Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

with terms such as foster care, foster parents etc … (WA Government submission Attachment 4page 12).Similar statements are found in each State and Territory Government submission(SA Government interim submission page 32, Victorian Government interim submission page 32,Tasmanian Government final submission page D-38, NT Government interim submission pages 58-9;see also ACT Government submission page 4).The rhetoric of self-management, however, has not been matched by practicalmeasures. The administrative, executive and judicial decision making about Indigenouschildren’s welfare are controlled by child welfare authorities. Although Indigenousorganisations in some jurisdictions have a right to be consulted, this typically occurs onlyat the final stages of decision making about a child, when recommendations are beingmade for a placement in substitute care.In general, my impression is that the welfare authorities are most willing to encourage Aboriginalpeople to participate in ways that do not involve a major shift of power and responsibility(Chisholm 1985 page 8).Decision making about Indigenous children’s well-being falls well short of acceptednotions of self-determination. Moreover, it continues to fall short of government claimsof ‘partnership’ and ‘collaboration’.Welfare departments have made changes to their practices in an effort to reducecultural biases leading to Indigenous over-representation. One common strategy has beento establish an Aboriginal section of the department. This strategy has been criticised onthe ground that the section is ‘ tacked on to the system, without altering its philosophy,structures, practices or processes’ (Thomas 1994 page 40).Accompanying the establishment of Aboriginal sections have been increasedemployment of Indigenous staff and an attempt to enhance the cultural sensitivity ofexisting staff and procedures. Each of these strategies also has its critics.Indigenous organisations criticise the incorporation of Indigenous staff into welfaredepartments on the ground that these talented people cannot simultaneously becommunity resources. Public service employment inhibits the capacity of Indigenousstaff to represent and advocate for their communities. Funding to employ a communitymember as a community development worker would frequently be preferred. Ideally bothshould be ensured as State and Territory administrations have a responsibility to provideappropriate and accessible services to all clients.During the 1980s and 1990s there has been growing awareness of the problems ofcross-cultural service delivery and of the need for cross-cultural training. However, thegoal of culturally appropriate service delivery remains elusive. Policy statements fromhead office do not translate into practice in the field. Popular cross-cultural trainingmodels have limitations.