Aboriginal Health and #Justjustice : @UNHumanrights finds Australia’s Aboriginal peoples face “tsunami” of imprisonment.

“It is alarming that, while the country has adopted numerous policies to address the socio-economic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples and those from the Torres Strait Islands, it has failed to respect their rights to self-determination and to full and effective participation in society.

Government policies have failed to deliver on targets in the areas of health, education and employment and have led to a growing number of people being jailed, and have resulted in an increasing number of children being removed from their homes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.  

High rates of incarceration were described to me as a tsunami affecting indigenous peoples. It is a major human rights concern.

The figures are simply astounding. While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders make up only 3% of the total population, they constitute 27% of the prison population, and much more in some prisons,”

United Nations human rights expert the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz pictured above meeting the Opposition Aboriginal parliamentarians and below meeting the NT APO lead by John Paterson CEO of NACCHO Affiliate AMSANT

Australia must reduce the “astounding” rates of imprisonment for indigenous peoples and step up the fight against racism, a United Nations human rights expert has concluded, at the end of an official visit.

“The rate of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth is alarming,” Ms. Tauli-Corpuz said. “I visited Cleveland Youth Detention Centre in Townsville, Queensland, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children constitute 95% of the children detained.

Many have been going from out-of-home care into detention. “Aboriginal children are seven times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in contact with the child protection system or to be subject to abuse or neglect, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz noted.

“As already recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, I urge Australia to increase the age of criminal responsibility. Children should be detained only as a last resort.

“These children are essentially being punished for being poor and in most cases, prison will only aggravate the cycle of violence, poverty and crime. I found meeting young children, some only 12 years old, in detention the most disturbing element of my visit.

The UN expert expressed criticism of the Government programme known as the Indigenous Advancement Strategy which was initiated by the Government in 2014 and involved a large budget cut in funding for support programmes.

She said: “The implementation of the strategy has been bureaucratic, rigid and has wasted considerable resources on administration. Travelling across the country, I have repeatedly been told about its dire consequences.”

However, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz said: “I want to emphasise that during my visit I have been particularly impressed and inspired by the strength of spirit and commitment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to develop innovative measures to support their own communities.”

She pointed to the number of peak organisations across a range of areas led by indigenous people. “The Government could achieve significant progress in realising the rights of indigenous peoples if it consulted and worked much more closely with these organisations,” she said.

“I have also observed effective community-led initiatives in a range of areas including public health, housing, education, child-protection, conservation and administration of justice, which all have the potential of making immediate significant positive changes in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.”

She called on the government to forge a new relationship with the national representative body for indigenous peoples, the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, and restore their funding.

She expressed concern that the Government would not meet targets to close the gap in areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, education and employment. She called for a comprehensive approach including specific targets for the reduction of detention rates, child removal and violence against women.

“I call on the Government to adopt a participatory approach based on consultation with indigenous peoples and take into account the ‘Redfern statement’, launched by peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait organisations in 2016, as it sets out priority areas for action and recommendations on issues ranging from health, justice, violence prevention, disability, children and families,” the expert concluded.

Ms. Tauli-Corpuz ended her two-week visit to Australia with a press conference in Barton in the Australian Capital Territory where she presented her initial findings and recommendations. She will present a comprehensive report to the UN Human Rights Council in September 2017.

The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Philippines), is a human rights activist working on indigenous peoples’ rights

. Her work for more than three decades has been focused on movement building among indigenous peoples and also among women, and she has worked as an educator-trainer on human rights, development and indigenous peoples in various contexts. She is a member of the Kankana-ey, Igorot indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region in the Philippines.

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world.

Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

See the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UN Human Rights, country page: Australia

 

NACCHO Aboriginal Health and #Nutrition : FYI delegates #WCPH2017 Aboriginal traditional foods key role in protecting against #chronicdisease

“We have long understood that native animal and plant foods are highly nutritious.

There is no evidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had diabetes or cardiovascular disease whilst maintaining a diet of traditional foods, and it has been shown that reverting to a traditional diet can improve health.

In addition to demonstrating significant health benefits, traditional foods remained an integral part of identity, culture and country for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, while also alleviating food insecurity in remote communities.”

Menzies researcher and lead author Megan Ferguson see research paper in full below

Photo above :  Frank told us how the ‘old people’, which literally means his ancestors, lived under the trees, gathered food and fished in the swamp. He said that during the dry, they used to build a sort of rock stepping-stone bridge to access the island in the swamp where they would gather magpie goose eggs.

Photo above  : With a focus to improve community nutrition, over 2000 bush tucker trees and conventional fruits were planted at the Barunga Community, south of Katherine.

Aboriginal people have been using bush tucker for over 50,000 years, but it was hoped the plantation would lure more children onto a free feed of fruit, instead of a portion of chips. Some of the bush tucker fruits being planted include the Black Plum, Bush Apple, Cocky Apple, Red Bush Apple, and White Currant

 ” The bush tucker diet was high in nutritional density, offering good levels of protein, fibre, and micronutrients. It was low in sugar and glucose, and lower in insulin than similar western foods, and the hunter-gatherer lifestyle meant plenty of physical activity. Some animal foods such as witchetty grubs and green ants were high in fat, but most native land animals were lean, especially when compared with the domesticated animals eaten today.

It was this knowledge of the land that sustained the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory for tens of thousands of years “

Your Complete Guide to Bush Tucker in the Northern Territory

Traditional food trends in remote Northern Territory communities

The majority of Aboriginal people living in remote Northern Territory communities are regularly using traditional foods in their diets according to research from Menzies School of Health Research published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health see below

The paper, Traditional food availability and consumption in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory reports that a nutritious diet including the consumption of traditional foods plays a key role in protecting against chronic disease for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote communities.

‘Surveys conducted in remote Northern Territory (NT) communities revealed almost 90% of people consumed a variety of traditional foods each fortnight.

‘In relation to food insecurity we also found that 40% of people obtained traditional food when they would otherwise go without food due to financial hardship or limited access to stores,’ Ms Ferguson said.

The list of traditional food reported during the research is extensive and includes a range of native animal foods including echidna, goanna, mud mussel, long-neck turtle and witchetty grubs and native plant foods including green plum, yam and bush onion.

The 20 remote NT communities surveyed reported that traditional foods were available year round.

‘There is still much to be learnt about the important contribution traditional foods makes to nutrition and health outcomes. We need to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders to understand more about contemporary traditional food consumption. This is crucial to informing broader policy that affects where people live, how they are educated, employment and other livelihood opportunities,’ Ms Ferguson said.

The article will be available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1753-6405

Traditional food availability and consumption in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, Australia

Objective: To explore availability, variety and frequency consumption of traditional foods and their role in alleviating food insecurity in remote Aboriginal Australia.

Methods: Availability was assessed through repeated semi-structured interviews and consumption via a survey. Quantitative data were described and qualitative data classified.

Results: Aboriginal and non-Indigenous key informants (n=30 in 2013; n=19 in 2014) from 20 Northern Territory (NT) communities participated in interviews. Aboriginal primary household shoppers (n=73 in 2014) in five of these communities participated in a survey. Traditional foods were reported to be available year-round in all 20 communities. Most participants (89%) reported consuming a variety of traditional foods at least fortnightly and 71% at least weekly. Seventy-six per cent reported being food insecure, with 40% obtaining traditional food during these times.

Conclusions: Traditional food is consumed frequently by Aboriginal people living in remote NT.

Implications for public health: Quantifying dietary contribution of traditional food would complement estimated population dietary intake. It would contribute evidence of nutrition transition and differences in intakes across age groups and inform dietary, environmental and social interventions and policy. Designing and conducting assessment of traditional food intake in conjunction with Aboriginal leaders warrants consideration.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have experienced a rapid nutrition transition since colonisation by Europeans 200 years ago, similar to that experienced by other Indigenous populations globally.1 The traditional food system provided a framework for society and was interwoven with culture, a framework that is now eroded by a food system with no distinct cultural ties or values.2 Early reports of Aboriginal people prior to European contact indicate that they were lean and healthy, attributable to an active lifestyle and a nutrient-dense diet characterised by high protein, polyunsaturated fat, fibre and slowly digested carbohydrates.3 The diet was sourced from a wide range of uncultivated plant foods and wild animals and was influenced by the seasons and geographical location; although there were differences in the food sources by location, there were similarities in the overall nutrient profile.3,4 Since colonisation, this nutritious diet has been systematically replaced by high intakes of refined cereals, added sugars, fatty (domesticated) meats, salt and low intakes of fibre and several micronutrients.5–7

There is no evidence that Aboriginal people maintaining traditional diets had diabetes or cardiovascular disease.4 However, the integration of non-traditional foods into the contemporary diet of Aboriginal Australians has led to an excessive burden of lifestyle-related chronic diseases.3 A nutritious diet, such as that afforded by the consumption of traditional foods, plays a key role in protecting against these conditions. Short-term reversion to a traditional diet has demonstrated significant weight loss, improvement in risk factors of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and improvements in glucose tolerance and other abnormalities related to type 2 diabetes mellitus among a small group of Aboriginal Australians.8,9

High levels and a wide variety of polyunsaturated fatty acids, in the context of overall lower fat content, found in native animal foods are one of the benefits of a traditional diet; reported to reduce the risk of developing obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases.3,4Traditional foods remain an integral part of the contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander diet strongly linked to identity, culture and country. An analysis of national data collected in 2008 reported that 72% of participants aged over 15 years living in remote communities reported having harvested wild foods in the past 12 months;10 and yet there is a dearth of information on the contribution of traditional foods to the contemporary diet of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.7,11 Most available information is also limited to describing harvesting behaviours and preferences.11 A recent environmental study, for example, in two Australian tropical river catchments reported more than one harvesting trip per fortnight for households in which 42 different animal and plant species were collected over a two-year period. This study also described the food-sharing networks that are likely to play a crucial role in alleviating food insecurity;12 of which 31% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote communities report to experience.13Some researchers estimate that more than 90% of foods are purchased and traditional foods contribute less than 5% to dietary energy intake,5 others argue that in some contexts the proportion of purchased foods is much lower.14

This variation likely relates to the diverse study contexts, including where people live, with higher intakes of traditional foods suggested to be consumed in small outstations rather than communities and townships.14 Until recently, most estimates of population level dietary intake have been limited to store-purchased food and drinks,5–7 an extremely valuable source of data, though one the authors acknowledge is limited by a lack of information on traditional food intake. The 2011–13 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (NATSINPAS), which included a 24-hour dietary recall, provided the first set of dietary intake data of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people nationally, though it did not aim to provide an estimate of traditional food intake.13This paper explores informant interview and self-report data relating to the: i) availability, ii) frequency and iii) variety of traditional food consumption. It also reports on the role of traditional food in alleviating food insecurity. For this study, traditional food included all native and introduced animal and plant foods procured for consumption. It was conducted as part of the SHOP@RIC study.15

Methods

Sample

A survey of contextual factors, defined as factors that may influence food purchases from the community store, was conducted in each of the 20 communities participating in the SHOP@RIC study, in the Northern Territory (NT), Australia.15 This included a rapid appraisal of traditional food availability through an interview with two key informants who had resided in the community for the previous 12 months. The study was not designed to collect comprehensive data on seasonal availability of traditional foods.

