atsieb.com.au€¦ · Web viewi. ATSIEB—12-04-1776Community Services Directorate. ATSIEB—12-04-17. ATSIEB—12-04-1719Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER ELECTED BODY

(Reference: Estimates process 2016-2017)

Members:

MR ROSS FOWLER (The Chair)MS JOANNE CHIVERS (The Deputy Chair)

MR MAURICE WALKERMS SELINA WALKER

MRS LYNNICE CHURCHMR DION DEVOW

MR TONY MCCULLOCH (Absent)

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE

CANBERRA

WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2017

Committee contact officer:Ms Margaret BeattieATSIEB SecretariatOffice of Multicultural,for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AffairsCommunity Services DirectorateGPO Box 158CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601

APPEARANCES

Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate..................1, 19

Community Services Directorate..............................................................................39

Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate......................77

ATSIEB—12-04-17

The elected body met at 9.28 am.

Appearances:

Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development DirectorateNicol, Mr David, Under TreasurerOverton-Clarke, Ms Bronwen, Deputy Director-General, Workforce Capability and

Governance DivisionChilds, Ms Judi, Director, Public Sector Management Branch, Workforce

Capability and Governance DivisionEngele, Mr Sam, Director, Policy and Cabinet

THE CHAIR: Welcome. Thank you for attending this morning, Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. My name is Ross Fowler and I am the Chair of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body. As I take the lead for the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, I will be asking a series of questions this morning, but I will just hand over quickly to our members to introduce themselves and their portfolios.

MR WALKER: I have the Health portfolio.

MRS CHURCH: I have the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate.

MS WALKER: I have the Transport Canberra and City Services portfolio.

MR DEVOW: I have the Community Services Directorate.

MS CHIVERS: I am the deputy chairperson and I have the Justice and Community Safety portfolio.

THE CHAIR: Before I ask questions, I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are gathering on today, the Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to the elders, past, present and emerging, and also extend that acknowledgement to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the room this morning.

Mr Nicol: Kathy Leigh, the Head of Service, sends her apologies. She is, unfortunately, on leave. She had pre-booked leave, with family commitments, so she cannot come. I know that she places a very high degree of importance on these meetings and she is disappointed that she could not be here. But I am here, and we will try to answer any questions you have to the best of our ability.

THE CHAIR: I will begin with an opening statement and then I will lead into a series of questions. I will leave it up to the team that is representing Kathy to answer those questions in the first instance.

Ms Overton-Clarke: We have additional people here today who can help us with that as well.

ATSIEB—12-04-17 1 Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate

THE CHAIR: Excellent; thank you. Since the last hearings the elected body have been able to release the fifth and sixth reports on the outcomes of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body hearings for 2014 and 2015. We have commenced a review of the elected body act, which the ACT government have responded to, and we have progressed in the areas of the whole-of-government agreement and the Aboriginal justice partnership. This will bear on some of our questions today—but not all of them—in relation to your directorate.

I have an opening question. Please outline any new programs or services which your directorate has implemented over the past financial year. With this in mind, how are these programs and services progressing, what outcomes are they producing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, how are you measuring the success of these programs and initiatives and, if these programs and services are not producing better outcomes, what measures are you taking to make changes or turn the program and services around to achieve this?

Ms Overton-Clarke: I might start and get on the front foot about some of the employment initiatives across ACT government that we are bedding down and also the new ones that are starting. In terms of those that are already in existence, we are continuing to use existing programs such as the graduate one to attract and retain new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff into ACT government.

We have got the second cohort of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traineeship program, which has started—it is the second tranche—and next month we are about to start the new career development program across ACT government. We are pretty excited about that. We have asked 20 administrative support officers and 20 senior officers to engage in a program which will look at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander retention in the ACT public service.

One of the things we have talked about in these hearings before—and I know that you are very interested in it, Ross—is that the rate of turnover of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff across the ACTPS is higher than the non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rate. This new program is looking at individual support for 40 staff initially, across the ACTPS. We want to really work with them to develop their careers, hopefully in ACT government, and look at the individualised support that they will need to help them progress their careers. That is probably a good initial snapshot of existing and new initiatives in the employment space.

