Appendix 6
FaHCSIA answers to Question on Notice regarding Stronger Futures
Consultations
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into Stronger Futures in the
Northern Territory Bill 2011 and two related bills
Canberra
Hearing, Thursday 1 March 2012
Question No: FaHCSIA 1
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 29-30
Senator Siewert asked:
Whose decision was it to
immediately go to separate men’s and women’s meetings in Maningrida?
...
I asked both the men and
women if they were consulted about splitting the meeting and they said no. I
ask again: whose decision was it when the community just last week said they
were not consulted, they did not want to be split into men and women and they
made that point really strongly, I understand, during the consultation. So who
made that decision?
...
I think perhaps the best
thing to do would be for you to look at the Hansard and respond. What we heard
last week was very different from what you have just said—polar opposites, in
fact. Instead of pursuing it, I think the best thing is if you could look at it
and take it on record and get back to us.
Answer:
The Department has reviewed
the transcript of the Committee’s hearings in Maningrida and consulted with the
senior departmental facilitator for the Tier 2 meeting at Maningrida on 12 July
2011. Early in the meeting the facilitator formed the view, having regard to
the size of the meeting, that the large meeting format was unlikely to allow
for open dialogue by all, and suggested that the meeting be separated into
men’s and women’s sessions. This was supported by Minister Macklin who
indicated this to the meeting.
It should be noted that following the separate meetings, Minister Macklin
joined the men’s meeting and this enabled the men to discuss with her a range
of issues they had canvassed in their meeting, in which Minister Snowdon
participated.
It should be noted also that
the senior facilitator who handled the initial consultation on 12 July returned
to Maningrida on 22-23 August 2011 for two days of intensive follow-up
discussions, as agreed at the 12 July meeting. He was joined by a senior female
colleague and the Indigenous Engagement Officer from Maningrida. They met with
key organisations including the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, two health
services, the school, the Shire and Women’s Centre, and had full day of
discussions with people in a number of outstations.
The Department also wishes to
place on record the following comments about the practice of having separate
gender-based consultation meetings.
Understanding gender
perspectives is fundamental to effectively addressing many complex policy
issues.
Aboriginal women are a
vulnerable group in the Northern Territory and good consultation practice is to
provide an opportunity for women to safely make their input into the process.
Experience has shown that
Indigenous women are more likely to express their views openly in discussions
involving other women than they would in open public forums.
Experience has also shown
that on some issues, people are unwilling to discuss their views openly in the
company of the opposite sex. For example, the 2009 NTER Redesign consultations
highlighted that people frequently felt uncomfortable about discussing issues
around pornography and the pornography restrictions in open meetings.
One of the observations made
by the Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) in their
report of the 2009 NTER Redesign consultations was that smaller, separate
gender groups were most effective and that it was “important, where possible,
to separate into smaller male and female groups, to limit the dominance of men
in the discussion”. The 2011 Stronger Futures consultations sought to improve
on the 2009 consultations.
Despite the objections of
some men to this approach, separate men’s and women’s meetings are a critical
and legitimate component of the consultation process given community protocols
that often determine who has the authority to speak at larger, public meetings
on behalf of the community, and the Australian Government’s aim of gathering
feedback from a wide cross-section of the community in order to understand the
diversity of views.
The CIRCA report on the 2011
Stronger Futures consultations continued to express concern that the large
community meetings, while providing a forum for senior community members to
speak on behalf of the community, “limit the participation of young people and
(in some cases) women”.
Given that the intention with
the Stronger Futures consultations was to provide maximum opportunity for all
interested people to express their views frankly and openly, FaHCSIA made every
effort to ensure that people could still provide their views to the Government
if they might otherwise feel constrained from, or hesitant about, speaking up
in public meetings.
For this reason, people were
offered the chance to provide their views, either as individuals or in small
groups, to Government Business Managers or Indigenous Engagement Officers in
communities. A total of 378 of these small (Tier 1) consultation meetings were
undertaken. In addition, the option to conduct separate men’s and women’s
meetings was adopted for a number of whole-of-community (Tier 2) meetings; this
occurred in thirteen communities.
In practical terms, the
normal FaHCSIA practice in determining whether separate meetings should be
conducted is to gauge the views of members of the community beforehand. This
could involve the Government Business Manager and Indigenous Engagement
Officers having preliminary discussions prior to the date of the community
meeting. It could also involve the facilitator for the Tier 2 meeting
discussing this option prior to the commencement of the meeting.