The cohort participating in the customer survey of the SHOP@RIC study15 was drawn from five very remote Aboriginal communities in the NT randomly selected from 20 study communities. All five communities had one food store, most had community-based food programs such as school nutrition and aged care meal programs and all were considered to have access to a traditional food supply from their surrounding lands. Households in each of the five communities were randomly selected and an eligible adult (i.e. community resident, plans to reside in the community for 12 months, >18 years, purchases food from the community store, and is the primary shopper) was invited to participate in a series of three surveys; pre-, post- and six-months post intervention. On completion of each survey, a $20 gift of fruit, vegetables and water was provided. The study aimed to include 150 customers in the cohort.

Data collection

The survey of contextual factors was conducted in English by a research team member, either in person or by telephone, at a time convenient to the key informant. Data were collected at two time points. As early as possible in 2014 and 2015, participants were interviewed about events in the previous year, including traditional food hunted or gathered. Initially, contact was made with the Shire/Council Services Manager of each community, who was invited to participate and recommend another suitable local person to complete the interview. The manager was selected due to their overall knowledge of a broad range of factors affecting store purchases, including population movement, community income and provision of essential services. If this manager could not be contacted, contact was made with someone in the community who was already associated with the main project to determine the most suitable people in the community to respond to these questions.

The customer survey was conducted by a research team, which included an Aboriginal community-based researcher trained in the conduct of the study. Interviews were conducted in English, with translation provided by the local researcher where necessary. The third survey (six months post intervention) was conducted from May 2014 to December 2014, in one community every two months in line with the main study design.15 This survey included a measure of frequency and variety consumption of traditional food in the preceding two weeks and questions to elicit information on the role of these foods in alleviation of food insecurity, the results of which are presented in this paper. A short script introduced the set of questions, noting that these included all hunted and gathered foods, which might be referred to by participants as traditional foods or bush foods, and included introduced species. The questions and response options were: How often do you eat traditional foods? (never, 1 day a fortnight, 1 day a week, 2–3 days a week, on most days, everyday). What type of traditional foods have you eaten? In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food, and couldn’t afford to buy more? (yes, no). If yes, how often did this happen? (once per week, once every 2 weeks, once per month, don’t know). Are there days when you don’t have enough food and feel hungry? (yes, no). What things can you do to get food on these days? Pictorial resources, with examples of foods known to be consumed across Central Australia and the Top End of the NT, grouped into similar food types, served as prompts. This study did not aim to collect data at the species level as nutrient analysis was not planned. These measures were based on a systematic review of the literature and expert consensus, and were pilot tested in line with the development of the overall customer survey.

Data analysis

The data from the contextual factor survey was entered into an Access database and exported to Excel for analysis. One author (CG) collated the data and verified with MF. Traditional food sources recalled being available over the calendar year and/or at different seasonal periods were described. The quantitative data from the customer survey were described, using Stata Version 14.0 (Stata, College Station, Texas, USA). The qualitative data from the customer survey were managed in an Access database and exported to Excel. One author (CB) allocated each individual food to one of eight categories,16 clarifying any difficult classification of foods with JB and MF.

Ethics

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the NT Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, the Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee and Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

Participants

At least one interview was conducted in each of the 20 study communities for the years 2013 or 2014. In 2013, 30 participants across 19 of the 20 study communities contributed to the contextual data; the participants held roles in the local council, government welfare agency, store, health centre, aged care facility, school and training and employment program. In 2014, 19 participants across 15 of the 20 study communities contributed to the repeat survey, holding roles in the local council, government welfare agency, store, health centre, community men’s program, research institute and training and employment program or were a community resident not in paid employment. In some cases, mobility from employed roles and from the community prevented repeat interview with the same informants each year.

Seventy-three participants aged 18 years or over, most of whom were female (97%), over the age of 35 years (69%) and not in paid employment (56%) contributed to the third customer survey. The participants differed marginally from the original cohort (92% female, 64% >35 years of age, 62% not in paid employment).

Annual availability of traditional food

Traditional foods were consistently reported for all 20 communities to be available year round. Informants reported hunting activity, with someone from all communities recalling a variety of animal foods that were available over the year or that hunting and fishing occurred. Informants from 15 communities across the Top End and Central Australia reported a variety of plant foods available in the previous 12 months. In four of the five communities where no plant foods were reported, it should be noted that data were only able to be collected for one of the two time points.

The survey did not intend to collect data on environmental or other impacts on the availability of the traditional food supply. It is worth noting that informants from three Top End communities and one customer survey participant from a fourth Top End community reported that goanna were in limited numbers or no longer available due to the impact of cane toads. In two Top End communities it was said that turkey were scarce or no longer available and in one of these communities, that the availability of yams had reduced due to environmental damage caused by introduced animals.

Frequency of traditional food consumption

Most (89%) participants reported consuming traditional foods on at least a fortnightly basis, in the two weeks preceding the survey. Seventy-one per cent of participants reported consuming traditional foods at least weekly.

Variety of traditional foods consumed

The variety of traditional foods reported to be available across 20 communities and consumed by participants in the five communities is reported in Table 1. There were a range of different native animal and plant foods and a smaller number of introduced animal foods recalled.

Table 1. List of the varietya of traditional foods reported to be available in communities and to be consumed in the preceding two weeks by a customer cohort.
Community data set (n=20) Participant data set (n=73)
  1. a: Foods listed as per participant response to an open-ended question which did not specify how to identify foods (e.g. as food category [e.g. seafood], food [e.g. fish] or species [e.g. barramundi]). The adjective ‘bush’ and ‘wild’ was provided at times with some foods (e.g. bush turkey and turkey). Occasionally participants used both local and English language; only the English language name is reported here.
  2. b: Echidna was often referred to as porcupine; buffalo as bullocky; cow as beef, cattle or killer.        c: The term shellfish was not used by participants in the customer cohort.
Animals
Native land animals Bandicoot, carpet snake, duck (diving duck), echidna,b emu, goanna (perentie), goose (magpie goose), honey, honey ant, kangaroo, lizard, possum, turkey, wallaby Black-headed snake, duck, echidna,b emu, goanna, goose, kangaroo, turkey
Introduced land animals Buffalo,b cow,b pig Buffalo,b cow,b pig
Fish or seafood Crab (mud crab), crocodile, crocodile egg, dugong, fish (barramundi, black bream, bream, catfish, fresh- and saltwater fish), shellfish (large creek mussel, long bum, mud mussel, mussel, oyster), prawn, stingray, turtle (long-neck turtle, sea turtle, short-neck turtle), turtle egg, water goanna Crab (mud crab), fish (barramundi, black bream, catfish, red snapper), mangrove worm, shellfishc (cone shell, long bum, mud mussel, oyster, periwinkle), stingray, turtle (long-neck turtle, sea turtle, short-neck turtle), turtle egg, water goanna
Witchetty grub Witchetty grubs Witchetty grub
Sugar bag Sugar bag
Plants
Fruit or berry Apple, banana, berry (blackcurrant, conga berry), cashew tree fruit, fruit (not specified), plum (black plum, green plum and sugar plum), sultana Apple, banana, berry, plum (black plum, green plum), raisin, sultana, tomato
Yam or root vegetables Potato, yam Potato, yam (budgu)
Other plants Bean, onion, tomato Bulb (sandy beach bulb), onion
Seed or nut Cashew tree nut Kora (seed)

The role of traditional food consumption in alleviating food insecurity

Most participants (76%) reported experiencing food insecurity. Of the coping strategies identified, 40% related to obtaining traditional food during times they went without food and 53% were borrowing food or money during these times.

Discussion

This exploratory study demonstrates that traditional food makes an important contribution to the contemporary diet of Aboriginal people living in remote NT communities. In 20 remote communities, traditional foods were reported to be available year round. A high frequency and wide variety of traditional foods were reported to be consumed by participants across five remote communities. In this exploratory study, more animal foods than plant foods were recalled to have been consumed and commonly a few animal foods predominated. Accessing traditional foods was reported to be a means of alleviating food insecurity for almost half the people who experienced food insecurity.

There are limited records of the traditional diet of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people prior to European colonisation. Available reports describe gender roles, with women providing daily sustenance through collecting plant foods and small animals and men hunting large animals on a less regular basis, with the balance of plant and animal foods determined by factors including location and season.3 Studies of Canadian Aboriginal people suggest a high intake of traditional animal foods as part of the contemporary diet.17,18 This study suggests that an understanding of the contribution that animal (native and introduced) and plant foods make to the contemporary diet among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia is warranted.

The frequent self-reported consumption of animal sources of traditional foods, suggests that contemporary population-level dietary assessment using store purchasing data has the potential to over-estimate nutrient deficiencies, particularly of protein, a concern we have previously raised.7,19 In Aboriginal populations elsewhere, it is estimated that traditional foods might contribute anywhere from 10% to 36% of energy and disproportionately to protein and other micronutrients,17,20–23 representing an important dietary contribution. Even weekly or fortnightly consumption of a nutrient-dense food, such as that reported to be consumed in this study, is likely to make an important contribution to the diet.11 Introduced land animal foods, such as buffalos, cattle and pigs, were reported to be hunted and consumed by participants. The contribution of introduced land animals may be influenced by availability and in some areas may be well integrated into the traditional food system.5 In the absence of volume consumption data, it is not possible to draw conclusions on the dietary contribution of introduced land animals. Although these foods contribute to dietary protein intake, the higher quantity of fat and poorer fatty acid profile, compared with native animal foods, is worth noting.3

We have demonstrated that it is possible to measure frequency consumption and to some extent variety of traditional foods consumed – in fact, our impression was that people enjoyed talking about these foods. We acknowledge the limitations of traditional dietary assessment methods, including additional challenges in remote contexts such as the practice of sharing community meals,12,24–27 though also consider that attributes such as the high regard given to traditional food, may aid assessment.24,27,28 Studies have demonstrated how standard tools can be modified to assess individual dietary intake with Aboriginal populations29 and lessons can be learnt from previous dietary survey work in remote Australian Aboriginal communities.15,26

Comprehensive assessment of traditional food consumption would serve a number of purposes. These data would provide an understanding of the different types of traditional foods consumed and the contribution they make to the contemporary diet of Aboriginal people across Australia. This information would assist in developing targeted strategies to ensure sustainable access and increased consumption of traditional foods. This study was not designed to examine differences in consumption of traditional foods across age, gender and other population groups. International studies in Aboriginal populations have found higher intakes of nutrient-poor store foods in young people and higher intakes of traditional foods in older people.17,22,23,30,31 In addition to contributing to improved health through dietary intake, the socio-cultural contribution and opportunity for physical activity that traditional foods provide is important to recognise.21,32,33 The impact that climate change, changes in the natural environment and development policies regarding land and sea use may have on traditional food use and thus health and wellbeing is critical to understand.12,32,34 Although not designed to collect information on environmental and other impacts on traditional food, this study suggests that introduced animals are affecting the availability of small animal and plant foods, at least in the Top End of the NT.

In addition to being nutritionally superior, traditional foods are considered to be a low-monetary form of sustenance, important in a context where people generally have low incomes and where the cost of food is high.12,18,20,35 Similar to our findings, 40% of coastal urban-dwelling Aboriginal people reported increased access of wild resources at times of financial hardship.32 In a small Western Australian outstation, hunting for various types of wild foods has been shown to respond differently to market and economic scarcity.33 The harvest of traditional foods and food sharing networks reduce the reliance on the market economy,10,12 important in a context where high numbers of people report to be food insecure. Others share our opinion that further understanding the role of traditional foods in the diet and in alleviating food insecurity36 is crucial in an environment where few, if any, significant changes are occurring in terms of the high cost of food and prevailing low-income levels.

