Book Chapters by Elizabeth Grant
Courthouse Architecture, Design and Social Justice, 2021
If it is true that public buildings ‘reflect the beliefs, priorities and aspirations of a people’... more If it is true that public buildings ‘reflect the beliefs, priorities and aspirations of a people’, what do Australia’s public buildings say about Australians? More specifically, what does the design of Australia’s courthouses say about the beliefs, priorities, aspirations, and agency of Australian people and in particular, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’s peoples? Around the world, the design of courthouses (and the courtrooms within them) has become a powerful medium through which to convey a vision of justice and cultural agency to Indigenous peoples. South Africa’s Constitutional Court sits on the site of a prison that held activists during apartheid, and its design symbolises South Africa’s post-apartheid search for reconciliation. Communicating reconciliation and transparency were paramount in the design, and the courtroom incorporates windows to reinforce its theme of transparency, allowing passers-by to observe proceedings. In Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand, design of the exterior of the Supreme Courthouse references significant cultural icons for Māori. The design of the courtroom is semi-spherical in shape lined with a tessellation of2,294 silver beech panels, the result evoking the cone of the Kauri tree, considered to be the chief of trees. These symbolic architectural gestures derive from a belief in the communicative force of architecture, and from an understanding that the courthouse and courtrooms are the canvas upon which societal priorities as to law and justice are writ large. These design precedents note the importance of correcting past wrongs and demonstrating respect for the Indigenous peoples of those countries.
In Australia, commissioning bodies and architects have been considering ways courthouses and courtrooms can be designed to: (1) symbolically and physically acknowledge Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) rectify past wrongs; (3) increase Indigenous participation; (4) allow Aboriginal peoples to engage meaningfully with court processes; (5) reduce the stress felt by Indigenous users; and (6) promote Indigenous ‘ownership’ of courthouses and courtrooms. This chapter examines the design outcomes for three Australian courthouse developments of national and international significance; Port Augusta (South Australia), and Kununurra and Kalgoorlie court complexes (Western Australia).
Courthouse Architecture, Design and Social Justice, 2021
The design of buildings and environs for the fair and just delivery of justice for Indigenous peo... more The design of buildings and environs for the fair and just delivery of justice for Indigenous peoples is a new architectural domain. In this chapter, we discuss the background and design of the Kununurra Courthouse, a new courthouse designed and built in Kununurra, a town in northern Western Australia on the eastern extremity of the Kimberley region near the border of the Northern Territory. Courts have been part of a ‘revolving door of despair’ for generations of Australian Indigenous people. Historically, procedures occurring in courts have contributed little to decreasing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The physical nature of the Western court settings designed with layers of hierarchy and control devoid of Indigenous control, have not allowed Indigenous people to participate meaningfully and have contributed to greater numbers of Indigenous people being remanded or sentenced to custody.
This chapter is a collaboration bringing the first author’s theoretical scholarship in the field of Indigenous architecture and placemaking together with the architectural theory scholarship and practice experience of the second author as an academic and a senior member of the design team for the Kimberley courthouse project. It should be stated from the outset that the authors, in line with the views of many others, see inherent issues arising from the design of courts, courthouses, and other criminal justice projects for Indigenous users. The vexing question continually arises as to how architects and design practitioners are able to design to engage Indigenous peoples with Western legal systems, when these are the systems that have usurped Indigenous peoples from traditional lands, destroyed sacred sites, and been used almost universally to divide and conquer.
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Yurlendj-nganjin , 2021
Until the 1960s, architectural schools in Australia “…were largely preoccupied with transferring ... more Until the 1960s, architectural schools in Australia “…were largely preoccupied with transferring European and American modernism into local practice, and simultaneously transmitting the classical architectural history of Sir Bannister Fletcher” (Memmott & Davidson 2008: 78). Changes occurred in the 1960s as Australian Indigenous peoples took a political and public stance asserting the need for Indigenous sovereignty and equal and civil rights. In the 1970s, there was an official abandonment of monocultural government policy and the advent of self-determination.
There have been various drivers that have suggested that the teaching, theoretical content or pedagogical practices of architecture schools needed to change to become more inclusive of Indigenous viewpoints and practices. Walliss and Grant (2000: 65) stated that, given the nature of the built environment disciplines and their professional practice activities, there was a “need for specific cultural awareness education” within architectural schools, to increase the architectural outcomes for Indigenous peoples. Revell (2001; 2015), Oberklaid (2008), Rose & Jones (2012), Jones et al. (2013), Wensing (2011), Tucker et al. (2018) and others have reached similar conclusions about the state of landscape architecture and planning education. Most Australian architectural schools have not been fully responsive to the drivers, and the pedagogies of many Australian architecture schools have not kept pace with the developments in the political landscape or the Indigenous arena. This paper will discuss some of the drivers that have signified the need for change and some examples of changes that have occurred in the delivery of architectural education.
Architectural Guide: Sub-Saharan Africa , 2021
Within the last decade there has been a noticeable rise in contemporary architecture designed by... more Within the last decade there has been a noticeable rise in contemporary architecture designed by, with, and for Indigenous peoples across the world. Such
architectural projects have been developed at a range of scales (for example, residential, community, provincial ⁄ homeland, and national works), each drawing on culturally-specific Indigenous ways of knowing to generate meaningful works that are consistent with and reflective of Indigenous lifestyles, histories, cultures, and communities, and that celebrate and embed Indigenous identities. Making architectural works that are Indigenous-led (i.e. guided by Indigenous ontology) or Indigenous informed is not an homogeneous process, as Johannesburg-based architect, Mphethi Morojele notes: ‘… the manner in which indigeneity is interpreted around the world is extremely diverse’. This article comments on traditional Indigenous architectures, housing design, and
the growth of contemporary Indigenous architectures in Australia, as compared to countries across sub-Saharan Africa.
The Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture, 2018
The design of specific buildings to house Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people... more The design of specific buildings to house Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ activities and organisations has become important in Australian architecture since the 1960s. A growing number of buildings—and new architectural types—have been devised to support, display and safeguard Indigenous cultures and to accommodate Indigenous organisations that have become more
prevalent since the self-determination era of the 1970s. These new institutional, public and community building typologies provide an architecture that often speaks to the public—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—and raise the issues of how buildings represent Indigenous identities and how architecture may meet such a challenge through design.
