MIL-OSI Export

By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

French Senators have endorsed a Constitutional amendment text regarding New Caledonia’s future political status.

Two-hundred and fifteen senators (mostly an alliance between right and centre-right parties) voted in favour, and 41 voted against.

The four-hour sitting was marked by a lengthy address by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, who supported the text, saying a status quo on New Caledonia was “not a viable option”.

He said to leave things as they were would amount to “abandoning France’s republican ideals, social progress and the renewed construction of peace” in the French Pacific territory.

“This [Bougival] agreement is not perfect”, Lecornu conceded, “but it is the best we have collectively come up with in four years of negotiations.”

Lecornu said the extra package contained some sizeable chunks dedicated to “strengthening (New Caledonia’s) attractiveness” (330 million euros) through the creation of trade free zones, tax exemptions for future investing businesses and another 500 million euros dedicated to support the crucial nickel mining and processing industry.

But not without conditions.

“A credible transformation plan was currently in the making,” Lecornu explained.

“To support and accompany, yes, but to fund losses indefinitely, no.”

The vote comes almost two years after unrest and riots in May 2024, leaving 14 dead and more than 2 billion euros in material damage, as well as hundreds of businesses looted and destroyed.

Since then, New Caledonia has struggled to put its economy (which suffered a reduction of its GDP by 13.5 percent) back on its feet.

Trigger issue
The main triggering factor for the 2024 riots was a legislative process before the French Parliament in a bid to modify conditions of eligibility for New Caledonian citizens at local elections.

These elections are important because they determine the members of the three provinces (North, South and the Loyalty Islands), membership of the territory’s Parliament  (Congress), and members of New Caledonia’s government and its president.

The process was eventually aborted after initially peaceful protests (organised by one of the main components of the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) — Union Calédonienne, and its Field Action Coordinating Cell — degenerated into riots.

During the same sitting, French Senators have also endorsed another amendment that once again postpones the date of New Caledonia’s provincial elections to 20 December 2026 at the latest.

The crucial poll has already been postponed three times since its initial scheduled date of May 2024.

The Senatorial vote is only the first step in a longer legislative path for the text on New Caledonia, based on the transcription of talks that were held in July 2025 and in January 2026.

The meetings, which respectively resulted in texts dubbed “Bougival” and “Elysée-Oudinot”, were initially endorsed by a large majority of New Caledonia’s parties represented at its local Congress.

But since August 2025, the FLNKS has withdrawn its support, saying the proposed agreements do not represent a credible path to the full sovereignty they demand.

Over the past few weeks, intense lobbying has taken place both in New Caledonia and  Paris, both on the pro-independence and the pro-France side of the political chessboard, in order to win over French MPs.

“Kanaky-New Caledonia has already paid a heavy price because of the [French] government’s stubbornness,” he told senators.

The text tabled in the French Parliament proposes to establish a “State of New Caledonia” within the French realm, as well as a correlated New Caledonian “nationality” (tied to a pre-existing French nationality), as well as a new process of gradual transfer of powers from Paris. But at the same time it rejects any future use of referendums (an instrument regarded by Paris as “divisive”).

Between 2018 and 2021, as prescribed by the 1998 Nouméa Accord, three referenda have been held regarding New Caledonia’s self-determination. They resulted in three rejections of independence, even though the last poll — in December 2021 — was widely boycotted by the pro-independence movement.

“It is because of these three votes, which say ‘yes’ to the French Republic, that this very republic must deploy its economic and social ambition, regardless of the future outcome of political talks”, pro-France Les Loyalistes leader Sonia Backès commented on social networks.

Another prominent pro-France politician, New Caledonia’s MP at the National Assembly, Nicolas Metzdorf, said Tuesday’s vote was “a first step”.

But the text, just like in 2024, also touches on the conditions of eligibility to gain the right to vote at local elections.

Until now, under the ageing Nouméa Accord (1998), the right to vote at local elections is “frozen” to a special roll that includes people born in New Caledonia or residing there before 1998, among other conditions.

“Unfreezing” the electoral roll would mean allowing some 12,000 more people born in New Caledonia and another 6,000 people who have been residing for at least an uninterrupted 15 years.

‘Waiting for stability’
Opponents to the project, just like in 2024, argue that this opening would contribute to diluting the indigenous voice at local political elections.

