Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

In possession of this evidence, the jury which convicted James Savagerecommended life imprisonment in preference to the death penalty. He remains in prisonin Florida, not to be released for 25 years.EvaluationSelf-determinationThe Victorian model gives Aboriginal agencies an entitlement to be consulted at allstages in the consideration of adoption of an Indigenous child and a right of veto over aproposed placement with non-Aboriginal adoptive parents. It is the strongestimplementation of the principle of self-determination in adoption practice. Otherjurisdictions recognise the importance of consultation with Indigenous agencies and,provided those agencies are adequately resourced, could readily take the additional stepof entrenching the role of those agencies in the placement of Indigenous children.A difficulty may arise in relation to children not identified as Indigenous by therelinquishing parent. The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle and the involvement ofIndigenous agencies do not come into play until a child relinquished for adoption isidentified as Indigenous. In Tasmania there is no formal definition of Aboriginality forthis purpose. The department relies on the Aboriginal Family Support and Care Programto identify Aboriginal children. This is problematic, however, when a relinquishingparent does not identify the child as Aboriginal and also insists on the confidentiality ofthe adoption process. This would make it impossible to call on the Program for adviceand assistance.In Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia (if, as expected, thedefinition in the Children’s Protection Act 1993 (SA) is used) and the ACT the familiarthree-pronged definition of ‘Indigenous’ is used: a person is Indigenous if he or she is ofIndigenous descent, identifies as Indigenous and is accepted as such by the Aboriginal orTorres Strait Islander community. In the case of a young child or baby, identification bythe parent is substituted for self-identification. In Queensland, an Indigenous agency maybe consulted, but only where there is no parent or other relative to provide theidentification. In light of the relinquishing parent’s right to confidentiality, this meansthat an Indigenous child will not be treated as such where the relinquishing parent doesnot identify as Indigenous herself or himself or does not identify the baby as such orwhere a non-Indigenous relinquishing parent does not notify the department that thechild’s other parent is Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander.The practical problems are not entirely overcome by the alternative approach takenin NSW and the NT. There, self-identification and identification by the relinquishingparent are not aspects of the definition of Aboriginality. Instead a child is Indigenous ifdescended from an Indigenous person. The difficulty remains that the department oftenrelies on information from the relinquishing parent as to the heritage of the child.Legislation could require the department or non-government adoption agency toestablish to the best of its ability the cultural heritage of every child surrendered for