many bilateral agreements have been signed over the recent years between the WA State
Government and the Commonwealth, starting with the Essential Services Agreement in 2000
(Parker 2006). This had funding arrangements for the next ten years (Department of
Indigenous Affairs 2009), however it was replaced by the Agreement for the Provision of
Housing, Infrastructure and Essential Services for Indigenous People in Western Australia for 2005
–2008 (Australian Government 2006). Unlike the earlier agreements, this Agreement merged
Housing and Essential Services into a single agreement (Parker 2006). This was replaced
shortly after by the Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous Affairs for 2006-‐‑2010 (Dullard 2008) in
which the Governments agreed to work towards achieving one level of service delivery for
theprovision of each of housing, infrastructure, essential and municipal services to all
Indigenous communities in Western Australia by June 2008 (Australian Government 2006).
The current agreement has progressed from an agreement between WA and the
Commonwealth to one that stands for the Nation. This is the National Partnership Agreement
on Remote Service Delivery, which was signed by the Commonwealth, New South Wales,
Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory in 2009 and is
expected to run for five years (Council of Australian Governments 2009). However according
to the budget 2012/2013 the area of essential and municipal services is expected to receive
$43.4 million for that year only and no more is expected to be provided (Australian
Government 2012).
An Engineer working with water provision for remote Aboriginal communities states:
‘There’s been a number of negotiations going on again for ten-‐‑odd years. The last one was in about
2009… since 2010 the commonwealth has said “we’re not paying anymore” so there’s been no capital
funding other than what the state has found through things like Royalties for Regions and other funds
and the commonwealth and the state are at the moment fighting over who’s going to pay for what…So
there’s been a number of agreements and a lot of them have lapsed like there’ll be an agreement for five
years that by the end of five years you’ll fix it but it just lapses five years later and nothing’s
happened, nothing’s changed.’
It is evident that the reluctance to take responsibility is still prevalent even after decades
since the homelands movement of the mid-‐‑70s.
2.3.2 Legislation Issues
21
Laws that govern most Australian towns and cities do not apply to remote Aboriginal
communities because they reside on Crown land classified under the Aboriginal Lands Trust
(ALT). This is a major obstacle to the effective delivery of essential services, including, water
to remote Aboriginal communities. The legislative history of this issue is very complex and
although some laws are being revised, progress is slow. In the early 1990s, for example, there
was some doubt about which Acts apply to the Crown land and ALT. Legal advice was
sought by the Health department of WA and concluded that the Health Act did apply to
Crown land (Bidmeade 2002). Then a report by Barker 1994 concluded the Health Act does
bind the Crown and recommended that the Health Act be amended to put this question
beyond doubt (Bidmeade 2002). In 1996, just after these conclusions from lawyers and the
Barker report, the Shire of Halls Creek took action against the ALT because it failed to
provide appropriate sanitation facilities for people living in a remote Aboriginal community
called Mardiwah Loop (Dullard 2008). The Supreme Court ruled that the ALT, as it is in the
Crown was not bound by the Health Act 1911 (Dullard 2008). This took away power from
the Shire to require the ALT to provide adequate sanitation to Mardiwah Loop (Dullard
2008). However the problems that have resulted long term have been even worse as there is
doubt over many other laws and their application to Crown land and this has left us with the
situation we have today (Dullard 2008).
2.4 Health and Water
2.4.1 Health outcomes for Aboriginal Australians
Aboriginal health outcomes have been very poor in Australia and it can be linked to the
years of dispossession, and cultural assimilation mentioned in section (1.1). It has been
decades since these times, yet the gap between Indigenous and non-‐‑Aboriginal outcomes in
many fundamental areas remains unacceptably large (Australian Government 2012). This
was highlighted in 2006 after it was found that the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal
and non-‐‑ Aboriginal people was 17 years and that Aboriginal infant mortality was three
times the rate of non-‐‑ Aboriginal babies (Calma 2006). In 2008 the Council of Australian
Governments endorsed a National Indigenous Reform Agreement to ‘Close the Gap’
between Aboriginal and non-‐‑Aboriginal Australians in terms of health, education and socio-‐‑
economic status (Australian Government 2012). This gap has improved and currently the life
expectancy gap is estimated at 11.5 years for males and 9.7 years for females (Australian
22
Government 2012). The 2008 Agreement aimed to improve health indicators by closing the
life expectancy gap by 2031 and halve the gap in mortality rates for Aboriginal children
under 5 by 2018 (Australian Government 2012). There is an extensive body of literature
which links the effect on health from a poor quality water supply, but with so many other
factors affecting health such as diet, lifestyle, socio-‐‑economic factors, and many more, the
direct effect on health can be very hard to quantify (NAHSWP 1989). In Australia the link
can be found and will be discussed in section (1.4), but even with these connections there are
many other factors at play in remote Indigenous communities that all play a part in the
unacceptable health in these communities. The National Aboriginal Health Strategy Working
Party highlighted this link, stating that ‘Without question the inadequacy of sewerage and
water supply systems are a major factor in the poor health status of Aboriginal people….’
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
Indigenous people living in remote communities face many challenges including access to
education, employment, but also the basics to living healthy lives such as water supply.
People living in remote Indigenous communities are lacking these essential services so much
that they are living in a state of absolute poverty (Anderson & Baum 2004). Nearly two thirds
of remote communities rely on bore water (Anderson & Baum 2004). Absolute poverty is
defined by the UN as ‘severe deprivation of basic human needs: including safe drinking
water.’ (Anderson & Baum 2004). Therefore a significant number of Indigenous people
experience absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is also evident by preventable diseases such
as scabies and diarrhea that are very common in remote Indigenous communities (Anderson
& Baum 2004).
2.4.2 Quantity of water
Hygiene practices are vitally important to health as they involve the basics of washing
hands, food, clothes and food preparation and water is vital to these practices (Bailie et al.
2004). Bailie et al. (2004) argues that priorities to improve Aboriginal health should be
focused on providing enough water for hygiene practices (Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004).
Although there are many transmission routes through which these types of diseases can
infect people and so it is hard to pin point the specific causes. Access to water is crucial
because many childhood diseases – diarrhoea, skin infections – are preventable through
hand-‐‑washing. Pruss and Mariotti (2000) argue that there is more of a requirement for water
to be easily accessible, rather than the overall quantity. Water is more likely to be used when
23
it comes out of the kitchen and bathroom taps, rather than being sourced from several
hundreds of meters away. The community that has been studied in this research project has
relied on carting their water for the last 12 years. The reason for the water restriction is due
to the poor water quality.
2.4.3 Quality of water
While water quantity is important for hygiene, the water supply can contain contaminants
that can directly impact on health through water-‐‑borne diseases. A study of water-‐‑borne
diseases by Craun 1992 in the United States shows some alarming results that can be a guide
to the state of waterborne disease in remote communities of Australia, as such studies are
lacking in an Australian context. The study found that between 1982-‐‑1990 contaminated,
untreated groundwater or inadequately disinfected groundwater was responsible for 43% of
all reported waterborne– disease outbreaks. This was a lot more than 24% for untreated,
contaminated surface water (Craun 1992). Considering that 80% of remote Aboriginal
communities in WA rely on groundwater, there is concern for these communities
(Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). Palatability and aesthetics of
the water supply is considered to be a quality of life issue. It may also lead to the high
amounts of soft drink consumed in remote communities, although this has not been proven
and many other factors are involved (Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004). Chemical
contamination is not a major concern to most of the remote Aboriginal communities in the
state as it is rare; however the community studied in this project faces problems specifically
due to chemical contamination. Mingullatharndo has levels of Arsenic above the ADWG
2011 and are now not allowed to drink the water at all. Arsenic is associated with the
development of cancers and also diseases like diabetes and heart disease and so the
consumption poses a major long term health risk (ADWG 2011).
2.4.4 Diseases linked to water supply
Water is used in all aspects of life and when there is an inadequate and contaminated supply,
many diseases can arise. The diseases that occur from inadequate water supplies constitute
an epidemic in these communities compared to the state in urban areas. This section will
look at the different diseases that have been linked with contaminated water supply.
The most common diseases leading to hospitalization according to a study by McDonald et
al 2009 on a large remote Aboriginal community in Arnhem Land, NT, are respiratory
24
diseases, infectious and parasitic diseases, disease of the skin (scabies), and nutritional
diseases such as malnutrition. Water contamination and lack of hygiene directly impact on
infectious and parasitic diseases and diseases of the skin. Children are especially susceptible
to water-‐‑related diseases (Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004). Children in remote communities
experience relatively high rates of poor growth, acute rheumatic fever, rheumatic heart
disease and trachoma compared to other Indigenous peoples in developed countries and
even some in developing countries (McDonald et al 2009). The underlying factor for the poor
growth is unhygienic living conditions. This has occurred through a combination of
crowding, non-‐‑functioning essential housing infrastructure and poor standards of personal
and domestic hygiene that leads to Aboriginal children being vulnerable to infections and
malnutrition (McDonald et al 2009). High rates of recurring ear infections are also associated
with inadequate access to clean water among other things associated with poverty (Steering
Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2009). Trace elements in the
water supplies of some remote communities also potentially have an impact on the high
rates of renal disease observed in those communities; however there is no sound evidence to
date (Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004).
Diarrhoea is one of the biggest ongoing health problems in developing countries with the
disease accounting for 17% of the deaths among under 5s (Clasen et al 2007). High rates of
diarrhoea highlights an injustice occurring in Australia, one of the richest countries in the
world, where people still live with common, preventable diseases that are usually associated
with the poorest of countries.
Gastroenteritis has been recognised as a serious disease for Aboriginal children for decades.).
Gracey, Lee & Yau (2004) studied the rate of hospitalization of gastroenteritis diseases and
found that Aboriginal infants are hospitalized eight times more frequently than non-‐‑
Aboriginal infants. Not only were Aboriginal infants admitted more, they were readmitted
more frequently and sooner, and stayed at hospital twice as long when compared to non-‐‑
Indigenous infants. Remote areas also showed a significantly higher hospitalization rate. The
highest readmission rate was in the very remote Kimberley communities. The study
concluded that the causes were unsatisfactory, unhygienic, overcrowded living conditions
that exposed the infants to high levels of microbiological contamination.
25
Australia is one of the richest nations in the world and it is difficult to understand why the
state of health of the first peoples of this land is at the state it is. The diseases mentioned
above are all preventable by the most basic human need; water, in quantity, quality and
accessibility.
2.4.5 Water supply interventions to improve health
There have been many interventions to improve Indigenous health, as it is one of the biggest
concerns in Australia. There are many ways in which to improve the water supply and this
section looks at what affects these have on health.
Clasen et al 2004’s study of interventions to prevent diarrhea, found that in general,
interventions to improve the microbial quality of drinking water are effective in preventing
diarrhea. Previous environmental intervention recorded 15-‐‑17% median reduction in
diarrhea from water quality interventions at the source (boreholes, wells, communal taps,
etc.). The study by Clasen et al 2004 focuses on improvements that can be made at the
household level to prevent diarrhea and found that improving water quality significantly
reduced the occurrence of diarrhea. Interestingly this was even the case with or without any
other means such as education and sanitation.
Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004 presents the priorities for health improvement by water
supply intervention. They argue that the potential reduction in diseases from improvements
in water quantity ranges from 40-‐‑80% and the benefits from improving the quality of water
are considerably less (Bailie, Carson & McDonald 2004). Both are involved in health but the
lack of hygiene that causes many preventable diseases can be addressed by more access to
water for such practices as washing and food preparation.
Education also plays a significant role, especially with the common diseases such as
diarrhoea (McDonald et al 2008). An experiment was done where Indigenous children living
in remote communities were encouraged to wash their hands with plain soap. From this
intervention there was a 53% lower incidence rate of diarrhea (McDonald et al 2008). There
are many more factors involved in human health and the complexities of remote Indigenous
communities, but it is clear that much can be done by simply providing water that is
adequate in quantity and is safe to use.
Interventions on a grander scale must therefore be made to provide water of an acceptable
standard. Investment is needed in infrastructure to provide these essential services to these
26
outlying communities. The HRSCFC 1999 suggested that improving the level of
infrastructure for indigenous communities will have a greater long term health benefit than
providing more health services.
Since 1974 Governments have focused on providing water and sanitation infrastructure to
improve health. This approach has failed in effectively achieving health outcomes due to
inappropriate technologies being implemented (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner
1994). The Government has failed in providing long term, appropriate solutions to the water
supply issues because of the pressure to achieve positive health results for Indigenous
Australians urgently (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). This has led to the
selection of readily available technology, which is usually built for the urban environment,
rather than considering the local needs (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
McDonald et al 2008 also suggested that low levels of investment can actually increase risks
to health as the appropriateness of the solutions is not considered.
The interventions discussed in this section provide an argument for the need for water
supply improvements. With adequate water supply, many of the diseases affecting
Aboriginal Australians can be prevented effectively.
27
Chapter 3: Provision of water to
remote Aboriginal Communities 3.1 Remote Aboriginal Communities in Western Australia In Western Australia the remote Aboriginal communities are serviced distinctly different
from all other communities in the state, who receive mainstream services. The communities
are categorized by either their population or their proximity to a town center and this
outlines their service delivery. Communities that have a population larger than 50 people
receive services from a Government funded program called the Remote Area Essential
Services Program (RAESP). Communities with a population less than this are reliant upon
themselves for water provision. Communities close to a town are considered Aboriginal
Town Based Communities (ATBC). They are provided services based on their population as
well, the only difference is the water that is provided to them is from a town source and so
has the quality that the mainstream town receives (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
The data in Table 2.1 is only approximate values from a number of sources, primarily from
Nevin & Yuen 2006. These are approximates as the communities populations are highly
variable from the interconnection and movement between communities. From Table 2.1 we
Table 2.1: The categorization of communities (Nevin & Yuen 2006; Department of
water 2009).
28
can see the relationship between the number of communities and the total population. There
are about twice the number of small communities, but when comparing the population, the
large communities and mid-‐‑sized communities hold about 80% of the total population.
3.1.1 Outstations and small communities
There are a total of 174 small communities and outstations in WA (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
These communities are categorized as small because they have a population of 50 or less.
Aboriginal people have chosen to live in these small communities that are made of family
groups, to reconnect with their traditional lands and keep their culture strong. They have
also built smaller communities to get away from the problems associated in large centers
such as alcohol abuse and violence (Blanchard 1987). The Commonwealth, through ATSIC
established the infrastructure to support this self-‐‑determination of these people, but ongoing
support has been limited (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
These communities are considered to be ‘self-‐‑supplied’, meaning they are responsible for
their own water supply, treating, testing, maintaining equipment and so on (Department of
Indigenous Affairs 2005). Many farmers also fall within this category. These communities
are ‘self-‐‑supplied’ as the resources to service such remote communities with such a small
number of recipients cannot be done with the limited resources available as noted by an
engineer working for RAESP. The highly variable populations, vast distances between them
and the extremes in climate and geography also pose challenges (Beard 2009; Nevin & Yuen
2006) that would require vast amounts of money to provide conventional essential services.
RAESP provides services to the larger communities, which are a lot smaller in number of
communities, but hold the majority of the population, therefore achieving a very optimal
service for the resources available. Most self-‐‑supplied Aboriginal communities rely on
groundwater; bores which access the groundwater are used by 152 communities across
Western Australia, while 13 are supplied by towns, 2 rely on rainwater tanks, 7 on
reservoir/rivers, 6 on wells/springs and alarmingly 13 have no organized supply (Grey-‐‑
Gardner 2008; Nevin & Yuen 2006).