The other Senator for New Caledonia, Georges Naturel (regarded as pro-France, Les Républicains party) abstained because “deep inside, I know this Constitutional reform will unfortunately not bring the stable and long term political solution New Caledonia needs”.

Socialist and Green Senators also abstained, saying any future comprehensive agreement has to include everyone, including the FLNKS.

Otherwise, “there is no lasting solution to ensure peace, stability and development”, Socialists leaders argued last week in an op-ed in national daily Le Monde.

They went even further saying that the text currently under scrutiny, as it stands, is “ominous” and “dangerous”.

The move, already announced last week by the Socialists, was designed to give the government “the opportunity to suspend debates on the text and call for provincial elections at the end of May or beginning of June 2026, instead of the now re-scheduled December 2026).

According to this scenario, this would then be followed by a new round of discussions, involving newly-elected members of New Caledonia’s Congress.

French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou reacted to the Senate’s vote, saying New Caledonians “have gone through tiring months and are now waiting for stability and useful decisions regarding their day-to-day lives”.

Moutchou admitted the proposed process and associated calendar was “very imperfect and in parts very unsatisfactory . . . but it is indispensable. To stop this constitutional bill now would mean to close the door to the ongoing process since Bougival [talks],” she told a French Senate committee on 17 February 2026.

“We have to give this imperfect process a chance because it has the merit of providing visibility to local stakeholders,” she said.

In the Lower House, opposition ranks are much stronger and therefore debates and process are expected to be much rockier, with the open support of large blocks of opposition, including far-left LFI (La France Insoumise, Unbowed France).

Another significant and openly declared opponent is the far-right Rassemblement National (RN).

Others include the Socialists, the Greens, the Communist Party, according to latest reports.

Later, since this is a Constitutional Amendment, both Houses of Parliament are expected to be summoned and to be endorsed validly, the Constitutional Bill needs to receive the support of three fifths of the joint sitting (called a Congress, held in the city of Versailles).

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/french-senate-vote-endorses-new-caledonias-future-status/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Haiqing Yu, Professor, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

Yesterday’s evacuation of the prime minister from the Lodge has been linked to the Chinese dance troupe Shen Yun. In a bomb threat emailed to the group, the sender said explosives would be detonated if Australian performances by Shen Yun proceeded.

This is just the latest controversy surrounding Shen Yun. But this use of a security threat as a prop to achieve other goals exposes a deeper and increasingly consequential struggle over culture, representation and political voice in the transnational Chinese world.

At stake is not a dance performance, but a deeper question: who gets to represent “Chinese culture” on the global stage?

What is Shen Yun?

Shen Yun, short for Shen Yun Performing Arts, literally translates to divine rhythms.

Shen Yun markets itself as a revival of “traditional Chinese culture” and “China before communism”. Based in New York and touring globally, the classical Chinese dance and music company was established in 2006 by the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Their productions combine high-production dance, orchestral music and digital backdrops with narrative elements that often depict the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

Falun Gong is a new religious movement, established in 1992, rooted in traditional Chinese qigong meditation practices with moral teachings from Buddhism and Daoism. It has been banned by the Chinese government as an illegal organisation since 1999.

Falun Gong has grown into a transnational Chinese dissident movement with religious clout, a political message and a cultural mission.

Shen Yun is one of Falun Gong’s media and culture outreach organisations, alongside The Epoch Times newspaper. Shen Yun regularly tours across 36 countries, mostly in elite cultural venues.

The dance company is best understood as a hybrid cultural-political formation. It is simultaneously a cultural performance enterprise, a diasporic religious movement, a political messaging vehicle, and cultural diplomacy from exile.

What criticism has Shen Yun faced?

Shen Yun has been highly criticised by officials from the People’s Republic of China. They call the group an “evil religion” and a “cult” with great destructive power, and a political vehicle presenting a distorted version of Chinese culture.

The group also has its critics outside of China. A 2024 report in the New York Times detailed poor treatment of injured dancers, and one dancer brought a lawsuit against Shen Yun, calling it a “forced labour scheme” which exploits young dancers.

But the Chinese government’s sensitivity to Shen Yun reflects a broader strategic concern.

Since the early 2000s, Beijing has invested heavily in cultural soft power, from Confucius Institutes to state-sponsored media expansion. These efforts rest on the implicit premise that the Chinese state is the primary custodian and legitimate representative of Chinese civilisation and cultural rejuvenation.

