Chapter 3 - Finding the solution
I saw program after
program start and then abruptly stop because there was no more funding left,
there were no more staff and the community eventually lost interest in trying
to keep programs going. They were getting stressed and sick themselves. No-one
was there to help.[115]
Introduction
3.1
Governments, non-government organisations and Indigenous
communities themselves have sought to put in place interventions to stem the
tide of young people sniffing petrol. In some Indigenous communities the
incidence of petrol sniffing has declined.
3.2
However, despite the inordinate number of inquiries and
the flood of recommendations that have been made, Indigenous communities continue
to struggle to control petrol sniffing and expressed frustration at the lack of
progress:
The feeling in the Bush
is that there have been enough enquiries, meetings, workshops, seminars,
reports and committees on sniffing - some real action is required in 2005.[116]
ADCA [Alcohol and other
Drugs Council of Australia] supports an inquiry into this matter, however is
conscious that despite numerous reports & inquiries in the past calling for
a Government response to petrol sniffing (d’Abbs & Brady 2004), there has
yet to be a sustained approach, creating much frustration within effected
communities. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC),
numerous coronial inquiries & the NT Inquiry into Petrol Sniffing in Remote
Northern Territory Communities are some examples that have demonstrated clear
recommendations, many of which that have not been implemented to the
satisfaction of communities concerned.[117]
3.3
Other witnesses pointed to the lack of coordination of
programs and lack of understanding of the needs of Indigenous communities:
Just look at all the non-indigenous people engaged in the field of
indigenous support. You have the ICC, ILC, NLC, IBA, ABTA, NT Govt, Centrelink,
and on and on it goes. Lots of non-indigenous people on fat salaries in fancy
office buildings and brand new vehicles. They come out here in their droves.
They fill out forms, write reports, express all sorts of sympathetic attitudes,
then go back to their neat offices incapable of actually making a difference. I
see it every week. Millions and millions of dollars spent on bureaucracy, with
very little actually reaching this community.[118]
That is why I keep returning to that lack of commitment, that
lack of embedded support and skill in communities. There are no more excuses
that can be made for the inaction, spin and deceit about what it is really like
in these communities and for how little action governments have really taken
over the years.[119]
The service providers and the government are running around
there. If you get a bunch of marbles and chuck them on a table, what happens to
them? They scatter. This is exactly how the government and the service
providers are running around out there. They are putting their little programs
in their pockets and not working together. They should put their heads together
and work as one. They should establish an office in Umuwa or somewhere, where
every service provider can meet to talk and run programs. We have to do a trial
in one of the communities and see how that goes, as well as still doing those
other programs.[120]
Comprehensive approach
3.4
It is clear that short-term solutions will not be found
to prevent petrol sniffing in Indigenous communities. As highlighted in the
previous chapter, the causes of petrol sniffing are diverse and go to the very
nature of life in remote communities. The programs to overcome the problem need
to be comprehensive and sustained. Without this, petrol sniffers will either move
to areas where they can obtain sniffable petrol or move onto another form of
substance abuse. This has been highlighted in over twenty years of reports and
inquiries.
