Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

A widely recognised Aboriginal-run program in WA is the Lake Jasper Project. Theproject assists Indigenous young people and their families. Originally it was funded bythe Australian Youth Foundation and later by the State Government. However Statesupport has been withdrawn. The Inquiry was told that the project was established‘amidst massive opposition from all sections of the community’. ‘We structured theprogram and gave it what we considered to be strong Aboriginal values … to assist thekids with some of the social problems, some of the cultural problems and spiritualproblems that they were having’ (Mike Hill evidence 416). The WA Government told theInquiry that the Division of Juvenile Justice does not refer young people to the LakeJasper project although, if they were referred by the courts or other agencies, JuvenileJustice officers would provide supervision of orders (Exhibit 19).I believe the government has a political problem with the project and it’s about selfdetermination.I don’t think the government likes or wants to have Aboriginal people inautonomous areas of self-determination. It’s far too dangerous (Mike Hill evidence 416).Consistent with the right of self-determination, the Royal Commission intoAboriginal Deaths in Custody recognised that Indigenous organisations should play a keyrole in the sentencing process of Indigenous young people. Recommendation 235 states,That policies of government and the practices of agencies which have involvement withAboriginal juveniles in the welfare and criminal justice systems should recognise and becommitted to ensuring, through legislative enactment, that the primary sources of advice aboutthe interests and welfare of Aboriginal juveniles should be the families and community groups ofthe juveniles and specialist Aboriginal organisations, including Aboriginal Child Care Agencies(emphasis added).Nowhere is this recommendation adequately implemented. Recent research on theextent to which Indigenous organisations have a role in the sentencing process showsonly limited and discretionary involvement. Nationally there has been some improvementbut nowhere is the change as extensive as the Royal Commission recommendationdemanded (Cunneen and McDonald 1997 page 175). The Tasmanian Government’sreading of Recommendation 235 is illustrative.The proposed Youth Justice Bill enables families and other interested parties to be involved indecisions on the sanctioning of young people through the cautioning and family conferencingprocess (submission page D-25, emphasis added).The limitations of this approach in relation to both cautioning and conferencing havebeen noted above. Linda Briskman, an academic and researcher for the Secretariat ofNational Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, told the Inquiry,… self-determination seems to be equated with little more than consultation … When you look atgovernment self-determination policies, control is still maintained very strongly. Governmentshave actually been unwilling to transfer power to Aboriginal communities … that’s the crux ofthe problem (submission 134 pages 6 and 9).