This also can be seen in the “Chinese dream” narrative of President Xi Jinping: a message of patriotism, reform and innovation, with the goal of making China a dominant power on the world stage.

But Shen Yun disrupts the premise that Xi and the Chinese government can define Chinese culture.

How does Shen Yen use cultural diplomacy?

For their supporters, Shen Yun preserves authentic Chinese heritage and the true Chinese spirit, despite the Chinese government’s long-running campaign of repression of Falun Gong practitioners beyond its borders.

Traditionally, cultural representation and cultural diplomacy have been the domain of nation-states. Cultural diplomacy initiatives are state-led, via ballet companies, orchestras, sports, festival celebrations and cultural institutes (such as Confucius Institutes) projecting soft power abroad.

Shen Yun inverts this model. It is a non-state actor using dance to advance a narrative in direct contest to the Chinese state’s definition and representation of Chinese culture.

The company is not interested in the official Chinese “positive energy”. Instead, Shen Yun shares a story about struggle and survival, repression and resistance, highlighting their version of classical Chinese culture.

Shen Yun is not simply performing culture. It is contesting China’s cultural authority. In Shen Yun’s performances, cultural authenticity is not created by the state. Instead, cultural authenticity is created by the diaspora and the people.

A new geopolitics

Shen Yun is especially keen to spread their values in the Western liberal cultural marketplace.

The performances are staged in mainstream theatres, marketed as high culture (tickets in the current Australian tour range from approximately A$100–$300), and protected under norms of artistic freedom. Yet these spaces have become the theatre where geopolitical tensions are performed.

The bomb threat – even though authorities found no evidence linking it to the Chinese government – illustrates how quickly cultural performance can become entangled with national security anxieties.

The Shen Yun controversy is a symptom of a new geopolitical condition, rather than merely an isolated dispute.

Culture, religion and political legitimacy are increasingly entangled across borders. Australia, like many liberal democracies, will likely see more of these disputes in the years ahead.

In an era of transnational media and diaspora mobilisation, cultural performances can carry significant political weight – even in the form of classical dance and music.

Shen Yun’s success depends on its hybridity. It is a performing arts company, a diasporic religious movement operation, a commercial entity and a political messaging platform, all at once.

The Shen Yun case illustrates the fragmentation of cultural sovereignty. Competing actors are engaged in ongoing struggles to define what counts as authentic Chinese culture and who represents it.

Western cultural venues – and today, the Lodge – have become key battlegrounds in this contest.

– ref. What is Shen Yun, the Chinese dance troupe connected to the bomb threat at the Lodge? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-shen-yun-the-chinese-dance-troupe-connected-to-the-bomb-threat-at-the-lodge-276870

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/25/what-is-shen-yun-the-chinese-dance-troupe-connected-to-the-bomb-threat-at-the-lodge-276870/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Assistant Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs minister Julian Hill has warned Australia needs to strengthen the “bridging social capital” that holds our diverse society together, or risk further fragmentation.

In a speech on Wednesday to the McKell Institute canvassing the challenges to Australia’s multiculturalism, Hill has also floated a proposal to ensure children attending faith-based schools or home schooled would mix outside their faith groups throughout their education.

Based on a policy operating in Singapore, it would be driven by state governments and local authorities, and bring together the children in sporting, social and other activities.

Hill said Australians’ rights to express their cultural heritage and identities were not absolute, but came with obligations.

“Obligations for everyone include: one, a shared and unifying commitment to Australia first and foremost; two, acceptance of the basic structures and principles of Australian society including the constitution, tolerance, parliamentary democracy, equality and English as the national language; and three, accepting the right of others to express their views and values”, Hill said.

In a strong message to his own side of politics Hill, who is from the Left faction, said:

“One challenge for the progressive Left with our instinctive values-based focus on rights, is to remember that there are limits to cultural expression, and to champion the obligations that come with being Australian”.

He said it was a myth for people to claim most migrants did not integrate. “They overwhelmingly do. But the trap for progressives is to fail to acknowledge that concerns are real, and to act when genuine issues arise”.

Many decent people had attended the “Marches for Australia”, protesting against the level of immigration, or may vote for One Nation, and good people were peddled lies on social media, Hill said.