3.5
Witnesses argued that neither an approach which is
based fully on the delivery of services by government nor an approach which
relies on often small Indigenous communities to deliver a range of services to
address a complex issue will be successful. The need for a holistic approach
was advocated. It was also argued that there is no 'quick fix' and intervention
programs are likely to fail if they are too narrow in their focus and provided
without appropriate supports. Mrs Ngitji
Ngitji Mona Kennedy
Tur commented:
I believe change can be effective only if a holistic approach is
taken – that is, that the government, with the APY community, consider all
social indicators, such as health, housing, education, employment and economic
status, which impact on why Anangu might take up petrol sniffing. We do not
want to lose our children and family to this poison. We need to understand the
long-term impacts of petrol sniffing on generations of Anangu families. Anangu
have a strong culture and we want to continue to keep our culture strong. The
government need to take this seriously.[121]
3.6
The Australian Indigenous Doctors' Association (AIDA) supported
the need for commitment and effort by governments 'as well as individuals,
families and communities themselves. No one party can achieve
the results on their own.'[122] The
Waltja Tjutangku Palyapayi Aboriginal Corporation stated:
An holistic and sustained response addressing the reasons why so
many young Aboriginal people are sniffing petrol or engaging in less publicised
but equally destructive behaviours – in our region, bringing together community
members, key Aboriginal organisations and other service providers and all tiers
or government, including local governance bodies in communities is required if
we are to have any lasting positive impact on petrol sniffing and similar
behaviour in remote communities.[123]
3.7
Associate Professor Dennis
Gray argued, like many others, that imposing
a solution will not work:
There is a long history within Indigenous Affairs that demonstrates
that defining problems and imposing solutions from outside does not work. This
has led to the policies of self-determination and self-management but
unfortunately, as Peter d'Abbs
pointed out to the coronial inquiry into petrol sniffing, all too often that
has meant that government agencies have abrogated their responsibility to
communities and just left it to communities. That does not work either.[124]
3.8
Associate Professor Peter d'Abbs also commented that 'for
many years the standard response from all levels of government and all political
persuasions was that it was a community problem...that was often dressed up as
self-determination'. In recent years a number of governments have acknowledged
that they have a vital part to play and that there are 'welcome signs of
cooperation between governments and between levels of government'.[125]
3.9
Professor d'Abbs went on to argue that rather than
looking at what interventions would work, the preconditions that need to be
established for the interventions to be successful need to be identified. Professor
d'Abbs saw the need for people in
communities who have an understanding of the problems of petrol sniffing and
who stay on a long-term basis, for sustained funding of programs and for the identification
of key challenges including the development of models of service delivery.[126]
3.10
Other witnesses argued that in order to address petrol
sniffing, the underlying causes need to be addressed. Professor
Ted Wilkes
commented:
Clearly, short-term solutions will only be effective if the structural
determinants of petrol abuse are also addressed. In the short term, sniffable
fuel resources accessible to sniffers need to be stopped and abrogated,
services available need to be upgraded, youth workers need to be accessible and
well resourced, and legislation that supports these strategies needs to be put
in place. In the long term, petrol sniffing needs to be viewed in the context
of the social circumstances in which it is occurring. It is the habitual
feelings of hopelessness, boredom and lack of opportunity, not the petrol
itself, which make the addiction chronic.[127]
3.11
Concerns were expressed about the common tendency for
chronic abusers of volatile substances to switch to another available substance
or move to another community if the only strategy employed was the restriction
of the supply of the preferred substance:
Despite the success of measures to reduce the supply of
sniffable fuels, it is clear that such measures are not sufficient, of
themselves. For example, there have been recent anecdotal reports that where Opal has been introduced, petrol
sniffers have turned to using paint. This highlights the need to address the
root causes of petrol sniffing if any lasting impact is to be achieved.[128]
Whilst effective supply reduction strategies (such as
replacement fuels) in remote communities can have great impact, it is vital
that proportionate effort is devoted to other concurrent strategies addressing
the complex issues underlying substance misuse. Supply reduction measures
targeting one type of volatile substance alone can precipitate a shift among
users to another volatile substance or a different drug altogether.[129]
3.12
The transient nature of Indigenous people also means
sniffers readily move from one State or Territory to another if their supply is
restricted and petrol is accessible in a nearby community. In addition,
traffickers cross borders to supply petrol to sniffers. The tri-state (Western
Australia, South Australia
and Northern Territory)
strategies that aim to address these cross border issues are discussed in chapter
4.
3.13
The key components to solving the problems of petrol
sniffing will be a holistic approach: a whole-of-government approach, matched
with on-going commitment and sustained funding of programs, which engages
Indigenous communities.
Whole-of-government approach
3.14
The need for improved coordination of government
programs and a whole-of-government approach has been well recognised:
It is particularly important that Inter-Governmental
coordination of approach be a high priority in order to avoid the fragmentation
of effort and confusion and alienation of service-providers which are features
of current service delivery to Anangu communities.[130]
3.15
The Remote Area Health Service commented on the
problems of dealing with multiple agencies in undertaking projects:
Projects are written in a very short-sighted way. They are
written in silos. I would love to work in communities with the Department of
Housing... But we do not work with the Department of Housing. It is very rare to
get projects integrated – not just across the education and health agencies but
energy and housing.[131]
3.16
State and Territory Governments support a
whole-of-government approach.[132] The
Western Australian Government commented that such an approach may be difficult
but that:
...a whole-of-government approach has to be taken to this issue
and it needs to encompass prevention, supply control and reduction of demand.