Data regarding the contribution of traditional foods in the diet and role in livelihoods of Aboriginal people living in remote communities will be important in relation to broader environmental and social policy making. Evidence of the contribution of traditional foods to the contemporary diet of remote Aboriginal people is crucial to informing broader government policy that affects where people live, how they are educated, employment and other livelihood opportunities.10 It has been suggested that the use of traditional foods may be gaining interest nationally and internationally, and in addition to being good for human and environmental health, could provide economic and employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.37 There is a developing interest in sustainability of traditional foods in environmental protection efforts,12 such as working with Aboriginal people to develop adaption strategies to mitigate the impact of climate change on the environment and traditional food supply.32,34 Similarly, traditional food data are used internationally to maintain and improve availability and access to traditional foods as a result of global warming and environmental insults, such as contamination.17,18,21

There are three limitations related to our survey methodology. First, this study relies on self-report data, which is considered to be biased by recall and reporting. To address this, the data were collected through a facilitated recall methodology,38 which improves recall through the use of locally relevant prompts and questions.39 While respondents were asked to recall intake in the preceding two weeks only, it is possible that foods consumed beyond this timeframe were recalled. Second, the individual dietary data was collected from participants in only five remote NT communities; however, these were randomly selected from a larger sample of 20 communities and were spread across the NT. Third, the data were collected based on recall of a two-week period from participants in each community. Normally, frequency consumption data would be collected over a longer period to account for factors such as seasonality, although it has been collected in some studies for shorter periods.17 It was not within the scope of this study to collect longer-term data. The data were, however, collected over a 10-month period from the five communities, two months apart and have been supported by annual availability of traditional foods data from key informants across 20 communities. The key limitation in relation to the semi-structured interviews was that the key informants did not always include an Aboriginal person from each community and so reports of annual availability of traditional foods are likely to be conservative.

Implications

Although focused on availability, frequency and variety, this study provides an important step in improving non-Aboriginal knowledge of the contribution of traditional food in the contemporary diet of Aboriginal Australians living in remote Australia. This study suggests that it is possible to collect data regarding the contribution of traditional foods to diet. These data would complement population-level data collected through community store sales. Data of the nutrient profiles of many traditional foods exists and continues to be built on in Australia. Through a strong collaboration with Aboriginal people, methods for conducting individual dietary assessment of traditional food intake could be developed, which could include methodologies such as repeated 24-hour recall, visual recall40 and food frequency questionnaires, resulting in validated tools for ongoing use in this context. Our limited data, combined with national and international evidence suggest that priorities should include understanding differences across ages, gender, education and employment status and across remote, regional and urban areas in Australia. It is crucial that these processes align with developments in the broader environmental and societal work in this area.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to community residents who provided data and acknowledge that the ownership of Aboriginal knowledge and cultural heritage is retained by the informant. The authors thank Prof Kylie Ball, Anthony Gunther, Elaine Maypilama and Carrie Turner who contributed to the development of the customer survey, those who assisted with pilot testing the customer survey and Federica Barzi who assisted with analyses. The Stores Healthy Options Project in Remote Indigenous Communities was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (1024285). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC. Julie Brimblecombe is supported through a National Heart Foundation Fellowship (100085

 

NACCHO Press Release : Aboriginal Health #18C and #Racism : Proposed changes to #18C will throw Reconciliation out the window

It is so disappointing that after all the talk in Canberra in February and the goodwill that was generated, the Government is sending such a poor message to Aboriginal people about acceptance in our own country,

“Racism and discrimination have well documented negative impacts on mental health. If we fail to deal with the alarming rates of poor Mental Health in Aboriginal people, it will have ongoing detrimental impacts in preventing and managing chronic disease

 Young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people take their own lives at a rate five times that of other Australians and infant mortality rates are going backwards “

NACCHO Chair Matthew Cooke said just a month after the Prime Minister committed to a new partnership with Aboriginal people through the Redfern Statement, he has put forward measures that would have potentially devastating impacts on the health and well-being of Aboriginal people.

Download a copy of the NACCHO Press Release or read in full below

NACCHO Press Release response to 18c amendments

Download NACCHO full submission to #RDA #18c enquiry here

submission-to-inquiry-into-freedom-of-speech-and-rda-draft

The Kenbi land claim was a hard-fought land rights battle, but it represents so much more than a battle over land. It was a story that epitomised the survival and the resilience of the first Australians, the survival and resilience of the Larakia people“.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

Great photo opportunity above for the PM during the 2016 election campaign , but what would be the #healthyfutures for these children with increased racial hate speech ?  

 ” In question time today, I asked Senator Brandis about the watering down of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

What insulting, offensive or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think people should be able to say to me?

It’s sad that on Harmony Day, a day that celebrates Australia’s cultural diversity, inclusiveness and builds a sense of belonging for everyone, the Government wants to give permission for more racial hate speech

  Being the target of racist, hurtful comments is deeply distressing and causes deep harm “

Senator Malarndirri McCarthy addressing the Senate see video and text below

Along with powerful videos of MPs Linda Burney and Tony Burke addressing Parliament over 18C

“The challenging thing with regard to proposals to change the act is that they are being put forward by those who have never felt vulnerable. These are the people who have never been on the receiving end of racist comments or attacks.

“Our first Australians hold a special place in the Australian community. Our government should be taking action to empower, rather than to disempower them. To be serious about ‘Closing the Gap’, the evidence is clear around racism and all Australian governments should be doing everything in their power to address these issues .”

Members of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) were shocked by the Government’s announcement being made on World Harmony Day the intention to change Section18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, according to PHAA CEO Michael Moore.

”  The government’s reforms should, as the Inquiry recommended, address that problem specifically, and not be distracted with an abstract ideological debate, divorced from the social realities.

Section 18C is not needed to protect members of minority groups who are popular in the wider community. It is needed to protect members of unpopular minorities, and also vulnerable minorities, especially our First Peoples, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders.

We support the idea of improving the process for handling section 18C complaints, so that trivial or spurious complaints are terminated quickly.”

Rod Little and Dr Jackie Huggins, Co-chairs, National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples

As leaders of 10 organisations representing a wide range of culturally diverse communities in Australia, we are profoundly disappointed at today’s announcement by the Federal government of its intention to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Government’s planned changes to the Racial Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Commission will weaken the protection of Aboriginal Australians from racial abuse in this country at a time when suicide rates in Indigenous communities are among the worst in the world, the peak body for Aboriginal medical services said today.

NACCHO Chair Matthew Cooke said just a month after the Prime Minister committed to a new partnership with Aboriginal people through the Redfern Statement, he has put forward measures that would have potentially devastating impacts on the health and well-being of Aboriginal people.

Mr. Cooke said all Senators must carefully consider the issues and rise above petty point scoring politics to defeat these amendments – which are based on an hysterical media campaign about the merits of the legislation due to a single court case and a recently published cartoon.

“Any changes to section 18C will alienate the very Aboriginal people the government says it is trying to support, and create even deeper divisions in our community,” he said.

“I urge all Senators to respect the voice of the first Australian peoples in this debate, listen to Aboriginal people about what needs to be done to close the gap, and vote down changes to laws that are likely to make it even wider.”

Mr Cooke said it was outrageous that watering down racial hate laws is a priority for the Government when the latest Closing the Gap report showed just one of seven targets are on track, and the Don Dale Royal Commission is shining a light on the treatment of Aboriginal children in detention.

Young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people take their own lives at a rate five times that of other Australians and infant mortality rates are going backwards.

“It is so disappointing that after all the talk in Canberra in February and the goodwill that was generated, the Government is sending such a poor message to Aboriginal people about acceptance in our own country,” Mr Cooke said.

“Racism and discrimination have well documented negative impacts on mental health. If we fail to deal with the alarming rates of poor Mental Health in Aboriginal people, it will have ongoing detrimental impacts in preventing and managing chronic disease.

“The Government’s priorities should be on positive measures like the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which recognises the impacts of racism and discrimination inherent in the health system, and supporting the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health sector to fix the national crisis in Aboriginal health.”

PHAA urges all MPs and Senators to leave 18c alone

“Members of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) were shocked by the Government’s announcement being made on World Harmony Day the intention to change Section18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975,” according to PHAA CEO Michael Moore.

Earlier this week Mr Moore attended a meeting on Aboriginal and Torres Islander Health where the issue of impact of racial discrimination on health was discussed at length. “The challenging thing with regard to proposals to change the act is that they are being put forward by those who have never felt vulnerable. These are the people who have never been on the receiving end of racist comments or attacks”.

“Our first Australians hold a special place in the Australian community. Our government should be taking action to empower, rather than to disempower them. To be serious about ‘Closing the Gap’, the evidence is clear around racism and all Australian governments should be doing everything in their power to address these issues”.

“A similar impact on health will be experienced by anyone who is discriminated against on the grounds of their racial or ethnic background,” said Mr Moore.

“It really is those who are vulnerable, and those who have been subjected to hateful jibes and vilification, who should be the ones making suggestions for change rather than those who are in the dominant group,” added Mr Moore.

“The PHAA calls on all MPs and Senators to leave the Act as it is”.

“People who already feel exposed to inappropriate comments do not need to be made even more vulnerable,” Mr Moore added.

The Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights “Freedom of Speech in Australia” set the tone. Over ten thousand submissions were made and the Committee did not recommend changes. Of the twenty two recommendations, there was no consensus about a change to Section 18c.

Mr Moore concluded that “MPs and Senators should be taking guidance from the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights that examined the issue rather than kowtowing to a small hump of ultraconservatives who have played political games in order to get the numbers for a proposal that will undermine the health of the most vulnerable groups in Australia”.

Harmony Day 21 March 2017

As leaders of organisations representing a wide range of culturally diverse communities in Australia, we are profoundly disappointed at today’s announcement by the Federal government of its intention to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

If implemented, these proposals will weaken, perhaps emasculate, existing legal protections against racist hate speech. They will give a free pass to ugly and damaging forms of racial vilification which do not satisfy the stringent legal criteria of harassment and intimidation. The publication of virtually any derogatory generalisation about an entire community group would, of itself, be permissible.

To offend, insult or humiliate a person or group because of their race or ethnic background necessarily sends a message that such people, by virtue of who they are, and regardless of how they behave or what they believe, are not members of society in good standing.

This cannot but vitiate the sense of belonging of members of the group and their sense of assurance and security as citizens, and constitutes an assault upon their human dignity. This has nothing to do with a contest of ideas or free speech – which is in any event protected under section 18D – and falls far short of the mutual respect about which we have heard.

Under the government’s proposals vulnerable community groups will now have no peaceful, legal means of redress against these kinds of attacks against their dignity. This would send a signal from government of a more lenient attitude to racism and would damage social cohesion. It is especially ironic that the government has put forward these proposals on Harmony Day.

The proposal to insert a generic “reasonable person” standard into the legislation has superficial appeal, but is unfair and unworkable. The proverbial person in the pub or on the “Bondi tram” does not have the background knowledge and insight into the particularities of a minority group that would be needed to make a fair and informed assessment of what is reasonably likely to “harass or intimidate” members of that group.

Under the existing law, the assessment is made by a reasonable member of the targeted community, that is, by a member of that community who is neither overly sensitive nor overly thick-skinned. This is both more logical and more just.

A generic reasonable person test would also create the possibility that members of a group that happens to be unpopular at any time for any reason would be unfairly treated. Section 18C is not needed to protect members of minority groups who are popular in the wider community. It is needed to protect members of unpopular minorities, and also vulnerable minorities, especially our First Peoples, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders.