To understand the Australian context, it is important to note that while there are a number of commonalities between Indigenous peoples and societies across Australia, there is equally great diversity. Each Nation has its own traditional lands, culture, customs, traditions (including architectural practices), lore and language/s. At the time of European invasion (1788), there were over 260 Indigenous Nations across
Australia, and within each Nation there existed separate, but often related ‘clans’. Each Nation had its own language, often with several dialects (Bianco 1990: 4). Massive collapses in Australian Aboriginal populations occurred immediately after European invasion, initially caused by introduced diseases, then through the dispossession from traditional lands and the destruction of food sources. Unconscionable numbers of Aboriginal peoples lost their lives in conflict, as Indigenous peoples resisted the colonising invasion and infringements on their rights and lifeways. Indigenous peoples were both targeted by civilian settler colonists and government military forces and punished for resisting attacks (Harris 2003; Reynolds 2006). Successive government policies and legislation from the late nineteenth century across all of Australia’s (then) independent colonies attempted to control every aspect of Indigenous peoples’ lives and destroy Indigenous cultures. Many government policies over the course of Australia’s history were used to ‘justify’ the treatment and control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives (see, for example, Read 1982; Kidd 1997; Australian Human Rights Commission 1997).
The 1967 Referendum resulted in changes to the Australian Constitution that removed discriminations in law against Aboriginal people,1 but this did not result the positive freedoms required for Indigenous peoples to experience equality within Australian society. The effects of colonisation are still felt by every Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander person in Australia today. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have shorter life expectancies, suffer disproportionally higher rates of suicide, domestic and family violence and incarceration and have poorer employment and educational outcomes (Australian Government 2017). Against this backdrop, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples have sought to retain and revive individual and collective identities, and made considerable progress in affirming rights to land, cultural practices and identity. Architecture and placemaking that celebrates cultural identity, fits with Indigenous peoples’ socio-spatial and cultural needs and is devised by or with Indigenous peoples, is an important aspect of reasserting Indigenous control and demonstrating Indigenous resistance and resilience in contemporary Australia.
In this chapter, we examine a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and community buildings, and in particular, survey architectural precedents within the genres of keeping houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres and educational and health projects. Some of Australia’s leading architects, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have contributed to these works, often seeking to create architecture that better fits the needs of Indigenous users, to participate in the recognition of the unjust treatment of Indigenous Australians and to dignify contemporary Indigenous cultures through architectural excellence. However, the scarcity of Indigenous architects means there has been controversy over whose culture is represented in building designs, and the design of Indigenous buildings by non-Indigenous architects (especially in regard to the application of Indigenous symbolism) remains a politically fraught topic.
The recognition of Indigenous cultural domains by Australian institutions has fundamentally changed since the mid-twentieth century,when architects (who were almost exclusively non-Indigenous Australians at that time) first accepted and then later celebrated
Indigenous cultures and identity/s in building design. The need for more
Indigenous architects, architectural critics and architectural historians is apparent.
Slowly across Australia, there are increasing numbers of Indigenous architects, who attempt to engage sensitively with Indigenous communities. This may lead to further improvement in built environments for Indigenous communities into the future.
The projects discussed in this chapter are not a total list, nor a definitive survey. One could debate whether some of the projects included in this chapter are, indeed, contemporary Indigenous architecture. In writing the chapter, we sought out historical projects, those of national importance, exemplars of architectural design and examples that illustrate various architectural approaches, debates and discourses. In the meantime, the number of Indigenous institutional, public and community architectural projects in Australia continues to grow.
The Palgrave Handbook of Prison Tourism, 2016
Palgrave Handbook of Prison Tourism, 2017
Handbook on Prisons (2nd Edition), 2016
2015 Prisons Conference, 17th - 18th March, Melbourne, 2015
The high incarceration rate of people from Indigenous cultures is a world-wide phenomenon. The re... more The high incarceration rate of people from Indigenous cultures is a world-wide phenomenon. The reasons for overrepresentation vary in detail and multiplicity across different contexts but there are commonalities. This paper examines the manner in which various countries have sought to accommodate the differing needs of Indigenous prisoners. It outlines the Native American religious practices and ceremonies allowed in US prisons and some of the struggles associated with exercising religious freedoms. The partnerships forged between US correctional agencies and American Indian agencies to allow prisoners to serve time on reservations are also discussed. These experiences are contrasted to the Canadian experience of the establishment of healing lodges and the integration of Aboriginal religious ceremonies into mainstream prisons. Australian experiences have been vastly different and this presentation outlines the various approaches including the recent construction of a prison to meet ...
Reflections: 40 Years on from the 1967 Referendum , 2007
Aboriginal housing in South Australia has influenced the distribution of Aboriginal populations i... more Aboriginal housing in South Australia has influenced the distribution of Aboriginal populations in the State and shaped the lived experiences of Aboriginal peoples. Despite traditions of building dome-shaped houses adapted over millennia to climatic and environmental conditions, Aboriginal building heritage has been predominantly ignored by researchers and policy makers and the expression “Aboriginal housing” has come to mean public or community owned housing specifically intended for Aboriginal peoples. The term has become imbued with political meaning often conjuring up visions of forlorn, dilapidated and overcrowded houses in remote locations. With little documentation of the history, delivery and housing types of Aboriginal housing in South Australia over the last forty years, it appears an area well worthy of consideration. How far has Aboriginal housing come and what has shaped the journey? This chapter examines the political history of the two major categories of Aboriginal housing in South Australia: the housing in discrete Aboriginal communities and on remote homelands, and the rental public housing in urban and rural areas.
The Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture, 2018
The publication of the Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture is a reflection of the ex... more The publication of the Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture is a reflection of the extraordinary rise in scholarly work and architectural practice in a field that barely two decades ago was paid little attention. This Handbook is a witness to the global rise of contemporary architecture by, with and for Indigenous peoples, who aim to assert and reassert their Indigenous identity; to claim, reclaim and revitalise spaces, and to create places and spaces that are reflective of Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and communities, and that celebrate Indigenous identities.
The Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture, 2018
The mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a worldwide phenomenon. Disproportionately, high ... more The mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a worldwide phenomenon. Disproportionately, high numbers of Indigenous people are confined in prisons due to ongoing legacies of forced colonisation. The growing number of Indigenous people in prison systems and their treatment is deeply distressing as, simply put, the experience of prison causes immeasurable suffering and damage to individuals, families and communities. It also perpetuates the intergenerational cycle of excessive contact that Indigenous peoples have with criminal justice systems generally (see, for example, Young 1990; Commonwealth of Australia 1991; LaPrairie 1997, 2002; Quince 2007; Blagg 2008; Nielsen and Silverman 2009).