Obviously, the coordination of that whole-of-government approach is easier said
than done...petrol sniffing is both a problem of itself, with its own causes and
consequences, and symptomatic of a long history, the experience of Aboriginal
people in remote communities over time and their social and economic
circumstances.[133]
3.17
The AIDA suggested that
initiatives must encompass wider whole-of-government strategies that address
the underlying cause of sniffing:
Evidence also suggests that measures aimed only at combating
petrol sniffing are not sufficient of themselves and there is a need to address
the root causes of petrol sniffing if any lasting impact is to be achieved.
This indicates that strategies to combat petrol sniffing should be located
within wider, whole-of-government initiatives to improve the health, education,
and socioeconomic status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
communities.[134]
3.18
At the national level a number of strategies have been
put in place: the National Inhalant Abuse Taskforce; the National Drug
Strategy; and the Eight Point Regional Strategy for Central
Australia.
National Inhalant Abuse Taskforce
3.19
The National Inhalant Abuse Taskforce (NIAT) was
established in recognition that there is currently no coordinated systematic
response to inhalant abuse.
3.20
Over an 18-month period, NIAT extensively researched and
investigated programs and interventions and consulted a wide range of
stakeholders in relation to inhalant abuse and concluded:
Inhalant abuse is a complex phenomenon that demands a truly
whole-of-government and cross-sectorial response. Government departments at
different levels, across a breadth of diverse portfolio areas, including
health, education, justice, police, youth, sport and recreation, must work
together to offer a collaborative and seamless response to inhalant abuse.[135]
National Drug Strategy
3.21
The National Drug Strategy recommends a comprehensive
approach to drug-related harm involving a balance between demand reduction,
supply reduction and harm reduction strategies.[136] Under the National Drug Strategy,
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Complementary Action Plan
2003-06 complements the issues raised in the Strategy. The Complementary Action
Plan 'stresses the need for culturally appropriate solutions that cover the
whole-of-life and the entire population. Partnerships across governments and
portfolios, and with communities are needed'.[137]
3.22
Associate Professor Gray
commented that the National Drug Strategy provides a framework for addressing
petrol sniffing:
...we should not be reinventing the wheel. Australia
already has a National Drug Strategy. It has been evaluated. It has been effective
and it is seen as a model in other countries. As well as the main plan, there
is a complementary action plan for dealing with substance misuse issues amongst
Indigenous people...Together, those documents provide a framework for addressing
petrol sniffing.
There are some key elements in that, in both of those documents.
We have to address issues of supply, issues of demand and issues of immediate
harm from drugs. They are three central planks of the National Drug Strategy.
The other, which is encapsulated in the complementary action plan, is that we
should be working with Aboriginal groups and not imposing solutions.[138]
Eight Point Regional Strategy for Central
Australia
3.23
The need to work cooperatively to address the
problem of petrol sniffing has been recognised by the South Australian, Western Australian, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments. The
Governments have agreed to implement a comprehensive strategy, the Eight
Point Regional Strategy for Central Australia (the Eight Point Plan), with Indigenous people in a designated area
of Central Australia. The goals of the Strategy are:
- to reduce the incidence and impact of petrol
sniffing in a defined area of Central Australia by addressing the complex mix
of interrelated causes and contextual factors contributing to this activity;
and
- to evaluate the effectiveness of a regional and
comprehensive response to petrol sniffing to determine whether and how it might
usefully be expanded to other regions with similar issues.
3.24
The
Eight Point Plan involves the following elements:
- implement a consistent legal framework across
the region;
- provide an appropriate level of policing;
- implement regional roll-out of Opal fuel;
- facilitate alternative activities for people in
the region;
- provide treatment and respite facilities;
- implement communication and education strategies;
- strengthen and support communities; and
- implement an evaluation strategy.[139]
3.25
The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) and the
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA)
noted that the strategy will be implemented at a regional and local level: at
the regional level governments will address issues such as trafficking,
supplying non-sniffable fuel and treatment facilities; and at the local level
the strategy will be jointly implemented by Indigenous people from the region,
State/Territory Governments and the Commonwealth. The Strategy will take
account of the different circumstances and needs of the communities in the
region and will therefore need to be implemented on a community-by-community
basis.