“They deserve to be listened to, rather than dismissed: the economic concerns of frankly ‘pissed off’ people or worries about integration are real.”

“Progressives must also not be scared to call out unacceptable cultural practices or expressions that breach core tenets of modern Australian multiculturalism,” he said.

These included, for example, extremely culturally conservative gender segregation in pockets of newly arrived communities, and forced marriages.

“To be clear, this is not religious, these are cultural issues against Australian values. Women have the right to participate freely and be seen and heard in every part of Australian society.”

Abuse of gay children in some schools by some newly arrived migrants from multiple countries and faith groups “is completely unacceptable,” Hill said. “Queer Australians have the same rights as anyone else, and gay kids should be free to be themselves without fear of abuse.”

Hill said that aside from such specific examples of unacceptable behaviour, “a systemic risk is that super-diverse societies may break into separate groups.

“Diversity alone in modern Australia is not and cannot be a sufficient goal. Successful multiculturalism means cherishing communal identities, building bridges between diverse groups and celebrating things we all have in common.

“It is social distance, misinformation and polarisation that create a lack of empathy and vulnerability to hate and extremism, not diversity itself.”

Hill distinguished between two categories of social capital: “bonding” and “bridging”. The former was found within groups or communities, while “intercultural thinking” is all about bridging social capital.

“Overemphasising communal identities risks atomising society and degrading the links between people and groups as well as the things Australians have in common.

“Hence we need to critically reflect and intentionally focus on the relational dimension between groups in Australian society – the intercultural piece – to enhance empathy and mutual respect.”

Hill said that in some areas, institutions and systems militated against intercultural connections and deeper social cohesion.

One big question was the growth in faith-based schools, and home schooling. “It is increasingly possible to grow up in Australia from Prep to year 12 without ever really mixing outside your faith or even ethnic group.”

Over the last seven years the proportion of students attending a school with a religious affiliation had reached nearly 34%. Meanwhile home schooling grew in the last five years by 116% in New South Wales, 85% in Victoria and 232% in Queensland.

Hill stressed he was not arguing against faith-based schools but said it was “worth reflecting on the implications and whether systemic responses are needed to strengthen bridging capital”, such as the Singapore scheme.

“Singapore is strongly focused on building and renewing intercultural and inter-religious trust, understanding and communication. Aiming to safeguard economic growth in a labour-scarce city with a high migrant workforce, and to prevent social fragmentation and inter communal tensions which could undermine stability and progress.

“Not all aspects of course of Singapore’s approach are relevant to Australia, but it’s an interesting case study to reflect on.

“Done well, intercultural initiatives will resonate with Australians, and over time should foster reduced prejudice and social polarisation, stronger integration and trust between communities and institutions, and greater resilience to hate-based violence and misinformation.”

Hill said that in the past most multicultural societies were autocratic, and most democracies monocultural.

“So in a sense we are a recent experiment in how to make a remarkably diverse democracy work. And we have absolutely made it work.

“Indeed, our human diversity is modern Australia’s defining characteristic and surely our greatest strength. But Australia cannot ever take our social cohesion or success for granted. Cohesion is not an end state; it is a dynamic process that requires constant attention, work and investments.”

– ref. Modern multicultural Australia must strengthen the ties that bind our diverse groups: Julian Hill – https://theconversation.com/modern-multicultural-australia-must-strengthen-the-ties-that-bind-our-diverse-groups-julian-hill-276635

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/25/modern-multicultural-australia-must-strengthen-the-ties-that-bind-our-diverse-groups-julian-hill-276635/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Victorians faces a state election late this year, with the Labor government pitching for a fourth term. A key issue will be the government’s failure to deal with thuggery and corruption in the building industry, centred on the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU).

After its hand was forced by years of reporting in The Age, in 2024 the federal government appointed an administrator, Mark Irving, to clean out the union’s construction sector.

An explosive report prepared for the administrator by Geoffrey Watson SC documented the union’s decline into lawlessness and how it exploited Victoria’s Big Build infrastructure program.

In a section of his report that Irving withheld, Watson – a specialist in anti-corruption law – conservatively estimated the CFMEU overcharged Victorian taxpayers A$15 billion. He concluded much of that money “poured directly into the hands of criminals and organised crime gangs”.

The Allan government has since reacted furiously to Watson’s criticism.

Watson joins us to talk about his investigation, the state government’s response – and what should happen next.