Some support from the Government through RAESP is provided when there is a breakdown
and urgent repairs need to be made (UKB 2002). Breakdowns occur often and a pattern
emerges where the incidence of failure is inversely proportional to the size of the community
(Beard 2006). Smaller communities have difficulties keeping their equipment functioning due
29
to the lack of support from the Government, but also the lack of technical expertise in the
community and a lack of a diverse skill set available (Beard 2006). Without maintenance and
replacement plans these conventional technologies can breakdown, mostly from mechanical
failures (Beard 2009). Water restrictions and there causes will be discussed in detail later in
this chapter.
3.1.2 Medium and large communities
There are 91 large and mid-‐‑sized remote Indigenous communities and all of these are
serviced by RAESP (Nevin & Yuen 2006). The number of communities serviced by RAESP
has increased from 72 in 2002 (Urbis Keys Young 2002). Medium communities are classified
as being greater than 50 people, but less than 200 and large communities have a population
greater than 200 people (Nevin & Yuen 2006). To be eligible for RAESP you must have a
population over 50 people but also have conventional infrastructure to a standard that
service providers can adopt in their service provision (Nevin & Yuen 2006). The service
provision is provided by RAESP and will be covered in full later in this chapter.
3.1.3 Aboriginal Town Based Communities (ATBC)
Aboriginal Town Based Reserves (ATBC) are Aboriginal Communities that are either a
suburb of a rural town or a remote Aboriginal community located less than 5 km away
(Nevin & Yuen 2006). There are 45 such communities in WA and they are provided water by
the Water Corporation. However the water is provided to the community via a single
metered point at the boundary of the community and the Water Corporation takes no
responsibility for anything inside that community such as repairs or maintenance (Urbis
Keys Young 2002; Nevin & Yuen 2006). The Community is then charged communally for the
water, as there are no individual meters. This has unique implications in that people that
have pensions do not have access to concessions that are available to other Australians. It
also gives no incentives for improved water use or for repairs to be made, and this has
resulted in a $1.3 million in unpaid debt in ATBCs in WA (Nevin & Yuen 2006). A Town
Reserves Regularization Program (TRRP) has been implemented to service these
communities. This is done by simply upgrading the infrastructure to a level where
mainstream operators such as the Water Corporation can take over. This is discussed later in
this chapter.
3.2 Water supply in remote areas
30
Groundwater is the main source of water in all remote communities with 80% of
communities relying on this supply for both potable and non-‐‑potable uses (ENHCC 2008).
Groundwater quality in many communities is quite good, with most concerns due to
hardness and total dissolved solids (Nevin & Yuen 2006). There can be chemical
contaminants, such as high nitrate content and also naturally occurring arsenic as in the
community that was studied in this research, discussed in detail in Chapter 4. A positive to
the use of groundwater it is regarded as a microbiologically protected source (Beard 2009).
Microbiological contamination can still occur through poor storage, allowing bacteria, even
animals and their faeces into storage areas. The site of the bore can also be a risk for
contamination if animals are allowed to traverse, exposing them to faecal matter.
3.2.1 Quality of service
Overall satisfaction is a key indicator of how the water supply is meeting a community’s
needs based on their own requirements. The view of the community members has been
empirically represented in Figure 2.1 (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee
2008). This data was collected in a survey by the Environmental Health Needs Coordinating
Committee (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee) in 2008 and included all
types of Aboriginal communities in WA. There were limitations to the data because of a
community’s acceptance to respond to the survey, with some rejecting the opportunity to
participate or were not at the community at the time of the survey (Environmental Health
Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). In total 232 communities were sampled
(Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). The satisfaction with water
supply in 2008 was 77% (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008).
Although the level of satisfaction has increased from 69% in 1997 to 77% in 2008, there is still
close to a quarter of the remote communities in WA that are not satisfied with their water
management. Significantly, there has been a decrease in satisfaction amongst self-‐‑supplied
communities, going from 50% in 1997 to 46% in 2008 (Environmental Health Needs
Coordinating Committee 2008). This may indicate that the ‘self-‐‑supplied’ water provision in
smaller communities is not successful, although there is not much more information that can
indicate the level of service for these communities. Satisfaction however is a key indicator for
Aboriginal communities as it is a reflection of the community’s standards, not Western
standards. Figure 2.1 sets out the reasons for dissatisfaction in each type of community for
communities that weren’t satisfied with their water supply. Figure 2.1 reveals that across all
31
the reasons for dissatisfaction, there is not a consistent pattern that smaller communities are
dissatisfied more than larger communities, even though the overall rate of dissatisfaction is
higher for smaller communities. Reasons for dissatisfaction, such as poor pressure, poor
maintenance and lack of power, have similar dissatisfaction levels. The areas that differ
between community types are lack of storage for which small communities are more
concerned with and poor taste for which larger communities are concerned with. This also
shows that although the larger communities have greater support for the Government, there
are still concerns with water provision. 40% of the communities that indicated their
dissatisfaction said that the taste/smell was the reason, over 40% indicated there was not
enough supply and 30% had concerns over the regular failure of the water system.
Inadequacy of supply is another issue that is defined as a water supply that needs to be
carted, supply is interrupted from a dry or collapsed bore, the pump is not working or it
dries up due to a drought (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008).
Overall 17% of communities are classified as having inadequate water (Environmental
Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). 27 communities in WA relied on carting their
water supply in 2006 (Farrell 2006).
3.2.2 Water Testing and Treatment
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA - 37 -
Reason for Dissatisfaction
As shown below, when surveyed as to the reason for dissatisfaction with water supply, the most recorded aspects relate to pressure (41% of communities), supply (35%) and maintenance (31%).
Figure 3.2 Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Water Supply (2008)
Base: Communities that are dissatisfied with water supply (n=78)
3.1.7. State Priorities - Water
The priority tables below are constructed by applying scores to responses on the key questions related to water. This provides a single priority score for each community surveyed in 200810. A high score signifies that water should be a priority to address within the community. Table 3.17 below shows the top 20% in terms of communities with a usual population of >=100 that would be considered a priority.
Table 3.17: Water Priority Usual Population >= 100
Region group Community Population Score
East Pilbara Jigalong 200 11.0
Ngaanyatjarraku Warburton 719 10.8
Ngaanyatjarraku Wingellina 147 6.6 Base: Top 20% of communities identified
10 For further information on priority calculations please refer to Appendix 1
40.5
28.631.0
35.7
16.7 16.7
21.4
40.643.8
31.3
12.5
37.5
31.3
25.0
40.5
35.1
31.1
25.7 25.723.0 23.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Poor pressure Not enough supply Poor maintenance Lack of storage Poor taste/smell Regular system failure Lack of power
Smaller communities (>20 people) Larger communities (<=20 people) Total
Figure 2.1: Water supply indicators and the dissatisfaction (Environmental Health Needs
Coordinating Committee 2008).
32
The survey by the Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008 on all
Aboriginal communities in WA, found that 49% of communities that aren’t connected to
town supplies have untreated drinking water and 52% do not have regular testing
(Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). In the survey it does not split
the communities into the small and large communities when quoting this data, however the
91 large and mid-‐‑sized communities are serviced by RAESP and hence have regular
treatment and testing, it is likely this data reflects the situation in the small communities.
Smaller communities (less than 20 people) in particular rarely disinfect their water with 89%
of communities not disinfecting (Nevin & Yuen 2006). A number of communities had shown
a negative feeling towards additives in their water due to the ‘strong taste’ or ‘stinging smell’
after previous water testing interventions from external parties, most likely to be
chlorination from microbiological contamination fears (Beard 2009). These statistics show
that while water provision in small communities is at an entirely different level to that in the
rest of Australia, the outcomes such as health relating to the water quality in these
communities is not known.
3.2.3 Water Quality
It was very difficult to find data on water quality in remote Aboriginal communities due to
the ‘self-‐‑supplied’ communities and RAESP not being required to report their water quality
data to the public. There have been Australia wide surveys conducted in the Community
Health Infrastructure Needs Surveys (CHINS), but these looked at communities with a
population over 50 people. A survey of all participating Aboriginal communities statewide
was conducted by the Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee, with the latest
one providing some insight into water quality issues by region. Water quality/supply was
identified as one of the main environmental health concerns by these communities with 42%
of communities indicating this (Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008).
The survey identified specific communities that had water quality issues in each region.
Aesthetic such as the look, smell and taste of the water were concerns in communities of
Pullout springs, Cullacabardee, Badjaling, Gnangara and Barrel Well (Environmental Health
Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). In Balgo, Goombaragin, Budgarjook, Cullacabardee,
Badjaling, Gnangara and Barrel Well the concerns were for microbiological issues
(Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008). Heavy metals and chemical
contamination were concerns for Mulan, Djarindjin, Bardi, Goombaragin, Burringurrah,
33
Cullacabardee, Badjaling, Gnangara and Barrel Well (Environmental Health Needs
Coordinating Committee 2008). As can be seen from this information there are communities
in WA that are concerned for their water quality, with some water being a risk to health.
Also some communities are represented more than once in the water quality concerns, such
as Cullacabardee. Beard (2009) looked at 24 communities in the West Kimberley region that
had populations of 50 people or less can give some insight into the water issues in WA. The
study found that 15 out of the 24 communities in the survey reported water quality issues,
(Beard 2009). These were mostly due to harmful microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses
and protozoa, contaminating the water and making it unfit for consumption.
3.2.4 Water Restrictions and their causes
In 2006 half the population living in remote Aboriginal communities reported interruptions
to their water supply (Beard 2009). Half of those affected by interruptions had them more
than 5 times in the previous year (Beard 2009). Frequent water supply breakdowns are due
to ageing infrastructure, inadequate supply capacity and water quality protection measures
(Beard 2009). There were 52 water restrictions in 2004-‐‑05 in communities with less than 50
people in a study by Beard 2009 on 24 outstation communities in the West Kimberley. This
was 75% of the communities studied. The restrictions were caused by infrastructure issues
such as scale build up due to hard water, mechanical failure due to old infrastructure and
lack of a management plan for replacement and upgrades (Beard 2009). The greatest causes
for water restrictions in a study by Beard 2006 were mechanical failure of pumps and power
sources. The next reason was the storage tank failure from scouring, splitting, calcium
blockages and age (Beard 2006). Insufficient water source was the next reason (Beard 2006).
15 of the studied communities reported water quality issues, mostly microbial with 12 (Beard
2009). 5 communities had disinfection systems but on 5 occasions these were the reasons for
water restrictions.
The way these communities are generally managed is ad hoc with limited resources, which
leads to ‘Failure Management’ (Beard 2009). This means that infrastructure that has broken
down is replaced (Beard 2009). This is a risk to human health as residents must then cart
water, which introduces the risk of contamination or they have to wait for someone to fix it,
which could take days to weeks (Beard 2009). With 75% of communities having no backup
system, there is a high health risk (Beard 2009). Vulnerability was a big issue found in Beard
34
2009’s study with distance to services being large, wet season accessibility and lack of a
backup water supply.
3.2.5 Infrastructure
Through the homelands movement the Commonwealth set up the essential service
infrastructure, based on conventional technologies such as storage tanks, pipes, bores,
pumps (Blanchard 1987). There has been a lack of a maintenance and replacement planning
and now in the next millennium we have old, ill-‐‑maintained infrastructure (Beard 2009). In a
study done by Beard 2006 on 24 outstation communities in the Malarabah region (North
West Kimberley) the age of water supply infrastructure was found. 21% of pumps were
older than 15 years, 46% are 10 years, 25% are 5 years old (Beard 2006). Solar power has
made an impact on communities. In the Malarabah region 14 out of 24 of the communities
studied by Beard 2006 had solar powered bore pumps, while 5 used diesel, 2 petrol and 1
used windmill (Beard 2006).
Storage occurs in the communities but as shown in a report by the Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994, it is used for very different purposes and shows the
‘failure management’ again. Storage capacity in urban areas are planned to cope with peak
demands on water supplies, while in remote communities, storage is there for emergency
breakdowns (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
3.3 Remote Area Essential Services Program (RAESP) The supply of essential services to remote Aboriginal communities is not standard across
each state. These services are provided through “different arrangements across the various
States and Territories delineated on whether the Commonwealth funding is pooled in the
jurisdiction” (Anda & Dallas, n.d., p. 305). In Western Australia, Commonwealth and State
funding is pooled into the Remote Area Essential Services Program (RAESP) and the details
of this program are set out below.
The Remote Areas Essential Services Program (RAESP) deals with three essential services:
water, power and wastewater (Urbis Keys Young 2002). It is jointly funded by the
Commonwealth and the WA State Department of Housing and Works (Urbis Keys Young
2002).
3.3.1 The Funding Framework
35
The current arrangement for the delivery of essential services to remote communities is that
the Commonwealth funds capital works, while the ongoing costs are provided by the State
Governments (Urbis Keys Young 2002; Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
This agreement was made in 1992 by the Commonwealth of Governments (COAG) to
improve Aboriginal outcomes (Department of Indigenous Affairs 1999). They agreed that
Aboriginal communities should be provided services on an equitable basis when compared
to comparable mainstream communities (Department of Indigenous Affairs 1999). An
example of this funding arrangement has been outlined in Urbis Keys Young 2002 where the
Commonwealth provided $12-‐‑15 million/year to fund capital works, while the State
contributed $3.7 million/ year towards maintenance, disinfection, testing and emergency
breakdown services (Urbis Keys Young 2002). The actual cost for these ongoing services is
$10 million and this shortfall has been met by pooled funds under the Indigenous Housing
and Infrastructure and Essential services Agreement (IHIESA) (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
The first bilateral agreement between the State and Commonwealth Governments was
signed in 2000 for the funding of repairs and maintenance for 72 larger communities.
Another bilateral agreement was signed in 2006 for the improvement of environmental
health In Aboriginal communities by the Commonwealth and the WA State Governments
(Government of Western Australia 2006). The agreement’s principles were to share
responsibility, harness the mainstream services, streamline service delivery, and establish
transparency and accountability and to focus on priority areas (Government of Western
Australia 2006). The Governments agreed to work towards achieving one level of service
delivery for the provision of each of housing, infrastructure and delivery of essential and
municipal services to all Aboriginal communities by 2008. It also pointed out that it should
be the State and Local Government’s responsibility to provide services that they would
normally provide to comparable non-‐‑Aboriginal communities (Government of Western
Australia 2006). The agreement’s overall goal is to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous
Australians by improving the delivery of services, building greater opportunities and
helping Aboriginal families and individuals to become self-‐‑sufficient (Government of
Western Australia 2006). The current agreement has progressed from an agreement between
WA and the Commonwealth to a National agreement. This is the National Partnership on
Remote Service Delivery in 2009 and is expected to run until 2014 (Council of Australian
Governments 2009). According to the budget 2012/2013 the area of essential and municipal
36
services will not receive any more funding after 2013(Australian Government 2012). The
Commonwealth then has traditionally provided capital works while the State Governments
provide funding for ongoing maintenance and repairs (Urbis Keys Young 2002). The
Department of Housing contracts the delivery of essential services to private engineering
companies to deliver the Remote Aboriginal Essential Service Program (RAESP).
3.3.2 Services
RAESP has been operating since 1986 and was contracted out to Arup before the contract
went to another Engineering firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff, in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2012).
