Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3534 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I endorse that absolutely, as Mr Stanhope did. Mr Stanhope went to some lengths to talk about the latter part-the necessity for the policies and programs that make a practical difference to be introduced, established and supported by the government of the day, whoever it may be. I support that call. I do not think that is happening nearly well enough in the ACT. I can tell you right now several services that need to be better funded and services that need to be established.

I have only had time to briefly skim through the government's report on implementation of the Bringing them home report. It acknowledges what government has done, which is what one expects government to do. But within existing services there is a lot of pressure and stress that needs to be addressed if the government is genuine in its commitment to making policies and programs work so that there is a practical difference.

Whether it is the need for Winnunga Nimmityjah and Gugan Gulwan to be better resourced, whether it is the need to have a greater focus on substance abuse, whether it is the need to have a rehabilitation facility for indigenous young people and older people, whether it is the need to look at housing issues for indigenous people in a more concentrated way, whether it is the need to look at the children dropping out of school, there are plenty of areas in which we can improve what is occurring in the ACT.

Fundamental to any reconciliation is respect for indigenous people. That means seeking advice from elders of their community, respecting their position and facilitating their input in any discussion. That means providing something as basic as transport, which often does not occur when there are consultations or discussions.

I did manage to read that section of the Bringing them home implementation report on cultural awareness training. You notice a quite inconsistent approach to professional and cross-cultural training among government departments. Corrective Services consider cross-cultural training as imperative and have facilitated compulsory cultural awareness training. In other departments it is sometimes available at training sessions and sometimes can be taken up. I would be interested to see an evaluation of how many people do take it up. What happens to people who consistently do not take it up? That may be where the problem lies in a particular work force. In any work force there may be a group of people who can cause quite serious damage just because of their prejudice and ignorance. While I appreciate and support having cross-cultural training, I think there needs to be more follow-up of who picks it up and, if people do not pick it up, why they do not. Do they need to be encouraged to do so or should the training be made compulsory, as it is in Corrective Services?

There is lots of work to be done, but I welcome this recommitment from the Assembly to reconciliation. I hope we can work together in that spirit.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney-General and Treasurer) (4.15), in reply: I agree with Ms Tucker that the Assembly has come a long way come and that we have a very good basis for promoting a community debate about reconciliation. I hope that that is the view by the members as well.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .