OK so let us look at a few of the issues raised in the article
Is the transitional accommodation really tents, did the citizens of Elcho Island choose this and have the late finishing contractors been penalised in any way?
Have showers and toilets been provided to the 150 citizens using this tented accommodation and if so how many, how close to the tents are the facilities and in what form?
Is the new budget of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing program now reduced to $1.7bn as per this article or does it remain as per the FaHCSIA (old name before the recent departmental restructuring) website at $5.5bn?
Did the NT government really refuse to provide tents? Was the reason not to provide tents the need to also provide showers and toilets? Will the new houses contain showers and toilets or has this also been opposed? Will the new houses have toilets and showers that will work when the houses are completed? Will the showers and toilets perform better than the national average function rate of 35% and 58% respectively?
Is it true that many new houses cannot be occupied due to lack of basic services such as water, power or waste removal? Is it also true that early on in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing program, infrastructure was excluded due to cost concerns? Is it true that the infrastructure costs were to be picked up by the states and territory involved?
Are these problems in the Northern Territory only, or more widespread? Are Indigenous Australian citizens struggling to get tents, a shower and a toilet under the largest, most expensive housing program in Australia's history?
Any answers to the above would be useful, at least to the 150 people on Elcho Island living in tents for Xmas.