RAESP perform all sorts of technical works such as drilling a bore, installing bore
equipment, storage tanks, disinfectant system, reticulation (Urbis Keys Young 2002). They
also visit each of the serviced communities every 6-‐‑8 weeks to check the water infrastructure
and conduct repairs (Urbis Keys Young 2002). Water testing is done on a monthly basis, with
chemical testing done quarterly (Urbis Keys Young 2002). The small communities that are
not serviced by RAESP are nonetheless eligible to receive emergency breakdown services,
which are provided for by Commonwealth funding (Urbis Keys Young 2002).
The Program currently services 91 mid-‐‑sized to large communities, which has grown since
1997 when 48 communities were in the program (Department of Indigenous Affairs 2005).
Even with this increase in responsibility, the funding from the Government decreased in the
period 2001 to 2006 (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
RAESP works with three regional service providers to deliver water, wastewater and power
services in WA. The service providers in each of these regions are run by Aboriginal
organizations (Nevin & Yuen 2006) which include: the Kimberley Regional Service Providers
for the Kimberley, the Pilbara Meta Maya for the Pilbara/Gascoyne and the Ngaanyatjarra
for the Goldfields/Central Reserves (Nevin & Yuen 2006). These commercial service
providers carry out maintenance and monitoring while RAESP staff visit each community to
monitor drinking water quality to achieve (as close as possible) compliance with the
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2011). Parsons Brinckerhoff state that the water
quality in the communities serviced by them is 95 percent compliant with the ADWG 2011
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012).
Table 2.2: Water Corporation Schemes compared to RAESP (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
37
RAESP data taken from the RAESP status report, July 2005. Water Corporation data from 2004/2005 annual report. • (a) Country localities. • (b) All schemes. • (c) Due to remoteness, lack of automation of assets and unavailability of local custodians at the communities, interruption of water services generally takes longer than one hour. Communication to and from the communities with the service provider is often difficult. • (d) Information not supplied. • (e) Wastewater schemes in most communities are very simple and pump failures and blockages generally result in wastewater overflows at the pump station and manholes, seldom inside houses or within properties (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
Table 2.2 presents the services provided to RAESP communities. Here a comparison can be
made between the services provided to RAESP communities and mainstream towns. The
mainstream towns consistently receive 100% for water quality indicators, except chemical
quality, while RAESP communities, especially the northern areas have less compliance with
the ADWG. Data outlining specific water quality issues cannot be obtained due to RAESP
not being a licensed service provider, hence not required to present data to the public. What
the table is useful for however is the comparison of compliance between mainstream towns
and RAESP communities. RAESP communities are less compliant with water quality
standards; however the importance of these types of indicators will be discussed in full in
Chapter 4.
No licenses have been given to RAESP for the provision of water because of the issue of who
has to apply for the license (Nevin & Yuen 2006). The reasons for this will be covered later in
this chapter.
Report for the Minister for Water Resources on Water Services in Discrete Indigenous Communities Dec 2006
40
Table 3: Water service performance – Water Corporation schemes compared to RAESP
Total coliforms
Complying samples
Thermotolerant coliforms
Complying samples
Amoeba (Nagleria)
Complying samples
Water service not interrupted
more than 1 hour
Chemical quality
Property not affected by
wastewater overflow
RAESP Kimberley
97% 92% 94% (c) (d) (e)
RAESP Pilbara
/Gascoyne
98% 92% 96% (c) (d) (e)
RAESP
Goldfields Central/Reserves
97% 100% 100% (c) (d) (e)
Water Corporation town schemes
100% (a) 100% (a) 100% (a) 89%(b) 97.3%(a) 99.9 (b)
Minimum acceptable target
(set by Department of Health of WA for
health or ERA for other service standards).
90% 95% 95% 75% 100% 99.8
RAESP data is taken from the RAESP status report, July 2005. Water
Corporation data from 2004/2005 annual report.
(a) Country localities.
(b) All schemes.
(c) Due to remoteness, lack of automation of assets and unavailability of local
custodians at the communities, interruption of water services generally takes
longer than one hour. Communication to and from the communities with the
service provider is often difficult.
(d) Information not supplied.
(e) Wastewater schemes in most communities are very simple and pump
failures and blockages generally result in wastewater overflows at the pump
station and manholes, seldom inside houses or within properties.
38
RAESP has achieved many outcomes, considering the lack of funding needed for such a
challenging project and the backlog of ageing and inadequate infrastructure. They achieve
95% compliance with the ADWG 2004 and in 2011 RAESP won the regional Engineers
Australia award for Engineering for regional communities and the IPA National
Infrastructure award for smart infrastructure (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2012).
3.4 Challenges The challenges are those that must be considered as a technician/engineer when attempting
to provide essential services to these communities. They provide an idea of how different to
an urban setting these communities are and so the solutions must be different to urban
technologies. The types of challenges that Engineers face are the:
• Limited access to technical expertise (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
• Long distances to service centres (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
• Limited water source (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
• Ageing infrastructure (Beard 2009).
• Limited access to communications (Beard 2009).
• Wet season accessibility is variable and dangerous (Beard 2009).
• Mismatch of inappropriate conventional urban technologies to remote contexts (Beard
2009).
• The mobility and fluctuations of communities can mean variable populations
(Department of Indigenous Affairs 2005).
• Community populations by season, i.e. some communities are uninhabitable during
the wet season (Department of Indigenous Affairs 2005).
• 75%-‐‑80% rely on bore water. This also means reliability on electricity, generators and
diesel fuel. This is as unreliable as the water supply (Department of Indigenous
Affairs 2005).
• The run down nature of infrastructure in remote communities (Department of
Indigenous Affairs 1999).
39
• Inadequate resources to service remote areas (Department of Indigenous Affairs 1999).
• The ‘private’ nature of Aboriginal communities (Department of Indigenous Affairs
1999).
• There are poor economies of scale because of major infrastructure designed for
centralized towns, being implemented in small communities. The cost per person for
water is therefore extremely high (Grey-‐‑Gardner 2008).
• The capacity and willingness of communities and institutions to support interventions
in the long term (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
• The weakness of a ‘market’ in small remote Aboriginal communities (Nevin & Yuen
2006).
• The response to incidents of poor water quality is slow due to the difficulty in
accessing laboratories, contractors, technical advice and parts (Nevin & Yuen 2006).
• A total project approach has not been successful as some communities have
everything at once, while other communities are waiting years to decades for their
turn. However ATSICs approach to spread its funds to every community has led to an
ad hoc approach which does not work either (Department of Health 1996).
These are complicated challenges for engineers and require a different way of thinking as
well as significant resources to service these communities. However when speaking to an
Engineer working in RAESP, these challenges can be overcome to provide an acceptable
standard to these communities, saying ‘remoteness is not an excuse’. There are underlying
issues that affect the effectiveness of the service that is out of the scope of engineering.
3.5 Underlying Issues effecting the delivery of water to remote
Aboriginal communities Many of the issues below involve the Governance issues that have plagued the provision of
essential services.
3.5.1 Legislation
Laws that govern most Australian towns and cities do not apply to remote Aboriginal
communities because they reside on unallocated Crown land classified under the Aboriginal
40
Lands Trust (ALT). This is a major obstacle to the effective delivery of essential services,
including, water to remote Aboriginal communities. The issue is that because laws such as
the Health Act, The Building Acts and regulations, Water Services Licensing Act (WSLA) do
not apply to Aboriginal communities residing on unallocated Crown land (where the
majority reside). There is no legislative requirement and no minimum standards that service
providers must adhere to, which apply elsewhere in Australia (Dullard 2008). In the long
term this has created doubt over what laws apply to remote Aboriginal communities on
unallocated Crown land leading to reluctance for Governments at all levels to address the
situation. It has taken away power to enforce acceptable standards and left Governments
with no incentives for trying to address issues in essential service provision. An Engineer
working for RAESP points out that this is the main issue that hinders progress in remote area
essential services. Without requirements and standards, service providers do ‘the best they
can’ and Governments are driven seemingly by only ‘good will’ to fund programs to address
essential service provision. This leads to a lack of funding and planning to meet
requirements, especially in the long-‐‑term for essential service provision to remote Aboriginal
communities.
3.5.2 Licensing
Another implication has been that since the WSLA does not apply to Crown land, licenses
for the provision of water are not required. The Remote Aboriginal Essential Services
Program (RAESP) has no license and as such is not necessarily required to meet any
standards of water supply, such as the ADWG 2011. Other service providers treat the ADWG
2011 as guidelines as that is what they have been designed to be. All service providers
present their water quality data to the Water Purity Committee for approval, but an Engineer
working in the Water Corporation highlights that there are differences to the way the reports
are treated.
‘…Each of the licensed water services providers have a memorandum of understanding, like a legal,
semi-‐‑legal document, an agreement with the department…Because RAESP doesn’t have a license,
there’s no memorandum of understanding but they do report, they do report to the department of
health a notice about the water quality in those communities…it’s not legally binding, the department
of health can’t actually do anything about the issues that they see in their reports…’
41
The program, run by Parsons Brinckerhoff seeks to achieve the highest compliance possible
with ADWG 2011, as does every other service provider in Australia – it currently achieves
95% (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2012). Parsons Brinckerhoff is appointed by the Department of
Housing and Works to oversee the project and they must report their water data to a steering
committee convened by the Department of Indigenous Affairs but this data is not publicly
available (Nevin & Yuen 2006). This lack of transparency is a significant issue for trying to
provide evidence-‐‑based research.
2.5.3 Money Allocation
• There has been under spending on essential services relative to the real need (Nevin &
Yuen 2006), which has been estimated in the order of billions to get communities to a
mainstream level with conventional engineering approaches, and $632 million with
low cost technologies (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Not
forgetting the ongoing maintenance, which is in the order of millions (Department of
Health 1996).
• Allocated funds for environmental health can be spent on areas it is not meant for.
This is the case on the Dampier Peninsula where less than 6% of Aboriginal
Environmental health allowance was actually used on environmental health services
for Aboriginal communities (Department of Indigenous Affairs 1999).
3.5.4 ATSIC
• ATSIC set up the communities but there was no standard of supply and no risk
management plan to ensure the service provision was sustainable (Nevin & Yuen
2006).
• ATSIC has had a lack of success in negotiating with the State and Local Governments
with essential service provision and also has lacked support from the Commonwealth
when negotiating for these agreements (Department of Health 1996).
• ATSIC had established the facilities in remote communities without ensuring
appropriate arrangements for maintenance (Department of Health 1996).
• ATSICs spreading of funds all over the country and repairing broken items has led to
an ad hoc management that while helping in the short term and probably needed in
42
the short term, it has left inappropriate infrastructure of all ages in many
communities. There is not one organised system (Department of Health 1996).
3.6 Government Programs
3.6.1 Government Planning
3.6.1.1 Bilateral Agreements A review by Dullard (2008) of the Bilateral Agreement made the following points. It pointed
out again that the responsibility for providing essential services to remote communities was
the Local Governments, but generally they did not do so because of legislative and financial
constraints. Money was provided to Local Governments by the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) equating to $22.3 million
for municipal and essential services in 2007/08. Unfortunately though this money was not
used for purposes intended as, for example, $9.2 million was spent on diesel for power
generation alone (Dullard 2008). Local Governments and Aboriginal members were both
concerned that they were not consulted about the Bilateral Agreement. Indigenous members
also felt skeptical the agreement would change anything and there were mixed views on
whether to support it or not. There is a general understanding by Aboriginal community
members that the Local Governments do not have enough money to support them at a
satisfactory level.
3.6.1.2 National Partnerships The most recent agreement is the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement.
It was signed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) signed in 2009 and extends
for 5 years (Closing the Gap 2011). This agreement is very different from the previous
agreements in that it has picked out 27 priority communities and is working to bring them
up to the same standard as similar sized with similar needs in similar locations (Closing the
Gap 2011). In WA these communities are Halls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing, Beagle Bay and
Ardyaloon (Bardi Jawi) (Closing the Gap 2011).
3.6.2 RAESP
A Commonwealth and State Government funded program for services to remote
communities with 50 people or more. This has been discussed in full earlier in this chapter.
3.6.3 CHIP
43
The Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP) provides for capital
infrastructure and ongoing maintenance with funding from ATSIC (Department of Health
1996). It works with the NAHS funding to provide essential services to remote communities
(Department of Health 1996). The program is designed to supplement the State and Local
Governments lack of funding for remote Aboriginal communities, as it is their responsibility
to provided essential services to remote communities (Department of Health 1996).
3.6.4 NAHS/CHIP
National Aboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS) worked to improve Aboriginal health and one
way was through improvements to environmental health. ‘Integral to health systems
infrastructure is support services such as sewerage, water supplies, communication etc…’
(Department of Health 1996). A total of $171 million was provided to NAHS initiatives from
1991 to 1995 (Department of Health 1996). The amount given each year grew steadily in this
time interval. NAHS/CHIP funding was provided through ATSIC for capital infrastructure
only (Department of Health 1996). The CHIP was for both capital and ongoing costs
(Department of Health 1996). NAHS funds were split depending on the apparent need in
each state. WA received 20% of the funding; NT received most with 31%; followed by QLD
with 26% (Department of Health 1996). 95 % of these funds were spent in rural and remote
areas (Department of Health 1996).
As CHIP funding fell, NAHS/CHIP funding increased to fill this gap and ensure services
were still being provided as is presented in Figure 2.2. NAHS funds for housing and
essential services were only ever to top up ATSIC’s CHIP (Department of Health 1996).
Figure 2.2: NAHS/CHIP and CHIP expenditure 1990/91 to 1993/94 (Department
of Health 1996).
44
3.6.5 TRRP
The Town Reserves Regularisation Program (TRRP) planned to get all 45 ATBCs connected
to the mainstream system available in the town (Urbis Keys Young 2002). The infrastructure
would all need to be upgraded to the standard where the Water Corporation could take over
and provide mainstream services to these areas (Urbis Keys Young 2002).
Stage 1: upgrade 26 of the 45 ATBCs. The estimated cost for stage 1 was in the order of
$10million (Urbis Keys Young 2002). An interview with an Engineer working on the project
reported that the program upgraded 6 to date and the total cost was $70 million.
‘…for these four communities it cost 70 million dollars to put meters on every house, fix all the pipes,
fix the waste water treatment pond, so connect that up to the town pump stations and get it all
underground. Once that’s all complete and we’re in construction at the moment in all four of the
towns, there will be a formal handover. So it will be handed over from the ALT to the Water
Corporation…four are under construction and two are complete.’
This program is vitally important and necessary for human rights and reconciliation and yet
the funding for the program has been cut, leaving 6 out of 45 completed. No more is planned
until the State Government put more money into the program. Also the budget was reported
as $10 million for stage 1 and this is extremely underestimated as it has taken $70 million for
only 6 communities. The Engineer working on the project states this:
‘One of the things that happened to us two months ago was the state government said “we’re not
going to continue the town reserves programme” so those six are it until such time as the government
sends more money.’
The social justice issues apparent in the case of ATBCs provide for very interesting research,
however this study is looking at depth at small and large communities.
45
Chapter 4: Water provision to
Mingullatharndo, a self-‐supplied
community 4.1 Introduction Mingullatharndo is a community located 10 kilometers (5 miles) from Roebourne, hence
nicknamed 5 mile, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (WA).The location is shown in
Figure 3.1. The community has a fluctuating population of about 20-‐‑60 people. The
community was founded in 1991 by a local Aboriginal welfare officer at Roebourne Regional
Prison, who wanted a place for people to ‘get off the grog’ and break the cycle of alcohol
fueled violence that many people were in jail for (Fountain 2010b). Their vision has now
enlarged to include those who want to live in family groups and get off alcohol (Fountain
2010b). Nine years later (in 2000) the water was tested and was found to contain arsenic
levels exceeding health regulations. Since that time, twelve years ago, community members
have carted water from Roebourne. A solution has not been found despite many discussions
with, and promises from, different Government agencies. The lack of potable water has
affected MIngullatharndo in other ways. The community is in a “catch 22” as the Shire of
Roebourne has told them not to build any more houses until the water problem is fixed.