In instances where it is
clear that men and women in a community have quite different perspectives on a
range of issues, a decision may be made – on the basis of best practice
indicated above, and possibly contrary to opinion from some parts of the
community – that the consultation should be conducted through separate
meetings.
It is also possible that
during a Tier 2 meeting, the facilitator, having regard to the mood and the
progress of the meeting, could suggest that it would be beneficial for the
meeting to split into separate (and smaller) groups in order to enable a wider
range of views to be put forward.
In order to facilitate the
conduct of separate meetings, or to be prepared for the possibility that the
meeting may decide to split into separate sessions, FaHCSIA sought to make
bookings for both female and male interpreters for Tier 2 meetings wherever
possible.
In relation to Maningrida,
background and community profile work done by the Department over the past few
years indicated that men and women in the community had different perspectives
on a range of issues. An example of a gendered response to local issues in
Maningrida is the Strong Women’s Night
Patrol Service, which has been established to address the level of violence
experienced by women and children.
The approach adopted at the
12 July 2011 Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory consultations followed
the approach adopted in the 2009 NTER Redesign consultations at Maningrida.
This involved a large community meeting breaking into separate men’s and
women’s meetings to discuss specific issues.
Question No: FaHCSIA 2
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 31
Senator Siewert asked:
You took a question on notice
from me earlier about whether there were any materials produced in language.
One of your answers was:
... research indicates that
if people are literate in their own languages they are likely to be literate in
English.
Could you take on notice the
research behind that statement please?
Answer:
The Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs does not usually translate
written materials into Indigenous languages. Evidence to support this approach
comes from both formal research and other more anecdotal feedback, including
advice from the Northern Territory Aboriginal Interpreter Service and feedback
from Government Business Managers.
The Department does, however,
make every attempt to translate audio presentations into Indigenous languages.
During the Stronger Futures consultations this included the use of interpreters
at community meetings and the translation of radio advertisements notifying
residents of consultations in their community (13 languages as well as
English).
More recently the Department
has produced a DVD outlining the main points of the Stronger Futures
legislation in simple English, and voiced also in 15 Indigenous languages. This
resource is available online and has been provided in disc form to Government
Business Managers and Indigenous Engagement Officers to pass on to individuals
or groups or for use in information sessions.
In 2008, the Department and
Centrelink commissioned a communications research project on the first phase of
communications for the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Some of the key
findings from this research were:
- “Due to cultural preferences for
oral information, reinforced by variable rates of literacy, verbal communication
is the clear preference for the way people in communities want to obtain
government information.
- Literacy levels in remote
Indigenous communities are much lower than in the general community.
- In general, if people can read
local language material they are usually able to read English as well.
- Written English material should be
kept to a ‘single message’ and kept simple.
- Local language material is not a
key solution — literacy problems are often in both English and local
languages”.
The researchers commented
generally on the ‘limitations inherent in written communications products’ and
reiterated in the more detailed discussion that ‘written local language
material in unlikely to be particularly effective at raising or reinforcing
awareness’.
These research findings are
consistent with other research including recent developmental research
undertaken by the Department of Health and Ageing to inform the social
marketing campaigns arising from the National Partnership Agreement on Closing
the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes. The ear health research report
undertaken by CIRCA in June 2010 found that:
- “... the overwhelming majority noted
that face-to-face information delivery was the most appropriate, as sharing
information in this way is considered culturally relevant and overcomes
potential literacy issues associated with written material.
- “...the resources that generated the
most positive comment were those that were highly visual, such as graphic
posters, flipcharts and a DVD. Participants were less engaged with resources
that were ‘text heavy’ or featured complicated pictures and language.”
Question No: FaHCSIA 3
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 31
Senator Siewert asked:
Did you do any discussion
papers in more easily understandable English or provide any materials or an
overhead or something?
Could you provide us with a
copy of that?
Answer:
Hard copy versions of the following materials
have been provided separately to the Committee Secretariat:
1. A simpler English
version of the discussion paper, which was produced for use in communities.
This became known colloquially as the ‘consultation paper’.
2. Four A3 size colour
posters used to notify the time and place of the Tier 2 community meetings;
3. Two double-sided A4
flyers that were used in communities to provide general information about the
Stronger Futures consultation process.
4. A flip-chart that was
provided to assist in the conduct of local meetings;
5. A double-sided flyer
that was circulated after the consultations were completed, thanking people for
their input to the consultations, summaring the feedback and briefly explaining
the next steps;
6. A double-sided flyer
that was released in communities in November 2011 to provide a summary of the measures
in the Stronger Futures legislation, and explain the opportunties for input to
the Senate Committee inquiry; and
7. A DVD that was provided
to communities in early 2012, outlining the measures in the legislation; the
voice-over text is tralslated into 15 Indigenous languages.
