Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

[Significantly] contributes to on-going Aboriginal juvenile over-representation in detentioncentres … While these powers remain in place, Aboriginal juveniles in the rural and remote areaswill continue to be subjected to an unregulated second class system of justice (submission 127page 373).The Inquiry was informed of ‘a great need to find alternative placements andprograms for Aboriginal juveniles’ (ALSWA submission 127 page 374). In WAalternatives could involve placement within Aboriginal communities and work onAboriginal owned stations. In NSW the Inquiry was informed that ‘the Governmentshould put resources into programs that will divert Aboriginal children from the criminaljustice system and at the same time empower communities to take control of socialproblems in their own communities’ (Western Aboriginal Legal Service (Broken Hill)submission 755). The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) stated that ‘resources need tobe directed to the Aboriginal community to establish alternatives to imprisonment anddetention of young Aborigines’ (supplementary submission 325 page 4). Lack ofresources has prevented the TAC from continuing with a program of placing Aboriginalchildren at Rocky Cape as an alternative to detention (supplementary submission 325 page 4).Indigenous organisations in Queensland have complained of the failure to usecommunity service orders frequently enough and to resource Aboriginal devised andcontrolled community-based programs adequately (Cunneen and McDonald 1997 page177). Generally, the major issue to emerge in relation to Indigenous community-basedstrategies is the failure to provide adequate resourcing. ‘It is clear that no matter whatnon-custodial options are available in juvenile justice legislation, a central issue will bethe extent to which they can be utilised in practice’ (Cunneen and McDonald 1997 page 178).ConclusionsState and Territory governments cannot be accused of doing nothing in relation tospecific programs for Indigenous young people. On the contrary, all jurisdictions canpoint to various initiatives. The issue is whether governments are doing enough in light ofthe massive levels of over-representation and, more importantly, whether what is beingdone reflects the types of solutions which Indigenous people see as important.The Inquiry was told of two Indigenous-run programs that had come into conflictwith State governments. In Queensland Piabun provides an innovative approach todeveloping self-esteem and deterring offending among young people. It was establishedby a group of Brisbane community elders to supervise Indigenous young people on courtorders (Piabun submission 398). Initially the program had the support of the Departmentof Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and the program claimedconsiderable success in preventing re-offending. State government funding for theprogram was stopped in December 1995 and not recommenced until the later part of 1996(Mark Johnson submission 751 page 7). It was suggested that the decision to stop fundingwas related to resistance by the elders to greater departmental control over the project(submission 398).