Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

submission 309, Anglican Church Social Responsibilities Commission submission525) and research commissioned by the Inquiry (Iorns 1996) drew attention to thedevelopment of Indigenous self-determination models in other countries. In theseexamples, self-determination for Indigenous peoples has involved the complete orpartial transfer of jurisdiction for the administration of juvenile justice and childwelfare. The devolution of self-government powers to Indigenous peoples in Canadahas occurred in the absence of federal government recognition of an obligation atinternational law but rather in recognition of the desirability of the transfer in theinterests of Indigenous survival and national well-being (Iorns 1996 page 21).United StatesThe decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall during the first half of thenineteenth century recognised that Indian tribes have an inherent right of tribalsovereignty and are entitled to self-government. In 1832 in Worcester v Georgia theSupreme Court struck down a series of laws enacted by the State of Georgia whichwould have had the effect of nullifying the Cherokee Nation’s constitution and itscustomary law. It affirmed that, although no longer completely sovereign, Indiannations retained their inherent right to self-government. Since then Indiangovernments have been entitled to exercise legislative, executive and judicial powers,subject to the powers of the US Federal Government. Most Indian nations have someland on which to base their government structures and authorities (Iorns 1996 page 22).Two developments of particular interest to this Inquiry are the Indian ChildWelfare Act and tribal courts. Commonwealth legislation along the lines of the IndianChild Welfare Act 1978 has been recommended to the Inquiry in numeroussubmissions (see for example SNAICC submission 347, Anglican Social ResponsibilitiesCommission submission 525 pages 9-11).The Indian Child Welfare Act 1978 is a Federal Act passed by the US Congressin response to the American Policy Review Commission’s recommendations. TheCommission was established by Congress in the mid-1970s to examine, among othermatters, current law and practice as it affected Indian people. The Task Force’s FinalReport outlined the need for Indian child welfare legislation.The Task Force Report cites a frequently asked question: since both Indian and non-Indiansystems act in the best interests of the child, what difference does it make as to who makesdecisions about Indian children. The answer to the question is then set out in the Report. Thedifference is that these decisions are inherently biased by the cultural setting of the decisionmaker … when decisions are made by non-Indian authorities (quoted by Thorne undated onpage 1).The Task Force noted the discretionary nature of child welfare interventions andthe cultural judgments explicitly and implicitly made by non-Indian welfare officerswhen intervening in Indian families (Thorne undated page 3).In the hearings which preceded passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act, theCongressional Committee found that Indian children are the most vital resource forthe continued existence of Indian Tribes and therefore must be protected. It also foundthat an alarmingly high proportion of Indian families were broken up by the oftenunwarranted removal of children by public and private agencies and that an