Like many other outstation communities, MIngullatharndo was formed to alleviate social
problems within the Aboriginal community. It is an atypical community in the sense that it
comprises different Aboriginal groups from the region– Ngaluma, Injibarndi, Gurrama,
Banjima-‐‑but it is nonetheless represents a view, held by many Aboriginal people, about the
importance of kinship and living in a safe, dry community if Aboriginal health is to improve
and self-‐‑determination is to be achieved. Mingullatharndo has provided a safe place, as well
as employment, to Aboriginal people for twenty years whereas many other outstations have
been “abandoned, victims of poor service delivery, bad roads, deaths and conflicts, and other
factors” (Tonkinson 2007, p. 46). It is therefore important for engineers to understand the
challenges faced by a self-‐‑supplied community such as Mingullatharndo, and how these can
be overcome. The many social and cultural aspects must be understood as well to provide
services that are appropriate to the recipients.
46
4.2 Mingullatharndo in the local context
4.2.1 History of the area
The history of the region on the North West shelf of Australia follows much of the same
story as elsewhere in Australia. The people that made up the lands in this area are the
Ngaluma, Injibarndi, Gurrama, Banjima and Marduthunia (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). During
the early colonization period the local people were enslaved as labourers for the pearling and
pastoral industries and there land taken up to provide for the vast amount of land needed
for the pastoral industry (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). During these early times there was much
violence through conflicts over land and water and resistance to work (Rijavec & Solomon
1993). For about 100 years after the early colonization the local Aboriginal people were
exploited as cheap labour in the pastoral industry, however the work had the benefits of
staying on their country. Those that were not useful to the pastoralists were sent to
Roebourne, which was set up as a ration camp for these people and also a service center for
the pastoralists. Working on the land stopped in the 1960s with the equal wage decision by
the Government, that meant station owners could not hire as many people and many
M I N G U L L A T H A R N D O C O M M U N I T Y L A Y O U T P L A N – R E P O R T A N D P R O V I S I O N S
P L E X U S T O W N P L A N N I N G / 2 0 0 7 - 2 -
Map showing the location of Mingullatharndo
2 LOCATION The Community obtained a lease to the site in 1991, it lies on the western edge of the Pilbara approximately 10kms by the North West Coastal Highway from Roebourne and 50 kms from Karratha; the regional centre for the Shire of Roebourne is at Karratha.
2.1 Contact Information Community Address Mingullatharndo Association Inc. PO Box 251 ROEBOURNE WA 6718 Telephone (08) 9182 1350 Mob. 0428 101 475 (Marshall Smith) Mob. 0400 248 942 (Beth Smith)
• Mingullatharndo
Figure 3.1: Location of Mingullatharndo in the North West of Australia, with
neighbouring towns of Roebourne, Karratha, Wickham and Dampier (Plexus
Town Planning 2007).
47
Aboriginal workers were forced to leave and live in the Roebourne reserve (Rijavec &
Solomon 1993). There were many different tribes that had to congregate in the one town,
which caused social tensions (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). Roebourne at this time was a
“White” town, with Aboriginal people living across the river in a reserve. During the walk
off period the reserve became dangerously overcrowded, making the living conditions in the
reserve unsatisfactory (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). This period built strong racial divides as
Aboriginal people had little rights and were segregated from the European population
(Rijavec & Solomon 1993). The culture stood strong and traditional ceremonies still took
place. However the early 1960s saw in the mining boom to the North West, sending with it
herds of young, white men (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). This chapter in Roebourne history is
unique and explains some of the concerns in the town today. Other towns around Roebourne
were created specifically to accommodate for the mining and construction workers and so
were created at a high standard to attract workers to the North (Rijavec & Solomon 1993).
Roebourne however was left out of any development except the building of a regional prison
near the town (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). During this time in the late 1960s Aboriginal rights
were granted, which allowed for Aboriginal people to buy and drink alcohol (Rijavec &
Solomon 1993). This led to many problems in the town, including violence and
imprisonment, starting a cycle of alcohol misuse that still plagues the town today. During the
traumatic era of the mining boom, a refuge was found in the Church, where locals found
new strength and developed leadership qualities that are evident today (Rijavec & Solomon
1993). Many members of Mingullatharndo were involved in the Church in this time. The
mining boom also undermined the people in that they were not included in the profiteering
of their own land while they were left to the welfare trap (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). The
desire to create homeland communities was strong in Roebourne, as with many other towns
in Australia that eventually forced the homelands movement, however Roebourne’s was not
granted permission (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). To highlight the extent of the injustices faced
by the locals in Roebourne, they sought to set up a community and made plans to do so in
the 1980s, until they found that land has been leased to a private owner, without their
consultation, for a cattle station (Rijavec & Solomon 1993). The town has suffered many
waves of trauma through colonization, waves of mining development and many changes in
Government policy. Today the town has serious issues but still keeps its traditional culture
alive as and plays an integral role in the lives and futures of the local people.
48
4.2.2 Current Situation
Roebourne has a lot of social problems associated with its history as described above. A
report by Shanks (2009) covers some of the issues that have plagued the town for years.
These include domestic violence, assault, drunkenness, property damage, theft and child
abuse. Most of these issue stem from alcohol abuse. The town recorded over 600 alcohol
related hospitalizations in the years 2006-‐‑2008, as seen in Table 3.1 and the cost associated
with this was $2 384 033. Table 3.1 also shows that this is considerably higher than other
towns in the region, with similar populations.
Binge drinking occurs often and with many people drinking at one house. The home
environment on nights like these are not safe for children because they are unable to sleep,
supervision appears to be lacking, and they are more likely to witness or be a victim of
violence or sexual abuse. Youth that were interviewed reflected this, quoting that they walk
the streets at night for reasons ranging from boredom to houses not being safe because of
violence and they may be afraid of people at the house. School attendance is a big issue in
the town with only 11% attending years 11-‐‑12, 35% in years 8-‐‑10 and 43% in years 4-‐‑7. The
jail, which resides close to the town has a high number of Aboriginal inhabits, making up
84%. In 2008-‐‑09 there were 59 domestic assaults, 56 non-‐‑domestic assaults, 10 reported sexual
assaults and 171 reports of property damage. The town has many organizations,
Government, non-‐‑Government and Aboriginal owned, that are aiming to help in many of
these areas. Mingullatharndo contributes to this as it offers an invitation to people wanting
to escape this alcohol-‐‑fueled violence.
4.3 Foundation of Mingullatharndo Mingullatharndo was founded in 1991 by an Aboriginal family previously residing in the
town of Roebourne. The move was stimulated by common social problems that occurred in
4 DIA Roebourne Report (as at June 2009)
CURRENT SITUATION The significant social issues in the community of Roebourne include: 1. ALCOHOL MISUSE ISSUES: Social issues in Roebourne (and across the Pilbara) are exacerbated by high levels of alcohol consumption and other drug use. The Drug and Alcohol Office (DAO) alcohol consumption statistics show:
Western Australia average at 10 pure litres of alcohol per capita consumption Pilbara average at 16 pure litres of alcohol per capita consumption, and, Shire of Roebourne alcohol consumption is at 26.8 pure litres of alcohol
Alcohol Abuse – Need for Rehabilitation: Over the years, along with the evidential data showing that the Pilbara consumes twice the national average of pure alcohol per head, numerous reports and consultations have been undertaken by Government and non-Government (14 in the Pilbara). A need for rehabilitation services has been central in nearly all these reports. In many of these reports, Roebourne and South Hedland have been identified as key locations. In 2008, the Australian Government announced a commitment for rehabilitation for the Pilbara region, with a facility to be located in South Hedland. The consultancy group ARUP is progressing discussion with the Roebourne and Hedland community around Aboriginal expectations for this service delivery. Alcohol-related hospitalisations, Shire of Roebourne 2002-2006: The rates of alcohol-related hospitalisations for both males and females in Roebourne for the period 2002-2006 were higher than corresponding State rates. There were a total of 630 alcohol-related hospitalisations at a cost of $2,384,033. Below are Emergency Department Presentations for alcohol-related issues for Roebourne residents to hospitals in surrounding towns:
Hospital Year Total Roebourne 2006/07 309 2007/08 314 Nickol Bay 2006/07 73 2007/08 79 Wickham 2006/07 18 2007/08 22 815
Access to Alcohol: With the only Roebourne hotel (Victoria Hotel) closing in 2005, residents of Roebourne purchase alcohol at the neighbouring towns of Wickham and Karratha. Community feedback indicates most people drive to Wickham 12 kilometres away (including in unregistered vehicles via ‘back tracks’) to make their purchase of alcohol supplies which is often in high quantities, and then return to Roebourne where many consume in a continuous ‘binge drinking session’.
Table 3.1: Alcohol related hospitalization for towns in the shire of Roebourne (Shanks
2009).
49
Roebourne such as alcohol abuse and violence. As founding members of Mingullatharndo
explain:
‘… we wanted to have a place where we could try and take some families out of the environment in
town and so we came out. Eventually we moved out here in the early 90s and started building our
own home but [other people from the town], they needed a shelter because they were having problems
in town as well…’
The community was granted a lease for the land from the Department of Lands and Surveys
in 1988. The lease had originally been granted to Bethel Incorporated of Kununurra for an
Aboriginal training and rehabilitation center. The founding members of the community
along with other members of the Apostolic Church in Roebourne created the
Mingullatharndo Association in 1986 (Plexus Town Planning 2007). This association was set
up to provide support for displaced people suffering from social problems or abuse to take
refuge (Plexus Town Planning 2007). No alcohol can be brought into the community which is
also founded upon values of the Apostolic Church, and Aboriginal cultural values about
family, kinship and sharing. One member of the community that moved from Roebourne
explains their decision to make the move to Mingullatharndo:
‘Well in the town there was overcrowding and getting into debt which no one was helping and
supporting and like everyone was leaning on one person at that time because of alcohol drinking and
other things that came in. I needed a place and I was too scared at that moment to ask to come and live
here. Because I was Indjibarndi, but it was my own thinking and I went “no I’m going to go and ask
him”. I want to live somewhere. And it was… oh I don’t have a house…but all I needed was a roof
over my head. (I) just slept outside under the stars and then the generator started and I was back in
the station. Then I fell in love with the place and… yeah had a lot of kids that came around with me
(because their) parents drinking too much and… so we had quite a few kids, girls and boys. Now
they’re all teenagers and some of them are mums and dads but they still have respect. And I’ve got my
daughter and my son-‐‑in-‐‑law there …’
This recollection highlights the healing aspects of Aboriginal cultural values in outstation
communities that are very different to life in town. The community member says they are
from the Injibarndi people, and the founding members are from a different people and they
were concerned about this cultural issue. They asked permission from the founders and were
welcomed into the community. This is a very important issue that is not always considered,
50
but has impacts in the town Roebourne as described in the history of the area. In
Mingullatharndo many different Aboriginal peoples live together on this land and form
relationships based around family ties, which is different to most other homelands, where
communities are based around the same tribe.
MIngullatharndo is founded on a specific set of values, which has shaped governance of the
community. They have created the community to be free of alcohol, and to reconnect with
culture. They achieve this by respect, constant communication, as they are a tight knit
community, and support through family groups. The community is not an Aboriginal
corporation and so is not provided support from the Government through funding for
Aboriginal corporations. They believe this is best for the community as they are able to be
independent and live the way they want to. They do not receive support for essential
services because they do not have a population over 50 people. A founding member of the
community describes how being an Aboriginal community requires they adhere to
Government rules and control. Below a community member describes how it can affect their
community:
‘They don’t recognise us as a government community nor a community of any type.’
‘…they make you do things that you might not want to do, like I’ve had phone calls from people that
are trying to find housing for people and they try to tell you “well you’ve got to take them” “no, we’re
a private community, we don’t have to take anybody out here. People come out here because they
choose to and because they’ve got family support.” So we don’t… if people ask to come out, the first
thing we do is we try and work out which family they belong to so that they can support … if they
ring me and that happened a couple of times I say “so which family are they connected to?” which of
the Five Mile families because we don’t run programmes here and everything is about family support
so which family are they connected to? …it’s about the family support idea so government can’t say to
us “you’ve got to”. They come out and they ask [a community member] “can you look after these girls
tonight?” but they can’t say “you’ve got to take these girls”. That’s [the community member]’s choice
or whoever’s choice to do that. But if you’re a government community, they can start putting pressure
on you to do things that you might not want to necessarily do.’
One founding member explains the benefits of not being an Aboriginal corporation:
51
‘Yeah and we’re better off for it in a lot of ways, because we’ve still got our independence, we’ve still
got stuff that’s happening here you know and we still struggle but struggling is a part of life anyway
if you look at it in a general context. It’s just financially; sometimes the struggle can be tough.’
The family support systems are the main way the community is run, as mentioned above,
and it is an example of Aboriginal self-‐‑determination. In this case Aboriginal people have
gone out, made a community based on family and respect and these are working to help
people turn their lives around and break cycles in Indigenous disadvantage. The community
members allow and encourage many people to come out to the community, however to
support them they must be connected to family members as this is an integral part of
Aboriginal customs and society. They are concerned that Government services may not
understand this system and cause problems with them forcing people they may not know to
live in their house. The community believes that if they were supported by the Government,
they would have to adhere to the Government’s wishes about how they should run the
community, but sometimes these contradict the communities’ values and ideas.
‘The interesting thing that we always tell people is we don’t actually run programmes out here.
There’s no programme. What is out here is family support.’
The alcohol ban is a major rule for the community, but it is enforced by respect only, which is
a value that the community was founded upon:
‘so people respect it and I think 14 years ago …He’d go leave his little stash over the road and people
respect it, you don’t have to growl and carry on, it just… people respect it.’
The founding members also have restrictions on the growth of the community, with
concerns around the management and governance.
‘we didn’t really want to get too big because a community, from the little bit that I’ve experience here,
is that a community up to a certain size you manage it in a particular way and beyond that size you
have to switch, there’s a difference in management but the struggles are greater, the problems are
greater and so on as per the numbers of course. So we don’t really want to go much beyond probably
80, 90 people maybe 100 at max. That’s people, persons and not kids because kids are hard to count…’
At the present time, however, Mingullatharndo is too small to qualify for service provision
by RAESP. They qualify for emergency breakdown services and use these whenever there is
52
a problem and are satisfied with this service. The community again wish to be self-‐‑sufficient
and independent, but do not know whom to turn to fix the problem of water contamination.
4.4 Benefits of Mingullatharndo There is a growing body of evidence that homeland and small communities provide many
benefits to our society. This section will outline the many services the community provides to
the local region, to Aboriginal society and to the National goals of ‘closing the gap’.
4.4.1 Health
It has been established that living on homelands is beneficial to Aboriginal health and well-‐‑
being (Ganesharajah 2009). This community has been set up as a refuge for people wishing to
get off alcohol and away from other social problems in the nearby town of Roebourne. As we
have seen alcohol’s influence in the town is very strong and accounts for a lot of the health
problems experienced there. The alcohol free community of Mingullatharndo is therefore is
free of the violence and abuse that it causes in town. People living in the community
therefore have positive relationships with each other.