The need for a royal commission

Watson says the CFMEU hadn’t been equally corrupt across Australia, saying if you measured crime and corruption on a scale of zero to 10, “New South Wales is about a two or a three, Queensland’s about a five, and Victoria’s about 1,000. It’s insane.”

That’s why Watson is backing calls for a royal commission in Victoria into the scandal.

They do need something in the nature of a royal commission in Victoria. A body which is set up with the resources, with the powers to compel evidence, the powers of a royal commission. And then you can get to the bottom of it.

But Watson says that inquiry shouldn’t be done by the state’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC).

IBAC’s already got enough on its plate. It’s looking at corruption across the state of Victoria, including local government and the like. Now I’ve worked within these organisations and I know how thin their resources are spread […] IBAC would then probably need to suspend all of its important work in all of the areas where it’s looking at public sector corruption.

So no – there should be a standalone inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission. And it should be properly designed and thought through to move rapidly, and to try and see what went wrong in Victoria, and why, and how you can prevent it occurring again.

Asked about what more the federal government could do, Watson says bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) wouldn’t help.

The CFMEU was getting further out of control during the era of the ABCC. I think the Fair Work Ombudsman is doing a very good job.

[…] Also, I can assure you, recent statistics have shown that since the administration [of the CFMEU] things have been brought under control. There have been very, very few disruptions on sites which have led to prosecutions. No, I wouldn’t bring back the ABCC. I think we’re better off without it.

Counting the cost of corruption

Watson explains how he came to his estimate that CFMEU corruption had cost Victorian taxpayers $15 billion.

I used conservative numbers. $100 billion is being spent on the civil work making up the “Big Build”. So I went to the old-time civil contractors, the people who used to let the contracts in the [Australian Workers Union (AWU)] days and then who had to deal with the CFMEU.

And one after another, they said the costs exploded immediately. Nearly all of them told me it was by 30%. Some of them said 20%. Some of them said 15%. I think one said 10%.

[…] I applied that percentage increase in the cost to the “Big Build” projects after the CFMEU had pushed the AWU out. And I came up with 15%, a conservative number in the range that I’ve just given you.

That means $15 billion, taking the conservative $100 billion estimate. I don’t see what’s wrong with the figure. I might say this, since I’ve given the report, I’ve received numerous calls from people complaining that it was too conservative, people who would know […] I double-checked it by speaking privately to some people who I’ll just say were in the bureaucracy. So it wasn’t a silly number. I confirmed it time and time again.

On coming under fire for his work

On the response from the Victorian government, Watson said not a single government MP had been in touch about his investigation.

Do you know, not one Victorian politician contacted me. Everybody knew that I was conducting this investigation. Nobody spoke to me. After the report was handed out, and before they came out and attacked it, did any of them ring me and say, ‘how did you arrive at these figures, or what is going on here? Tell us, talk to us’? No, no contact at all before they launched their attack on the report and me.

Watson said he had been surprised how personal some of the government’s criticism of him had been.

I’ve been doing this anti-corruption work now for a couple of decades. It’s come at a considerable personal cost to me, both personally and financially.

[…] I’ve strong credentials in this area. But they’ve dismissed me and they’ve said ‘oh no, it’s just florid ramblings’, as though I’d made it all up. They really attacked my integrity. And as I say, it’s pretty weird that somebody would say my figures were reckless. I’ll tell you what’s reckless: dismissing them without saying why, without looking at how I calculated it, or without coming up with an alternative figure.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Geoffrey Watson calls for a royal commission on the CFMEU scandal – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-geoffrey-watson-calls-for-a-royal-commission-on-the-cfmeu-scandal-276861

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/25/politics-with-michelle-grattan-geoffrey-watson-calls-for-a-royal-commission-on-the-cfmeu-scandal-276861/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vivienne Milligan, Honorary Professor of Housing Policy and Practice, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Finding and affording adequate housing is a challenge many Australians face, but few more so than First Nations people. New national research shows unmet housing need among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households is double the rate of other Australians.

Indigenous people have long been recognised as particularly at-risk of experiencing poor housing. Ensuring “appropriate and affordable” housing is one of the key outcomes under Closing the Gap.

While Australia is in the middle of major housing reform, with significant new funding committed through multiple government initiatives, it won’t be enough to change the situation for First Nations people. Our new study, released today, shows that without fundamental change, current reforms will not close the gap.