The primary concern of any discourse on prisons should be to reduce the number of Indigenous people entering prison systems. Given this is not occurring, and Indigenous prisoner populations are rising, a secondary concern and the subject of my research for the last fifteen years has been to contemplate methods to reduce or ameliorate the negative impacts of prison experiences for Indigenous individuals, families, communities. Indigenous cultural heritage is one of the greatest assets and resources of any country. Cultural heritage refers to the ways of living built up by a group of humans by reason of their birth. The accumulation of Indigenous cultural capital occurs by passing language, knowledge, arts, rituals and performances from one generation to another, that is, specifically, by learning, speaking and teaching languages, protecting cultural materials, learning Indigenous histories and knowledges and safeguarding
and engaging with secret, sacred and/or significant artefacts and sites.
While there have been catastrophic losses of Indigenous cultural heritage since the colonisation of the USA and Canada (and other countries with histories of forced colonisation), Indigenous people have determinedly (and despite the odds) sought to retain traditional elements of cultures, maintained and revived languages and Indigenous knowledges to build cultural capital and preserve cultural heritage.
Intergenerational cultural transmission is fundamental and essential to the survival and building of Indigenous cultures, and it enhances the cultural sustainability and resilience of Indigenous individuals, families and communities. Why, then, do successive governments across the world impose sanctions which result in Indigenous people being taken away from their families and communities where intergenerational cultural transmission must place? This appears counter-intuitive.
If prison must be used as a sanction, in what ways can prison environments be designed to support existing cultural norms and practices and strengthen Indigenous peoples’ cultural connections and knowledges to counter some of the damage that prisons cause? The principal questions are: can prison architecture move from being architecture that is imposed on Indigenous users, to architecture that takes into account Indigenous needs and aspirations? Can Indigenous peoples assert cultural agency over this genre of architecture, given that it has been so forcibly imposed?
This chapter discusses the design of prisons for Indigenous prisoners in the USA and Canada. It argues that designing congruent environments for Indigenous peoples may not be enough while criminal justice agencies continue to operate under punitive ‘law and order’ agendas. It recommends that human rights instruments should be translated into prison design and Indigenous peoples and communities be given cultural agency in prison planning and design processes, as well as their management and operation.
In June 2007, the Aboriginal Housing Board of South Australia held its last meeting. The organisa... more In June 2007, the Aboriginal Housing Board of South Australia held its last meeting. The organisation was formed to provide planning, coordination, and service delivery of culturally appropriate housing to South Australian Aboriginal families. The mid year meeting marked ...
The Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture, 2018
The design of specific buildings to house Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
cultu... more The design of specific buildings to house Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
cultural artefacts, artworks, activities or organisations, has become important in Australian
architecture since the 1960s. A growing number of buildings—and new architectural types—
have been devised to support, display and safeguard Indigenous cultures and to
accommodate Indigenous organisations that have become more prevalent since self-
determination. These new public, institutional and community building typologies provide an
architecture that often speaks to the both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population.
This chapter examines a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and
community buildings, surveying architectural precedents within the genres of keeping
houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres, educational and health projects
Refereed Publications by Elizabeth Grant
Advancing Corrections, 2020
People with mental health issues are vastly overrepresented in the Australian prison system. This... more People with mental health issues are vastly overrepresented in the Australian prison system. This paper discusses the master planning and design of Ravenhall Correctional Centre in Victoria, Australia to increase outcomes for male prisoners living with physical, mental health disability and other conditions. Major innovations in the design of Ravenhall Correctional Centre have included a forensic mental health unit on site, and the master planning of the prison into separate communities with a variety of housing types to provide prisoners opportunities to experience various levels of self-care and greater autonomy. The prison was designed to increase feelings of wellness, to provide program and training spaces to service various groups, and to allow prisoners to experience greater levels of individual control. The project is discussed through an architectural lens to allow readers to understand the complexities of master planning and designing a major people-oriented, multi-faceted prison with a forensic mental health unit within the perimeter. The paper notes that large scale prisons may be designed in a more therapeutic manner where accommodation, facilities and programs can provide prisoners opportunities to connect with external environments, engage in meaningful activities and retain a level of autonomy and individual control. The integration of the forensic mental health unit means that greater numbers of prisoners are able to access in and outpatient services. The paper concludes that since the prison was commissioned in 2017, the prisoner cohort has changed, resulting in a deviation from the intended purpose of focusing on innovative programs for sentenced prisoners. This may have diminished the capacity for prisoners to effectively engage in the programs for which the prison was designed.
Review of Standards for Adult Correctional Services in the Australian Capital Territory on ACT Standards , 2019
Architecture Australia, 2019
Completed in 2014, the Garma Cultural Knowledge Centre sets an architectural precedent based on t... more Completed in 2014, the Garma Cultural Knowledge Centre sets an architectural precedent based on two-way knowledge transfer, a long-established Yolngu1 practice of combining Indigenous customs with introduced ways to negotiate a creative synthesis. Here, that synthesis was with architect Simon Scally of Build Up Design, and the result is a powerful and distinctly Yolngu place – a building that expresses Yolngu’s interconnected approach to politics, social identities, ancestral law, kinship relations, education and religion, and exerts their ownership of the land. While joyful and light, the project exudes gravitas, highlighting the significance of place, sacred knowledge and knowledge transfer to Yolngu.
Uploads
Book Chapters by Elizabeth Grant
In Australia, commissioning bodies and architects have been considering ways courthouses and courtrooms can be designed to: (1) symbolically and physically acknowledge Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) rectify past wrongs; (3) increase Indigenous participation; (4) allow Aboriginal peoples to engage meaningfully with court processes; (5) reduce the stress felt by Indigenous users; and (6) promote Indigenous ‘ownership’ of courthouses and courtrooms. This chapter examines the design outcomes for three Australian courthouse developments of national and international significance; Port Augusta (South Australia), and Kununurra and Kalgoorlie court complexes (Western Australia).
This chapter is a collaboration bringing the first author’s theoretical scholarship in the field of Indigenous architecture and placemaking together with the architectural theory scholarship and practice experience of the second author as an academic and a senior member of the design team for the Kimberley courthouse project. It should be stated from the outset that the authors, in line with the views of many others, see inherent issues arising from the design of courts, courthouses, and other criminal justice projects for Indigenous users. The vexing question continually arises as to how architects and design practitioners are able to design to engage Indigenous peoples with Western legal systems, when these are the systems that have usurped Indigenous peoples from traditional lands, destroyed sacred sites, and been used almost universally to divide and conquer.