Mr Nicol: Just to give you a short answer from Treasury’s perspective, we do not run too many programs per se, except for the internal employment side, which I think Bronwen has covered. The main area of our focus has been to try to lift input into the budget processes and resource allocation processes from the Aboriginal Indigenous community.

We have done that in a couple of ways. The last budget was the first budget, I think, where we had a particular focus on an Indigenous submission. That came forward through the budget cabinet process and elevated a focus in budget cabinet on the particular needs. I think that went very well. We combined it with a cross-portfolio submission as well for the first time. Instead of disparate proposals coming forward,


hidden across directorates, essentially we had a single submission that focused on Indigenous and Aboriginal Islander needs.

Judging the success of that is very difficult, but I think the fact that we got that focus was a success in itself. We are looking to continue that in future budgets. We are also looking to continue to lift the interaction we have and the access that the body and other stakeholder groups have in the budget process so that, essentially, we are in a position where we are hungry for input as to what the priorities are and how we can do things better.

We are certainly putting a lot of effort into the broader budget consultation processes. We are trialling new techniques to get input from groups that do not necessarily want to sit down and write a traditional budget submission that goes for 30 pages. We are very interested in the board’s comments and inputs on how we can do that for your community. I guess this is an area where I want to put my focus for Treasury in the near to medium term.

THE CHAIR: It is something you probably need to work with both us and the new members on, acknowledging that we go into caretaker mode and new elections this year.

Mr Nicol: Indeed.

THE CHAIR: It is not something we are going to solve in the next month or so.

Mr Nicol: No. As I said, it is very much an ongoing process.

THE CHAIR: Obviously the elected body is one form of engagement, but from a Treasury point of view—or, let us say, a money point of view—in working with our community, how do you see you are able to do that?

Mr Nicol: In many senses it is through the directorates. Treasury does not set the budget priorities per se. We are trying to get the directorates out to make sure that the priorities they are setting reflect the needs in their portfolio areas.

THE CHAIR: When you talk about priorities, you obviously are aware that we have a whole-of-government agreement in relation to key priorities. We are very interested in how Treasury is going to meet some of the aspirations in those priorities. Bronwen spoke about economic independence, the economic participation role—so looking at very different levels, from entry level through to retaining staff on board. That is one thing directorates could look at across the board. You say “priorities”. I am curious as to what priorities you think are out there, even though this has been agreed to and signed off by government.

Mr Nicol: Traditionally, Treasury looks through proposals that come forward across the board. We try to assess their merits on the basis of what we understand to be the objectives of government, including through documents such as that, including through any consultation or input we get from members of the community. We are very welcoming of that. My key message is that I think we have to have our ears open. We will hear things and that will influence the way we give advice to


government on how to set its priorities and how to change the way we make programs work across government.

We are very keen and open to not only create new programs per se but also change the way we do what we currently do. In fact, that is 95 per cent of our effort. The new programs, by mathematics, are at the margin in a sense because we have limited resources. We are also really interested in getting input from anyone and everyone as to where we can change what we do now to improve outcomes. We have our own views. I have a team that looks at programs—not necessarily from an Indigenous perspective only, but the Indigenous perspective will come into that. I am acutely conscious that we are not the font of all wisdom.

THE CHAIR: No.

Mr Nicol: In fact, we are not even at the front of the pack. We are really looking for that input. We are trying to open up everyone’s channels of communication to get that in. When that happens, we will make sure it appears before cabinet. We will make sure it appears in the analysis of proposals and the way we run our programs.

THE CHAIR: Would the elected body be part of that process as well?

Mr Nicol: Absolutely. In the past we have sat down with the elected body and explained the process. I think the understanding of community groups of the process, which can be very opaque—not hidden but perhaps mysterious—is that it is hard to know which doors to knock on. Your input into directorates is absolutely vital. That is a really key information source for them.

I would also encourage you to think about the budget consultation process. This year, for example, the Chief Minister asked each minister to report to cabinet on the main themes coming through in the consultation process that happened in each portfolio. That was a process—a couple of hours were devoted to it, from memory—where each minister went through and explained the key themes coming through in their budget consultation processes. If you get cabinet and cabinet agendas, including Indigenous issues, or any issue, that is how you influence decision-making. I do not underestimate the value of these hearings as well and the views that you put here and the questions you ask. We look at those things.

THE CHAIR: Excellent.