We support the idea of improving the process for handling section 18C complaints, so that trivial or spurious complaints are terminated quickly.

We note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights was unable to reach a consensus, or even a majority opinion, in favour of any of the government’s proposals to amend the substantive law. Its recommendations were all limited to suggested reforms to the complaints-handling process.

This is the sensible way forward. The problems identified by the QUT case and the Bill Leak complaint all related to deficiencies of process. The government’s reforms should, as the Inquiry recommended, address that problem specifically, and not be distracted with an abstract ideological debate, divorced from the social realities.

Rod Little and Dr Jackie Huggins, Co-chairs, National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples

John Kennedy, President, United Indian Association

George Vellis, Co-ordinator, and George Vardas, Secretary, Australian Hellenic Council NSW

Peter Wertheim AM, Executive Director, Executive Council of Australian Jewry

Patrick Voon, Immediate Past President, Chinese Australian Forum

Tony Pang, Deputy Chair/Secretary, Chinese Australian Services Society

Randa Kattan, CEO, Arab Council Australia

Vache Executive Director, Armenian National Committee of Australia

 

Senator McCarthy:  My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The Prime Minister has on at least 16 occasions ruled out his government amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Today, on Harmony Day, we learned that the Turnbull government is proposing the removal of the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’ and ‘humiliate’ from section 18C. What insulting, offensive or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think people should be able to say to me?

Senator Brandis: Might I begin by correcting the premise of your question: the Prime Minister has never, not on 16 occasions and not once, said that the government would never reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. He did say, as was the case at the time, that it was not a priority for the government.

Nevertheless, I think we all know that events have happened in this country in the recent past, in particular, the treatment of the QUT students, which was disgraceful, and the treatment of the late Bill Leak, which was disgraceful. The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Labor senators and members of the House of Representatives continue, proposed beneficial law reform. What the Prime Minister and I announced a short while ago was a strengthening of the antivilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

What you did not mention in your question, which I think is a very important consideration, is the insertion, into section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, of a prohibition against racial harassment. Did you know that in 1991, when the then—

Senator Brandis: If your leader, Senator Wong, would just control herself, I might be able to address your question. You may or may not know that in 1991 the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—

Senator Cameron: On relevance. The question was: ‘What insulting, offensive or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think that people should be able to say to the senator?’ That was the question, and he has not gone near it. He should actually take off that Harmony Day badge. It is absolutely crazy that he has that on.

The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, the Attorney-General has been giving a detailed response to a detailed question. He is aware of the question.

Senator BRANDIS: In 1991, when the current part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act was recommended, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission actually recommended to the parliament that one of the grounds of racial vilification should be harassment. That was one of the grounds recommended by the predecessor body of the Human Rights Commission. For some unaccountable reason that was not done by the then Labor government.

The PRESIDENT: Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question.

Senator McCarthy:  Minister Wyatt has twice indicated he would cross the floor to vote against changes to section 18C. What consequences will there be for members of the coalition who vote against the Turnbull government’s attempt to water down protections against racism?

Senator Brandis: I am absolutely certain that every member of the coalition will be voting for these changes to strengthen section 18C, every last one of them.

The PRESIDENT:  Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question.

Senator McCarthy:  When asked why the government had no plans to amend section 18C, the Prime Minister said, ‘We did not take an 18C amendment proposal to the election.’ Why is Prime Minister Turnbull willing to cave in to the Right of his party room on section 18C, while he continues to refuse a free vote on marriage equality, despite the defeat of his proposed plebiscite?

Senator Brandis: Although I am a little loath to dwell on internal politics, may I say that strengthening protections against racial vilification and vindicating freedom of speech are causes that are embraced by all elements of the Liberal Party and the coalition. You may say that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the complaint-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act are perfect and incapable of reform. You may say that, but if you do you would be alone because there is no serious person in this country who has followed human rights debate who says that section 18C in its current form, which actually omits to prohibit racial harassment, or the complaint-handling procedures of the Human Rights Commission cannot be improved. Certainly, that is what Professor Gillian Triggs has said, and I agree with her. (Time expired)

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Senator McCarthy:  The answer was incredibly disappointing, in particular on this day, Harmony Day. As we reflect on Harmony Day, I want to go to some of the answers to me and my questions by Senator Brandis. I want to begin with Senator Brandis’s response in terms of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. I asked, first up, about the fact that Mr Turnbull has said on at least 16 occasions that he had ruled out his government amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Brandis said that he had not said that—certainly not that many times. I just want to point out some very important media coverage of the moments when Mr Turnbull denied that it was a distraction for his government. In news.com, on 31 August 2016: ‘The government has no plans to make changes to section 18C’. He said it again on 30 August in The Australian:

It’s filled the op-ed pages of newspapers for years and years but the government has no plans to make any changes to section 18C. We have other more pressing, much more pressing priorities to address.

Then again on 14 November 2016, on ABC 7.30, Mr Turnbull said:

18(C) is talked about constantly on the ABC. It’s talked about constantly in what’s often called the ‘elite media’. I’ve focused overwhelmingly on the economy.

It appears that Prime Minister Turnbull has changed tack. Today is one of the most significant days in Australia and across the world. The purpose behind Harmony Day is to reflect on the diversity of culture across this country, something that unfortunately has been really stained by the Prime Minister’s move to change the Racial Discrimination Act on this day in particular. It is incredibly sad. It really is a watering down of protections against racial vilifications. The irony of it being done on this day! The Attorney-General says he does not believe the Australian people are racist.

Senator Brandis: No, I do not.

Senator McCarthy:  As a white man growing up in Petersham, attending private schools, I am sure you have never been denied access or service in a shop. You have never had taxis drive past, pretending not to see you. You have never received hateful letters and emails because of your race or the colour of your skin. I really wish I could believe there are not any racists in Australia. But certainly my personal experience, and my family’s experience, informs me of the reality that I live in this country. It is deeply unfortunate.

I asked you in my question: what else do you need to say to me and to many other people of different races in this country that you cannot say now? What is it that you are so determined to say that you cannot say to people now?

My predecessor, Senator Nova Peris, had a disgraceful time in this Senate, standing here, being called all sorts of things—in fact, even on her Twitter account today—in terms of what racism she received from the general public. Just to clarify, in case you were thinking I meant it occurred in the Senate; I meant this is where she raised the issue about the racism that was displayed against her by the general public across Australia. It is really important to put this on the record. She stood courageously here to point out from her own personal experiences that racism is very much alive and strong in this country. We as parliamentarians in both the Senate and the House of Representatives must show leadership about the importance of harmony, diversity and cultural respect. That is something that is not happening now today in the Turnbull government.

Being the target of racist, hurtful comments is deeply distressing and causes deep harm. expired)

 

NACCHO #AboriginalHealth #Referendum #Treaty : Indigenous leaders play hardball on #recognition

 

“People are being clear-eyed here, we don’t want to forgo history by just taking whatever is on offer, we’re part of a struggle that goes back to the 19th century.

We owe it to past leaders like Sir Doug Nichols, William Cooper and so many others, to not accept reform that is no improvement on 1967 and just a bit of editing.

We want constitutional reform but why go to all the expense of having a referendum just to put poetry in?’’

 Referendum Council co-chair Pat Anderson and former NACCHO chair 2002-2003

In interview todays Australian Artice 1 Below

“Aboriginal people will not accept a feel-good, symbolic stamp on a fundamentally unfair system,

The system needs to be improved. We need to change the way we do business in Aboriginal affairs. Constitutional recognition must mean real reform. It must create a genuine paradigm shift, or Aboriginal people will reject it,”

Jeremy Clark and Jill Gallagher CEO VACCHO the co-convenors of the latest dialogue, held in Melbourne over three days. Read full report Article 2 below

 ” The question of guaranteed Indigenous parliamentary representation is especially timely as Australia considers the argument that treaties, rather than a constitutional statement, might provide more substantive political recognition.

However, treaties require that Indigenous people acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. Indigenous people need to determine the conditions under which they might provide that acknowledgement. They may, for example, want a more inclusive state; one that recognises a substantive and meaningful citizenship.

Guaranteed parliamentary representation responds to colonialism’s present as well as its past. Colonisation was not a single event “done” to Indigenous peoples.

Dominic O’Sullivan  Associate Professor, Charles Sturt University Article 3 below

Aboriginal leaders have warned they will campaign against a constitutional recognition referendum if all that is on offer is a so-called minimalist “politicians’ model”, which avoids a treaty and indigenous representation in parliament.

Meeting in Melbourne as part of a national series of community discussions, about 100 Aboriginal leaders and community members agreed there was a view in Canberra that the minimalist model — deleting a reference to race, adjusting another section on race and adding a statement of recognition — was a “done deal”.

They said recent statements by indigenous Liberal minister Ken Wyatt that they should temper­ expectations of what a referendum would produce, and by West Australian Liberal senat­or Dean Smith that treaties needed to be “off the table” for constitutional recognition to occur, had caused great concern.

The boilover came at the seventh­ of 12 meetings to be held ­nationwide, in a process climaxing with a constitutional convention at Uluru in May marking the 50th anniversary of the successful 1967 referendum on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s rights.

Participants were in agreement that they were prepared to support a “no” case against the referendum, and politicians should not assume they would eventually capitulate and accept minimalism.

However, they insisted they were not talking about shooting down a successful outcome, merely an unsatisfactory one, and said their views were not radical and were broadly representative of indigenous Australia.

Lengthy discussion was had around the fact the delegates, who included traditional owners, elders, chief executives of community organisations, and other “mainstream” indigenous representatives, were ambitious about a positive result but would not be accepting, as one put it, “beads and trinkets”.

“People are being clear-eyed here, we don’t want to forgo history by just taking whatever is on offer, we’re part of a struggle that goes back to the 19th century,” Referendum Council co-chair Pat Anderson told The Australian. “We owe it to past leaders like Sir Doug Nichols, William Cooper and so many others, to not accept reform that is no improvement on 1967 and just a bit of editing.

“We want constitutional reform but why go to all the expense of having a referendum just to put poetry in?’’

A July 2015 gathering of 40 indigenous leaders at Kirribilli House with Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten resolved that “a minimalist approach … does not go far enough and would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

“We’ve been saying since the 1840s that we wanted substantive change and we said it again at Kirribilli,” Ms Anderson said. “It’s this generation’s turn but it’s got to be for all Australians, not just for us. We need to win the hearts and minds of the Australian public on this because we can’t just pass on a legacy of nothingness — why would we support that?”

The Melbourne gathering was also sharply critical of a perception that the four indigenous federal MPs — Mr Wyatt and Labor’s lower-house MP Linda Burney, and senators Patrick Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy — were token representatives of indigenous people. However, the meeting felt that rather than speaking for indigenous people they spoke for their electorates and the four of them in turn supported a minimalist outcome.

Overwhelming support has emerged at all seven meetings for an indigenous parliamentary “body”, or what Cape York leader Noel Pearson describes as a “hook” that could be inserted in the Constitution, and off which other legislative solutions could be hung. This body would likely be elected, with responsibility for giving parliament input on laws affecting indigenous Australians — input parliament would then be required to consider but which would be non-binding.

It is a solution supported by constitutional conservatives because it is viewed as being possible to create this body without endangering the sovereignty of parliament and without the threat of constant litigation over its powers — for example, whether the laws on which it was consulted were deemed constitutionally safe.

There could also be a statutory Declaration of Recognition drafted outside the Constitution.