There have been various drivers that have suggested that the teaching, theoretical content or pedagogical practices of architecture schools needed to change to become more inclusive of Indigenous viewpoints and practices. Walliss and Grant (2000: 65) stated that, given the nature of the built environment disciplines and their professional practice activities, there was a “need for specific cultural awareness education” within architectural schools, to increase the architectural outcomes for Indigenous peoples. Revell (2001; 2015), Oberklaid (2008), Rose & Jones (2012), Jones et al. (2013), Wensing (2011), Tucker et al. (2018) and others have reached similar conclusions about the state of landscape architecture and planning education. Most Australian architectural schools have not been fully responsive to the drivers, and the pedagogies of many Australian architecture schools have not kept pace with the developments in the political landscape or the Indigenous arena. This paper will discuss some of the drivers that have signified the need for change and some examples of changes that have occurred in the delivery of architectural education.
architectural projects have been developed at a range of scales (for example, residential, community, provincial ⁄ homeland, and national works), each drawing on culturally-specific Indigenous ways of knowing to generate meaningful works that are consistent with and reflective of Indigenous lifestyles, histories, cultures, and communities, and that celebrate and embed Indigenous identities. Making architectural works that are Indigenous-led (i.e. guided by Indigenous ontology) or Indigenous informed is not an homogeneous process, as Johannesburg-based architect, Mphethi Morojele notes: ‘… the manner in which indigeneity is interpreted around the world is extremely diverse’. This article comments on traditional Indigenous architectures, housing design, and
the growth of contemporary Indigenous architectures in Australia, as compared to countries across sub-Saharan Africa.
prevalent since the self-determination era of the 1970s. These new institutional, public and community building typologies provide an architecture that often speaks to the public—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—and raise the issues of how buildings represent Indigenous identities and how architecture may meet such a challenge through design.
To understand the Australian context, it is important to note that while there are a number of commonalities between Indigenous peoples and societies across Australia, there is equally great diversity. Each Nation has its own traditional lands, culture, customs, traditions (including architectural practices), lore and language/s. At the time of European invasion (1788), there were over 260 Indigenous Nations across
Australia, and within each Nation there existed separate, but often related ‘clans’. Each Nation had its own language, often with several dialects (Bianco 1990: 4). Massive collapses in Australian Aboriginal populations occurred immediately after European invasion, initially caused by introduced diseases, then through the dispossession from traditional lands and the destruction of food sources. Unconscionable numbers of Aboriginal peoples lost their lives in conflict, as Indigenous peoples resisted the colonising invasion and infringements on their rights and lifeways. Indigenous peoples were both targeted by civilian settler colonists and government military forces and punished for resisting attacks (Harris 2003; Reynolds 2006). Successive government policies and legislation from the late nineteenth century across all of Australia’s (then) independent colonies attempted to control every aspect of Indigenous peoples’ lives and destroy Indigenous cultures. Many government policies over the course of Australia’s history were used to ‘justify’ the treatment and control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives (see, for example, Read 1982; Kidd 1997; Australian Human Rights Commission 1997).
The 1967 Referendum resulted in changes to the Australian Constitution that removed discriminations in law against Aboriginal people,1 but this did not result the positive freedoms required for Indigenous peoples to experience equality within Australian society. The effects of colonisation are still felt by every Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander person in Australia today. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have shorter life expectancies, suffer disproportionally higher rates of suicide, domestic and family violence and incarceration and have poorer employment and educational outcomes (Australian Government 2017). Against this backdrop, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples have sought to retain and revive individual and collective identities, and made considerable progress in affirming rights to land, cultural practices and identity. Architecture and placemaking that celebrates cultural identity, fits with Indigenous peoples’ socio-spatial and cultural needs and is devised by or with Indigenous peoples, is an important aspect of reasserting Indigenous control and demonstrating Indigenous resistance and resilience in contemporary Australia.
In this chapter, we examine a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and community buildings, and in particular, survey architectural precedents within the genres of keeping houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres and educational and health projects. Some of Australia’s leading architects, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have contributed to these works, often seeking to create architecture that better fits the needs of Indigenous users, to participate in the recognition of the unjust treatment of Indigenous Australians and to dignify contemporary Indigenous cultures through architectural excellence. However, the scarcity of Indigenous architects means there has been controversy over whose culture is represented in building designs, and the design of Indigenous buildings by non-Indigenous architects (especially in regard to the application of Indigenous symbolism) remains a politically fraught topic.
The recognition of Indigenous cultural domains by Australian institutions has fundamentally changed since the mid-twentieth century,when architects (who were almost exclusively non-Indigenous Australians at that time) first accepted and then later celebrated
Indigenous cultures and identity/s in building design. The need for more
Indigenous architects, architectural critics and architectural historians is apparent.
Slowly across Australia, there are increasing numbers of Indigenous architects, who attempt to engage sensitively with Indigenous communities. This may lead to further improvement in built environments for Indigenous communities into the future.
The projects discussed in this chapter are not a total list, nor a definitive survey. One could debate whether some of the projects included in this chapter are, indeed, contemporary Indigenous architecture. In writing the chapter, we sought out historical projects, those of national importance, exemplars of architectural design and examples that illustrate various architectural approaches, debates and discourses. In the meantime, the number of Indigenous institutional, public and community architectural projects in Australia continues to grow.
The primary concern of any discourse on prisons should be to reduce the number of Indigenous people entering prison systems. Given this is not occurring, and Indigenous prisoner populations are rising, a secondary concern and the subject of my research for the last fifteen years has been to contemplate methods to reduce or ameliorate the negative impacts of prison experiences for Indigenous individuals, families, communities. Indigenous cultural heritage is one of the greatest assets and resources of any country. Cultural heritage refers to the ways of living built up by a group of humans by reason of their birth. The accumulation of Indigenous cultural capital occurs by passing language, knowledge, arts, rituals and performances from one generation to another, that is, specifically, by learning, speaking and teaching languages, protecting cultural materials, learning Indigenous histories and knowledges and safeguarding
and engaging with secret, sacred and/or significant artefacts and sites.
While there have been catastrophic losses of Indigenous cultural heritage since the colonisation of the USA and Canada (and other countries with histories of forced colonisation), Indigenous people have determinedly (and despite the odds) sought to retain traditional elements of cultures, maintained and revived languages and Indigenous knowledges to build cultural capital and preserve cultural heritage.
Intergenerational cultural transmission is fundamental and essential to the survival and building of Indigenous cultures, and it enhances the cultural sustainability and resilience of Indigenous individuals, families and communities. Why, then, do successive governments across the world impose sanctions which result in Indigenous people being taken away from their families and communities where intergenerational cultural transmission must place? This appears counter-intuitive.
If prison must be used as a sanction, in what ways can prison environments be designed to support existing cultural norms and practices and strengthen Indigenous peoples’ cultural connections and knowledges to counter some of the damage that prisons cause? The principal questions are: can prison architecture move from being architecture that is imposed on Indigenous users, to architecture that takes into account Indigenous needs and aspirations? Can Indigenous peoples assert cultural agency over this genre of architecture, given that it has been so forcibly imposed?