Mr Nicol: We will answer questions as we can on the day, but it makes us think, “Is there an issue here that we did not know about, or we did know about it and we have to put more effort in?” We do not operate in isolation. We are very much keyed into the messages that you are sending us, as well as all the other community groups. On the budget side, I am obviously doing this for every sector of the community and every sector of the economy.

THE CHAIR: I understand.

Mr Nicol: I must say we have elevated the Indigenous area—


THE CHAIR: Excellent.

Mr Nicol: in terms of listening to messages through the channels. I think they are higher than when I started in this job four years ago; we are unclogging them. I would really encourage you to take advantage of that, because that is what influences us and influences ministers.

THE CHAIR: And we do take advantage of that.

Mr Nicol: I know you do.

THE CHAIR: We try different mechanisms to increase the budget and better outcomes, but it is not about me talking today; it is about you guys.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Can I just add that a good example of that is the career development program. In relation to the discussions that we have been having over the years—and it was part of that integrated budget process that David was talking about—we would not have got that outcome had it not been for the elevation that the elected body has made over the years around those issues. I think it is a really good example of something as a result of that.

THE CHAIR: Excellent. Thank you. Members, do you have anything to add to that, around programs? No worries. I will go onto the next question.

Noting the multiple functions within CMTEDD, I am going to ask a few questions under the Chief Minister umbrella. Bronwen, hopefully you might be able to answer some of these questions for us. They are around the graduate program. You alluded to that earlier on. At the last hearings, you stated that 52 graduates will be employed across the ACT public service. The elected body notes that only two of those are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates. What is the government doing to increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates in the ACTPS?

Ms Overton-Clarke: I might ask Judi Childs to come up and give me a hand with this answer. Certainly we make sure that, at the time we call for applications, we are making the assessment process as broad as possible. That is not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; we also encourage applications from a number of different groups, including people with disabilities. And we make sure that we use the assessment process and work with the directorates to really encourage the examination of the applications that we get. At the moment we are just in the middle of re-examining how we do the whole application process, because we absolutely realise that in getting more people through the door, part of that is how we market and how we advertise the graduate process. I will hand over to Judi to talk about that a bit more.

Ms Childs: We are disappointed that the numbers have not been what we would have liked. We are examining, both at intake and attraction, the processes involved there. We have put a lot of effort into having an inclusion team who basically reach out to every applicant from an identified group in the graduate program. It is a personal interaction, asking questions around any reasonable adjustment that might be required of the applicant and doing things like cultural awareness training or, in one of the


other identified groups, disability competence training for the selection panels prior to any interaction with the applicants.

It is fair to say that we have not been successful in attracting a large cohort of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduate applicants. We have been working with OATSIA and also with the university sector to have more reach into the universities to encourage applications before we go out for application. That is acknowledging, of course, that we are competing with our colleagues up on the hill, particularly for the local graduates here in Canberra. It is a work in progress, and I would welcome any suggestions that members of the elected body would have. We do have targeted advertising. We do go to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment providers and raise awareness of when we are going out for applications. But it is fair to say that the numbers have not yet converted to what we would like.

THE CHAIR: Can I just get clarification? When you mention the university network, are we talking about just the local Canberra universities or are we talking about universities nationally in Australia?

Ms Childs: Both. Will Towler, who is the employment inclusion manager for Chief Minister’s and operates a whole-of-service service—

THE CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification. You may want to stay there, Judi, because I have another employment question. Members, do you want to add anything further to that question? No? I will move on to the next question. The inclusion employment program is released every year and there has been a good uptake for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young ones to enter the ACT public service. I have a question which I was going to direct more to the Head of Service. Each year the ACT holds the CareersXpo at EPIC. It is usually in August. As the ACT government is one of the biggest employers for our local community, we were wondering if the directorate has considered aligning the IEP advertisement with the CareersXpo to get the best bang for buck, for lack of a better term.

Ms Childs: We did attend the expo last year—the inclusion manager and the inclusion officer, as well as other staff engaged in recruitment.

THE CHAIR: I might ask it in a different way. Having attendance at the expo is one thing, and promoting a program. I suppose we are asking about advertising and aligning that to the expo so that you can attract directly from that transition from school. What has happened in previous years is that you have the expo, the program is separate again, and then the advertisement is done and you attract in different ways. Of course, those schoolkids have taken that knowledge on board in applying it. The elected body are looking at whether we could look at perhaps a clear alignment to it.

