Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

Inadequate consultation with AICCAsThe widespread acceptance of the ACPP has led to greater recognition of theimportance of Indigenous children’s cultural needs and to improved consultationprocesses with Indigenous people and agencies. In all jurisdictions Indigenous agenciesin theory have an opportunity to advise on child welfare matters affecting Indigenouschildren. This advice is given, however, within an established bureaucratic frameworkthat has its own requirements and approaches.The legislative base which underpins the functions of departmental officers in relation to childabuse is neither an adaptation nor a reflection of Aboriginal Traditional law. Thus, the very basisof definitions of responsibility of individuals involved in ensuring child protection is culturallybiased and should be recognised as such (Harrison 1991 page 37).The extent and style of consultation varies across jurisdictions. In Victoria,legislation acknowledges the importance of Indigenous organisations’ advice and theirright to offer an opinion. VACCA has a right to veto placement of an Indigenous childwith a non-Indigenous carer and to veto the making of an order for permanent placement.In South Australia the impact of the inclusion of Indigenous agencies is limited bythe minimal requirement that decision makers need only ‘have regard’ to their opinions.Further, the Minister makes the final decision on which Indigenous organisations are tobe gazetted.In most jurisdictions the identity of ‘relevant’ agencies and the timing and quality ofconsultations are not specified. The result is that discussions typically occur too late inthe decision making process and in too cursory a manner to permit an effectivecontribution to be made. Indigenous agencies could contribute to working with the familyto prevent the child being removed, working with the family to prepare it to receive thechild back, locating, training and supporting an appropriate Indigenous foster carer. Allof these tasks require at least that the agency is notified as early in the interventionprocess as possible. AICCAs are further constrained in the effectiveness of theircontribution to retaining Indigenous children within their families and communities bylimited funding (recognised in ATSIC submission 684 page 106).Inadequate funding of AICCAsFunding of AICCAs and MACS remains inadequate. Funding is often from threedifferent sources, State or Territory Governments, the Federal Department of CommunityServices and Health and ATSIC. While the role of Indigenous organisations is recognisedas crucial, funding is often insecure.Services to Aboriginal children youth and families are fragmented, deficient in scope and of verylimited quantity. Aboriginal families who are attempting to access services find that they mayhave to travel a large distance to access a particular service (SA ACCA submission 347 page 27).Each jurisdiction has a process for consulting with Indigenous organisations aboutfunding but Indigenous organisations are not included at all, let alone as partners, in the