This chapter discusses the design of prisons for Indigenous prisoners in the USA and Canada. It argues that designing congruent environments for Indigenous peoples may not be enough while criminal justice agencies continue to operate under punitive ‘law and order’ agendas. It recommends that human rights instruments should be translated into prison design and Indigenous peoples and communities be given cultural agency in prison planning and design processes, as well as their management and operation.
cultural artefacts, artworks, activities or organisations, has become important in Australian
architecture since the 1960s. A growing number of buildings—and new architectural types—
have been devised to support, display and safeguard Indigenous cultures and to
accommodate Indigenous organisations that have become more prevalent since self-
determination. These new public, institutional and community building typologies provide an
architecture that often speaks to the both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population.
This chapter examines a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and
community buildings, surveying architectural precedents within the genres of keeping
houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres, educational and health projects
Refereed Publications by Elizabeth Grant
In Australia, commissioning bodies and architects have been considering ways courthouses and courtrooms can be designed to: (1) symbolically and physically acknowledge Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) rectify past wrongs; (3) increase Indigenous participation; (4) allow Aboriginal peoples to engage meaningfully with court processes; (5) reduce the stress felt by Indigenous users; and (6) promote Indigenous ‘ownership’ of courthouses and courtrooms. This chapter examines the design outcomes for three Australian courthouse developments of national and international significance; Port Augusta (South Australia), and Kununurra and Kalgoorlie court complexes (Western Australia).
This chapter is a collaboration bringing the first author’s theoretical scholarship in the field of Indigenous architecture and placemaking together with the architectural theory scholarship and practice experience of the second author as an academic and a senior member of the design team for the Kimberley courthouse project. It should be stated from the outset that the authors, in line with the views of many others, see inherent issues arising from the design of courts, courthouses, and other criminal justice projects for Indigenous users. The vexing question continually arises as to how architects and design practitioners are able to design to engage Indigenous peoples with Western legal systems, when these are the systems that have usurped Indigenous peoples from traditional lands, destroyed sacred sites, and been used almost universally to divide and conquer.
There have been various drivers that have suggested that the teaching, theoretical content or pedagogical practices of architecture schools needed to change to become more inclusive of Indigenous viewpoints and practices. Walliss and Grant (2000: 65) stated that, given the nature of the built environment disciplines and their professional practice activities, there was a “need for specific cultural awareness education” within architectural schools, to increase the architectural outcomes for Indigenous peoples. Revell (2001; 2015), Oberklaid (2008), Rose & Jones (2012), Jones et al. (2013), Wensing (2011), Tucker et al. (2018) and others have reached similar conclusions about the state of landscape architecture and planning education. Most Australian architectural schools have not been fully responsive to the drivers, and the pedagogies of many Australian architecture schools have not kept pace with the developments in the political landscape or the Indigenous arena. This paper will discuss some of the drivers that have signified the need for change and some examples of changes that have occurred in the delivery of architectural education.
architectural projects have been developed at a range of scales (for example, residential, community, provincial ⁄ homeland, and national works), each drawing on culturally-specific Indigenous ways of knowing to generate meaningful works that are consistent with and reflective of Indigenous lifestyles, histories, cultures, and communities, and that celebrate and embed Indigenous identities. Making architectural works that are Indigenous-led (i.e. guided by Indigenous ontology) or Indigenous informed is not an homogeneous process, as Johannesburg-based architect, Mphethi Morojele notes: ‘… the manner in which indigeneity is interpreted around the world is extremely diverse’. This article comments on traditional Indigenous architectures, housing design, and
the growth of contemporary Indigenous architectures in Australia, as compared to countries across sub-Saharan Africa.
prevalent since the self-determination era of the 1970s. These new institutional, public and community building typologies provide an architecture that often speaks to the public—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—and raise the issues of how buildings represent Indigenous identities and how architecture may meet such a challenge through design.
To understand the Australian context, it is important to note that while there are a number of commonalities between Indigenous peoples and societies across Australia, there is equally great diversity. Each Nation has its own traditional lands, culture, customs, traditions (including architectural practices), lore and language/s. At the time of European invasion (1788), there were over 260 Indigenous Nations across
Australia, and within each Nation there existed separate, but often related ‘clans’. Each Nation had its own language, often with several dialects (Bianco 1990: 4). Massive collapses in Australian Aboriginal populations occurred immediately after European invasion, initially caused by introduced diseases, then through the dispossession from traditional lands and the destruction of food sources. Unconscionable numbers of Aboriginal peoples lost their lives in conflict, as Indigenous peoples resisted the colonising invasion and infringements on their rights and lifeways. Indigenous peoples were both targeted by civilian settler colonists and government military forces and punished for resisting attacks (Harris 2003; Reynolds 2006). Successive government policies and legislation from the late nineteenth century across all of Australia’s (then) independent colonies attempted to control every aspect of Indigenous peoples’ lives and destroy Indigenous cultures. Many government policies over the course of Australia’s history were used to ‘justify’ the treatment and control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives (see, for example, Read 1982; Kidd 1997; Australian Human Rights Commission 1997).
The 1967 Referendum resulted in changes to the Australian Constitution that removed discriminations in law against Aboriginal people,1 but this did not result the positive freedoms required for Indigenous peoples to experience equality within Australian society. The effects of colonisation are still felt by every Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander person in Australia today. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have shorter life expectancies, suffer disproportionally higher rates of suicide, domestic and family violence and incarceration and have poorer employment and educational outcomes (Australian Government 2017). Against this backdrop, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples have sought to retain and revive individual and collective identities, and made considerable progress in affirming rights to land, cultural practices and identity. Architecture and placemaking that celebrates cultural identity, fits with Indigenous peoples’ socio-spatial and cultural needs and is devised by or with Indigenous peoples, is an important aspect of reasserting Indigenous control and demonstrating Indigenous resistance and resilience in contemporary Australia.
In this chapter, we examine a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and community buildings, and in particular, survey architectural precedents within the genres of keeping houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres and educational and health projects. Some of Australia’s leading architects, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have contributed to these works, often seeking to create architecture that better fits the needs of Indigenous users, to participate in the recognition of the unjust treatment of Indigenous Australians and to dignify contemporary Indigenous cultures through architectural excellence. However, the scarcity of Indigenous architects means there has been controversy over whose culture is represented in building designs, and the design of Indigenous buildings by non-Indigenous architects (especially in regard to the application of Indigenous symbolism) remains a politically fraught topic.
