Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

elationships and ceremonies while reducing the extent of welfare and penological colonialism(Blagg forthcoming page 5).In WA Aboriginal organisations have argued that lack of empowerment forAboriginal families or communities inhibits the effectiveness of diversionary optionswhich are offered. ‘[The] current systemic discrimination against Aboriginal youth in theoperation of the diversionary processes will be perpetuated by the new legislation’ (Ayres1994 page 20). Observations of conferencing in SA have suggested that ‘the most strikingaspect of the model developed for Indigenous people are the problems encountered withcultural difference’ which include inadequate understanding of Indigenous socialstructure, language barriers, different communication patterns and different spatial andtemporal patterns which derive from cultural obligations (Dodson 1996 pages 46-47). Itis perhaps not surprising that Indigenous young people were less likely to experience a‘successful’ conference than non-Indigenous youth (Wundersitz 1996 page 204).The adaptation of the model from New Zealand rested on the spurious assumptionthat there were homologous social structures among various Indigenous cultures – inother words that Indigenous people all over the world are the same (Blagg forthcoming).There is nothing in the current or proposed Australian conferencing schemes which mightallow for the model to be adapted and developed by Indigenous communities. 9 Providingas a ‘guiding principle’ of conferencing that they should be ‘culturally appropriate’ istokenistic if there is no framework provided for significant Indigenous contribution to orcontrol over the form and substance of conferences. 10The South Australian Government noted that the Department of Family andCommunity Services ‘is committed to a model of conferencing with Aboriginal peoplethat will facilitate the sharing of responsibility for planning, decision making, care andaction’ (interim submission page 44). However, there is no statutory obligation toconsider cultural issues, 11 the model itself is assumed to be appropriate and the problemto be resolved is essentially one of overcoming ‘logistic’ problems such as distance anddeveloping the ‘processes’ which will ensure the involvement of Aboriginal families.The problem of police control over conferencing is widespread. Blagg and Wilkie(1995) suggested that Aboriginal organisations were sceptical that police could be viewedas independent arbiters in the process and that power and control over diversionaryoptions were being extended without any screening or regulatory processes (Blaggforthcoming pages 18-19). In WA the Juvenile Justice Teams were intended to mirror theNew Zealand Family Group Conferences. However, the composition of a Team mayinclude only representatives of the police and the Ministry of Justice, a responsible adultand the young person. Referral to a Team can be made by the police or the Children’sCourt. As a result,[The] Juvenile Justice Team model is a half-baked and inadequate version of the New Zealandmodel that will not live up to its potential (ALSWA submission 127 page 348).These Teams are inadequate because they have restricted membership, the