The community cannot exist, however, without access to potable water. The negative aspect
to health of choosing to live on this community although is due to the water issue. The
community members have been exposed to arsenic contaminated water until 2000 and the
first community members living there since 1991. Arsenic has been associated with the
development of cancers and also diseases like diabetes and heart disease (ADWG 2011).
Since 2000 the community has carted water, which can bring risks of contamination and also
risk of running out, creating vulnerability, which is a health hazard. Also since the water was
found to be contaminated in 2000 the local Government has limited the development of the
community, so no more houses were to be built. The demand for people to come out to the
community has grown and the community has had to house these people in the buildings
they have. This has created overcrowding in the houses that exist there and also people are
being housed in buildings that aren’t designed to house people, such as the town’s office. If
the water problem was to be solved, the health risks associated with the water would be
negated and the community would be able to grow and house more people in this safe,
alcohol free community, without overcrowding. The water issue is the main key to the health
of this community in the situation it is in today.
53
4.4.2 Leadership
The founding members of the community are leaders in the region and have sought to
improve the lives of people in the region by the creation of their community. This is an
example of self-‐‑determination at the ground roots and it is succeeding in a lot of areas.
People that have come out to live in the community have made big decisions to change their
lives to be free of alcohol and the lifestyle in the town of Roebourne. A community member
from Mingullatharndo describes this:
‘But one of our main issues is the fact that there’s so many strong people in the community and so
many of the strong people that live here are the strong Roebourne people. They look to us as the leaders
in the community so we’re constantly in town. Because we’ve got so many strong people that live
here. People that choose to live here, people that have made the decision that they don’t want to get
tangled up in the alcohol and drugs and violence and stuff like that.’
Aboriginal people are in a state where health, education and employment are in a dire
situation and are desperate for Aboriginal leadership. Mingullatharndo has these leaders
and with the growth of the town the number of leaders will grow through the values that the
community is based upon. The social issues of Aboriginal people are very complex and have
been built through a complex history. The situation will not be turned around quickly, with
quick fixes. The situation will be turned around by Aboriginal leaders and strong families
that break the cycle of Aboriginal education, employment and health. This is what
Mingullatharndo is achieving.
4.4.3 Alcohol rehabilitation
Mingullatharndo is achieving many things due to simply banning alcohol in the community.
The community was founded in the idea of being a place for families to live free of alcohol.
With the ban of alcohol, people can rehabilitate themselves and live in a space where other
activities and values support people to rehabilitate themselves. A member of the community
talks about the alcohol rules in the community:
‘Yeah, so I’ve got to respect alcohol things and talk to my lot “this is all the rules and we’ve got to
abide by the rules. You can go drink but don’t bring it in, you know?” And it’s been really good
because [a community member]’s been coming drunk…but he’s moving on and he’s going to bed. And
when I used to live in town I never used to get that sort of thing… always a big noise, talking all
54
night…the things that they’re doing for themselves is good you know without us telling them all the
time.’
He/she describes how people may come into the community drunk, but in the community
environment, as opposed to the town, they are encouraged to move on and go to bed,
instead of drinking all night. Although the community’s no alcohol policy is strict, the
enforcement is based around respect, as a community member explains:
‘And so you don’t have to have [a community member] standing there with a big stick saying
“no”…they do it themselves because they know that once you let alcohol in then all the other problems
come behind it.’
4.4.4 Jail rehabilitation
Another reason for the move was motivated by one of the founders’ time spent working with
people recently out of jail (Fountain 2010). They found that there was a cycle where people
would get out of jail, drink alcohol and then reoffend, ending up back in jail (Fountain 2010).
This is described in an interview with the founding member:
‘Prison’s an expert at making people into hardened drinkers because they give them all of the
medications and everything and build them all up, send them out and what happens? Back into it…’
The founders wanted a way of breaking this cycle and so created the alcohol free community
Mingullatharndo (Fountain 2010). A community member describes how their community is
used as a jail rehabilitation service:
‘They use the community, so they place people out here on curfew, they place juveniles on curfew, we
have adults out here…[a community member]’s been out here on orders…Like I’ve sat in the courts
when the court has told them “ok you won’t go to jail but you will go to Five Mile”
4.4.5 Child protection
Mingullatharndo is a positive environment for children to be in. It provides a service to take
children to Roebourne for school, it has many activities based around cultural practices that
children can be involved in and children can live without threat of alcohol fueled violence,
physical and sexual abuse, which can occur in the town of Roebourne. The issues of child
protection are discussed in section (3.2.2) on the current issues in the town of Roebourne. The
community also houses youths that are at risk in the town. These youths are sometimes
prescribed to go to Mingullatharndo by Government services such as the Department of
55
Child Protection and the local Police. When interviewing a member from Mingullatharndo,
they stated that they housed six young women in their house just that night:
‘We have community DCP, child protection children placed out here. So yeah, the government is
using the community but there’s no… But they don’t support our needs. Police bring the young girls
because they can’t find anywhere safe for them to sleep so I had about six last night, six young girls…
they’re all aged at 14 downward to 12.’
4.4.6 Indigenous Economic Participation
The community established a native nursery called ‘The Pilbara Indigenous Nursery’ in their
community in 2010 with the help of investors from the Woodside operated-‐‑North West Shelf
Venture (Bowker 2010). The investment sees the community strive to become self-‐‑sufficient
through this business. A spokesperson from Woodside stated:
‘The unique and innovative approach adopted by the community will ensure that meaningful
employment and training opportunities for local Aboriginal people will be provided over the long
term, and that Mingullatharndo residents can continue to build a vibrant community for future
generation,’ (Bowker 2010).
This is a very positive step forward for Aboriginal people and private enterprise in the area,
seeing investment in small business and the provision of jobs in a small community. Over
the years the community has found it hard to break even, as many businesses do, but there is
a positive future for the business with a lot of developments in the Shire of Roebourne. A
community member working in the nursery states:
‘The nursery belongs to Mingullatharndo but the operation of the nursery belongs to a business that
[community members] have and that was the plan, then so once we start making money, we then lease
the nursery and we pay the money into the community so there will be some money going back into
the community. But also to provide employment and stuff like that….So far haven’t made enough
money to pay any money back to the community but…it’s just last year kind of it’s starting to get
stronger, these developments that are going on around you know like around Roebourne there.’
Indigenous economic participation has been highlighted as a key issue in ‘Closing the Gap’
and this initiative is precisely what is being sought by Governments (Department of
Indigenous Affairs 2012). It has many positives, including the creation of jobs, opportunities
for training and education, activities for community members, less reliance on Government
56
funded programs and social security payments and money going into the community.
However the growth and development of the community is still impacted by the water issue
as the Shire has not allowed any more buildings and houses to be built until the water issue
has been solved.
4.4.7 Art and cultural artifacts
The community accommodates an environment for the strengthening of culture and
traditional practices. One expression of this is through art and artifacts, of which many
community members are participating in. Art is another way of participation in the economy
and has been very successful for Aboriginal people, especially in the Western desert. It also
plays an important part in the passing down of history, culture and tradition of Aboriginal
people in the area.
4.4.8 Cultural Awareness Programs
Being out in the community, away from the issues in the centralized town of Roebourne
allows the community members to reconnect with their culture. This building of culture has
allowed them to be advisors for many companies for cultural awareness and they are
employed to take cultural awareness training. The community runs a full day program
whereby participants are treated to a traditional meal of kangaroo and goanna cooked in a
camp fire, while casual discussions based around culture and social issues are carried out. A
community member that runs this says that this is an effective way of performing this
training as people enjoy themselves and are in a comfortable environment to discuss cultural
issues.
4.5 The Problem
4.5.1 Contamination
The water at Mingullatharndo was first tested in 2000 and was found to contain Arsenic (As).
The concentration was 0.23mg/L and the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines specify the
level should be below 0.01mg/L from natural sources for acceptable health outcomes
(ADWG 2011). In groundwater As (III) arsenite is likely to dominate and the most likely
source is from the dissolution of minerals and ores (ADWG 2011). Arsenic has been labeled a
carcinogen to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (ADWG 2011).
The cancers it is associated with are skin, bladder, kidney and lung (ADWG 2011). The
57
arsenic is readily absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, and then binds to haemoglobin. It
can then be deposited in the liver, kidney, lungs, spleen and skin (ADWG 2011).
4.5.2 Impact on the Community
After the testing found that the community had an unsafe source of potable water, the Shire
of Roebourne restricted the development of any more permanent houses until the water
issue was resolved. Since then the number of people residing at Mingullatharndo have
grown and created overcrowding and unhealthy living conditions in many houses. This is
how one founding member sees the issue:
‘We want to have at least another half a dozen really good houses but we can’t do that the shire said,
not until we fix the water up. And people come along and they want to help but I call it an echo now
see, because it’s the echo of somebody previous. That’s all that’s happening.’
‘So to me that’s fine, I mean we have to respect the government laws and we have to do what’s the best
thing …but at the end of the day they restrict us with all those things but they never come in to give
us assistance and try and improve anything. And the shire has clearly said we can’t build any more
permanent housing until such time as we resolve the waters but they won’t give you any help.’
‘…when people come in to do those… or make comments like that now I just listen to it and move on
you know because I know it’s not going to happen. Because we’ve kind of lost a lot of hope in all of
that.’
In the meantime, the unsafe water supply has been replaced by carting water that has started
out as a temporary measure, but become a way of life for the last 12 years.
‘Yeah, we just pick up twenty litres here and there because generally-‐‑ we pick it up at the church
sometimes. And that’s been on-‐‑going since 2000…’
The restrictions have been put in place, but the effort to help the community resolve this
issue has been little to date. The community are now in a ‘catch-‐‑22’ as they have a population
that is too small to be included in the RAESP, but are not allowed to grow due to their water
problem.
These statements show the empty promises that have come their way over the last 12 years
and the helplessness of being a community that is allowed to slip through the cracks in
Government policies and programs. Every community is different and the achievements and
58
progress being made to Aboriginal quality of life is being achieved in this community and it
is a shame that they are let slip through cracks based on their population.
4.6 Solutions The community’s water is contaminated by arsenic and boron. Without a safe drinking water
supply they not only have to cart water, ration out their supply, store it and make sure no
one uses the water for potable uses, they are also impacted by restrictions on development
because of the issue. There are two main solutions that could be implemented. They ATBC
option have been chosen, as they are the two solutions that have been quoted by Engineers
working in RAESP, but also they are two examples of the two directions the community may
take. The regularization option is representative of options that would involve conventional
technology, which would deliver the same standards as those received by other Australians.
The opposing option reflects a new, innovative technology. To assess which solution is best
for the community, consideration must to be taken of the cost, whether it will achieve health
outcomes, who will be responsible for the maintenance and repairs and will this be
sustainable over the communities’ lifetime and satisfy the future needs of the community.
4.6.1 Regularization
Description
This option involves piping of water from the mainstream town of Roebourne, about 10km
away, to the community. The Water Corporation provides the water to Roebourne and
therefore the standards of the water are comparable to that of other mainstream towns. The
infrastructure in the community would need to be upgraded to the Water Corporations
standards so they can service it the same as other towns that they service. This would be
managed the same as the nearby town of Roebourne, as if it were an outer suburb.
4.6.2 Adsorbsia ™ Arsenic removal media
Description
The Adsorbsia technology uses small, Titanium oxide beads as shown in Figure 3.2, to
adsorb the dissolved Arsenic that is present in the water (Vance & Goltz 2010). The beads in
Figure 3.2 are between 0.25 and 1.2 mm diameter (Vance & Goltz 2010). The system boasts
high capacity of Arsenic intake and fast kinetics, allowing more water to be decontaminated
59
in less time (Vance & Goltz 2010). The technology is effective over a wide range of water
conditions (Vance & Goltz 2010). It is also easy to install and use (Vance & Goltz 2010).
4.7 Comparison of Solutions
4.7.1 Health Outcomes
With the regularization solution the community would experience the same service as
provided to Australians living in mainstream towns and cities. The health aspects would be
instantly achieved as there is not an arsenic problem in the water at Roebourne, a very small
chance of microbial contamination and the elimination of risks associated with carting water.
For the Adsorbsia ™ technology the arsenic would be removed, making the water safe to
drink. There will still be issues with the ageing infrastructure that means the whole system
may suffer from breakdowns and water restrictions which is a risk to health.
4.7.2 Maintenance and repairs
Maintenance and repairs would be conducted by the Water Corporation for the
Regularization option, who would be required to provide the same standard as in the nearby
town of Roebourne. This can be performed at similar costs to other towns in the area and not
experience the dramatic expense of servicing very remote communities as Mingullatharndo
is close to service centers such as Roebourne and is easily accessible.
Figure 3.2: Titanium beads used as the Adsorbsia Arsenic removal media (Vance &
Goltz 2010).
60
The community would be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the Adsorbsia ™
technology. The developers boast the ease of installment and use (Vance & Goltz 2010, but it
is also a relatively simple design so the overall understanding and training needed to run
this system would be minimal. There is no pre-‐‑treatment required and the beads are easy to
install and maintain (Vance & Goltz 2010). When the beads are exhausted the beads can be
taken out and disposed of appropriately and replaced by fresh beads (Vance & Goltz 2010).
The community is still eligible for emergency repairs from RAESP, if problems cannot be
resolved. RAESP have experience with this technology as it was recommended as a possible
solution by an Engineer working there.
4.7.3 Future needs
The community wishes to house more people and grow to no more than 100 people. The
Regularization system would allow for this growth as the health needs from the water is no
longer a restriction. The capital works however will have to take into account the potential
growth that may take place immediately after the implementation of the water system.
The Adsorbsia ™ technology will be able cope with this growth in the population. The
community wishes to be self-‐‑sufficient and having this technology that they can maintain
themselves will give them this opportunity.
4.7.4 Capital Cost
One engineer, now employed at the Water Corporation, estimated the cost for the pipeline
from Roebourne to Mingullatharndo alone to be about $5 million while another, currently
employed by RAESP estimated the cost to be about $2 million. Then there are millions
required to replace and upgrade the infrastructure to the standard required by the Water
Corporation. Looking at costs needed for the regularization of 4 ATBCs came to $70 million
in total. We might expect the capital works to then cost in excess of $10 million just for the
infrastructure replacement. These figures are one reason Mingullatharndo has not been
provided with a solution to its water problems. Conventional technologies would cost in the
order of tens of millions of dollars and for a community of around 30 regular residents, the
resources have not been allocated with any haste. This type of solution has been offered and
even promised by various Government departments to the residents, but they have not
delivered.
61
The Adsorbsia ™ on the other hand has been estimated by one engineer to be $150 000. This
may be affordable for the community through their own fundraising efforts, Government
grants and/or Private support.
4.7.5 Overall assessment
The capital cost of this solution is just too high considering the population, even if it does
grow to a maximum of 100 people. The ongoing costs would be expensive as well, even
though they should not be more expensive as the service provided in other towns. The
standards of the Water Corporations service are very high and the maintenance and repairs
would be high to make sure water complies with its standards. In terms of community
ownership and involvement, the system would not need to be touched by the community at
all and this can be a good or bad thing for the residents. In one way they can experience the
luxury of having quality water every day, without thought of where it is coming from and
therefore ease of mind. They can get on with their lives, their nursery business and their
cultural activities without the burden of essential services. However the community enjoys
their independence, as much as it is a burden to them. They know that whatever happens
with Government policies and legislation, that if they are in charge of their own system, they
are in charge of their own future. Overall the likelihood of this solution is low because of the
huge capital expense.