A more far-reaching proposal would see the insertion of a prohibition against racial discrimination into the Constitution — a proposal thought unlikely to win wide support.

Treaties, or agreement-making, were backed at the Melbourne meeting, as was expected given the Victorian government is in treaty talks. They were also supported at Hobart, Dubbo, Broome, Darwin, Perth and Sydney.

Following the Uluru meeting the 16-member referendum council is required to report within a month on next steps.

Participants at all the gatherings have addressed the need for the post-Uluru discussion, including whether to hold a referendum at all or whether the desired outcomes can better be achieved through legislative change.

Article 2  :Indigenous Australia’s ‘line in sand’ on recognition: substantial change or nothing

Indigenous Australians have rejected a referendum that offers only minimal recognition in the constitution, insisting they will walk away unless more meaningful change is offered.

They have challenged political leaders to discuss what is emerging as their key proposal, an Indigenous body being recognised in the constitution, or be prepared to leave the recognition challenge to the next generation.

After seven of 12 planned Indigenous-only dialogues, it is clear that a statement recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the nation’s founding document and some “tinkering” with the race power will not win Indigenous support.

“[People] clearly understand they are part of a struggle that goes back to the 19th century – and we owe it to past leaders like Sir Doug Nicholls, William Cooper and so many others, to not accept reform that is no improvement on 1967 and just a bit of editing. There has to be substantial change,” Ms Anderson said.

A 1967 referendum ended the practice of not counting Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the population and gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws for Indigenous people.

Ms Anderson conceded that Indigenous leaders faced a “hard sell” to win the support of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other politicians, but added: “Our brief under our terms of reference was to go out and ask Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people what they want – and this is what’s emerging.”

The nation’s most senior Aboriginal politician, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Minister Ken Wyatt, recently urged those attending the dialogues to think big but be prepared to accept a judgment by political leaders on what is likely to secure passage of the referendum.

The emphatic view to emerge from the dialogues is that Aboriginal people will oppose anything they consider inadequate and could even mount their own “no” case to minimalist recognition.

Ms Anderson said an Indigenous body recognised in the constitution was emerging as the preferred vehicle to deliver substantial reforms. The Referendum Council has commissioned work on what such a body would look like and this would be produced in coming weeks, she said.

“At the moment it’s just a framework, but people are definitely sold on the idea that we must have some input, locked into the constitution, where we can talk directly to Parliament as equal partners.”

There are five more Indigenous dialogues before an Indigenous constitutional convention at Uluru on the weekend leading up to the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum in May.

Mr Clark and Ms Gallagher said the Melbourne dialogue saw healthy debate about sovereignty and treaties, “but one basic fact was clear: our people want real change, not minimalism”.

The concern of many delegates at the dialogues is that politicians have already agreed on a “minimalist model” they consider capable of winning support at a referendum. This would involve removing section 25 of the constitution, which says the states can ban people from voting based on their race; minor change to the race power and the addition of some symbolic words of recognition.

The co-convenors of the Melbourne dialogue said a voice to Parliament, in the form of an Aboriginal body embedded in the constitution, emerged as a strong priority in the discussions.

“This body could consult on laws and policies about our people, to help hold government to account. It could work under and incorporate the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which could be articulated in statement of acknowledgement or a legislated declaration,” they said.

“The body could help drive reforms to enable agreement-making, so that a truth and reconciliation process can be pursued. As delegates pointed out: we can’t have reconciliation without having some truth.”

Mr Wyatt, the first Indigenous person to be elected to the House of Representatives and the first to be appointed to the executive of the Commonwealth government, recently said he was opposed to having an Indigenous body enshrined in the constitution, and did not believe it would be supported by the broader population.

Article 3 : Why guaranteed Indigenous seats in parliament could ease inequality

Dominic O’Sullivan  Associate Professor, Charles Sturt University

Indigenous Labor MP Linda Burney says her party is trying to identify and remove structural obstacles to preselection. AAP/Mick Tsikas from the Conversation

New South Wales Greens MP Dawn Walker used her inaugural speech this month to argue for guaranteed Indigenous parliamentary representation. The argument for designated seats is not a new one. It was considered and rejected by the Carr state government in 1998; Indigenous people would continue to compete for democratic voice like other minority groups.

Walker’s concern is for a secure and “direct [Indigenous] voice in our democracy”. New Zealand’s Indigenous population has had this voice since 1867.

In 2017, New Zealand’s unicameral parliament has seven designated Maori seats. From 1867 to 2017, Maori have almost always had cabinet membership and a recognised capacity to influence policymaking.

In Fiji, guaranteed representation of various kinds occurred between independence in 1970 and the most recent coup in 2006. It is true that it sometimes contributed to political unrest. However, the present regime’s extreme of no guaranteed Indigenous representation at all is among the variables helping to create Fiji’s seemingly irresolvable political instability.

In Norway, there is a distinctive Sami parliament. Its consultation agreement with the national parliament recognises the particular character of indigenous people’s citizenship. It does not eliminate political differences with the state, but it does provide a path to agreement on most of the 40 to 50 legislative measures on which it facilitates consultation each year.

The question of guaranteed Indigenous parliamentary representation is especially timely as Australia considers the argument that treaties, rather than a constitutional statement, might provide more substantive political recognition.

However, treaties require that Indigenous people acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. Indigenous people need to determine the conditions under which they might provide that acknowledgement. They may, for example, want a more inclusive state; one that recognises a substantive and meaningful citizenship.

Guaranteed parliamentary representation responds to colonialism’s present as well as its past. Colonisation was not a single event “done” to Indigenous peoples. It is a political system under which justice cannot occur and its essential rationale is exclusive. Designated seats in parliament are a step towards inclusivity.

Treaties look to a post-colonial future. They require societies to describe in real terms, not just in the abstract, what a fair and reasonable political community would entail. They presume Indigenous voice. They require recognition that colonialism gives Indigenous peoples a shared and distinctive political history; a voice that cannot always be effectively expressed by other people.

The mining lobby’s call for restrictions on native title is a contemporary example. It is a point that concerns Indigenous peoples only because their relationships with the state are uniquely colonial. These are relationships that do not concern other citizens for the same reasons or in the same ways.

Recognising difference allows liberal political communities to extend their concern for individual rights to Indigenous people as much as they extend them to anyone else. Individual identity is shaped by culture and communal relationships.

Governments are increasingly recognising that Indigenous exclusion from the policy process is among the reasons for sustained policy failure. Guaranteed representation reduces the distance between policymakers and the people for whom policy is made.

The argument remains even as Australian political parties are exploring ways of increasing the number of Indigenous people preselected as party candidates. For example, federal Labor MP Linda Burney, who is Indigenous, explains that her party is trying to identify and remove structural obstacles to preselection.

It is a concession to the possibility that racism exists within the party itself. However, parties would also need to set aside the fact that they have no electoral incentive to court Indigenous votes. There are simply not enough of them. Designated seats would create an incentive to compete for Indigenous support.

Australia’s democracy is not well equipped to consider the implications of prior occupancy, culture or colonial legacy. Democratic structure determines whether public decisions are the outcome of an inclusive political process. It determines whether people have had equal opportunities to contribute to decision-making, and it is reasonable to expect Indigenous people to require some benefit in return for recognising the legitimacy of the state.

Guaranteed parliamentary representation is not the only mechanism for ensuring Indigenous political voice. It may not, ultimately, be one that Indigenous Australians choose to pursue. However, it is one that has served New Zealand Maori well for 150 years, and is worth considering in response to John Rawls’ argument that:

The unity of society and the allegiance of its citizens to their common institutions rest not on their espousing one rational conception of the good, but on an agreement as to what is just for free and equal moral persons with different and opposing conceptions of the good

NACCHO #IWD2017 Aboriginal Women’s #justjustice :Indigenous, disabled, imprisoned – the forgotten women of #IWD2017

 

” Merri’s story is not uncommon. Studies show that women with physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychosocial disabilities (mental health conditions) experience higher rates of domestic and sexual violence and abuse than other women.

More than 70 per cent of women with disabilities in Australia have experienced sexual violence, and they are 40 per cent more likely to face domestic violence than other women.

Indigenous women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of domestic violence than non-Indigenous women. Indigenous women who have a disability face intersecting forms of discrimination because of their gender, disability, and ethnicity that leave them at even greater risk of experiencing violence — and of being involved in violence and imprisoned

Kriti Sharma is a disability rights researcher for Human Rights Watch

This is our last NACCHO post supporting  International Women’s Day

Further NACCHO reading

Women’s Health ( 275 articles )  or Just Justice  See campaign details below

” In-prison programs fail to address the disadvantage that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners face, such as addiction, intergenerational and historical traumas, grief and loss. Programs have long waiting lists, and exclude those who spend many months on remand or serve short sentences – as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people often do.

Instead, evidence shows that prison worsens mental health and wellbeing, damages relationships and families, and generates stigma which reduces employment and housing opportunities .

To prevent post-release deaths, diversion from prison to alcohol and drug rehabilitation is recommended, which has proven more cost-effective and beneficial than prison , International evidence also recommends preparing families for the post-prison release phase. ‘

Dying to be free: Where is the focus on the deaths occurring post-prison release? Article 1 Below

Article from Page 17 NACCHO Aboriginal Health Newspaper out Wednesday 16 November , 24 Page lift out Koori Mail : or download

naccho-newspaper-nov-2016 PDF file size 9 MB

As the world celebrates International Women’s Day, this week  I think of ‘Merri’, one of the most formidable and resilient women I have ever met.

A 50-year-old Aboriginal woman with a mental health condition, Merri grew up in a remote community in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. When I met her, Merri was in pre-trial detention in an Australian prison.

It was the first time she had been to prison and it was clear she was still reeling from trauma. But she was also defiant.

“Six months ago, I got sick of being bashed so I killed him,” she said. “I spent five years with him [my partner], being bashed. He gave me a freaking [sexually transmitted] disease. Now I have to suffer [in prison].”

I recently traveled through Western Australia, visiting prisons, and I heard story after story of Indigenous women with disabilities whose lives had been cycles of abuse and imprisonment, without effective help.

For many women who need help, support services are simply not available. They may be too far away, hard to find, or not culturally sensitive or accessible to women.

The result is that Australia’s prisons are disproportionately full of Indigenous women with disabilities, who are also more likely to be incarcerated for minor offenses.

For numerous women like Merri in many parts of the country, prisons have become a default accommodation and support option due to a dearth of appropriate community-based services. As with countless women with disabilities, Merri’s disability was not identified until she reached prison. She had not received any support services in the community.

Merri has single-handedly raised her children as well as her grandchildren, but without any support or access to mental health services, life in the community has been a struggle for her.

Strangely — and tragically — prison represented a respite for Merri. With eyes glistening with tears, she told me: “[Prison] is very stressful. But I’m finding it a break from a lot of stress outside.”

Today, on International Women’s Day, the Australian government should commit to making it a priority to meet the needs of women with disabilities who are at risk of violence and abuse.

In 2015, a Senate inquiry into the abuse people with disabilities face in institutional and residential settings revealed the extensive and diverse forms of abuse they face both in institutions and the community. The inquiry recommended that the government set up a Royal Commission to conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the neglect, violence, and abuse faced by people with disabilities across Australia.

The government has been unwilling to do so, citing the new National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguard Framework as adequate.

While the framework is an important step forward, it would only reach people who are enrolled under the NDIS. Its complaints mechanism would not provide a comprehensive look at the diversity and scale of the violence people with disabilities experience, let alone at the ways in which various intersecting forms of discrimination affect people with disabilities.