3.26
The Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC) stated
that this strategy was aimed at 'introducing a holistic approach to the problem
of petrol sniffing' which will cover a range of issues other than the roll out
of Opal, for example diversionary programs:
The government decided that the response required more than just
Opal fuel and that we had to deal with supply issues, which meant non-sniffable
fuel that stopped the trafficking of sniffable fuels and other harmful substances.
So there is a strategy around that. The government knew that, once the
availability of these substances was denied these communities, there would have
to be some action to help them recover – some diversionary programs.[140]
3.27
Specific responsibilities will be spelt out in Shared
Responsibility Agreements with each affected Indigenous community and
reinforced through the development of Regional Partnership Agreements where
necessary. It was noted that:
...where the community is seeking to take the initiative to
address petrol sniffing issues in the community, as opposed to a range of other
activities, and where it is seeking to develop a coordinated and holistic
approach, then basically we are seeking with each of those communities to bring
those things together under shared responsibility agreements or regional
partnership agreements where we spell out what the Australian government will
provide, what the Territory government will provide or what any third parties
will provide and also what the community itself will do. An example at the
moment is that in the last couple of days we have signed an agreement with the
Nganampa community that will provide them with a community store, but it is
also part of a broader endeavour within the community to address their petrol
sniffing problems.[141]
3.28
The Commonwealth will also seek to have the strategy
itself become a schedule to the Overarching Bilateral Agreements regarding
Indigenous affairs signed or being negotiated by each of the State/Territory
Governments with the Commonwealth.
3.29
An Advisory Group of experts is assisting the Commonwealth
on the development of diversionary strategies and preventative measures under
the strategy. Its members are Mrs Sue
Gordon, Dr
Peter d'Abbs,
Mr John Thurtell,
Mr Damian
McLean and (until February 2006) Mr
Gregory Andrews.[142]
3.30
The strategy will link with the work being done by and,
as appropriate, be implemented with the support of the Central Australian Cross
Border Reference Group on Volatile Substance Use (VSU) and other key related activities
such as the tri-state policing initiatives being implemented under the Cross
Border Justice Project. The Reference Group consists of representatives of the
Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, Aboriginal Health Forums, and
service providers such as Nganampa Health Council, Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara
Yankunytjatjara Women's Council, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Council,
Ngaanyatjarra Health Service and Ngaanyatjarra Council.
3.31
The Departments indicated that given the complexity of
the issues being addressed, the Eight Point Plan will need to be in place for a
number of years. It was stated that 'while the rolling evaluation strategy and
ongoing relationships between the stakeholders will inform adjustments to the
strategy, a long-term commitment from the respective governments is required to
give communities the confidence to tackle this issue in a sustained way'.[143]
3.32
DoHA and
DIMIA concluded:
The regional strategy seeks to strengthen partnerships between
communities, service providers, State/Territory and Australian Governments for
tailored, consistent and sustained initiatives that will make a long-lasting
impact on petrol sniffing and potentially other substance misuse.