The recognition of Indigenous cultural domains by Australian institutions has fundamentally changed since the mid-twentieth century,when architects (who were almost exclusively non-Indigenous Australians at that time) first accepted and then later celebrated
Indigenous cultures and identity/s in building design. The need for more
Indigenous architects, architectural critics and architectural historians is apparent.
Slowly across Australia, there are increasing numbers of Indigenous architects, who attempt to engage sensitively with Indigenous communities. This may lead to further improvement in built environments for Indigenous communities into the future.
The projects discussed in this chapter are not a total list, nor a definitive survey. One could debate whether some of the projects included in this chapter are, indeed, contemporary Indigenous architecture. In writing the chapter, we sought out historical projects, those of national importance, exemplars of architectural design and examples that illustrate various architectural approaches, debates and discourses. In the meantime, the number of Indigenous institutional, public and community architectural projects in Australia continues to grow.
The primary concern of any discourse on prisons should be to reduce the number of Indigenous people entering prison systems. Given this is not occurring, and Indigenous prisoner populations are rising, a secondary concern and the subject of my research for the last fifteen years has been to contemplate methods to reduce or ameliorate the negative impacts of prison experiences for Indigenous individuals, families, communities. Indigenous cultural heritage is one of the greatest assets and resources of any country. Cultural heritage refers to the ways of living built up by a group of humans by reason of their birth. The accumulation of Indigenous cultural capital occurs by passing language, knowledge, arts, rituals and performances from one generation to another, that is, specifically, by learning, speaking and teaching languages, protecting cultural materials, learning Indigenous histories and knowledges and safeguarding
and engaging with secret, sacred and/or significant artefacts and sites.
While there have been catastrophic losses of Indigenous cultural heritage since the colonisation of the USA and Canada (and other countries with histories of forced colonisation), Indigenous people have determinedly (and despite the odds) sought to retain traditional elements of cultures, maintained and revived languages and Indigenous knowledges to build cultural capital and preserve cultural heritage.
Intergenerational cultural transmission is fundamental and essential to the survival and building of Indigenous cultures, and it enhances the cultural sustainability and resilience of Indigenous individuals, families and communities. Why, then, do successive governments across the world impose sanctions which result in Indigenous people being taken away from their families and communities where intergenerational cultural transmission must place? This appears counter-intuitive.
If prison must be used as a sanction, in what ways can prison environments be designed to support existing cultural norms and practices and strengthen Indigenous peoples’ cultural connections and knowledges to counter some of the damage that prisons cause? The principal questions are: can prison architecture move from being architecture that is imposed on Indigenous users, to architecture that takes into account Indigenous needs and aspirations? Can Indigenous peoples assert cultural agency over this genre of architecture, given that it has been so forcibly imposed?
This chapter discusses the design of prisons for Indigenous prisoners in the USA and Canada. It argues that designing congruent environments for Indigenous peoples may not be enough while criminal justice agencies continue to operate under punitive ‘law and order’ agendas. It recommends that human rights instruments should be translated into prison design and Indigenous peoples and communities be given cultural agency in prison planning and design processes, as well as their management and operation.
cultural artefacts, artworks, activities or organisations, has become important in Australian
architecture since the 1960s. A growing number of buildings—and new architectural types—
have been devised to support, display and safeguard Indigenous cultures and to
accommodate Indigenous organisations that have become more prevalent since self-
determination. These new public, institutional and community building typologies provide an
architecture that often speaks to the both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population.
This chapter examines a number of different types of Indigenous institutional, public and
community buildings, surveying architectural precedents within the genres of keeping
houses and cultural centres, museums, art centres, educational and health projects
organization does not allow for this causes additional pain to particular groups. Matching the prison environment to the cultural needs of the group through the provision of congruent, familiar and meaningful environments is one of the most important aspects of reducing the prisoner's stress levels. Aboriginal people often fare very poorly in prison environments: large numbers of Aboriginal prisoners enter the prison system with chronic illnesses, substance abuse problems, learning and cognitive disabilities and mental illness; the number of Aboriginal prisoners dying in prison custody continues to be unacceptably high; and as a group, Aboriginal prisoners continue to face multiple layers of social disadvantage.
In research conducted by the author, male Aboriginal people in South Australian prisons were interviewed to investigate their needs and preferences for prison accommodation. The participant group consisted of 55 Aboriginal prisoners from diverse Aboriginal language groups, who were incarcerated in five South Australian prisons. Participants' needs and preferences were investigated using a three-stage interview process. The methodology included gathering personal and incarceration details, and a directed choice experiment employing photographic sets and drawing techniques to elicit design preferences.
Many of the Aboriginal prisoners in the participant group, regardless of their language group, articulated common needs and preferences that could be translated into a number of themes. These themes included preference for prison environments which allowed the prisoner to stay connected to country, to maintain relationships with family and kin, to live within a specified social group, and to have privacy, safety and health needs met.
These symbolic architectural gestures derive from a belief in the communicative force of architecture, and from an understanding that the courthouse and courtroom are the canvas upon which societal priorities as to law and justice are writ large. These design precedents note the importance of correcting past wrongs and demonstrating respect for the Indigenous peoples of those countries.
In Australia, commissioning bodies and architects have been considering ways courthouses and courtrooms can be designed to: (1) symbolically and physically acknowledge Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) rectify past wrongs in colonial designs; (3) allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to engage meaningfully with court processes; (4) reduce the stress felt by Indigenous users, and (5) promote Indigenous ‘ownership’ of courthouses and courtrooms. This chapter examines the design outcomes for three Australian courthouse developments of national and international significance: Port Augusta (South Australia), Kununurra and Kalgoorlie court complexes (both in Western Australia)
Two key factors have provided the impetus for this study. First, the relationship between appropriate housing, good health, wellbeing and quality of life is now well established (Baker, Mason et al. 2014; Howden-Chapman and Carroll 2004; OECD 2011; NPDCC 2009). Yet there remain many individuals and groups who face multiple barriers to accessing housing that meets their needs and is appropriate and sustainable in terms of affordability, accessibility, safety, security and housing form. Indigenous people with disability are one such group, yet we know little about their housing experiences, aspirations and needs.
Second, the development and rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has focused attention nationally on the needs of people with disability. A watershed in social and disability policy, the NDIS offers real potential to transform the living circumstances of many people. It will provide eligible participants with assistance to access more appropriate, timely and consistent support services, and exercise choice and control over their lives.
However, while the scheme’s mandate is clear, there are gaps in the structures and
processes and it is not yet fully implemented at this time. We know little, for example, about how the NDIS will be applied, resourced and supported across Australia's vast network of rural, regional and remote communities, where service delivery is particularly challenging.