Ms Childs: Yes, that is a great idea; we will take that on board. Also, just in that space, which is the pre-graduate space, I suppose you could call it, I would mention the work we are doing to get the career progression and retention program off the ground, which is going to be very comprehensive. It is going to be half a day with supervisors and the candidates for the program, talking about how to get the most out of the program, how to give feedback and how to manage on-the-job development; and three days of practical workshops with all the attendees on stuff as varied as


identifying what your career goals are, what your capabilities are, where your passions are, talking about leadership, where that is appropriate as part of the career progression, and talking about how to engage a mentor, how to select a mentor and how to work with a mentor. After that three-day quite intensive workshop, there is a follow-up day a few months down the track to reflect and refine.

We are also looking at getting some kids into the Australian school-based apprenticeship model. In the next financial year we will settle the career progression program, kicking off next month. Then we will be looking at identifying suitable candidates for school-based apprenticeships and whether we can draw a link between that and ultimately a traineeship position. They are all the things we have on the plate for the next financial year. But we certainly take your suggestion on board about the timing of the advertising and the expo.

THE CHAIR: Could I just quickly expand on that for a sec? Do you have targets within those programs that are specific for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or is it just a generic program where everyone can apply?

Ms Childs: Which program?

THE CHAIR: The progression program.

Ms Childs: The progression program is only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.

THE CHAIR: Sorry, I did not hear that; I take that on board. And the next one—

Ms Childs: That is 40 of our current employees. With the Australian school-based apprentices, we will be looking at having an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohort. We may have a disability cohort as well. But it is within the auspices of doing that career progression and having that new tranche of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander trainees coming in. That is 10. It is looking at lining up the ASBAs in that space as well, as part of the overall Indigenous employment strategy.

THE CHAIR: Thank you so much. Members, any further questions? Thank you. I will move on. This question was designed around diversity targets, Bronwen, David or whoever can answer or take it on notice. The Head of Service sets targets for each director-general to achieve in respect of their directorates. Are you able to detail for members what these targets are? Secondary to that question, how does the Head of Service hold directors-general accountable when they do not meet these targets? And the third part of that is: who holds the Head of Service accountable when these targets are not met?

Ms Overton-Clarke: They are all very good questions. The targets are set and reset each financial year, because we take into account the machinery-of-government changes that happen. They need to be reset each year. They are broken down across the directorates, as you say. They are part of the performance agreement in each director-general’s performance agreement. The Head of Service meets with each director-general twice a year to talk through the performance agreement in general and in a specific way about any specific targets that are set. The Aboriginal and


Torres Strait Islander employment targets are one of those.

In terms of how they are monitored, through our area we send out updates from the Head of Service to directors-general each quarter, so they are monitored against their annual target each quarter. The expectation is that directors-general end up cascading those targets down and across directorates. Having whole-of-government programs and new programs that different directorates partake in is one way of being able to achieve those targets. There is also an expectation that different directorates are using a whole range of mechanisms to attract and retain those staff. Certainly the monitoring is happening, as I said, each quarter. There are twice a year meetings with the Head of Service.

In terms of keeping people on track, the letter that we send out is to all directorates at one time so that each directorate can see how other directorates are meeting or not meeting their targets. While these were put in place because we were not meeting the original targets, we have now noticed a greater uptake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff.

I can tell you that on 30 June, from the state of the service report, we had 319 staff; as at 30 March we had 351. While we have pushed the targets out, we have a better rate of increase than we have had. In the next few weeks we are having a discussion at our strategic board, a meeting which directors-general have, and the targets and how we are meeting them are a subject of discussion at that meeting.

We use a number of mechanisms. I say “we” meaning me and Kathy Leigh as Head of Service. As David Nicol has said, she is very passionate about this matter. She and I together have been working very closely with directorates in creating an inclusion team within workforce capability and governance and really lifting the bar in terms of our expectations for directors-general across the service.