Increasingly governments will need to rapidly build on whole of
government approaches which support action at community and regional level if a
significant impact is to be made on both petrol sniffing activities and the
social and economic environments which encourage them.[144]
3.33
On the whole, the Eight Point Plan has been welcomed and
there is general acceptance that the elements represent what is needed to
address the problem of petrol sniffing. The Northern Territory Government
stated that:
The elements of the eight-point plan have provided us with a
good framework for beginning discussions. I think it would be fair to say that
more work needs to be done. The Northern Territory
police express great appreciation of the process. As a result of the process,
the Commonwealth has funded, with NT funding for ongoing operations, the
Central Australian intelligence drug desk, which will fill a key gap around
trafficking. It is a key strategy linked with Opal and our ongoing efforts in
community engagement.[145]
3.34
However, the limited geographic scope and the trial
nature of the strategy drew much criticism. CAYLUS commented that the plan
covers only three communities in the Northern Territory
(Mutitjulu, Docker River
and Imanpa) 'which is only a tiny fragment of the problem'.[146] Other communities will not be
included:
...it sounds like Central Australia is
going to benefit from the eight-point plan, whereas really only three
communities in Central Australia are going to directly
benefit from the eight-point plan. Because the money comes from the ABA
and it is Northern Territory
money, that money can only be spent in the Northern
Territory, and so it will be spent in those three
communities. Finke, across the road, gets nothing. Areyonga, another
Pitjantjatjara community just up, gets nothing.[147]
3.35
Waltja Tjutangku Palyapayi Aboriginal Corporation also
noted that not only is the strategy limited to three communities in the Northern
Territory but also it is a trial:
...that the project itself was another "trial" or
"pilot project"...people already know basically what is required so we
don’t need any more "pilots" or "trials"...we are concerned
about "pilots" because our experience of them is that even if you do
a really successful project there is either a gap in being re-funded on a more
permanent basis (which means you often lose the experienced staff members who
were employed in the "pilot" stage) or more often, that the funding
bucket simply "disappears".[148]
3.36
A perceived lack of comprehensiveness of the individual
elements and insufficient consultation as the plan was rolled out were also
voiced in evidence. The Alice Springs Council argued that remote health
workforces should be included in the plan particularly in training programs on petrol
sniffing.[149] Tangentyere Council
voiced their disappointment at the lack of consultation with Indigenous people
and the target group.[150] This
concern was echoed by Professor Ted
Wilkes:
I again would refer to the fact that the government of the day,
in developing plans, is always going to be flying in the face of Aboriginal
leaders. Your ministers right through to senior bureaucrats have to be advised
that the better way to do this is to ask the leaders of a particular sector.[151]
3.37
OIPC responded to these comments indicating that while there
was no 'broad' community consultation, there had been input from an expert
advisory group and a range of stakeholders had commented on various elements of
the plan.[152] OIPC added:
The message coming to government from the community and from
inquiries like the coronial inquiry that my colleague mentioned is that there
is a crisis, particularly in Central Australia, that
needs the attention of governments. So the Australian government took the lead
in drawing together three jurisdictions, putting additional resources on the
table and suggesting a way forward. We got agreement with those jurisdictions
and we are now proceeding with the implementation arrangements. Depending on
what aspect we are working on, that involves consultation with agencies or with
communities.[153]
3.38
In relation to concerns about the inclusiveness of the
strategy, OIPC noted that it was a 'work in progress':
We have a plan that we are putting into effect. We are not
pretending that all of the issues are covered; it is very much a work in
progress. As we learn more about the challenge, we are adding to the approach
we are taking. It certainly should not be inferred that we are focusing on
petrol sniffing only in the central regions of Australia.
We are of course tackling issues of substance misuse wherever they occur.[154]
3.39
DoHA also stated
that it is clear that one of the goals of the strategy is to evaluate the
effectiveness of a regional and comprehensive response to petrol sniffing to
determine whether and how it might be usefully expanded to other regions with
similar issues. The identification of a designated region was to see whether,
in cooperation with jurisdictions, a comprehensive multi-government approach could
be undertaken within a geographic area and to evaluate the approach to
ascertain what lessons could be learnt.[155]
OPIC also commented that it is consulting with the Western Australian Government
about a further priority area and it has agreed on two priority areas in the Northern
Territory. OIPC concluded:
We are now talking about what we will do and how we will do it,
and in that discussion we are applying the learning from this. So it is a
reasonable expectation that the relevant results of this trial will flow
elsewhere in due course.[156]
Engagement with communities
3.40
The effective engagement of Indigenous communities is
essential in successfully addressing the issue of petrol sniffing. All
successful approaches examined by the Committee contained a critical common
element, which was the engagement and support of the Aboriginal communities in
the planning and implementation of the initiatives.
