Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

is dependent on social security, speaks English as a second or third language and does notread it fluently, and has not had a high school education. It will always be the case that aservice designed to address the needs of the majority of Anglo-Australians will fail tocater to the needs of a certain proportion of the members of that group. However, it willfail to cater to the needs of a substantially higher proportion of Indigenous Australians.In practice such a service would be racially discriminatory because access to andeffective use of it would be denied to a significantly higher proportion of IndigenousAustralians. This is indirect discrimination. Some services which fit this description cannonetheless be justified because it would be unreasonable to require them to cater to theneeds of Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients alike. Factors relevant to decidingreasonableness can include remoteness, cost, the extent of the need for the service anddetriment caused by lack of effective access.This justification is not available for core government services, however.Governments have a duty to ensure that basic services are provided on a basis of equalityto all. Substantive equality will require that particular needs and disadvantages are takeninto account. A clear example is the need to provide an interpreter when a non-Englishspeaking person requires medical assistance.Cultural and language differences, remoteness, unique histories and particularemotional needs mean that equality in the provision of services to Indigenous people willfrequently require distinctive approaches. In some cases modification of a ‘mainstream’service may suffice. In other cases, a specialist service will be required. Necessaryspecialist services should not be confused with discriminatory services. The objective ofspecialist services is to ensure equity of access and to overcome the discrimination whichclients would otherwise experience if required to have their needs met by mainstreamservices.Cultural renewalHuman rights law recognises the right of distinct ethnic groups to the enjoyment oftheir culture (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 27). This rightinvolves two distinct categories of obligation for governments. First, governments mustnot interfere in groups’ enjoyment of their cultures, practise of their religions and use oftheir languages. Second, governments must act positively to ensure the conditions for theexercise of this right. 1 For example, if school teachers today were punishing Indigenouschildren for using their own languages at school, governments would have an obligationto prohibit such punishmentsThe purpose of article 27 is ‘to ensure the survival and continued development of thecultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned’. 2 In particular,governments must take all measures necessary to ensure the cultural survival and wellbeingof Indigenous peoples.Under the heading of cultural renewal we consider whether the service in questioncontributes effectively to the repair of broken cultural and familial ties. In this connectionwe recognise the existence of many Indigenous cultures in Australia. Common to all is