The creation of a Royal Commission, on the other hand, could give voice to survivors of violence inside and outside the NDIS. It could direct a commission’s resources at a thorough investigation into the violence people with disabilities face in institutional and residential settings, as well as in the community.

The government urgently needs to hear directly from women like Merri about the challenges they face, and how the government can do better at helping them. Whether or not there is a Royal Commission, the government should consult women with disabilities, including Indigenous women, and their representative organizations to learn how to strengthen support services.

Government services that are gender and culturally appropriate, and accessible to women across the country, can curtail abuse and allow women with disabilities to live safe, independent lives in the community.

Kriti Sharma is a disability rights researcher for Human Rights Watch

 

croakey-new

How you can support #JustJustice

• Download, read and share the 2nd edition – HERE.

Buy a hard copy from Gleebooks in Sydney (ask them to order more copies if they run out of stock).

• Send copies of the book to politicians, policy makers and other opinion leaders.

• Encourage journals and other relevant publications to review #JustJustice.

• Encourage your local library to order a copy, whether the free e-version or a hard copy from Gleebooks.

• Follow Guardian Australia’s project, Breaking the Cycle.

Readers may also be interested in these articles:

NACCHO #Aboriginal Health and #Racism #justjustice : The importance of teaching doctors and nurses about unconscious bias

aee

 “Australian universities, medical schools and health systems grappling with how to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their institutions as participants and staff – and how to produce equality of outcomes – need to deal with both overt and systemic factors of racism.

In Australia, the inability to deal with unconscious bias and racism has serious health effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These include increased stress, mental ill-health and suicide, systemic racism in education, sports, justice and the public sector.

In a national survey of Aboriginal patients, 32.4% reported racial discrimination in medical settings most or all of the time. “

Gregory Phillips, Associate Professor and Research Fellow in Aboriginal Health at the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute, considers the coroner’s recommendations in light of Australia’s “inability to deal with unconscious bias and racism”, in and out of the health system. He says our responses must go far beyond cultural awareness training and its implicit judgements:

Image above : Equality can only work if everyone starts from the same place, whereas equity is about making sure people get access to the same opportunities. Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire/madewithangus.com, CC BY

NACCHO Resources

Cultural awareness isn’t enough

 ” Teaching health professionals about Indigenous health will effectively require teaching about unconscious bias and racism; one’s own culture, values and motivations. It requires training in “unlearning” preconceptions, regular reflections on one’s own practices; as well as education about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.”  See Below

” The National Cultural Respect Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health 2016–2026 (the Framework) was recently launched by the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council .

This ten year framework seeks to guide delivery of culturally safe, responsive, and quality health care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.

Download the COAG Cultural Respect Framework here :

cultural_respect_framework_1december2016_1

Ms Dhu coronial findings show importance of teaching doctors and nurses about unconscious bias

Originally published at The Conversation and then Croakey /JustJustice

In delivering her findings of the coronial inquest into the death of 22-year-old Ms Dhu during time spent in a Western Australian jail cell, state coroner Ros Fogliani was highly critical of some actions of police and medical staff.

She reportedly said Ms Dhu’s medical care in one instance was “deficient” and both police and hospital staff were influenced by preconceived notions about Aboriginal people.

Ms Dhu died on 4 August 2014 from staphylococcal septicaemia – a severe bacterial infection – and pneumonia, which were complicated by a previously obtained rib fracture. Released CCTV footage showed Ms Dhu moaning from pain, saying it was ten out of ten.

It was reported an emergency doctor considered her pain real but exaggerated for “behavioural gain”. Another doctor also noted Ms Dhu suffered from “behavioural issues” while a constable thought she was “faking” her suffering.

Ms Dhu’s case is not the first instance of mistreatment of an Aboriginal person in custody or a medical setting, nor is it likely the last. And while coroner Fogliani’s recommendations included mandatory, ongoing cultural competency training for police officers, to assist with health issues and other dealings with Aboriginal people, this isn’t enough.

For thirty years, Australian institutions have implemented cultural awareness programs. The thinking was if they taught staff about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, it would result in better lecturers, clinicians and policy-makers – and magically produce equity.

But this assumes Aboriginal culture is the problem. Like a deaf student in an all-hearing classroom, it is not the deaf student or their needs that are the problem, but a system that thinks an all-verbal and all-hearing teaching style is equal. The idea of equality itself entrenches systemic discrimination.

Unconscious bias

Singer Gurrumul Yunupingu has been suffering from chronic Hepatitis B since he was a child. ALAN PORRITT/AAP Image

 

 

 

In April, Darwin Hospital staff were under fire for allegedly leaving Aboriginal singer Gurrumul Yunupingu to bleed internally for eight hours. Media reported hospital staff noted Gurrumul’s liver damage was self-inflicted (a result of repeated heavy alcohol use) rather than being due to his chronic hepatitis B infection he had since he was a child.

We don’t know whether these allegations are true, but we do know unconscious bias exists in Australia. It refers to the instant judgements we make about other people and situations based on our own values, experiences and cultural and gender beliefs.

These judgements impact significantly on hiring and promotion decisions, how medical students make decisions, and in public discourse.

Regardless of merit or facts, research shows black or Indigenous people are more likely to be seen as less trustworthy; women to be risky prospects, and overweight people as irresponsible. Those with power and privilege judge those with less power for their inability to compete on terms set by the powerful.

So how is unconscious bias different to racism? Like an iceberg, unconscious bias is said to represent the beliefs, values and experiences (below water) that give rise to overt expressions of discrimination (above water).

There are two problems with these definitions, however. They don’t reveal how beliefs, values and experiences got into the subconscious in the first place. They may also imply it is not the responsibility of those with unconscious bias to change their implicit beliefs and explicit actions.

In Australia, the inability to deal with unconscious bias and racism has serious health effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These include increased stress, mental ill-health and suicide, systemic racism in education, sports, justice and the public sector.

In a national survey of Aboriginal patients, 32.4% reported racial discrimination in medical settings most or all of the time. These people felt they had been treated unfairly (which included being treated rudely or with disrespect; being ignored, insulted, harassed, stereotyped or discriminated against) because they were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Equality vs Equity

Public discussion about racism in Australia is often met with denial, discomfort and fragility. Some blame AFL player Adam Goodes for calling out racism – shooting the messenger is a common reaction.

Some stand with whistle blowers and defend their right to speak truth to power. Others completely deny racism’s existence, wishing it would go away because “we treat everyone the same”.

But the impulse to treat everyone the same confuses equality of inputs with equality of outcomes. As the below diagram shows, treating everyone with equal inputs (the same boxes) produces an inequality of outcomes (not everyone can access the game).

Alternatively, treating everyone differently, according to their needs and humanity is more likely to produce equality of outcomes where everyone can access the game. Equity deals not only with overt discrimination but the systemic factors that give rise to it.

Australian universities, medical schools and health systems grappling with how to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their institutions as participants and staff – and how to produce equality of outcomes – need to deal with both overt and systemic factors of racism.

Cultural awareness isn’t enough

Teaching health professionals about Indigenous health will effectively require teaching about unconscious bias and racism; one’s own culture, values and motivations. It requires training in “unlearning” preconceptions, regular reflections on one’s own practices; as well as education about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.

Most importantly, if the clinician cannot see themselves, their privilege and power as a potential problem, this will inadvertently re-establish racism and unconscious bias.

People had mixed reactions when Adam Goodes spoke out on racism in Australia. DEAN LEWINS/AAP Image

Educators have found patiently moving Australian medical students who were initially hostile to Aboriginal health curricula through their discomfort to reach the “a-ha” moment, is a key teaching strategy in producing better prepared doctors.

Further, cultural awareness training assumes that even if we could train every individual staff member in a hospital to be perfectly culturally competent, they would then go on to magically produce better health outcomes.

But the systemic factors – workplace culture, policies, power, funding and criteria on which decisions are made – are critical if we want a culturally equitable society.

Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people includes moving from a goal of equality to equity; teaching about racism and unconscious bias, not just culture; and making explicit the deeper transformational work of institutional decolonisation. We need to ask: how can power be shared? On whose terms are decisions made? Who owns institutions and services? Whose criteria are used to judge effectiveness?

The answer is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander definitions and measurement tools of success are more likely to contribute to producing better outcomes than those where unconscious bias and racism is implicit. The work of admitting and addressing institutional racism remains.

croakey-new

How you can support #JustJustice

• Download, read and share the 2nd edition – HERE.

Buy a hard copy from Gleebooks in Sydney (ask them to order more copies if they run out of stock).

• Send copies of the book to politicians, policy makers and other opinion leaders.

• Encourage journals and other relevant publications to review #JustJustice.

• Encourage your local library to order a copy, whether the free e-version or a hard copy from Gleebooks.

• Follow Guardian Australia’s project, Breaking the Cycle.

Readers may also be interested in these articles:

NACCHO Aboriginal Health and #prisons #JustJustice : Terms of references released Over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in our prisons

img_7087

 ” It is acknowledged that while laws and legal frameworks are an important factor contributing to over‑representation, there are many other social, economic, and historic factors that also contribute.

It is also acknowledged that while the rate of imprisonment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and their contact with the criminal justice system – both as offenders and as victims – significantly exceeds that of non‑Indigenous Australians, the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people never commit criminal offences.”

Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, Attorney-General of Australia,

Refering to the Australian Law Reform Commission, an inquiry into the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our prisons:

Senator Siewert Greens Senator moved the following motion in the Senate

(a) notes that the adult incarceration rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples increased by 77.4 per cent from 2000 to 2015;

(b) acknowledges the growing incarceration rates of our First Peoples is shameful;

(c) notes the Redfern Statement, which was released in 2016 by over 55 Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations and peak bodies, sets out a plan for addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ disadvantage;

(d) notes that the Redfern Statement calls for justice targets to help focus the effort to reduce Aboriginal incarceration; and

(e) calls on the Government to listen to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and adopt justice targets as a matter of urgency.

NACCHO NOTE :

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will tomorrow deliver the ninth Closing the Gap address to Parliament.

The annual report card tracks progress against targets in a range of areas, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment and life expectancy.

But it does not include any targets around incarceration rates — despite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people making up a quarter of Australia’s prison population

ALRC inquiry into the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) welcomes the appointment by Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, of His Honour Judge Matthew Myers AM as an ALRC Commissioner.

Judge Myers will lead the new ALRC Inquiry into the high incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, announced by the Attorney-General in October 2016.

Judge Myers was appointed to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in 2012. He is a member of the Board of Family and Relationship Services Australia, the CatholicCare Advisory Council (Broken Bay Dioceses), Law Society of New South Wales Indigenous Issues Committee, Federal Circuit Court of Australia Indigenous Access to Justice Committee, Co-Chair of the Aboriginal Family Law Pathways Network, member of the Central Coast Family Law Pathways Network Steering Committee, member of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, member of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council,  member of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and member of the Honoured Friends of the Salvation Army.

Judge Myers said “I am honoured by this appointment and the opportunity to build on the valuable work of past Commissions, Inquiries and successful community initiatives. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and children are significantly over represented in the Australian criminal justice system. This is something that cannot and should not be acceptable to any Australian. I look forward to undertaking a broad consultation across the country, working closely with stakeholders and the community to develop meaningful and practical solutions through law reform.”