3.41
Tangentyere Council provided evidence on the importance
of community driven initiatives in combating sniffing:
In the central Australian region the most effective initiatives
have been those directed and initiated by Indigenous people. In many cases the
success has required support from external bodies or people working in
partnership with local people to achieve this success. The most successful
initiatives are Mt Theo
and the Yarrenyty Arltere Learning Centre.[157]
3.42
Mrs Tur
commented on the need to involve communities, particularly women in communities:
The solution is really not with people like me but actually
going to talk with the community face to face. I think that is where you will
find the solution. I read out what the women from Spear Creek said. They are
amazing solutions coming from traditional women who want those things to go
ahead to save their children.[158]
Mrs
Tur went on to provide this example of the type
of consultation with Indigenous communities that is required:
I would sit down on the manta, on the land, with the Anangu and
say, 'How can we do it together? I would not send in people from outside to
make all the decisions. That is the only way that I would do it. I would go
back and sit with the people and say: 'We've got this problem here. How are we
going to look at it as a family, as a walytjapiti? How are we going to look at
it? Once we had talked, I would then reach out to the people. I really feel
that it should come from the people – like those women who want this complex
for their people. I do not think they have been given the opportunity to even
interview the people who they want there. It is chosen by other people who know
nothing about Anangu and the culture.[159]
3.43
Mrs Wendy
Casey, Western Australian Aboriginal Alcohol
and Other Drugs Program, provided this example of community involvement and
leadership to stamp out sniffing:
In my experience in the Warmun community...the Warmun Local Drug
Action Group did have a little outbreak of sniffing and they very quickly
nipped it in the bud by using the whole-of-community approach, isolating where
they were getting the fuel from, getting the whole community together, having a
meeting, bringing the kids out and trying to work out where these kids'
families were. Part of the issue was that the kids' families were not present.
They were able to place those kids into their extended family and they nipped
it in the bud within a matter of a week. That happened a few years ago, but it
was the persistence of the community that identified that. I think in other
communities that is often the case. Kids who are not well supervised and
supported tend to run amok.[160]
The Western Australia Police Service concluded:
Community leadership is absolutely crucial. You see some real
model communities, particularly in WA, and others where leadership and mentoring
really need to come to the fore.[161]
3.44
The Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments
have recognised the need for an approach which effectively engages Indigenous
communities. The South Australia Government stated:
The South Australian Government is fundamentally committed to
the practice of genuine consultation with Aboriginal communities and their
leadership...In the [State Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliations
(DAARE) Doing it Right] policy, the Government pledges that: "engagement and
partnership with Aboriginal communities will be the platform for sustained
improvement in the well being of Aboriginal families." This commitment has
enabled this Government to forge strong partnerships through which Aboriginal
communities and the Government are working together to address entrenched
disadvantage and its effects, including petrol sniffing.[162]
3.45
DoHA and
DIMIA outlined the Commonwealth's view:
The most successful strategies are community initiated, enjoy
widespread community support and involve strong participation of community
members. Interventions proposed by the community need to complement those
undertaken by families, and family actions must be consistent with community
strategies. Developing and fostering community cohesion and support for
interventions is therefore critical in any anti-petrol sniffing campaign. Some
communities have requested ongoing support to assist them in dealing with
petrol sniffing, thus it is important to maintain the continuity of any
intervention.[163]
3.46
Governments have been attempting to improve the
operation of their programs in Indigenous communities. The South Australia
Government stated that it has committed, in the APY Lands and Yalata, to
respond 'to local challenges in a thorough and coordinated way, and by working
in close partnership with local communities and the Australian Government'.[164]
3.47
The Commonwealth operates Indigenous Coordination
Centres (ICC) in 30 locations around Australia
which coordinate Commonwealth program funding and services to local Indigenous
people. The Commonwealth has stated that:
The Government wants to find better ways to work with Indigenous
people, and knows that it alone cannot make life better for Indigenous
communities and families. Both government and Indigenous people have rights and
obligations and all must share responsibility for making real and beneficial
change in people's lives.[165]
3.48
During the Community Affairs Legislation Committee's
examination of estimates in May 2006, concerns about the staffing and location
of staff of ICCs were raised. The Department of Families, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs stated that some staff at ICCs were being changed as
more senior, experienced and well-educated staff were required to do the work
the Government wants to do: 'some have rationalised those arrangements so that
they have core contract management and grant
management cells and are replacing those staff with more senior people who can
perform the solution broker type activity'. In some cases this has been
proceeding more slowly than preferred.[166]
3.49
In some instances, these more senior staff are being
placed in a hub that services a number of ICCs:
That may have been seen as some withdrawal of involvement, but
it is essentially agencies coming to terms with the fact that they need a
higher level of skills for the more strategic work that they are involved with
in contributing to SRAs and more effectively managing programs.[167]
3.50
While these initiatives have been a step in the right
direction, greater coordination and cooperation between all levels of
government on the delivery of programs aimed at Indigenous societies is needed.