Mr Nicol: I will just add something, if I may, chair. Kathy does take this seriously. If a directorate is not meeting their targets, she writes to the director-general. Having your boss say to you, “You are not meeting the targets we agreed,” is a pretty substantial accountability mechanism, in my view. Following on from what Bronwen said, this is not a glib tick-the-box exercise. This is a serious attempt by the service to implement these targets—which are challenging targets—for an increase. We are increasing. Part of me says that if we were easily achieving our targets they would probably be too low, so that is something I keep in mind as well.

As to who keeps Kathy accountable, I think collectively the strategic board does. She and the rest of my colleagues keep me accountable. And also it is ministers. Ministers keep us accountable: they expect us to deliver on this. There are questions asked of ministers on how we go, on a semi-regular basis.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much for that. Members, do you wish to add anything to that?

MRS CHURCH: I do have a question in relation to the EMPA program, the Executive Master of Public Administration. Is that still running at the moment through ACT government?


Ms Overton-Clarke: No. We have the ANZSOG—

MRS CHURCH: That is the program, yes.

Ms Overton-Clarke: That is the one? Yes, we do. We do run that through ANZSOG.

MRS CHURCH: So my question is: how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have actually participated in that program? I understand that this may be a question to be taken on notice.

Ms Overton-Clarke: We only give out two scholarships for that per year. The whole ANZSOG model is very good but very expensive. In fact, Judi and I are on a teleconference in a week or two. They have restructured the management. So we are going to give some of that feedback. There are two executive management programs each year, and one fellows. We always make sure that the fellows, because it is a two-week residential, is done for a very senior public servant who looks like they are going to stick around for awhile.

In terms of the executive masters program component, as you know, that is done over 18 months and is coursework. I will check the record, but I do not believe that there have been any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have done it. It has only been about six or eight in total. As I said, it is two a year but we will double-check that.

MRS CHURCH: I understand that that is aimed at SOGB to SES1 levels and equivalent?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Yes.

MRS CHURCH: So my question is: how can Chief Minister’s ensure that they are targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are in senior positions with ACT government to actually undertake that very important opportunity?

Ms Overton-Clarke: That is a good question. I think there are a range of programs that we are running to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in that way. The one that we have been talking about, the one that starts next month, is probably the newest and clearest. The public sector management program which is run through the University of Queensland, the PSMP, is probably more accessible to more people in the public service. It is still $11,000 or $12,000 as opposed to $35,000, but we get a broader range of people able to be supported by the directorates to undertake that program.

Both are similar in the sense that they are often targeting, as you said, people who are getting into that management frame. But we will certainly have a look at it. It is engineered by us in the sense that we ask for applications and then we have an assessment process that goes through strategic boards, so we can certainly have a look at the ANZSOG one. We will certainly have a look at that and see if out of the two we might be able to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander—


MRS CHURCH: And recognising as well that these are postgraduate qualifications. Again, it would be about targeting specific people who would be eligible for that. Obviously, allowing people to have an opportunity would be great.

Mr Nicol: Can I add a perspective too, and this comes from a meeting Bronwen and Judi Childs and I had some time ago on a different subject: I think the way we are moving in the service is to an employee’s view of training and development. So instead of having training and development and fitting people into that, we look at our employees and see what training and development they need to fit into. I think that would be much more successful in developing our staff and giving them a path. Bronwen can correct me if I have got the intention of the strategy not quite right. We want to have a view of each employee and their skills and experience and development needs over a longer period so that we can build one bit of training and development on another and work on the job and really give each employee the best chance to have a fulfilling career, a successful career et cetera.

That means some system building. In the past we have had very much a training course-focused sort of approach, whereas we need an approach where we know what training all of our employees have done and what training they need. I think that could fit in with your question very well.

Ms Overton-Clarke: That is a really good point that David makes. We are only just able to move to—and we are not even quite there yet—a systematised way of understanding all the learning and development that each employee has done across this service. Being able to systematise that for all people, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, will be one step on that journey that David talks about. I do think that the career development program that we are about to start will give us lots of learnings in different ways as well. I am sure it is not just about structured learning, in terms of why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people choose to stay in or leave the ACT public service. I am hoping and expecting that we will get a lot of information out of that program. I think there are a number of ways that we can really look at how we better support staff individually.

THE CHAIR: Just before we go to another question, I have one question from that. Has the directorate considered holding a staff forum across directorates for Aboriginal staff? That would also have a mechanism to talk about what they want from the ACT public service—a staff forum or a conference as such.