The Adsorbsia ™ option is the most likely possible solution for the community based on
capital costs alone. The technology would achieve health outcomes specific to the
community’s needs as the issue for the residents is the Arsenic contamination. The
maintenance of the Adsorbsia system should be quite minimal as it is community owned and
is not expensive to run. As the solution achieves major outcomes in the community such as
health and self-‐‑reliance, it is considered the best solution for specifically the Mingullatharndo
case.
These options are only a small sample of the technological solutions available and the overall
design and implementation would only occur with very thorough and clear consultation
with the community members. This has not been covered in this study, but is recommended
so the community is aware of the many options, especially unconventional ones that may be
suitable for their community.
62
4.8 Comparison with a RAESP community This comparison has been provided to show that while small, self-‐‑supplied communities
may struggle with essential service provision, the Government funded programs such as
RAESP still struggle to provide satisfactory water provision. Jigalong is one such community
that has had struggles with drinking water in the past and recently has been in the media for
such issues.
4.8.1 Background
Jigalong is located in the Shire of the East Pilbara and is located on ALT reserves on the edge
of the Great Sandy Desert (Stein 2005). The community houses approximately 300-‐‑450
people, mostly Aboriginal, fluctuating seasonally and also with events such as funerals,
sporting carnivals and law (Stein 2005). The traditional peoples are the Martu people, who
are still actively involved in their culture and traditions (Stein 2005). The community is
serviced by RAESP as they have a population over 50 people. This means they are provided
maintenance and repairs every 6-‐‑8 weeks, emergency breakdown services, treatment and
testing of water. The community has 2 ground mounted tanks and 2 elevated tanks, a main
PVC pipe, 155mm diameter, as well as a Chlorinated disinfection system. On the edge of this
major community are a number of outstations and small Aboriginal communities (Stein
2005), which are dealt with similarly to Mingullatharndo.
4.8.2 Water Issues
Water consumption in the community is major issue with demand exceeding supply (Stein
2005). The main cause of this is waste through leaking internal infrastructure. The
community therefore hasn’t been advised to get more bores and storage tanks because the
problem is wastage. The community also went through a period in 2003 and 2004 where
there were unsatisfactory readings of thermo tolerant coliforms and E.coli, which led to the
need for residents to boil their water before consumption. The community also has a history
of poor aesthetics due to hardness (Nevin & Yuen 2006). This causes some of the damage to
the infrastructure and leading to the wasting of water.
Recently ABC news broke a story about high levels of nitrates in the water at Jigalong being
a health threat as well. Randolph Spargo, a community doctor at Jigalong stated that nitrate
levels exceeded 70mg/L. He said this was unsafe for babies under the age of three months to
consume when mixed with baby formula (Massey 2012).
63
Pilbara MLA, Tom Stephens expresses some of the social justice aspects of this water quality
issue:
"ʺThe basic essential supply of healthy drinking water is all that the community is desperately after and
which they should be entitled."ʺ(Saggin 2012)
"ʺIf this was a street in Nedlands or Dalkeith or Peppermint Grove there'ʹs no way the community
would tolerate it for a minute."ʺ(Saggin 2012)
In another article by Massey 2012, Stephens states that two bores in the community had good
water but low pressure and that because of this the needs of the community were not being
met. Jigalong has similarities to the situation in Mingullatharndo as they are both in regions
where mines are creating vast amounts of wealth for the state Governments as pointed out
by Stephens (Massey 2012).
An Engineer working for RAESP says that there are many communities that RAESP services
with the same issues as Jigalong and some with more concerning issues. They state however
that these specific issues raised in the news are not of great concern for health outcomes and
that some mainstream towns have the same issue. Nitrate levels greater than the Australian
Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC–ARMCANZ, 1996) recommended maximum
concentration of 10 mg/L are a concern for infants only and can be taken by the rest of the
population without health consequences.
This community is provided a service by the Government through RAESP, but as we can see
it still suffers many water issues. This shows that even though Mingullatharndo have fallen
through the cracks in Government support, the communities that do get Government
services are not being provided satisfactory water and it remains an issue to them.
64
Chapter 5: Discussion 5.1 Framing the issue
5.1.2 Case Studies
Mingullatharndo was studied in detail in this research and gave an insight into the thoughts
and feelings of community members that are faced with water problems. The problem with
water not only presented health risks through the drinking of Arsenic contaminated water
and then the carting of water from a source 10km away, but it halted their development. The
community has many goals, which may act to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people in
the area, but are currently limited by this water issue. The problem has not been resolved for
12 years after many promises to solve the problem by Government agencies. The community
has hoped for this matter to be resolved for these many years and have now given up hope
that anyone will provide water for the community. The community is determined to stay on
the community as they have for more than 20 years and do not want to be moved back into
the town of Roebourne, from which they left because of the issues in the town.
5.1.3 Satisfaction
Not much can be said for all the other communities in WA, but one statistic that may provide
some indication is from Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008 that
shows 35% of Aboriginal communities are not satisfied with their water supply. As much as
this is a simply yes or no answer based on the feelings of the community members alone and
is not technically based, it holds a lot of value when considering the importance of self-‐‑
determination. The thoughts of the community members are important and the fact that 35%
of communities, 25% of the population living remote are not satisfied with their water
supply shows there is a real issue.
5.1.4 Health
The health aspect relating to water provision is outlined in Section 2.4. It is difficult to
pinpoint a single factor that affects someone’s health, so the evidence for water supply and
the effects on Indigenous health are hard to define. However there has been a lot of reports
linking the two and if ‘closing the gap’ was to be achieved for health, safe drinking water
provision would be an effective step.
65
5.2 Debates about the Significance of remote Aboriginal communities
5.2.1 Benefits and costs of living remote
Claudie (2010) presents the case for the benefits of small remote communities and say that
they are the key to ‘closing the gap’. He argues there are many benefits of homelands/small
communities. Outstation life is better, he believes, in terms of health, education,
employment, livelihood options, social cohesion, and housing conditions than at larger
townships despite lack of government funding and policy to assist their development. They
foster functional and resilient individuals and families and communities (Claudie 2010).
Claudie (2010) argues outstations provide a healthy environment for raising children. It is
well documented that the active engagement of Aboriginal people on their traditional lands
enhances self-‐‑esteem and confidence; reduces social alienation; and acts to promote and
preserve health and well-‐‑being. People in outstations, particularly if they have an alcohol
ban, are less likely to commit violent crimes (see Chapter 4). The social stressors that are
apparent in town from the different tribal groups that are forced to live together causing
tension and arguments are removed when living on homelands (Claudie 2010). All of these
are benefits have been identified in the community that was visited in this research,
Mingullatharndo, as is outlined specifically in Chapter 4.
There are also those who argue that outstations do not necessarily benefit Aboriginal people.
The disagreements are outlined and analysed in Scrimgeour 2007. The Bennelong society is
one such opposition group and in 2006 held their annual conference with a theme on
‘Aborigines living in remote locations are worse off than their compatriots in town’. These
thoughts were echoed by Senator Vanstone in 2005, who argued that confining people to
remote Aboriginal communities has denied them the opportunities in the mainstream
economy (Scrimgeour 2007). These statements have some merit in that there is often a lack of
jobs and opportunity in remote communities around Australia. It may however be possible
to work and live remotely. Job opportunities are forecast to be in demand in the regions in
the North West where mining predominates (Walker 2006). Walker (2006) also points out
that Aboriginal people living in remote areas can’t expect to rely solely on traditional law
and culture to sustain them through the next 25 years either. He argues that the future is in
the mainstream economy but perhaps this can be achieved in the remote areas. Noel Pearson,
an Aboriginal lawyer and activist says the way forward for Aboriginal people and
communities is through the ‘real market economy’ and the ‘passive welfare’ system needs
66
fundamental restructuring (Martin 2002). Pearson says ‘passive welfare’ promotes
dependency, similar to the dependency caused by inappropriate technology (Martin 2002).
Pearson believes replacing current mechanisms controlled by Government through genuine
partnerships between Government and Aboriginal people and also a socio-‐‑cultural change
within Aboriginal communities themselves is needed to create a change (Martin 2002).
Pearson does not however believe the Government doesn’t have an important role to play in
providing resources for people who are not economically self-‐‑reliant through the market
economy, but the means through which the resources are distributed needs restructuring
(Martin 2002).
Mooney’s report (2009) on the cost and benefits of homelands claims there is growing
evidence to support the idea of health benefits of living in homelands. More importantly the
report finds that the costs of remote communities aren’t as high as imagined and they may
even be providing cost savings to the Governments. His research has found that there is no
evidence to support the calls for centralisation and Government policies that threaten
homelands.
There are costs associated for people living on country; distance and remoteness, lack of
opportunities, uncertain economy, and extremes of weather (Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission 1996). This leads to the great paradox described in Walker (2006)
where he suggests that people want to live remote, but on the other hand seek standards of
living equal to other Australians. Aboriginal people that have moved onto homeland
communities have weighed up the options and made the choice to live in remote settlements.
They do require some services, but these are the most basic of services, such as water, and
are entitled to them based on human rights. They do not seek services equal to that of cities
and towns as they do not want to live like ‘whiefellas’ (Tinkonson 2007) and want to instead
connect with their country in remote areas.
5.2.2 Government categorization of remote communities
The cut off point for remote Aboriginal communities to be part of the RAESP is 50 people or
more. This is a number that does not necessarily reflect the needs of a community for
support. Below this the water supply is completely left to the community. As will be
discussed below, self-‐‑determination is a key to a positive future for Aboriginal Australia, but
the model for service provision does not seem to reflect Government policy or Aboriginal
67
needs. An Engineer working with RAESP points out that the issue of eligibility for the
RAESP is one that needs rethinking. They argue that the eligibility based on population is
flawed, as the remote Aboriginal communities’ populations are highly variable. They
recommend using a more stable criterion such as the number of buildings requiring water
services. Still, this is one criterion based purely on one aspect of the community, which
doesn’t look at the needs and wishes of the community. Some communities below 50 people
may be providing satisfactory water to their community and enjoying their independence,
while others may be struggling, such as Mingullatharndo, but all of those under 50 people
are not supported by the Government. A cut off point is never the less required as it is not
feasible to provide services to every outstation community. The factors that should be
considered for each community to decide whether they should be supported are the needs,
capabilities and natural resources of the community. Consultation is then required and
options should be provided to the community. Communities that are below the eligibility
should be provided self-‐‑sufficient options that can satisfy the community’s needs and the
community should be supported with capital investment, adequate training and some
ongoing support for maintenance and repairs. This study recommends re-‐‑evaluating the
criteria to define what communities should be provided support through the RAESP.
5.3 A Social Justice approach to the problem
5.3.1 Human rights Donna Riley’s book on Engineering and Social Justice (2008) discusses different social justice
theories but they all have certain arguments in common that shape an overall picture of social justice
as ‘the struggle to end different kinds of oppression, to create economic equality, to uphold
human rights or dignity, and to restore right relationships among all people and the
environment’ (Riley 2008). There are many streams of social justice that have been shaped by
different movements of people seeking justice (Riley 2008). One that is an appropriate
framework for this research project is a ‘rights based approach’, which addresses what
people deserve or are entitled to (Riley 2008).
Human rights in relation to water are discussed in detail in Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner (1994). Australia is bound to standards of human rights set out in treaties and
laws that we are a party to. The arrangements are a ‘good will’ agreement and the
consequences of not adhering to them may lead to International criticism or condemnation
68
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The relevant human rights legislation
applying to the water issue in remote Aboriginal communities are the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPC), the International Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal declaration of Human
Rights (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The Universal Declaration on
Human Rights in 1948 recognised that ‘Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-‐‑being…’ amongst other conditions necessary to achieve an adequate
standard or living (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). This is also similar to
the principles of the ICESCR. CERD sets out rights that should be enjoyed without
distinction to race and says that disadvantaged groups be assisted in overcoming the effect
of past discrimination by providing services to give them an equal footing with other groups
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The rights relevant are the right to
adequate and safe drinking water, the right to health and a decent standard of living, the
rights of people in remote and rural areas and cultural rights (Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner 1994). The ICCPR recognizes the rights of ethnic minorities to enjoy their own
culture. This aligns with the dominant ideas in social justice viewed in Aboriginal Australia
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). When designing solutions in Aboriginal
communities a number of human rights issues will arise and some may even contradict each
other and it is contentious to attempt to have a definitive order of importance (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). For example a community may value a source of water
that does not comply with health standards for cultural practices, creating an issue of the
right to health or the right to a culturally valued entity (Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner 1994). There have been arguments that more emphasis should be on cultural
rights and self-‐‑determination in these contexts (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner
1994).
5.3.2 Social Justice for Aboriginal Australians
Social justice for Aboriginal Australians takes the notions of human rights and especially
cultural rights to shape a specific definition. It is based on Aboriginal people’s unique
identity and expresses much of what self-‐‑determination is framed around. Professor Mick
69
Dodson1 states: 'ʹAt the most basic level, for Indigenous peoples, social justice means that our lives
will not be dominated by a foreign rule of law which fails to adequately support or take into account
our unique identities and aspirations. It means that our voices will enter into a dialogue from which
all peoples in a society negotiate the type of society they live in'ʹ (Dodson 1993).
5.3.3 Self-‐determination
Dodson is referring to self-‐‑determination which is a right in itself whereby people can freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development, as described in the ICCPR (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was founded as an act of self-‐‑
determination and its objectives were to ‘develop self-‐‑management and self-‐‑sufficiency…to
further the economic, social and cultural development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander persons’ (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The Commission’s goal
was ‘to secure the empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples so that
through self-‐‑determination they can make the decisions that affect their lives…’, however the
notion of self-‐‑determination is ambiguous and has been debated heavily over whether it has
achieved anything for Indigenous Australians or even worsened the conditions (Federal
Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The ideals of the theory are positive for
Indigenous peoples, but the practical implications have fallen short (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Governments can believe that their policies are
recognising self-‐‑determination, but in the eyes of Aboriginal people the policies not only fail
to do so, but also go against self-‐‑determination and seem to be founded on assimilation
(Johnson 1989).
One aspect of self-‐‑determination that shared common ground with many different
definitions was that an economic base should be provided to the Indigenous people so they
have the resources and capacity to control the future of their own community (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). This is particularly relevant to the Mingullatharndo
case as the people there are achieving self-‐‑determination, constrained by the lack of potable
water. The future of the development of their community relies on a workable solution to the
water problem.
1 Mick Dodson is the Co-‐‑Chair of Reconciliation Australia and past Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
70
Wilson (1982) expresses the views of Government that have led to the difficulty in finding
funding for projects and promotes self-‐‑determination as a path to a solution:
‘Supply of water, sanitation and shelter are the most important hygiene factors. But progress
will only be made when the nature and pace of new facilities and procedures are in black,
not white hands. The quantity and quality of such services are now dictated by whites, who
tend to see the provision of housing, sewerage and water supplies on Aboriginal reserves as
a cost. This attitude contrasts markedly with the provision of basic infrastructure in cities
and country towns-‐‑such expenditure is seen as an investment.’
