If development of the place was on the agenda for the NT Government—which seems extremely unlikely—the issue of equity of access to housing and associated services poses the challenge of what may be appropriate or demand driven servicing, as opposed to servicing on the basis of equity or by mainstream standards. What might be appropriate development? In other words, if the majority of residents were to be granted their wish of a simple tin shed rather than a house, the moral hazard that the Government is barely addressing, and perhaps perpetuating, is the ‘third world conditions’ under which the residents currently live. However, building mainstream housing for these people, either in the Creek Camp area or in the township, would actively disregard their right to exercise choice. However, this issue of choice is far from straightforward, as has been noted by Cowen and Shenton (1995: 28): ‘choice is as much a precondition of development as its result’. Currently, of course, choices for change are not being offered. In our discussions with residents we were careful to note that we were not in positions of decision making power.

However, I cannot help but feel frustration, a feeling that is shared by at least one Creek Camp resident, who earlier this year asked us in an agitated manner why we were back again, if our work was not going to lead to a change in their living conditions. So, the likelihood that Old Napurrula may not get her tap and that this research may not lead to active change leads me to quote Durkheim: ‘because what we propose to study is above all reality, it does not follow that we should give up the idea of improving it’.^[17] Hence, the purpose of writing a paper that agitates for an understanding of the constraints imposed on research findings and the contingent possibilities of acting as change agents.