Homes are more than walls and a roof, especially for Indigenous people. It’s time housing policy reflects that

Australia is experiencing a housing crisis. But for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the challenge runs deeper than high rents and limited supply. A major problem is that housing in Australia is rarely designed with Indigenous communities in mind.

In 2021, roughly 13% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households faced unmet housing needs. This equated to around 45,700 low-income Indigenous households lacking suitable accommodation.

Overcrowding remains a significant issue, with only 81.4% of Indigenous Australians living in appropriately sized housing in 2021, falling short of the 88% target set for 2031 under Closing The Gap.

Cultural obligations, such as caring for extended family and accommodating kinship networks, are often at odds with standard tenancy agreements that limit guest numbers and occupancy terms.

These mismatches contribute to stress, overcrowding and, in some cases, eviction.

Housing that works

Housing is often described as a human right. In reality, housing policy is shaped by market forces, supply targets and regulatory compliance. While these may meet administrative goals, they frequently fail to reflect the cultural, social and emotional needs of First Nations people.

But there are programs that work.

Our research examines how community-led, culturally safe housing can support long-term improvements in health, stability and inclusion for Indigenous and marginalised communities

One compelling example is the Ngalang Moort Wangkiny project in Western Australia. Led by Aboriginal researchers, this project explored the experiences of Aboriginal families living in social housing. Through yarning circles, tenants shared how housing design and tenancy rules often work against their cultural needs.

Many homes are built for small families and do not accommodate extended kinship networks. Tenancy agreements may limit guests or require the names of all residents.

These arrangements create tension for Aboriginal families who have a strong cultural obligation to care for relatives and host kin. Policies that ignore these responsibilities are stressful and often produce in unsuitable results.

The research demonstrated many of these issues can be avoided through co-design. Aboriginal families who are involved in planning, decision-making and service delivery are more likely to experience positive housing outcomes. They feel a sense of safety, support and community ownership.

With models like these, housing can be a stable foundation, not a point of vulnerability.

The benefits of culturally safe housing extend beyond comfort or cultural fit. Evidence shows strong links between stable housing and improvements in education, employment and health.

People who feel respected and secure in their homes are more likely to access services, remain in school and sustain employment.

Planning with, not planning for

Across Australia, Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) are at the forefront of culturally safe housing.

These organisations are governed by Aboriginal communities and grounded in local knowledge and values. In housing, they provide tenancy support, manage properties, and deliver wraparound services such as mental health care and employment programs.

Some receive government support.

Many of these organisations continue to operate under pressure. Funding is often short-term, rigid and inconsistent, with recent findings showing governments are leaving the financial heavy lifting to under-resourced Aboriginal groups.

But policies are designed remotely with little input from communities. Tenancy frameworks still reflect assumptions based on Western models of home life, which may not align with Indigenous ways of living.

Standard house layouts with separate, enclosed rooms may not support communal living or outdoor gathering spaces that are central to many Indigenous households.

Addressing these gaps requires national policy reform recognising housing as essential social infrastructure. Long-term funding, flexible tenancy arrangements and support for Indigenous-led organisations would all help.

A more inclusive planning system would ensure co-design becomes standard practice rather than the exception.

Doing more to meet goals

We can also draw valuable lessons from international models.

Globally, community land trusts have enabled low-income and racially marginalised communities to secure long-term control of housing and land.

These trusts work by holding land in a nonprofit trust while allowing residents to own or rent homes on it through long-term, renewable leases. This structure removes land from the speculative market, keeps housing costs stable and ensures decisions remain in the hands of the local community.

In Chile, the Half a House model gives families a solid, expandable foundation to grow their homes as their resources allow.

A growing number of Australian policymakers have acknowledged this need for change. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap includes targets for improved housing outcomes and increased community control.

The 2024 Implementation Plan outlines steps toward reducing overcrowding and strengthening Aboriginal-controlled service delivery.

Turning these goals into practice requires sustained effort. Indigenous communities must be seen as partners in decision-making, not simply as service recipients. Their insights and lived experiences should shape every stage of the housing process.

Uniform solutions will not meet diverse local needs. Place-based approaches, developed in collaboration with communities, are essential.

Housing is more than shelter. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, it is a space to practise culture, strengthen kinship, and pass on knowledge. It is where identity is lived and preserved.

Proven models already exist. Communities across Australia are leading the way. What is required now is a policy environment that listens, invests and follows their lead.