Ms Overton-Clarke: I am kind of nervous to tread into the space that you and I have been discussing over the last few months, but I will.

THE CHAIR: If you are game.

Ms Overton-Clarke: If I am game. I do think that if we can get Morunga Morunga and the staff network up and working in the way that we both would want and is intended then, yes, of course what we need to be doing—what executives and what areas that support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working in the ACT PS want—is making sure that we get feedback through a lot of different mechanisms, not just through ATSIEB, not just through parks and cons staff or education or wherever we have more than just a few people working. We want to get


all of that feedback. You are absolutely right: a healthy staff network is a perfect way of doing that. I think that is just one of the mechanisms that we really need to work on to make sure that we get feedback from all of our staff.

THE CHAIR: My question was around more a conference forum. A network is something that is an ongoing function that we can monitor on a daily, monthly, quarterly basis. My question was around those who do not want to utilise that service but still want a mechanism to be able to filter their concerns across. So the question is: is CMTEDD, in conjunction with other directorates, going to look at a staff forum or conference for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff across the whole ACT public service?

Ms Overton-Clarke: We are happy to look at that into the future, but what we want to do is get enough of these programs to a stage where we are getting good feedback from them and the individuals that go through them—but also from the ones who apply and miss out. I think we just need to use a number of ways of getting that feedback. We have got our hands pretty full at the moment in terms of both starting new programs and keeping the ones that we started last year. I would not want to overcommit and say that we were prepared to look at something like that when I cannot right at the moment envisage when we would have that in the future. As I said, being able to get feedback through some of our existing mechanisms and new mechanisms will build into being able to target learning and development or new programs in a better way.

THE CHAIR: I will move on to the next question. My question is about annual reports. As you know, they are developed annually and they are quite a big process for each directorate. One of the things for our members is that we have to go through seven major annual reports—plus—to get the information we want. Unfortunately, the details in that information are very limited or very small. Is there consideration for each directorate to develop a specific annual report that just talks about Indigenous programs? They could decipher the report and provide us with one annual report from each directorate or they could do a specific one. I think you could probably explore the model of the Education Directorate, who provide a report annually to the Legislative Assembly.

Ms Overton-Clarke: On Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders?

THE CHAIR: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Mr Nicol: Let us look at it. I think it is worth considering how we actually go about doing it. My hesitation is that we have tried to do some internal stuff on resourcing, and it is extremely difficult, particularly with mainstream programs that have an Indigenous element, to actually capture that. But, with that caveat, we might not be able to get a comprehensive thing but we certainly should be able to get Indigenous-specific activity in a more succinct reporting frame that does not add too much to the process. Let us take it on notice.

Ms Overton-Clarke: I am sticking my neck out a bit here, but we are in the middle of advising the Assembly committee on the new annual reports directions for the next couple of years. While we have not incorporated that into it, I do not see why we


could not consult quickly with directorates and then put an additional advice in to the committee to say, “This is something that the elected body would like us to have a look at.” What I am saying is that how the annual reports are written is directed by a set of hearings—what did I just call them?—annual report—

Mr Nicol: Directions.

THE CHAIR: Directions.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Directions. It is legislatively set out for each directorate how they will structure their annual reports, and over the years some of that has required centralised reporting for things that are logical. I am not suggesting that. But what we can do, as the kind of architects, I suppose, of how the annual reports are structured, is recommend to the committee that looks at those directions that an additional part be put in for directorates to place, in a central area, programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As David said, we will take that on board. Even though the timing is pretty quick and tight, I do not see why we cannot do something as directorates and then put that to the committee. I will take that on notice.

Mr Engele: Could I also add that the government, as part of the budget process, releases a social inclusion statement which, while it is not quite the same as the annual reports, does include reference to past programs and how they have been ongoing, and in relation to future budget initiatives as well. That is one other mechanism where we try to pull it together not just for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders but for a range of people. We are still working on the various comms materials that come out, to better concentrate it so that it is quite clear what those programs are. That is another mechanism, and we are working on the next one at the moment.

THE CHAIR: Thanks, Sam. Members, does anyone want to add anything to the annual report questions? If not, I will move on to the next question. As I said in my opening statement, some of our questions are alluding to the whole-of-government agreement, justice partnership et cetera. This question is around the whole-of-government agreement. Our main areas of concern are in relation to your government, the ACT government, meeting actions and targets. What is being done to address these?