ALRC President Professor Rosalind Croucher AM said, “We are delighted by this appointment and welcome Judge Myers to lead this very important Inquiry. To echo the Attorney-General, the over representation of Indigenous Australians in our prison system is a national tragedy. This Inquiry, with the expertise and leadership of Judge Myers, is an important step in developing much needed law reform in this area.”

The Attorney-General’s Department released draft Terms of Reference for Inquiry into the incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for community consultation, in December 2016.

The consultation included Indigenous communities and organisations and state and territory governments.

Scope of the reference

  1. In developing its law reform recommendations, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) should have regard to:
    1. Laws and legal frameworks including legal institutions and law enforcement (police, courts, legal assistance services and prisons), that contribute to the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and inform decisions to hold or keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in custody, specifically in relation to:
      1. the nature of offences resulting in incarceration,
      2. cautioning,
      3. protective custody,
      4. arrest,
      5. remand and bail,
      6. diversion,
      7. sentencing, including mandatory sentencing, and
      8. parole, parole conditions and community reintegration.
    2. Factors that decision-makers take into account when considering (1)(a)(i-viii), including:
      1. community safety,
      2. availability of alternatives to incarceration,
      3. the degree of discretion available to decision-makers,
      4. incarceration as a last resort, and
      5. incarceration as a deterrent and as a punishment.
    3. Laws that may contribute to the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples offending and including, for example, laws that regulate the availability of alcohol, driving offences and unpaid fines.
    4. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their rate of incarceration.
    5. Differences in the application of laws across states and territories.
    6. Other access to justice issues including the remoteness of communities, the availability of and access to legal assistance and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language and sign interpreters.
  2.  In conducting its Inquiry, the ALRC should have regard to existing data and research[1] in relation to:
    1. best practice laws, legal frameworks that reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration,
    2. pathways of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the criminal justice system, including most frequent offences, relative rates of bail and diversion and progression from juvenile to adult offending,
    3. alternatives to custody in reducing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration and/or offending, including rehabilitation, therapeutic alternatives and culturally appropriate community led solutions,
    4. the impacts of incarceration on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including in relation to employment, housing, health, education and families, and
    5. the broader contextual factors contributing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration including:
      1. the characteristics of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prison population,
      2. the relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offending and incarceration and inter‑generational trauma, loss of culture, poverty, discrimination, alcohol and drug use, experience of violence, including family violence, child abuse and neglect, contact with child protection and welfare systems, educational access and performance, cognitive and psychological factors, housing circumstances and employment, and
      3. the availability and effectiveness of culturally appropriate programs that intend to reduce Aboriginal; and Torres Strait Islander offending and incarceration.
    6. fullsizerender
  3. In undertaking this Inquiry, the ALRC should identify and consider other reports, inquiries and action plans including but not limited to:
    1. the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody,
    2. the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory (due to report 1 August 2017),
    3. Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration’s Inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Experience of Law Enforcement and Justice Services,
    4. Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs’ inquiry into Indefinite Detention of People with Cognitive and Psychiatric impairment in Australia,
    5. Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs inquiry into Harmful Use of Alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities,
    6. reports of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner,
    7. the ALRC’s inquiries into Family violence and Family violence and Commonwealth laws, and
    8. the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.

The ALRC should also consider the gaps in available data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration and consider recommendations that might improve data collection.

  1. In conducting its inquiry the ALRC should also have regard to relevant international human rights standards and instruments.

Consultation

  1. In undertaking this inquiry, the ALRC should identify and consult with relevant stakeholders including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their organisations, state and territory governments, relevant policy and research organisations, law enforcement agencies, legal assistance service providers and the broader legal profession, community service providers and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Timeframe

  1. The ALRC should provide its report to the Attorney-General by 22 December 2017.

[1] It is not the intention that the Australian Law Reform Commission will undertake independent research or evaluation of existing programs, noting that this falls outside its legislative responsibilities and expertise.

img_7088

NACCHO Aboriginal Health and Human Rights : Nomination open 2017 National Indigenous #HumanRights Awards

nihra-2017-save-the-date-invitation_version-2

 ” The National Indigenous Human Rights Awards recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons who have made significant contribution to the advancement of human rights and social justice for their people.”

The awards were established in 2014, and will held annually. The inaugural awards were held at NSW Parliament House, and were welcomed by the Hon Linda Burney, MP and included key note speakers Dr Yalmay Yunupingu, Ms Gail Mabo, and Mr Anthony Mundine. A number of other distinguished guests such as political representatives, indigenous leaders and others in the fields of human rights and social justice also attended.

The Awards were presented by leading Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders, and leading Indigenous figures in Indigenous Social Justice and Human Rights. All recipients of the National Human Rights Award will be persons of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage.

To nominate someone for one of the three awards, please go to https://shaoquett.wufoo.com/forms/z4qw7zc1i3yvw6/
 
For further information, please also check out the Awards Guide at https://www.scribd.com/document/336434563/2017-National-Indigenous-Human-Rights-Awards-Guide

AWARD CATEGORIES:

 

DR YUNUPINGU AWARD – FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
 
To an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person who has made a significant contribution to the advancement of Human Rights for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples. Dr Yunupingu is the first Aboriginal from Arnhem Land to achieve a university degree. In 1986 Dr Yunupingu formed Yothu Yindi in 1986, combining Aboriginal (Yolngu) and non-Aboriginal (balanda) musicians and instrumentation.

In 1990 was appointed as Principal of Yirrkala Community School, Australia’s first Aboriginal Principal. Also in that year he established the Yothu Yindi Foundation to promote Yolngu cultural development, including Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures Dr Yumupingu was named 1992 Australian of the Year for his work in building bridges between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across Australia.

THE EDDIE MABO AWARD FOR ACHIEVEMENTS IN SOCIAL JUSTICE

In memory of Eddie Koiki Mabo (1936-1992), this award recognises an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person who has made a significant contribution to the advancement of Social Justice for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Eddie Koiki Mabo was a Torres Straits Islander, most notable in Australian history for his role in campaigning for indigenous land rights.

From 1982 to 1991 Eddie campaigned for the rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to have their land rights recognised. Sadly, he died of cancer at the age of 56, five months before the High Court handed down its landmark land rights decision overturning Terra Nullius. He was 56 when he passed away.

THE ANTHONY MUNDINE AWARD FOR COURAGE

 

To an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person who has made a significant contribution to the advancement of sports among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Anthony Mundine is an Australian professional boxer and former rugby league player. He is a former, two-time WBA Super Middleweight Champion, a IBO Middleweight Champion, and an interim WBA Light Middleweight Champion boxer and a New South Wales State of Origin representative footballer. Before his move to boxing he was the highest paid player in the NRL.

In 2000 Anthony was named the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Person of the Year in 2000. He has also won the Deadly Award as Male Sportsperson of the Year in 2003, 2006 and 2007 amongst others.

He has a proud history of standing up for Indigenous peoples, telling a journalist from the Canberra Times: “I’m an Aboriginal man that speaks out and if I see something, I speak the truth.”

NACCHO Aboriginal Health debate #changethedate #australiaday : #InvasionDay, #SurvivalDay, or Day of Mourning?

nitv_230117_what_to_call_jan_26_header_image

“Many of our people call it Invasion Day … to many Indigenous Australians, in fact, most Indigenous Australians, it really reflects the day in which our world came crashing down,” the prominent Indigenous leader and academic said.

The idea that it’s not appropriate to hold a national celebration on the date the first fleet arrived in Sydney cove in 1788 to begin the process of Indigenous dispossession wasn’t new. It wasn’t even the first time an Australian of the Year had said so. Lowitja O’Donoghue pleaded for a date change after she was honoured in 1984. It’s even more widespread now.

Mick Dodson explained succinctly why he thought Australia’s national day is celebrated on the wrong date after accepting his Australian of the Year award in 2009. See article 3 below from the Guardian

“It is critical that more Australians understand why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples often feel that 26 January is an inappropriate day for celebration.

Australia Day has diverse meaning to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; some see it as a day of invasion, a day of mourning and of assertion of sovereignty; some see it as a day of survival.

Considering these meanings, it must be recognised that holding Australia Day on 26 January does not make for inclusion and celebration of our nation and all its peoples possible.”

Reconciliation Australia believes Australia Day must be inclusive, unifying, and be supported by all Australians. It should be a day when we come together as a unified people – a day when all Australian’s rights, histories and cultures are valued as part of a shared national identity

Justin Mohamed, CEO of Reconciliation Australia (former Chair of NACCHO ) Article 2 below

 ” Every year on the 26th of January I wonder a bit about how I am going to refer to the day, Invasion Day, Survival Day or Day of Mourning? Over the years I have referred to it as all of these, and I think the choice I make reflects a bit about the mood I am in at that time, where I am at in life, and where Australia is in general.

Photo above NITV : Each of the names captures an important part of what this date represents.

Invasion Day, for me, reflects an honest truth that needs to be expressed. It speaks of the power of protest. It speaks of a history that has never been reconciled, of justice denied. It reminds how one simple word, ‘invasion’, seems to bewilderingly upset those connected to the invaders more than those who descend from the invaded. It comes largely from the 1988 protests which also brought the slogan “White Australia Has A Black History” to our national consciousness. At the same time, there is a part of me that felt it gives too much energy away and not enough to ourselves. I often think about whether or not we spend too much responding to the moves of others rather than making our own, but at the same time the power of the above slogan always resonates with me and speaks to a battle that is still underway about how we relate to Australian history. I believe we still need to speak these words, and we still need people to attend these events.

 White Australia Has A Black History

Survival.

It speaks to me of celebration and commemoration. It speaks of amazing resilience and resistance of cultures, communities, families and individuals. At the same time, it feels too comforting for white Australia. It does not feel ‘in their face’ enough. Perhaps this is more to do with how the name has been coopted than what it was originally intended for, I don’t know, but it has never quite sat right with me. So many lives have been needlessly lost in our history, and every day; those who didn’t survive. I am not comfortable about a day that can so easily be misrepresented to gloss over this tragic reality. Still, I believe we still need to speak these words, and we still need people to attend these events.

Mourning.

It speaks to commemorating and acknowledging all we have to mourn since invasion took place. Not just the loss of life, but for all of the loss of culture, loss of land, loss of language. It is one of the oldest names we have for this day, and the significance of the 1938 protests should always be remembered and commemorated. Like the other two days though I have at times felt this lacked the fire of Invasion Day, and the positive outlook of Survival Day. But I know the power and the importance of grieving for people and things lost, and I believe we still need to speak these words, and we still need people to attend these events.

 Aborigines day of mourning, Sydney, 26 January 1938

Aborigines day of mourning, Sydney, 26 January 1938 (State Library of NSW)

It is only in recent years that I have stopped the internal debate each year about which camp I should sit in and come to realise that all three days are important, all three are still needed for different people at different times in their life. All three come are essential pieces of the whole that are needed to fully recognise the significance of this date.

There are times we need to protest. Other times we need to breathe, and to celebrate that we are still here despite the obstacles we have overcome and those we still face. And at other times we just need to mourn, and to heal.

Like many debates in our communities this is one where I believe we do not need to debate but instead we need to support each other regardless of the camp we need to sit in, and respect the reasons why we need to be there. We should be able to freely move between each and let others do the same.

There are times we need to protest. Other times we need to breathe, and to celebrate that we are still here despite the obstacles we have overcome and those we still face. And at other times we just need to mourn, and to heal. I know many people who plan to attend an Invasion Day march in the morning, attend a Survival Day concert in the morning, and then spend a reflective evening commemorating the Day of Mourning.