Ongoing commitment to programs
3.51
A major concern in evidence was the need to ensure that
there is ongoing commitment to programs particularly funding commitment. This
was seen as being crucial to ensuring that the full benefits from initiatives
that address petrol sniffing and broader social and economic problems are
gained. Associate Professor Peter
d'Abbs emphasised to the Committee that sustained
funding was one of the preconditions that needed to be established in order for
any intervention to have any chance of success. Professor
d'Abbs stated that it did not have to be 'unconditional,
unaccountable funding, but it has to be something more than stopgap pilot funding'.[168]
3.52
The concerns about the limited life span, the trial
nature and the poor or unclear exit strategy of many initiatives were echoed by
many witnesses and were seen as major factors in undermining long-term success.[169] A lack of flexibility regarding
unspent funding in any one financial year will also act to prevent achievement
of agreed outcomes. Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drug Services Queensland commented:
We go in there with our program and we are successful for that
period, and then when the program and the funding is finished everything
collapses – the whole structure collapses again – and everybody goes back to
the norm. We need to address some of the funding issues: for instance, funding
for support workers.[170]
3.53
Tangentyere Council noted the disruptive effect of
constantly renegotiating funding arrangements for staff positions and programs
and the need for on-going funding:
If you do not have consistency, you start all over again. The
minute you stop a program and all the staff leave, because they have no ongoing
job, everything falls in a big heap. A new person comes along and you start 10
steps back from what you already had before. I think Larapinta would suffer the
same consequence. I will probably have to spend a lot of my time between now
and June figuring out where we can get funding,
because our funding will finish, and that will be incredibly time consuming.[171]
3.54
Tangentyere Council concluded:
...everything that we can seem to access is short-term, and
short-term funding is never going to solve these sorts of problems. So, unless
the government commits to recurrent funding and long-term solutions, we will
always be chasing our tails and what we have done will be completely undone.[172]
3.55
The example of CAYLUS was given as a program where
inconsistent funding can undermine an outstanding initiative:
We play a fairly important coordinating role. We were
independently evaluated before they gave us the current lot of three years of
funding. The evaluation said that we were doing a really good job, but who
knows what will happen. When CAYLUS first started, it had 18 months of funding
and we kicked a heap of goals in those 18 months to the point where the
evaluation that they commissioned at the last minute, in about March when we
were running out of money in June, said that we
were really state-of-the-art. They looked at a couple of other petrol-sniffing
programs that have been funded and were not doing so well and said that they
should look at how CAYLUS is doing it. Our funding ran out in June
and there was a bit of money left over in some of our budgets, so we continued
on. Tangentyere carried us at that point...Eventually they re-funded us and we
got the money in the bank in December.[173]
3.56
CAYLUS voiced the fear that without its services petrol
sniffing would increase and many other important activities that CAYLUS had
generated would be lost. It concluded that 'the corporate knowledge can just
walk out the door in the gaps that are created by the funding bodies. We have
18 months to fix petrol sniffing in Central Australia'.[174]
3.57
State and Territory Governments also recognised the problems
in short-term funding of programs. The Northern Territory Government stated:
One of the areas that I think needs strengthening is the
reliance on one-off projects, particularly in the area of prevention. People
have talked to us about that for a very long time – pilots and one-off tied
funding. The problem is that, in some communities, gaining momentum is very
difficult in the first place; to have gained momentum and have the program end is
very discouraging; and then to try to rebuild that momentum is very difficult...'communities'
– I use the term very broadly there – have been very explicit about what they
think the gaps are, so an overreliance on one-off funding in the prevention
area I think needs to be considered.[175]
3.58
The Western Australia Government pointed to a recent review
of Aboriginal health which concluded that 'the endless search for innovation
ends up in stop-start funding that works against the continuation of basic
services. This is an area where we really need to consolidate the basics.'[176]
3.59
The Western Australian Government commented that it had
generally adopted the position in the funding of non-government services that
it ought to be tri-annually based and indexed. In its negotiations with the Commonwealth
over the bilateral agreement on Indigenous affairs, the Government has 'insisted
on the same policy principle being adopted into that bilateral agreement as
well'. The Government concluded:
It is a recognition that, within the limits of our respective
financial administration acts, when we enter into these agreements or contracts
there ought to be some certainty to allow for planning and continuity. That has
been an important development in the state jurisdiction, which we are hoping
the Commonwealth will agree to in the context of the bilateral agreement.[177]
3.60
The South Australian Government also supported the need
for greater funding stability and stated:
Finally, it is incumbent on all parties and on all levels of
government to acknowledge the importance of developing, funding, delivering and
sustaining comprehensive programmatic responses, as opposed to the ad hoc,
short-term and isolationist ones that have proliferated over the last
twenty-five years.[178]
3.61
The Commonwealth has also recognised the disruptive
effects of short-term funding. OIPC stated that:
...we are concerned that the short-term nature of funding
contracts, particularly in remote Australia,
makes it almost impossible to effectively manage a cadre of support workers and
that is something we are looking to change. That involves consultation with the
state and territory jurisdictions, because they also contribute funding to
these organisations and we need to reach agreement on a model. Our objective is
to move to at least a three-year model for funding and...to move away from a lot
of little organisations to a bigger organisation.[179]
Conclusion
3.62
The problem that petrol sniffing posses for sniffers,
their families and the community is well known: with twenty years of reports,
inquires and coronial inquests it could not be otherwise.