In its independent review of the Stronger
Futures consultations, the Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia
(CIRCA) had generally positive comments about the communication products, in
particular the ‘consultation paper’ (item 1 above).
The ‘consultation paper’ was the most commonly
used product and was made available at the majority of consultations attended
by CIRCA. Many community members picked up the consultation paper and appeared
interested in the content; the illustrative photographs appeared to assist
understanding and encourage discussion of the specific issues.
The ‘consultation paper’ was used consistently
by facilitators throughout the Tier 2 consultations. The benefits of this
communication tool were:
- It
provided details on the purpose of the consultation, the three key areas for
future work and prompts for discussion on each of the eight themes;
- The
photographs clearly illustrated the themes to be discussed and were useful for
people with low literacy or who had difficulty reading; and
- It
provided sufficiently detailed information that could be accessed easily by
those with good English literacy skills.
Question No: FaHCSIA 4
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 31
Senator Boyce asked:
Mr Dillon: I am advised that we do have some materials on
engagement and the engagement framework that we do apply—they are principles.
Senator BOYCE: Could we have a copy of that please?
Mr Dillon: Yes. It is a public document. I am happy to give you
a copy.
Senator BOYCE: Thank you.
Answer:
A copy of the Government’s
Engagement Framework “Engaging Today, Building Tomorrow” has been
provided separately to the Committee Secretariat.
Question No: FaHCSIA 4
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 31
Senator Boyce asked:
Mr Dillon: I am advised that we do have some materials on
engagement and the engagement framework that we do apply—they are principles.
Senator BOYCE: Could we have a copy of that please?
Mr Dillon: Yes. It is a public document. I am happy to give you
a copy.
Senator BOYCE: Thank you.
Answer:
A copy of the Government’s
Engagement Framework “Engaging Today, Building Tomorrow” has been
provided separately to the Committee Secretariat.
Question No: FaHCSIA 5
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 32
Senator Siewert asked:
Can I ask a supplementary
question? How many of those eight [meetings] that the Minister attended did the
audit people attend?
Answer:
During the Stronger Futures
consultation period, Minister Macklin led community consultation meetings at
Tennant Creek, Lajamanu, Maningrida, Ngukurr, Angurugu, Kaltukatjara (Docker
River) and Engawala.
None of these meetings was
observed by Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) as part
of its quality assurance of the consultations. The communities where CIRCA
observed the consultation meetings are listed in the CIRCA report.
CIRCA was required to observe
a representative sample of meetings and made its own decision as to which
meetings it would attend.
It should be noted that at
most, if not all, of the meetings attended by the Minister, members of
stakeholder organisations, community leaders and the media were present.
Question No: FaHCSIA 9
Topic: Stronger Futures consultations
Hansard Page: 35
Senator Boyce asked:
On notice, could you tell me why the period of six
weeks was chosen? What is the research behind picking six weeks for doing it? I
am happy to put that on notice, but I would like a fairly full answer to that
question.
Answer:
It is important to note that
the Government has been engaging actively with Aboriginal people in the
Northern Territory for a number of years, including through the 2008
consultations conducted by the NTER Review Board and the comprehensive 2009
NTER Redesign consultations. In addition Government Business Managers and
Indigenous Engagement Officers have been working on the ground in communities
for the last four years. These have helped create a more effective mechanism
for engagement between communities and government.
The Stronger Futures
consultation process was an intensive period of consultation but needs to be
seen in the context of this ongoing engagement activity. A primary purpose of
the Stronger Futures consultations was to hear what people had to say - about
what works, what needs to be improved, and what more needs to be done – before
the Government made any decisions about proposed legislative and funding
measures.
The timing of the Stronger
Futures consultations was determined by practical considerations relating to
the lead time required for preparation of legislation and its consideration by
the Parliament well ahead of the cessation of the Northern Territory Emergency
Response legislation.
To provide optimum
opportunity for Parliamentary consideration of the legislation, including the
potential for referral to a Senate Committee, it was felt necessary to have the
legislation tabled in the Parliament before the end of the 2011
sittings.
To meet this timeline, it was
necessary to complete the consultations by mid-August 2011 so that the feedback
from consultations could be considered in the development of policy and
preparation of detailed legislation.
The commencement date of the
consultation period was determined largely on the basis of the lead time
required to prepare the discussion paper.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents