ABSTRACT
It is clear that the reforms described in the previous chapter do not do what it was said they would during debate that preceded their introduction. Rather than individual ownership or private property, the most common outcome has been a shift towards state property, quite the opposite to what was suggested. The significance of this should not be understated; it calls into question the very rationale for introducing the reforms. There is, however, no reason to believe that this was the result of a deliberate deception, that debate about communal and individual ownership was manufactured to conceal some ulterior motive. Whatever their flaws, these reforms do not share with the 19th-century reforms to indigenous land in the United States and New Zealand the aim of divesting Aboriginal people of their land. Indeed, one consequence of the reforms is that governments are now paying far more rent on Aboriginal land. The Australian reforms walk different ground, and raise different issues. To consider those issues, this chapter continues the practice of distinguishing between categories of infrastructure. Section 7.2 considers the reforms as they affect residential housing, the houses that Aboriginal community residents live in. Residential housing has been a focus of reform efforts across Australia, and these reforms have an immediate and direct impact on community residents. They are considered here in some detail. Section 7.3 considers the reforms to infrastructure beyond residential housing – the offices, staff housing and purpose-built infrastructure occupied by service providers and enterprises. The two most significant developments here have been the introduction of rent and the altering of relationships around land use. In this context, this chapter also clarifies what the reforms do not do. For the most part, they have not led to the creation of ‘land markets’ and their economic impact is not only more contained than was predicted during debate about land reform, it is also very different. In the Northern Territory, rather than land reform paving the way for investors to establish enterprises more easily, it has given landowners the licence to exploit their position for commercial ends. This is
not the economic transformation that was sometimes suggested. It is nevertheless a significant development with several consequences, not all of which are positive. At several points the chapter compares the Northern Territory reforms with the allotment of Indigenous land in Queensland. While the amendments to enable allotment have not yet been used, the contrast between the two sets of reforms helps clarify what is particular about each.