3.63
The Committee considers it is now time to move on from
inquiries and reports. To do so will require a comprehensive approach to
eradicating petrol sniffing. This means that there cannot be reliance solely on
small communities to provide programs to address a very complex problem nor can
there be a total reliance on government to deliver programs suitable to individual
communities that are self-governing and have different needs and goals. The
evidence is quite clear that the most successful programs are those which
combine an initiative that has come from the community and has strong community
ownership, but also has strong support from outside in its planning,
implementation and management. There must also be, as noted by Professor
d'Abbs, necessary preconditions for
interventions to be successful and the identification of key challenges and
appropriate service delivery models.
3.64
However, during the Committee's deliberations comments
were received which indicated that whole-of-government coordination was not
working effectively. While the Indigenous Coordination Centres have been
established to coordinate government program funding and services, the
Committee considers that there is a need to evaluate their operation with a
view to improving coordination of government programs.
Recommendation 6
3.65
That the Commonwealth evaluate, as a matter of urgency,
the effectiveness of Indigenous Coordination Centres' implementation of the
whole-of-government policy with a view to improving coordination of government
programs.
3.66
The Committee notes the introduction of the Eight Point
Plan into the designated areas of Central Australia and considers
that the Eight Point Plan is an important initiative. However, the Committee
was disappointed that there were complaints about the lack of effective
consultation with Indigenous communities before it was implemented. The
Committee considers that the lessons learnt from this initial implementation in
the designated area must be applied to all communities where petrol sniffing is
evident as quickly as possible. The Committee considers that the problem of petrol
sniffing is so wide-spread, so disruptive to communities (some to the point
where communities are on the verge of collapse) and robs so many young
Indigenous people of their future that there should be no restrictions on
funding of successful programs arising from the Eight Point Plan.
Recommendation 7
3.67
The Committee notes that the Eight Point Plan is being
developed for a designated area of Central Australia and
considers that this is an important step in addressing petrol sniffing. The
Committee considers that, as a matter of urgency, the Plan must be implemented
more widely and that effective community consultation must be part of the
implementation process. The Committee recommends that:
- the Commonwealth and State and Territory
Governments, as a matter of urgency, commit to the implementation of the Eight
Point Plan in all areas across Australia that have a substantial petrol
sniffing problem;
- a transparent strategy be developed for the
Plans further implementation including timing, evaluation and adaptive
management processes; and
- effective consultation be undertaken with
Indigenous communities before the Plan is implemented.
3.68
The Committee also notes that the evidence received pointed
to many successful programs that had been implemented in the past but had
ceased because of problems with funding, because they were only a trial or because
of lack of appropriate support. The Committee considers there are many
successful programs currently in place but these may fail to proceed for
exactly the same reasons. These programs are too important to be lost not only
because of the help they provide to individual communities but also because
they provide a way ahead for other communities to tackle petrol sniffing.
Recommendation 8
3.69
That the Commonwealth and State and Territory
Governments address the sporadic nature of funding and disruption of successful
programs by:
- committing to longer term funding models;
- actively assisting communities to access
government programs and meet the governance requirements; and
- providing long term support to successful
programs in Indigenous communities.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page