Mr Engele: Just to confirm, sorry, is this in relation to the justice partnership or the whole of government?

THE CHAIR: No, the whole-of-government agreement, sorry. I was just making reference to the fact that I alluded to that at the beginning of my opening statement.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Certainly from my perspective we are very keenly aware, as we have talked about, that we make a good place within ACT government for employment and therefore economic independence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in our community.

We take the responsibility very keenly. Certainly, leadership and being able to encourage staff to be leaders within their own communities is part of that. But it is also through leadership roles in the ACT public service. These are things that we are


very keenly aware of as well. It is also about being able to support other people within the public service to understand that treating everyone equitably does not mean treating everyone the same.

I do think we have a little bit of work to do still around the different ways that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities work. A good example of that is probably the perspective that Robyn Forester has put to the rest of the service: that NAIDOC Week activities should be able to be enjoyed by non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff by way of supporting those staff through leave arrangements. That is something that we are looking at in the current enterprise agreement negotiations.

It is about being able to work across the whole service, because we do have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sitting alongside and working with non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. It is really about understanding that often, because of the nature of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the business of communities comes into work and vice versa, and that that is okay—and that, surely, we are a mature and flexible enough service to be able to work with that. From my perspective, I guess that I am talking about staff working in with the rest of ACT public service. But certainly in terms of leadership and economic independence, that is a very strong emphasis from our area.

Mr Nicol: In my position as Under Treasurer I think my role is essentially to ensure that government objectives are addressed and priorities are addressed, as set out by the government. I am looking at this more from a framework point of view and making sure that our directorates are addressing the priorities in that document, the objectives in that document. I think the fact that we have got the document is a marvellous base to work from; so I am quite optimistic that it is pretty clear for directorates what our objectives are, which sounds glib, but many jurisdictions do not even have that in various spaces.

THE CHAIR: No; that is right.

Mr Nicol: The next step now is to monitor how we are going against the objectives and measure how we are going. I am interested in assessing my colleagues in the directorates to make sure they are putting in place plans to do that.

THE CHAIR: I do not like making statements, but I am going to. I apologise, members, but one of the alarming things for us is that we are in 2017. This plan was signed off in 2015. We are still at an implementation phase. So it is quite alarming for us that a lot of the objectives may not even be met within this whole-of-government agreement. I suppose that is why the question was really directed to the Head of Service—more so than the Under Treasurer and the ACT Public Sector Standards Commissioner and Deputy Director-General. I suppose this is something we might have to refer to the Head of Service as a question on notice.

Mr Nicol: I will take it as a question on notice. I will talk with Kathy about preparing a written response to you.

THE CHAIR: Yes, please, because we were—


Ms Overton-Clarke: Can you spell out a bit more, Ross, so that we are clear, what you mean by “only at the objective stage”?

THE CHAIR: No, implementation stage.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Implementation stage.

THE CHAIR: As you know, the subcommittee to the strategic board—


THE CHAIR: I sit on that one as the Chair of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body.


THE CHAIR: Our deputy chair is on the implementation reference group.


THE CHAIR: What is alarming, and I repeat what I just said, is that we are two years into a three-year agreement. It wraps up next year. We are still at the implementation phase. We should have been at that nearly a year ago, if not even a year before that. We should be really looking at the line items now, addressing them, meeting those priorities, or working out why we are not meeting those priorities, and addressing those with each directorate, based on those items. Again, I apologise for making a statement, because that is not what these hearings are about—

Ms Overton-Clarke: No, that is all right.

THE CHAIR: but we do have concerns around the whole-of-government agreement. Whilst I do agree with you, Mr Nicol, that it is fantastic, it has to be more than just a shelf-sitting exercise. It needs to be real, to have real outcomes for our people.

Mr Nicol: Perhaps I can clarify. I have not done a personal assessment of the implementation of every item in this agreement. I think that is primarily the responsibilities of my D-G colleagues who have accountability for these areas.

THE CHAIR: Correct.