The housing gap is large — and growing

Using 2021 census data, we estimate around 45,700 low-income Indigenous households had unmet housing need. That’s about one in eight Indigenous households.

Unmet need – measured by rental affordability stress, severe overcrowding and substandard housing or homelessness – differs by place.

In urban areas, rental stress dominates. In remote communities, overcrowding and poor housing persist.

Worryingly, the problem is projected to grow significantly by 2041 both because of the growing Indigenous population and the housing crisis.

Many of these households require social housing now or in coming years. Yet social housing is flat-lining at 4% of all housing. This is a social policy failure.

Read more: 55,000 extra social housing homes are being built. But a new study shows that boom still falls short

Governance is fragmented and accountability is weak

Indigenous housing spans multiple government agencies. No single minister or agency has overall responsibility.

Under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, reducing overcrowding is targeted, but rental stress and inadequate housing are not.

Our research found reporting on housing outcomes is imprecise and inconsistent. Accountability, particularly to Indigenous communities, is weak. Governance arrangements change frequently.

Despite endeavours to promote shared policy-making, such as the Housing Policy Partnership, governments continue to operate largely in “business as usual” mode.

If Closing the Gap is to succeed, Indigenous housing cannot remain dispersed across unaligned programs and hampered by unreliable short-term funding. A coherent national strategy and long-term investment plan is required.

The unfulfilled promise of self-determination

Over the past five years, all Australian governments have committed to shared decision-making and strengthening the Indigenous community-controlled sector.

In housing, this includes supporting a national housing peak body, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association.

But genuine and meaningful power-sharing remains limited. In most jurisdictions, Indigenous housing organisations are very small and financially constrained.

Outside Victoria, governments have been reluctant to transfer housing title to these organisations, limiting their autonomy and capacity to leverage finance and grow.

Community-controlled services consistently deliver culturally safer and more effective outcomes in areas such as health and child protection. Housing should be no different.

Unless this sector’s scale and capacity are improved, self-determination will remain symbolic.

Another consequence of an underfunded community sector is that it’s too small to make a big impact.

We found registered Indigenous community-controlled housing organisations manage only 13% of Indigenous social housing tenancies nationally. The rest are managed by governments or mainstream community housing providers. There is currently no national growth plan.

If governments are serious about strengthening this sector, they must commit to transferring large amounts of properties over into their control. Governments should also fund these organisations to provide new housing supply and develop their workforces.

An inappropriate system

Indigenous Australians have much lower home ownership rates than other Australians, although ownership rates have steadily increased over the past two decades.

For many in Indigenous communities, housing security is less about capital gain and more about intergenerational security and protecting collectively owned land. Policy settings rarely accommodate these preferences.

Innovative ownership models – including shared equity and community land trusts – offer potential options aligned with cultural and collective ownership traditions.

But policy support for innovative solutions has not been forthcoming.

And despite increased housing investment overall, there is limited transparency about how much funding reaches Indigenous households and organisations.

Operating and construction costs are higher, especially in remote areas. Maintenance needs and tenant support needs are often greater. Yet funding formulas rarely reflect these realities.

If housing programs are to meet Indigenous need equitably, funding must be explicitly calibrated to that need, not assumed to trickle down. This funding needs to allow for organisations to work in both urban and remote areas, and to support both buyers and renters.

A better way forward

Based on our research, we propose a framework for a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Strategy. This is built around four pillars:

• strengthening governance and accountability

• sufficient long-term investment

• growing the Indigenous community-controlled housing sector

• enhancing tenure security and choice.

A future strategy along these lines should be jointly developed by governments and Indigenous leaders. It would need to be anchored in legislation to ensure continuity beyond electoral cycles.

Most importantly, it must be guided by the principle articulated by the Indigenous housing leaders who oversaw our research: “our housing in our hands”.

The gap in Indigenous housing outcomes will close only when their housing is treated as a national priority – and when Indigenous people are entrusted with shaping its future.

– ref. More than 45,000 Indigenous households lack adequate housing. Here’s what must change – https://theconversation.com/more-than-45-000-indigenous-households-lack-adequate-housing-heres-what-must-change-276626

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/25/more-than-45-000-indigenous-households-lack-adequate-housing-heres-what-must-change-276626/