Workers in South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and New South Wales raised concerns about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Aboriginal workers often reported that there were no specific policies for Aboriginal young people leaving care. They also observed that leaving care could only be fully understood through considering why Aboriginal young people come into care. Tackling the issues of too much intervention and the over-representation of Aboriginal young people in the system was essential. Forced removal of Aboriginal children and young people from their families is sanctioned by the government and is still occurring, and it has long-term consequences.3
Most Aboriginal workers said there was too much
Young people leaving care and protection 39 1 As noted earlier a new set of standards was developed in 1996, revised in April 1997 and at the time of
writing, was undergoing trials.
2 Government sources suggest that that these issues will be addressed in New South Wales by the new draft standards for substitute care and additional funding of $4 million in 1997 8 and $8 million per year thereafter. 3 The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Bringing Them Home (1997) appeared after this
report had been submitted. It outlines in detail the experiences of Aboriginal people removed from their birth families and fostered by white people or brought up in institutional care.
intervention in people’s lives, which led to an over- representation of Aboriginal children and young people in the care system. This was partly due to insuf- ficient resources to prevent them entering care, and not enough willingness to give young people a chance, especially young women with babies. Workers said that generations of such practice have resulted in many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people losing their capacity to parent since they have not been exposed to good parenting models. Removal from communities perpetuates a historical problem rather than solving it.
Non-government workers reported that a great deal of suspicion of “the government” still exists within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Workers felt such suspicions were well founded as once Aboriginal children or young people are removed from home it is difficult to get them returned. As well, departments often have limited understanding of cultural differences and frequently fail to give parents sufficient information about what they need to do to have their children returned home.
Aboriginal workers believe decisions are still made on the basis of the colour of a person’s skin and are frequently different from decisions made with non- Aboriginal young people. Case practice fails to recognise the specific problems facing Aboriginal people. Aboriginal workers felt that some government officers did not understand the need to provide culturally specific services. Frequently young people are placed outside their community of origin, and also with non-Aboriginal families.
Government workers often fail to advocate for the young person’s ongoing contact with the family of origin when they are in non-Aboriginal foster placements. This frequently results in them being unable to identify with their community of origin and being further alienated when they become independent.
Concern was also expressed about the disparities in case-load sizes between government and Aboriginal agencies. Aboriginal agency staff frequently have unlimited caseloads and respond to clients on the basis of needs. This significantly affects their capacity to plan and effectively support all individuals and families that request assistance, and affects their ability to support young people who are being or who have been
discharged from care. As well, the agency recruits and trains foster carers, and there is no provision for them to provide ongoing support to these carers, which means the carers received little if any input to ensure they adequately prepare young people for independence.
Northern Territory workers expressed concern that there was insufficient departmental accountability to the community for its response to Aboriginal issues. An example given was that following the passage of the
Community Welfare Act 1983 (NT), the department
failed to appoint an Aboriginal worker in Child Protection until 1995. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of the appointment of only one worker given that more than half of the care population are Aborigines. While some States employed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, it was generally reported that more indigenous workers needed to be employed to work in the child protection system.
Of considerable concern to most Aboriginal workers (and some non-Aboriginal workers in Queensland and South Australia) is the fact that many Aboriginal young people, particularly males, are discharged from the care system into the juvenile justice system. They then progress into the adult correctional system when they are 17, even if they remain in care, where the age for protection is up to 18. Other concerns are that in the Northern Territory and Queensland, around 70 to 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system are Aboriginal.4 Workers in other States reported a similar problem though the figures varied. Workers reported that the transition-from-care process is clearly hazardous for most of these young people.
Of further concern is that there have been placement breakdowns when Aboriginal young people have been adopted by white families. These young people are “dislocated” from their community and family of origin, and have no understanding or sense of their own culture.
Workers strongly supported the policy of placing Aboriginal children and young people in kinship care; however, they felt that, to maintain these placements, this policy needs to be supported by the provision of more financial and other assistance than is currently available. Workers said failure to do this significantly disadvantaged young people who are already disad- vantaged in the care system.