The view of resource allocation to Aboriginal communities has not changed since this time as
development of Aboriginal communities is seen to be a liability. The economics simply to do
not add up with conventional technologies designed for urban settings and economics based
on Western society values. Mingullatharndo is an example of a community that should be
viewed as an investment and not a liability and the benefits of such an investment are
discussed in Chapter 4. ‘Closing the Gap’ is a major priority for Australia and if this
community is achieving positive outcomes through self-‐‑determination, then solving their
water problems should be considered a fair investment. A recommendation from this study
is to take this idea of economics further to produce an empirical analysis of the long term
costs and benefits in financial terms for this community. An economic justification of such a
community may speak to Governments and private sectors more than the desire and human
rights of these people to live in these settlements.
5.4 Technical Aspects of Social Justice
5.4.1 Appropriate technology
When considering the solutions the following must be considered (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994):
• Does the service or program interfere with the cultural integrity of the community
concerned?
• Has the program been chosen by Aboriginal people themselves and does it respect
the community’s right to self-‐‑determination?
71
These considerations will enable a positive step towards appropriate technology
implementation. There are many other consideration including feasibility, sustainability and
outcomes expected to be achieved, but these considerations should be at the forefront of any
potential solutions.
Benefits such as employment opportunities and budget savings have been demonstrated by
communities that have chosen more alternative, appropriate solutions that utilize local skills
and resources.
Using appropriate technology should include the resources and skills available in the
community to reduce dependence on outsiders. Training to develop the skills needed for
effective management of the technical systems is required and has been an area that also
hasn’t been addressed enough in the past. Currently RAESP provides training to locals to
carry out day to day maintenance on the essential service infrastructure in their community
(Jardine-‐‑Orr 2003). There are still many technical problems that require outsider expertise
and this is a key problem that needs to be addressed with an appropriate technology
(Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). A lot of training has been aimed at
community management skills, which in reality allows them to decide little more than what
contractor they will hire (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The lack of
technical training will only increase dependency on outside work and take away self-‐‑
determination (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
Negative outcomes can also occur from implementing solutions designed specifically for the
needs of a community, as would be one of the goals of an appropriate technology (Federal
Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Something so specific and unconventional means
reliance on specific parts and technicians that know the technology if the technology were to
fail. An example of this is presented in Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner (1994)
where a research project was conducted in Coconut Island on solar power in the community.
When the research project was completed, the community had to rely on local suppliers to
provide information, spare parts and service for their new, innovative community power
supply and found it difficult finding personnel who understood the technology. Ultimately,
the community wanted the solar system to be replaced by a diesel system, which they had in
the first place (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).This adds another
72
dimension to the choice of solutions and must be considered or the technology will be
abandoned.
The questions that must be asked to determine whether the technology is appropriate is
taken from the Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994, relating human rights and
technology:
• Does the service or program provide adequate standards in relation to quality of life
and sufficient to support the enjoyment of the range of fundamental human rights
and fundamental freedoms?
• Does it meet adequate health standards?
• Does the service or program achieve outcomes compatible to that of non-‐‑Aboriginal
communities?
Considering the Mingullatharndo community the answers are all no. The definitions of
quality of life and adequate standards will be discussed later in section (4.5.2) on appropriate
standards.
5.4.2 Past Inappropriate Technology
When the technology is not relevant to the lifestyle in the community, it will not be
sustainable. Then the community may react negatively about the inappropriate technology,
as it does not meet the needs of the community. The providers of this “sophisticated”, “new
age” technology in their eyes may feel the community is ungrateful. This reinforces the
negative Aboriginal stereotypes of “primitive” or “uncooperative” (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
Providers are comfortable with conventional solutions, but these will not work, and have not
worked in remote situations (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). When
money is put in to solve problems and there are pressures on time and resources, the
solutions that providers have gone to are the conventional systems as there is no time to look
at more innovative, appropriate solutions. There has been a great cost of this in the long term
and left the backlog of problems we have today. The choice of these technologies is also
argued by Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner (1994) that people vying to solve the
problems don’t consider alternatives and may recommend solutions that will be expensive
and draw higher consulting fees (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The
consultants do not see the ramifications of their work in the long term, as they do not live in
73
the communities. For example a community may require dry latrines, but are recommended
water-‐‑flushed sanitation systems that require more technology and work to install (Federal
Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
The long-‐‑term benefits of technologies were rarely considered in case studies reviewed by
Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994. Work would be undertaken with a bulk of
money and recommendations to solve a problem. This arrangement doesn’t encourage long-‐‑
term planning and hence it has been neglected many times (Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner 1994). In WA the situation of ongoing maintenance is a contentious issue that
has for a long time been disputed between the State and Federal Government (Blanchard
1987).
Dependency is a big issue relating to past technology implementation. The installment of
conventional technologies used for urban situations has left communities dependent on
outside knowledge to maintain and repair them. This requires resources that are
unsustainable to meet, but more importantly has undermined the self-‐‑determination of these
communities. Dependency is also created through uncontrolled, quick fixes. These quick
solutions come from the push to achieve outcomes in health, equity and social justice
through the implementation of the latest technology (Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner 1994). Through self-‐‑determination the communities want to be able to take
these concerns into their own hands and not need to rely on Government resources being
spent on shipping people to their community.
It is important to point out that inappropriate technologies haven’t always been forced upon
communities either. The outlook by some communities has been to display the symbols of
urban settlements and have not looked at the overall service met by them (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Technology is sometimes presented as the ultimate
solution and the limitations are rarely expressed to the community (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). The communities’ view of technology is that it precise,
comprehensive and value-‐‑free (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994).
It has been recognized in the self-‐‑determination era that there needs to be more decision
making left to the Aboriginal people that the technology will be bestowed upon. This then
relies on the community members to be involved in technical discussions where the
information can be irrelevant or meaningless to people whose science and technology is
74
historically and culturally different (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). A
response to this has been to hire consultants to advise the decisions. The consultants also
through a lack of communication and negotiation have little to go on to make decisions
based on the communities history and aspirations and so stick to professional codes of
conduct that have worked in the rest of Australia (Federal Race Discrimination
Commissioner 1994). This area needs to be reviewed for improvements going forward as
consultations between technical consultants and the local community will need to be
performed well for the recommendations in this report to have some chance of succeeding.
Inappropriate technologies do more than just make the service provision unnecessarily
expensive, they also can sew the seeds of racism (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner
1994). Frustration is felt by both parties in the delivery of these services as Aboriginal people
do not have control over the technologies and the service providers may find the community
members to be ungrateful and a drain of resources.
5.5 Changing Legislation to facilitate a more equitable service delivery As discussed in Section 3.5.1, many laws that govern Australia do not apply to remote
communities on Crown land. This has created much of the problems in the water provision
as service providers are not bound by these laws and have no minimum standards. There is a
new Public Health Act that is set to replace the Health Act 1911. It is in the process of
becoming law and one of the changes will be to bind the Crown to the health legislation. The
Public Health Act will enforce these standards, which apply to the rest of Australia’s towns
and cities, to remote Aboriginal communities on Crown land. But if this enacted, it raises the
question: is it achievable for standards to be met by remote Aboriginal communities? This
may lead to confusion and frustration about what can be done, what the law requires, what
is actually feasible and who benefits from these changes. This will be discussed further in
this section.
5.5.1 Western Mechanisms
The way in which our Western society responds to a problem in general is to design a
program with targets and outcomes and set timelines to achieving the targets, with regular
intervals to check the progress (Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994). This
process is again bound to the notion of standard of living as discussed above. Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994 argues that this development model, driven by standards
75
is not likely to achieve equality. It provides a politically acceptable process that makes things
look like they are happening. Instead of achieving the proposed outcomes, what we may
produce is further frustration.
Walker 2006 discusses the general way in which Western solutions are brought about.
Universal need is met by a technical solution and implemented by a rules driven provider. In
general: Need is the problem; supply is the solution; civil service is the instrument (Walker
2006). A new notion that is emerging is driven by demand, which changes the view of
‘beneficiaries’ of services to ‘consumers’ of service. The mentality of service providers to
Aboriginal communities is not to provide a service in terms of ‘aid’, but for business. This
will enable service providers to search for what Aboriginal people want and not say what the
community needs (Walker 2006).
A recommendation put forward in this report is that instead of Governments trying to see
Aboriginal perspectives, Aboriginal communities should reach across and use
communication that they understand, such as economics. Above we have discussed
standards of living and the difference in cultures, but the Governments still view Aboriginal
communities as purely an expense, a drain of money. It is clear that small communities
benefit Aboriginal people, provide services to Australia as a nation and they may ‘close the
gap’ through Aboriginal self-‐‑determination, but western economics and Governments do not
recognize this (Altman 2006, Kerins 2010). Therefore a thorough economical view of
Aboriginal communities needs to be done. Economics taking into account the services and
cost savings that remote Aboriginal communities provide may convey to the Government
the values of these communities.
5.5.2 Appropriate Standards
Standards to improve quality of life can cause problems as the important aspects of life are
very different between cultures. The Western society is the dominant culture in Australia
and in the past has enforced technologies that have been aimed at improving aspects that
they believe to be important to living. This is a colonial outlook and things have changed
since such eras as colinisation and the assimilation era. The gap between Indigenous
outcomes and non-‐‑Indigenous outcomes is based on what Western society values as being
important. Aboriginal Australia has voiced their wish to keep their cultural identity and
uniqueness, yet we still look at differences in health, education, employment and demand
76
them to be closer, more similar. Walker 2006 points out that Indigenous people may be
disadvantaged but this is not a reason to automatically reduce it without other
considerations. The complex question is then do these aspects have to be equal in our society
or do they have to remain apart for cultural distinctiveness (Kowal 2008). Letting people live
with less standards and expectations is not allowing their culture to be distinctive, it is letting
them forever live disadvantaged lives. As stated by FDRC 1994 ‘There is a world of
difference between giving someone sub-‐‑standard treatment and allowing people the
opportunity to set their own standards relevant to the outcomes they wish to achieve within
their own community.’
For Government departments it is much harder to justify programs, which relate to feelings
of well-‐‑being, security and enjoyment than on standards and regulations (Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994). Aiming to improve outcomes based on standards and
regulations does not necessarily turn into improvements in the community member’s quality
of life. Not having to adhere to regulations and standards creates its own problems that we
have seen in WA, with legislation not applying to communities on unallocated Crown land.
Community leaders and local Governments have lost power to enforce these regulations and
have no incentives for adhering to them (Dullard 2008, Martin 2012). Bringing in the new
Public Health Act will bind the Crown and so the legislation, standards and regulations will
bind the Crown and the Aboriginal communities on them. The implications of such a change
have not been considered in full to date. The general feeling is that it is a positive step in
providing community members with better essential service provision as it will give people
more power to enforce the standards (Martin 2012). Now the complex situation arises where
it is equitable for the standards that apply to other Australia should be the same for people in
remote areas to avoid discrimination, but the reality may be that providing these standards
aren’t achievable and a great amount of resources will be used making the services comply.
The outcomes of this immense spending may actually be achieved to the standard that the
community values, with less resources needed. Targeting resources at making the standards
the same may actually not be what the community wants and the situation may lead to more
frustration from both parties as massive amounts of money will be spent, and the
community may not be satisfied still as their outcomes have not been met. Walker 2006 says
that when working with Aboriginal communities for decades he has heard persistent voices
from them that they have modest requirements that can be effectively met. He also expresses
77
a realistic view to the situation stating that problems in the bush will never be solved by
defining them in terms of services available in the city. The standards then may be different
as long as the outcomes are similar and this the key messages from such publications as
Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994 and Walker 2006. The Federal Race
Discrimination Commissioner 1994 also sets out that a main objective of standards for
remote communities should reflect the community members’ values rather than the national
guidelines. It does say that it is not necessarily a reason to provide any different standard,
provided consultation and negotiation has taken place. A key recommendation before the
Public Health Act is brought in is a set of standards outlined by remote community members
themselves that are achievable and that they are satisfied with.
5.5.3 Negative Effects of Changing Legislation
Well intentioned legislation can sometimes be detrimental in the long term to the aims of
people in society and has been the case a few times for Aboriginal Australians. Walker 2006
presents a case from Arnhem Land where changes in building codes to makes sure houses
were built to withstand cyclones actually unintentionally worked to disenfranchise
Aboriginal business and labour. The local people in the community built houses for the
community from trees in the area, providing employment for many locals. After cyclone
Tracey the Government brought in legislation that required wood that was stronger than the
wood in the local area. 30 years later, even after efforts for self-‐‑determination, outside
contractors come in and build all the houses in the community. The case may be in
communities on unallocated Crown land that the locals supply their own drinking water,
taking full ownership and are still achieving health outcomes. The new legislation will
require them to meet standards that other towns in Australia meet, that are serviced by
outside management such as the Water Corporation are required to meet. These
communities may then be required to be serviced by organisations such as the Water
Corporation to meet the legislation, hence taking away the opportunity of self-‐‑reliance. So far
the 91 larger remote Aboriginal communities in WA are serviced by RAESP, which is an
outside organisation. The smaller communities are self-‐‑reliant and there is not much data on
them to see if they are successful in this. Mingullatharndo is a self-‐‑supplied community that
is currently not satisfied with the provision of their drinking water. Overall 35% of
communities aren’t satisfied with their drinking water provision and it is not evident
whether these are self-‐‑supplied or RAESP serviced (Environmental Health Needs
78
Coordinating Committee 2008). Greater evidence on the water provision in the self-‐‑supplied
communities is required. Also the standards need to be based on the outcomes that the
community value, not be tied to the high standards provided in other towns and cities.
This issue is very complicated and requires more data in terms of other health aspects and a
long term look that would require years of research in itself. Above is an aspect of legislation
that needs to be considered. Section 3.5.1 included some of the positive aspects for the
legislation change and described how not including the Crown has been an underlying
factor in the poor water provision in remote Aboriginal communities. This is based on
having minimum standards to create goals, long-‐‑term outlooks and giving local
Governments and community leaders’ power to ask for changes. Again the consideration of
outcomes should be at the forefront of decision making.
79
Chapter 6: Conclusions Water services in many small remote Aboriginal communities and even in some RAESP
communities do not comply with the Australian Water Drinking Guidelines. Even with the
limited data available, it is clear that small remote communities suffer from poor water
quality; lack of easy access to water; and unreliability of water sources. There are concerns
with microbiogical and chemical contamination and aesthetics in some communities and
35% of communities are not satisfied with their water provision. All Aboriginal communities
are serviced differently to mainstream towns, with RAESP servicing the larger communities,
with populations of 50 people or more, and below this population the communities are
reliant upon themselves for essential services including water. Many challenges have been
found to make servicing remote Aboriginal communities difficult for engineers; however it is
complex issues outside of the engineering discipline that have made the provision
problematic, such as issues in law, anthropology and politics. As long as these issues remain,
the problem will remain, even with the efforts of many people on the ground. Fortunately
there are ways that services can be improved and these are presented in the
recommendations section. These recommendations are not exact steps to achieve
improvements, but changes that can be made in thinking about the issue. There are ways to
improve the delivery and with appreciation of cultural awareness and social justice to play
more of a role in technical solutions, past mistakes may be avoided.
Overall it is important to remember that water is a basic necessity for life and in 2012, with
one of the strongest economy in the world at the moment, Australia still struggles to supply
this. Based on human rights, we must consider that:
‘Ensuring human rights for all does not mean that all people are the same and are to be treated the
same way. Rather, each of us, with our differences, deserves respect and are entitled to the kind of
treatment that will best enhance the dignity that is inherent in our very humanity’ (Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission 1996). This must be the bottom line for the water supply
issue and it can be achieved when we reflect upon why the service has become inadequate.
6.1 Recommendations
80
1. Before the Public Health Act is brought in a set of standards that have been outlined
by remote community members themselves, that are achievable and that they are
satisfied with.