The Northern Territory youth detention system is broken. This is evidenced by the high level of critical incidents and alleged abuses to children occurring in custody. One of the principal contributors to the failure of the system has been its use of segregation. As an important starting point for the Royal Commission into Youth Detention and Child Protection, the use of segregation on children must be examined.
To understand the behaviours of the children in custodial settings that result in them being placed in segregation, it is useful to review literature on the responses to imprisonment. The theory in this area comes from the multidisciplinary field of environmental psychology, which examines the relationship between the environment and its inhabitants. Using theoretical models can assist in the understanding, design,
management, and/or restoration of environments that enhance reasonable behavior (and predict the likely outcomes when these conditions are not met).
The paper calls for the prohibition of segregation of children arguing that a paradigm shift in the youth detention system to a model employing non-institutional care with trauma informed practice needs to be made.
To understand the behaviours of the children in custodial settings that result in them being placed in segregation, it is useful to review literature on the responses to imprisonment. The theory in this area comes from the multidisciplinary field of environmental psychology, which examines the relationship between the environment and its inhabitants. Using theoretical models can assist in the understanding, design, management, and/or restoration of environments that enhance reasonable behavior (and predict the likely outcomes when these conditions are not met). Ultimately the work advocates the banning of segregation for all children in custody.
By contrast, the justice practices of the settler state tend to be located in an environment that alienates the individual. In the courts, the courtroom insignia (coats of arms) and the structural layering play an important role in denoting the power of the judicial officer and the legal system, including the power to appropriate Indigenous symbols (Mohr, 2003; Marchetti, 2007).
This article critically addresses the capacity of place-based courts that respond to Indigenous meaning through not only location but also architecture and symbols. Postcolonial methodologies, which seek to engage Indigenous worldviews, were captured in the design process for courthouses at Port Augusta, Kalgoorlie and Kununurra through consultation with Indigenous stakeholders. However, it argues that while location and design plays an important element in reinscribing a sense of place, it needs to be inter-connected with Indigenous laws, relationships and ceremonies in the justice process. Aboriginal courts at Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie are embryonic features of this connection that need to be progress for Indigenous offender, victim and community well-being and healing to take place in otherwise state-centred justice venues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vetUeKv1ypk
Prison population from Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander population
The complex health needs of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander offenders
Importance of culturally-appropriate prison environments
Considerations for design
Best Practice Examples
- Continuing issues
University of Adelaide news release “In chains: Aboriginal prisoners’ bleak history”
“Impossible to detain…without chains” co-written by Elizabeth Grant and Kristyn Harman
Dr Elizabeth Grant is one of the authors of the paper “Impossible to detain…without chains”, which was published in the journal History Australia recently.
She explains the long history of restraining Aboriginal people to Lucy Kingston
University of Adelaide researcher Dr Elizabeth Grant says incarceration was used in the 19th century as a tool to dispossess Aboriginal people of their land with police being paid an amount to bring in men women and children…often in chains.
that chains were used on them in policing and prisons from the early colonial period well into the twentieth century.
The compelling paper, Impossible to detain…without chains?, published in December’s issue of the journal History
Australia details the painful sordid history of the use of neck chains and other restraints
But while “natural causes” might suggest these are simply the forces of nature, experts and activists say that many of these deaths are the result of fundamental problems with the healthcare and prison systems, as well as negligence on the part of the police.
It’s quite clear it’s all about money. The budget, they needed to cut money. It’s cost them a lot more money now. It cost me my son.
PAM PAYNE
Depressed and suicidal, he was admitted to a hospital with a forensic health unit in May 2011, but after just seven days he was discharged straight into prison to await trial.
‘They said he was well enough and he needed to go and face his responsibilities,’ says his mother, Pam.
Mr Payne had never been to prison before. He told police, doctors, and his lawyer that if he went to prison he would kill himself.
He said the same thing to the guard who transported him to Yatala Labour Prison, Jim Richardson, who was working for security firm G4S.
‘I didn’t see him as the average sort of person that I’d dealt with over the nine years at the company,’ says Mr Richardson. ‘He was very compliant and very easy to get along with no problems whatsoever.’
‘When we got back to Yatala I took his paperwork in [and] told the officers there that he had told his lawyer that he had expressed the desire to kill himself if he was returned. Their response was that yeah they knew he was suicidal and he was already on suicide watch.’
Although he was on remand, Mr Payne was put in Yatala’s notorious G Division—maximum security isolation cells where the lights are on 24 hours.
After five days he was allowed to ring home. He left a brief message on his family’s answering machine: ‘Mum or dad, you there? It’s just me. I was hoping you’d be home.’
That was the last call he made.
As a suicide risk, Mr Payne was in maximum security so that he could be observed. However, in 2007, cost cutting measures by South Australian Department of Correctional Services mean that from 2007 constant human observation of prisoners in G Division had been replaced by a camera in each of its four cells.
That footage was fed to the busy control room, where it was squashed onto a single soundless monitor, says prison guard union representative Peter Christopher:
‘It’s pretty difficult on any person observing a monitor to be able to do so if the monitor’s small, there’s no audio, it’s a split screen and they’re looking at it for very, very long periods of time,’ says Peter Christopher from the Public Service Association, the union which represents prison guards.
That footage, however, was only shown on that single screen for five minutes every 30. The other 25 minutes, prisoners were on their own.
Mr Payne hanged himself in his cell unobserved, and when his body came up on screen for five minutes, the control room guard was busy and didn’t notice.
After receiving a grant from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the University of Adelaide formed the project to discuss issues and concerns with indigenous residents effected by disability.
Last week Research Leader of Housing and Indigenous Disability Doctor Elizabeth Grant visited Ceduna and met with strategic stakeholders to locate participants for workshops and individual interviews.