I have at times heard people opposed to changing the date of Australia Day argue that doing so would be to ignore or try to erase the history of this date. I disagree. January the 26th will always be an important date in our national calendar. It will always be Invasion Day. It will always be Survival Day. It will always be a Day of Mourning. We will never forget what this day represents. The only name I think the 26th of January should not have is ‘Australia Day’. It is not a day that was ever intended for Aboriginal people to celebrate. Even as far back as 1888, when Henry Parkes was the Premier of NSW and was preparing to celebrate the 100 year anniversary, he was asked if he was planning anything for Aboriginal people on this day, to which he replied, “And remind them that we have robbed them?”.

Australia Day, for me, is a day that was only ever intended to be a day for white Australians to come together to celebrate white Australia, and the recent attempts to make it a more inclusive day just feel like an effort to make it a day where all Australians regardless of their race, colour, or religion can come together to celebrate white Australia.

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of an Australia Day that would allow us all to celebrate together, on the condition that we eventually learn to see the difference between inclusion and assimilation, but I am not entirely sure if there is a date in Australian history that could adequately encapsulate that ideal. That, to me, is the most interesting element about the whole ‘change the date’ conversation. Not the push to see that date changed, but the conversation about what day, if any, best encapsulates the Australia the Australia that we would like to imagine ourselves as.

Is our national identity best commemorated on the day that NSW became a British colony, or the date that Australians stopped being British subjects? Is it the day that the White Australia Policy was enacted, or is it the day it was repealed? Is it perhaps the day, if it ever comes, that we become a republic? Or is it some future day that we can’t even imagine at the moment, some future event that could serve to help ‘bring us together to celebrate all that is great about being Australians’?

But whether the date of Australia Day ever changes or not, the 26th of January will always be an important day. It will always be Invasion Day. It will always be Survival Day. It will always be a Day of Mourning.

So whatever you call it, whatever events you choose to go to or whether you just do your own thing, we do not need to debate what we should call this day so long as we can agree on one simple thing – Australia always was, and always will be Aboriginal land.

#AlwaysWillBe

Article 2 : Australia Day should be a source of unity, pride and celebration that reflects the identities, histories and cultures of all Australians.

rec

Justin Mohamed, CEO of Reconciliation Australia said today at a breakfast honouring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia Day finalists,

“We must find a day on which we can all participate equally, and can celebrate with pride our common Australian identity. I believe that it is critical to reconciliation for all Australians to acknowledge and understand different views around the date of Australia Day. And to ask the critical question: can our national day be truly inclusive if it is celebrated on a day that represents the beginning of physical and cultural dispossession for First Australians?”

Reconciliation Australia  hosted a celebratory breakfast for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian of the Year Awards finalists, and finalists who work with Indigenous communities.
The work of the finalists champions #reconciliation and brings Australia closer to becoming a just, equitable and reconciled nation.

Finalists Andrew Forrest, Arthur Alla, Andrea Mason, Tejinder pal Singh, Sister Anne Gardiner AM and Lois Peeler AM, Reconciliation Australia Co-Chair Professor Tom Calma AO, finalists June Oscar AO and Patricia Buckskin PSM, and Reconciliation Australia CEO Justin Mohamed

Article 3 Editorial the Guardian Australia agrees.

This is not a date that unifies Australians.

In fact it’s hard to think of a worse date for a party that is supposed to include us all.

The National Australia Day Council itself acknowledges the problem.

“We recognise that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and some non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may have mixed feelings about celebrating this day. January 26 has multiple meanings: it is Australia Day and it is also, for some, Survival Day or Invasion Day. The NADC acknowledges that the date brings a mixture of celebration and mourning and we believe that the programs presented by the NADC should play a powerful and positive role in advancing reconciliation.”

The national strategy that followed the initial decade-long process to achieve reconciliation recommended the date be changed.

“Governments, organisations and communities negotiate to establish and promote symbols of reconciliation,” it said. “This would include changing the date of Australia Day to a date that includes all Australians.”

But, despite the obvious historical arguments and the growing acknowledgement the date is a problem, there is still deep resistance to the idea that 26 January is inappropriate.

Fremantle council tried to hold this year’s main citizenship ceremony at a more inclusive 28 January event, but eventually bowed to pressure from the federal government. The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, insisted Australia would be “sticking with” 26 January.

Back in 2009 the then prime minister Kevin Rudd’s reply to Mick Dodson’s suggestion was even more brusque. “To our Indigenous leaders, and those who call for a change to our national day, let me say a simple, respectful, but straightforward no,” he said.

Some – like the Indigenous leader Noel Pearson – have suggested changing our understanding of exactly what we are celebrating on 26 January.

He sees three defining moments in Australia’s history: “Firstly, 53,000-plus years ago, when the first Australians crossed the Torres Strait land bridge to this continent; secondly, the landing of the first fleet in 1788; thirdly, the abolition of the White Australia policy between 1973 and 1975.”

“I believe the celebration of Australia Day will always be equivocal as long as it is about only one of these three parts,” he said at the National Press Club last year. “If we brought these three parts of the nation together and the day defining Australia spoke to these three parts then less offence and hurt would attach to 26 January. It can’t just be about what was destroyed. It must also be about what we have built.”

When he became Australian of the Year in 2014, the footballer Adam Goodes also suggested broadening what Australia Day is about. “There was a lot of anger, a lot of sorrow, for this day and very much the feeling of Invasion Day,” he said.

“But in the last five years, I’ve really changed my perception of what is Australia Day, of what it is to be Australian and for me, it’s about celebrating the positives, that we are still here as Indigenous people, our culture is one of the longest surviving cultures in the world, over 40,000 years.

“That is something we need to celebrate and all Australians need to celebrate … It’s a day we celebrate over 225 years of European settlement and right now, that’s who we are as a nation but we also need to acknowledge our fantastic Aboriginal history of over 40,000 years and just know that some Aboriginal people out there today are feeling a little bit angry, a little bit soft in the heart today because of that, and that’s OK as well.”

Even these measured comments prompted wild attacks by conservative commentators and were later cited as one of the reasons fans from opposing teams booed Goodes the following year.

But for many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, the only viable solution remains to #changethedate and public discussion of a new date is growing. The national youth broadcaster, Triple J, declined to shift its much-loved Hottest 100 this year, but given the public pressure the ABC says the date remains “under review”. Indigenous musicians A.B. Original and Dan Sultan released a track advocating for a date change last year, and this week a collection of hip hop artists released another.

The Saturday Paper has argued that boycotting Australia Day celebrations is the best way to try to force a shift.

Guardian Australia also argues for change but we will be covering 26 January.

We’ll reflect the deep concerns about the date in our live blog – which will cover the Invasion Day marches and Indigenous cultural celebrations such as Sydney’s Yabun festival and also the events on 26 January that reflect the best of us, the wonderful citizenship ceremonies around the country, as well as concerts and the Hottest 100.

There are many reasons for Australians to feel proud. We agree 26 January is the wrong day for national festivities, but we think respectful debate – about changing the date or the meaning of the celebration – is the best way to a solution that will allow all Australians to join the party.

nitv-356031-large_0

 

NACCHO Aboriginal Health : A call to acknowledge the harmful history of nursing for Aboriginal people

nurses

 ” While we ourselves did not work there, the societal beliefs interwoven with the professional theories practised at that time are a legacy we have inherited. Those attitudes and practices remain present within our professional space.

Have we done sufficient work to decolonise ourselves?

Decolonising is a conscious practice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses. It involves recognising the impact of the beliefs and practices of the coloniser on ourselves at a personal and professional level, then disavowing ourselves from them.

We talk about this in CATSINaM with our Members. We invite our non-Indigenous colleagues to engage in this self-reflective conversation through many aspects of our work.

janine-mohamed-indigenous-x-profile-picture

Janine Mohamed (right), CEO of the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives (CATSINaM), argues we should.

Is it time for the nursing and midwifery professions to reflect on our historical involvement in the subjugation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and consider whether we owe a statement of regret for our failures as part of the wider healthcare system to respond to the needs of Aboriginal Australians?

Do formal apologies mean anything?

We welcome your input on this fundamental issue for Australians – and especially input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses and midwives.

Editorial Nurse Uncut Conversations

In September 2016, the Australian Psychological Society issued a formal apology to Indigenous Australians for their past failure as a profession to respond to the needs of Aboriginal patients.

In the past, the NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association and the ANMF more broadly have issued statements of apology for our professions’ involvement in the practices associated with the forced adoption of babies from the 1950s to 1980s.

In doing so we recognised that while those nurses and midwives were working under direction, it was often they who took the babies away from mothers who had been forced, pressured and coerced into relinquishing their children and we apologised for and acknowledged the pain these mothers, fathers and children had experienced in their lives as a result.

Following the recent commendable move by the Australian Psychological Society, is it now time for the nursing and midwifery professions to reflect on our historical involvement as healthcare providers in the subjugation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and consider whether we owe a similar statement of regret for our failures as part of the wider healthcare system to respond to the needs of Aboriginal Australians?

But firstly, do such apologies mean anything?

Professor Alan Rosen AO (a non-indigenous psychiatrist) makes a cogent argument for an apology by the Australian mental health professions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:

The recent apology by the Australian Psychological Society to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is of profound national and international significance.

The APS is believed to be the first mental health professional representative body in the world to endorse and adopt such a specific apology to indigenous peoples for what was done to them by the profession as part of, or in the name of, mental health/psychological assessment, treatment and care.

The APS Board also substantially adopted the recommendation of its Indigenous Psychologists’ Advisory Group (IPAG), whose Indigenous and non-Indigenous members crafted this apology together. This sets a fine precedent.

As some other Australian mental health professional bodies are still considering whether to make such an apology, it is to be hoped that the APS has set a new trend. The APS has provided a robust example of how to do it well and in a way that it is more likely to be considered to be sincere and acceptable by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Historically, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have suffered much more incarceration, inappropriate diagnoses and treatments and more control than care in the hands of mental health professionals, facilities and institutions.

This is also true for all First Nations peoples, globally.

Professor Rosen argues that such apologies demonstrate concern for possible historical wrongs, either deliberate or unwitting, by professionals and institutions and the enduring mental health effects of colonialism. The Croakey.org article goes on to describe the purposes and goals of an apology, why they are worth doing and proposes a template.

So, just as we have recognised and apologised for the role our professions played in forced adoptions, is it now time to examine and take responsibility for our professions’ historical contribution to undermining Indigenous Australians’ social and emotional health and wellbeing?

Janine Mohamed (right), CEO of the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives (CATSINaM), argues we should.

Between 1908 and 1919, hundreds of Aboriginal patients were incarcerated in the Lock Hospitals off the coast of Carnarvon, with more than 150 people dying there. The West Australian government established the hospitals for the treatment of Aboriginal people with sexually transmitted infections, but there remains considerable doubt as to the accuracy of such diagnoses – many of which were made by police officers.

The Fantome Island Lock Hospital operated in Queensland from 1928-45 under similar arrangements, detaining Aboriginal people with suspected sexually transmitted infections. There was also a lazaret on Fantome Island (1939-73) for segregated treatment of Aboriginal people with Hansen’s disease.

Aboriginal people taken to the hospitals were often forcibly removed from their families and communities and transported in traumatic conditions, in chains and under police guard. There is also evidence of medical experimentation and abuse.
The NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association has embarked on the process of developing a Reconciliation Action Plan. As a first step, over coming months we will be working on developing a more thorough understanding of how historical practices have affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our care.

We welcome feedback, especially from our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander colleagues.