2. Social justice is an important aspect in the development of a solution and should be
more of a priority, especially working with Aboriginal people in remote
communities.
3. Produce an empirical analysis of the long term costs and benefits in financial terms
for an Aboriginal community. An economic justification may speak to Governments
and private sectors more than the desire and human rights of these people to live in
these settlements.
4. Re-‐‑evaluation of criteria to define what communities should be provided support
through the RAESP.
6.2 Possibilities for future research
• An empirical analysis of the economics of Mingullatharndo and other Aboriginal
communities.
• Research to determine appropriate standards for remote Aboriginal communities.
• Research into parameters that may appropriately define the need for support for
essential service provision of a remote Aboriginal community.
• Investigation or invention of an affordable, easy to use, Arsenic removal technology
for a community such as Mingullatharndo to use.
• More data collection on the water issues in Aboriginal communities is needed to
bring attention to the problem.
• A critical look at the possible long-‐‑term implications of binding legislation to
unallocated Crown land -‐‑ who benefits and who pays?
81
References Aboriginal Independent Community Schools 2009, Rawa community school – Punmu,
Available from: <http://aics.wa.edu.au/schools/rawa-‐‑community-‐‑school-‐‑
punmu#field-‐‑field-‐‑governance> [13/10/2012].
Altman, JC 2006, The future of Indigenous Australia: is there a path beyond the free market or
welfare dependency? Topical Issue No. 9/2006, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, Australian National University.
Australian Government 2006, Bilateral agreement on Indigenous affairs: between the
Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia 2006-‐‑2010, Government of
Western Australia,
<http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Documents/Information/Bilateral_Agreement_final.pdf>
[20/10/2012].
Australian Government 2012, Budget 2012-‐‑2013: part 2: expense measures. Available from:
<http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-‐‑13/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-‐‑09.htm>
[25/10/2012].
Australian Government 2012, Closing the gap: Prime Minister’s report 2012, Available from: <
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/closing_the_gap_20
12.pdf> [2/8/2012].
Anderson, F. Baum & M. Bentley (eds), 2004, Beyond band aids: exploring the underlying social
determinants of Aboriginal health, Papers from the Social Determinants of Aboriginal
Health Workshop, Adelaide, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.
Bailie, RS, Carson, BE & McDonald, EL 2004, Water supply and sanitation in remote Indigenous
communities-‐‑priorities for health development, Menzies School of Health Research,
Charles Darwin University.
Beard, N 2006, Water proofing Homelands: integrating approaches for small water supply reliability,
Centre for Appropriate Technology,CRC for Water Quality and Treatment
(CRCWQT), Perth, Available from: < http://www.icat.org.au/wp-‐‑
content/uploads/2012/05/water-‐‑proofing-‐‑homelands-‐‑22.pdf> [13/8/2012].
82
Beard, N 2009, Small water system reliability in remote Indigenous communities in the Kimberley,
Research report 49, Water Quality Research Australia.
Blanchard, CA, Connolly, DM, Cameron, IMC, Campbell, G, Gayler, J, Hand, GL & Maher,
MJ 1987, Return to country: the Aboriginal homelands movement in Australia, The
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, available from: <
http://www.culturalsurvival.org.au/ref_docs/Back_to_Country_House%20Reps_1987
_PP125A.pdf> [28/8/2012].
Bowker, J 2010, Mingullatharndo community celebrates official opening of the Pilbara Indigenous
Nursery, Woodside, Perth, Available from: < http://www.woodside.com.au/Investors-‐‑
Media/Announcements/Documents/05.03.2010%20Mingullatharndo%20community%
20celebrates%20offical%20opening%20of%20Pilbara%20Indigenous%20Nursery.pdf>
[24/10/2012].
Calma, T 2006, Close the gap: campaign for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health equality by
2030, Australian Human Rights Commission, Available from:
<http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/health/ctg_community.pdf> [20/9/2012].
Calma, T 2009, 2009 social justice report, Australian Human Rights Commission, available
from:
<http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport09/>[15/9/2012].
Council of Australian Governments 2009, National partnership agreement on remote service
delivery, Retrieved from:
<http://www.cgris.gov.au/userfiles/file/national_partnership_on_remote_service_deli
very_with_amended_schedule[1].pdf>. [10/10/2012].
Clasen, T, Schmidt, WP, Rabie, T, Roberts, I & Cairncross, S, 2007, Interventions to improve
water quality for preventing diarrhoea: systematic review and meta-‐‑analysis, London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, Available from BJM
[29/8/2012].
Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement
Annual Report to COAG 2010-‐‑11, available from:
<http://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/remote_service_delivery_NPA_annual_r
eport_COAG2010-‐‑11.pdf> [25/9/2012].
83
Claudie, D 2010, Inquiry into regional and remote Indigenous communities, Chuulangun
Aboriginal Corporation, Cairns, Avaiable from: <http-‐‑-‐‑-‐‑wopared.aph.gov.au-‐‑senate-‐‑
committee-‐‑indig_ctte-‐‑submissions-‐‑sub117.pdf> [13/10/2012].
Craun, GF 1992, Waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States of America: causes and
prevention, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg.
Department of Health 1996, Chapter 7: Housing and essential services, Australian
Government, available from:
<http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/0D39C310391382A
4CA2575C100217060/$File/health_eval_chapter7.pdf> [20/9/2012].
Department of Indigenous Affairs 1999, The provision of local Government services to Aboriginal
communities: a focus paper, Government of Western Australia, Available from: <
http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Documents/ReportsPublications/ProvisionofLocalGovern
mentServicestoAboriginalCommunities.pdf> [5/9/2012].
Department of Indigenous Affairs 2009, Submission to the senate select committee’s inquiry into
regional and remote Indigenous communities, Government of Western Australia, Perth,
Available from: <http-‐‑-‐‑-‐‑wopared-‐‑2.aph.gov.au-‐‑senate-‐‑committee-‐‑indig_ctte-‐‑
submissions-‐‑sub90.pdf> [10/9/2012].
Department of Indigenous Affairs 2005, Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage in Western
Australia report 2005: Chapter 7: effective environmental health systems, Department of
Indigenous Affairs, Perth, Available from: <
http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Documents/ReportsPublications/OvercomingIndigenous
Disadvantage/pg1-‐‑23IntroductionText.pdf> [15/9/2012].
Department of Indigenous Affairs 2012, Aboriginal economic participation strategy 2012-‐‑2016,.
Government of Western Australia, Perth, Available from:
<http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Documents/AEP_Strategy.pdf> [22/10/2012].
Dullard, H 2008, Report on the inquiry into local Government service delivery to Indigenous
communities, Local Government Advisory Board, Available from:
<LGServiceDeliveryToIndigenousCommunities-‐‑3.pdf> [9/10/2012].
84
Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee 2008, Environmental health needs of
Aboriginal communities in Western Australia: the 2008 survey and its findings,
Department of Indigenous Affairs, Government of Western Australia, Available
from: < http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/PageFiles/923/EHNS2008.pdf> [7/9/2012].
Esrey, SA, Potash, JB, Roberts, L & Shiff, C, 1991, Effects of improved water supply and sanitation
on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma,
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 69 (5): 609-‐‑621, World Health
Organization.
Farrell, D, 2006, ‘Housing and infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
Australia (CHINS 2006)’, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Fountain, R 2010, Dry community desperate for help to stay afloat, ABC News Northwest WA,
available from:
<http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/11/30/3080727.htm?site=northwestwa>
[26/9/2012].
Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner 1994, Water: a report on the provision of water and
sanitation in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Commonwealth
Australia.
Gracey, M, Lee, A H & Yau, K K W 2004, ‘Hospitalisation for gastroenteritis in Western
Australia’, Archive of Diseases in Childhood, 89:768–772, School of Public Health, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Available from: BMJ [5/9/2012].
Grey-‐‑Gardner, R 2008, Remote Community Water Management. DKCRC Research Report 27.
Alice Springs. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs,
Available from: < http://www.icat.org.au/wp-‐‑content/uploads/2012/05/DKCRC-‐‑
Report-‐‑27-‐‑Remote-‐‑Community-‐‑Water-‐‑Management-‐‑15.pdf> [12/10/2012].
Hames Sharley 2004, Kunawarritji community layout plan, The Western Australian Planning
Commission, Available from: <
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/CLP_Kunawarritji_Background_Repo
rt.pdf> [29/10/2012].
85
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1996, The human rights of rural
Australians. Sydney. Commonwealth of Australia, Available from: <
http://humanrights.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/rural_occpaper.pdf> [10/10/2012].
House of RepresentativesStanding Committee on Family and Community Affairs 1999,
Inquiry into Indigenous health: discussion paper, The Parliament of the Commonwealth
of Australia, Available from: Parliament of Australia [2/10/2012].
Hunter, EM 1993, Aboriginal health and history: power and prejudice, Cambridge
University Press.
Jardine-‐‑Orr, A, McGrath, N, Springs, F & Anda, M, 2003, ‘Indigenous housing and
governance: case studies from remote communities in WA and NT’, AHURI
Positioning Paper No. 51, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Johnson, E 1989, ‘Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody’, Aboriginal and
Islander Health Worker Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, Sept 1989: 32-‐‑35.
Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council 2010, Bidyadanga community clinic, available
from: <http://www.kamsc.org.au/remoteclinic/bidyadanga.html> [27/9/2012].
Kerins, S 2010, The future of homelands/outstations. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Available from: <
http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/topical/Topical_Kerins_outstat
ions_0.pdf> [25/10/2012].
King, M, Smith, A & Gracey, M 2009, ‘Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the
health gap’, Lancet 2009; 374: 76–85, University of Alberta, Available from: PubMed
[7/8/2012].
Kowal, E 2008, ‘The politics of the gap: liberal multiculturalism, and the end of the self-‐‑
determination era. Melbourne,’American Anthropologist, Vol. 110, Issue 3, pp. 338–348,
Available from: Wiley [10/10/2012].
Martin, D 2002, Reforming the welfare system in remote Aboriginal communities: an assessment of
Noel Pearsonís proposals, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR),
Australian National University. T. Eardley and B. Bradbury, eds. Competing Visions.
SPRC Report 1/02, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales,
86
Sydney, 317-‐‑325, Available from: <
http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/NSPC01_Martin.pdf> [2/11/2012].
Martin. L. 2012. Straying geese and cesspools are on the way out. Perth. ABC news. Available
from: <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-‐‑08-‐‑27/public-‐‑health-‐‑act-‐‑is-‐‑overdue-‐‑for-‐‑
updating/4226270> [13/10/2012].
Massey, A 2012, Drinking water contaminated in Pilbara community, The West Australian,
Available from: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-‐‑/breaking/14963209/drinking-‐‑
water-‐‑contaminated-‐‑in-‐‑pilbara-‐‑community/, [26/9/2012].
McDonald, E, Bailie, R, Brewster, D & Morris P 2008, ‘Are hygiene and public health
interventions likely to improve outcomes for Australian Aboriginal children living in
remote Indigenous communities? A systematic literature review’, BMC Public Health
2008, 8:153, Menzies school of health and research, Available from: BioMed Central
[7/8/2012].
McDonald, E, Bailie, R, Grace, J & Brewster, D 2009, ‘A case study of physical and social
barriers to hygiene and child growth in remote Australian Aboriginal communities’,
BMC Public Health 2009, 9:346, Available from: BioMed Central Public Health
[7/8/2012].
Mooney, G 2009, Health and homelands: good value for money? The Institute for Cultural
Survival, Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory (AMSANT),
MIWATJ Health Aboriginal Corporation, Cape Town, Available from: <
http://www.ankaaa.org.au/Documents/Health%20Homelands_Good%20Value%20for
%20Money[1].pdf> [3/10/2012].
Nevin, D & Yuen, E 2006, Report for the Minister for Water Resources on water services in discrete
Indigenous communities, Department of Water, Government of Western Australia,
Available from: < http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/71484.pdf>
[5/8/2012].
Parker, B 2006, Agreement for the provision of housing, infrastructure and essential services for
Indigenous people in Western Australia, Agreements, treaties, negotiations and
settlements (ATNS), Available from:
<http://www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=72> [25/9/2012].
87
Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012, Remote area essential services program: Western Australia, available
from:
<http://www.pbworld.com/capabilities_projects/remote_area_essential_services_prog
ram.aspx> [20/8/2012].
Plexus Town Planning 2007, Mingullatharndo community layout plan: Report and Provisions,
Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, Available from: <
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/Mingullatharndo_LP2_Amendment_1
_Report.pdf> [1/10/2012].
Pruss, A & Mariotti, SP 2000, ‘Preventing trachoma through environmental sanitation: a
review of the evidence base’ Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 78(2), 258-‐‑266,
Available from: PMC [7/8/2012].
Rijavec, F & Solomon, R 1993, Exile and the kingdom. MMV Frank Rijavec, Noelene Harrison
and Ngurin Aboriginal Corporation.
Saggin, G, 2012, Jigalong community'ʹs water unsafe and "ʺa disgrace"ʺ, ABC News, available from:
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-‐‑09-‐‑26/jigalong-‐‑community-‐‑water-‐‑has-‐‑high-‐‑
nitrogen-‐‑levels/4281250?§ion=news> [26/9/2012].
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2009, Overcoming
Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2009, Commonwealth of Australia 2009,
Available from: < http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/90129/key-‐‑
indicators-‐‑2009.pdf> [12/8/2012].
Scrimgeour, D 2007, ‘Town or country: which is best for Australia’s Indigenous peoples?’
Medical Journal of Australia: Volume 186 Number 10, Available from: MJA [2/10/2012].
Shaw, M 2004, Howard puts ATSIC to death, The Age, available from:
<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/15/1081998300704.html> [27/8/2012].
Stein, R 2005, Jigalong Community Layout Plan No 2: planning report and provisions,
Sinclair Knight Merz, Perth, Available from: <
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/CLP_Jigalong_Background_Report.p
df> [17/10/2012].
88
Stephens, TG 2007, Where from? Where to?, A discussion paper on remote Aboriginal
communities, Education and Heath Standing Committee Report No. 6in the 37th
Parliament, Available from: National Library of Australia [2/8/2012].
Tonkinson, R 2007, ‘Aboriginal ‘Difference’ and ‘Autonomy’ Then and Now: Four Decades
of Change in a Western Desert Society’, A Journal of Social Anthropology and
Comparative Sociology, 17:1, 41-‐‑60. Anthropological Forum, Routledge.
McGrath, A (eds), Toussaint, S 1995, Contested Ground: Australian Aborigines under the
British Crown, Allen & Unwin.
Urbis Keys Young 2002, Accountability in Indigenous Environmental Health Services Australia
2002, Indigenous Environmental Health Mapping Project, Department of Health and
Ageing, Prepared for enHealth Council through The National Indigenous
Environmental Health Forum, Available from: <
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/Publishing.nsf/Content/FF22249DC5430EC4
CA25741F001E4AF3/$File/accountability.pdf> [5/8/2012].
Walker, BW 2006, The Emperor’s new clothes, Centre for Appropriate Technology, Darwin,
Available from: < http://www.icat.org.au/wp-‐‑content/uploads/2012/05/Emperors-‐‑
new-‐‑clothes-‐‑analysis-‐‑Indigenous-‐‑housing-‐‑investments-‐‑Walker.pdf> [25/10/2012].
Wangka Maya 2009, Yulparija, Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre, available
from:
<http://www.wangkamaya.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
166&Itemid=327> [26/8/2012].
Wilson, PR 1982, Black death white hands, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