612 ABC Brisbane (Brisbane), 666 ABC Canberra (Canberra), 702 ABC Sydney (Sydney), 720 ABC Perth (Perth), 774 ABC Melbourne (Melbourne), 891 ABC Adelaide (Adelaide), 936 ABC Hobart (Hobart), ABC Alice Springs (Alice Springs), ABC Ballarat (Ballarat), ABC Broken Hill (Broken Hill), ABC Capricornia (Rockhampton), ABC Central Coast (Erina), ABC Central Victoria (Bendigo), ABC Central West NSW (Orange), ABC Coffs Coast (Coffs Harbour), ABC Darwin (Darwin), ABC Esperance
(Esperance), ABC Eyre Peninsula and West Coast (Port Lincoln), ABC Far North (Cairns), ABC
Gippsland (Sale), ABC Gold Coast (Gold Coast), ABC Goldfields WA (Kalgoorlie), ABC Goulburn
Murray (Wodonga), ABC Great Southern WA (Wagin), ABC Illawarra (Wollongong), ABC Kimberley
(Broome), ABC Midwest and Wheatbelt (Geraldton), ABC Mildura - Swan Hill (Mildura), ABC New
England North West (Tamworth), ABC Newcastle (Newcastle), ABC North and West SA (Port Pirie),
ABC North Coast NSW (Lismore), ABC North Queensland (Townsville), ABC North West Qld (Mt Isa),
ABC North West WA (Karratha), ABC Northern Tasmania (Launceston), ABC Riverina (Wagga Wagga),
ABC Riverland SA (Renmark), ABC Shepparton (Shepparton), ABC South Coast WA (Albany), ABC
South East NSW (Bega), ABC South East SA (Mt Gambier), ABC South West WA (Bunbury), ABC
South Western Victoria (Warrnambool), ABC Southern Queensland (Toowoomba), ABC Sunshine Coast
(Sunshine Coast), ABC Tropical North (Mackay), ABC Upper Hunter (Muswellbrook), ABC Western Plains NSW (Dubbo), ABC Western Queensland (Longreach), ABC Western Victoria (Horsham), ABC Wide Bay (Bundaberg), Radio National (Hobart), Radio National (Brisbane), Radio National (Perth), Radio National (Sydney), Radio National (Melbourne), Radio National (Adelaide), Radio National
(Darwin)
Dr Elizabeth Grant is part of a multidisciplinary team looking at the challenges they face, and she’s speaking to Ewart Shaw.
Secondary outcomes of the housing process are what we loosely term the ‘socio-economic capitals’ of housing procurement: outcomes that are in addition to the physical asset of the house. Specifically, this study explores the relationships between remote Indigenous housing procurement and the broader socio-economic capitals of Indigenous communities. It contributes to an understanding of the potential longer-term economic, social, health and cultural outcomes of current and future housing policies and housing delivery programs.
Remote Indigenous housing procurement practice occurs in a complex context of political, market, and industry dynamics. Achieving high-level outcomes beyond the physical units of houses is fraught with difficulty in these contexts. Despite this, there are some procurement success stories and, with this in mind, this project aims to assess what has been achieved during the last decade in the procurement of Aboriginal housing, as grounded in actual practice. The delivery of Aboriginal housing, if done well, would not only diminish livelihood vulnerabilities, but would also strengthen self-governance and generate services responsive to community demand. The significance of a better understanding of housing procurement systems within the context of remote Indigenous communities has potential benefit for all peoples engaged in the built environment sector.
Partly due to the paucity of research in this field, the current research project is a valuable addition to the body of knowledge regarding housing procurement processes in remote Aboriginal communities in Australia. It has the potential to create greater awareness of good practice administrative processes leading to more positive outcomes of culturally responsive housing by using the social and economic capitals that Aboriginal people can bring to procurement. If there has been one clear outcome from this research project, it is that the procurement process is arguably just as important as the final housing product itself. Focus needs to be placed on a meaningful process and the product that eventuates must conform to statutory and regulatory standards. Procurement driven by the scenario of maximum numbers of houses on the ground as fast as possible ignores the potential to value add multiple Aboriginal social and economic capitals"
This report documents that Indigenous prisoners in other countries have common concerns shared by many Australian Aboriginal prisoners. The prison location, the ability to live within a social group, staying in contact with family and community were all common concerns.
The normalisation of prison environments appears to have a major effect on the behaviour of prisoners within prisons. Theoretically it has been shown that normalising prison environments results in fewer instances of resistance behaviours (e.g. escapes, threatening behaviours, riots, suicides and self-harming behaviours) among prisoners. The level of critical incidences reported in Danish prisons was low. Within the design of prisons a variety of techniques were used to normalise prison environments successfully. These are underpinned by a legislative framework which ensures a minimum standard of prison accommodation.
The design of different types of Indigenous units has been pioneered in New Zealand and Canada successfully. These have involved specific design processes which allow Indigenous communities to partner with correctional agencies to achieve mutual aims and all have involved the incorporation of cultural knowledge into the design or later enculturation of the prison environment. There were some accompanying issues in the design of Indigenous specific facilities. Most had a minimum security classification excluding numbers of Indigenous prisoners and the issues of housing certain groups of prisoners was proving problematic at some sites. There is much that can learnt from these examples for application to the Australian context
Family is at the core of Aboriginal society and well-being. Complex kinship systems are central to how the culture is passed on and society is organised with families having the primary responsibility for the upbringing, protection and development of their children. Providing a safe communal setting of loving and caring with opportunities for a child’s growth, development and self-empowerment has dramatic impacts on the overall welfare of the child and is pivotal in addressing the disadvantages experienced by the Aboriginal children.
This report reviews the development, outcomes and responses of users to three Children and Family Centres constructed in South Australia. The Gabmididi Manoo Children and Family Centre (Whyalla), Taikurrendi Children and Family Centre (Christies Beach) and the Ngura Yadurirn Children and Family Centre (Ceduna) were developed by the Department for Education and Child Development (South Australia) within the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development framework.
The projects are recognised as Australian exemplars in the design of facilities for Aboriginal children and families. The projects have been overwhelming received by the communities concerned and have resulted in growing numbers of Aboriginal children engaging in early learning in the areas where they are located. The Aboriginal communities concerned were keen to see the Aboriginal Children and Family Centres as places where Aboriginal people can be empowered.
Critical to the success of the projects was the concept of placemaking and the creation of Aboriginal ‘places’, each with its own Aboriginal identity. To achieve this, the design process included developing understandings of the behavioural and cultural norms and health requirements of potential users so that spaces were designed that were easy and pleasurable to use. In collaboration with communities, the centres were layered Indigenous meanings through the use of signs, symbols and representations.
As a result, the Children and Family Centres provide a strong physical focus for the community and families. These are places with strong cultural identities that have been generally embraced by the communities they seek to serve. As entities, the centres seek to promote themselves as safe places that reinforce positive self-identity and cultural engagement. The importance of developing each individual Children and Family Centres to have its own cultural identity was seen as paramount. Many lessons were learnt from these projects. Issues such as achievable timelines, planning and consultation processes, the appropriateness of building and construction methods, the delegation of responsibilities, public art processes and the procurement of furniture, fittings and equipment, all impinged on the processes and finished product. Consideration of these matters is likely to lead to improved outcomes in the future.
The Taikurrendi, Gabmididi Manoo and Ngura Yadurirn Children and Family Centres are precedents for the future, where facilities will be designed for Aboriginal children and families that reflect preferred Indigenous lifestyles and child rearing practices and respond to the cultural identity and spirituality of Aboriginal people with respect.