Mr Nicol: So I encourage you to raise this topic with them. I will certainly alert them that this will be a topic of discussion so that they can come prepared. I do not know that I would agree that we are at the implementation stage for every item. I think some are more advanced than others, which you will have in any agreement of this nature. But let us take it on notice. Let us get you a written response from the Head of Service. As I said, let us get my colleagues to come and talk about their specific areas. They have far more detailed information on those areas than I do.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. I am going to move on to our final question. It is about Treasury. Whilst the elected body acknowledged the Indigenous expenditure outlined


in the ACT budget, we are very disappointed that this did not go far enough to support the implementation of the actions and initiatives outlined in the whole-of-government agreement. Whilst we may not agree on what those implementations may be, what is the government doing to ensure that future budget bids adequately support the agreements, actions and initiatives?

Mr Nicol: In every budget the government calls for priorities from its ministers. Sorry, can I correct that? This budget has been slightly different. With the ACT government election last year, it is a different process; the government tends to focus on its election commitments and the timing is interrupted. Normally we have a two-phase process where proposals and suggestions are brought forward by ministers, generally before Christmas. Cabinet meets and prioritises those.

It is very much a matter of ministers bringing forward their key objectives, key priorities and key proposals for each budget. The development of those is a complex political, economic and bureaucratic management process that covers everything from electoral commitments that a government may make through to necessary investments in bureaucracy and administration to make sure that we can continue to deliver services. Then there is also a part where ministers seek to prosecute the priorities that they see as needing attention.

In my experience, this is not a process that happens in one budget. Quite frankly, each budget looks at one per cent, two per cent or three per cent of the total budget and rearranges that at the margins. The budget process is very much a cumulative process that happens over time. I am answering that in the general rather than in the specific for these issues.

At the same time—this almost happens outside the budget process and wraps up in the budget process—we look at how we are spending our existing budget and see what we can do to improve that spending. A lot of what we do in terms of improving outcomes is actually through improving the way we spend our existing budget because, as I said, what can be added each year is fairly limited because essentially the government has a forward agenda and the budget is sort of fully allocated. There is not a lot of spare capacity that comes on each year. We try to do our best.

That process is the ongoing engagement process that I talked about. I am going back to that answer. We must get that input and have that analysis done, and we do. The public service does do its own internal analysis and ministers do have their own views about how we spend our existing budgets. We will go about trying to improve that and trying to make better investments. But I think you would agree with me that without that shared input from every stakeholder group we are not going to get it right. That probably reflects some of our existing structures and programs and the effectiveness of them.

I appreciate that we want to fix these things more quickly than we do, but really I want to get across the message that the budget in and of itself is quite a limited mechanism. It is often just wrapping up thinking that has gone on on a long-term basis and over time. We really need to get in early—sorry, get in in an ongoing way—to give ideas and proposals to improve the way we run our programs. Then that can be wrapped up in thinking and analysis and result in budget proposals that are assessed


during the budget period.

When you get a proposal coming through to cabinet in March—we are going through budget cabinet right now; we are going to release our budget in about seven weeks—there is not a lot of development and work that you can do now. It is a case of yes, no or let us modify it a bit. So if we have not got our thinking in place as we are developing proposals through the year, we are not going to radically fix them now in terms of the process.

In that sense, what we also try to do in a budget process is that when proposals come forward—this is more from a Treasury perspective—we are assessing them against a range of criteria. That ranges from, “Do we think it will work?” to “Does it address a problem that has been identified?” Is it consistent with a statement of government intent? Does it come from a stakeholder group? Have you consulted with the stakeholder group? Is this addressing a real need out there in the community?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Nicol: We filter all these questions. That is, by necessity, from a Treasury perspective, a bit reactive. We cannot say in a budget process, “Here is a need that no-one has thought of,” beyond a very limited scope. The process does not work that way. But what will happen is that if we have an identified problem or an issue, such as an issue that has been identified in an agreement such as this, and we get proposals to come forward that may seek to address that, we might say, “We do not think it is going to address that,” or “We do not think it is going to do very well. Let us set up a process to work through how we get a better proposal or how we get a proposal that actually will address that.”

Those sorts of examples might include suggestions to do public consultation, some sort of interaction with some groups or joint ventures with people to come up with a proposal to develop a business plan. On more than one occasion we have said, “Your idea is grand.” I cannot think of one in this space; it is more theoretical. We have said, “The idea or the objective is a good one but it is not well thought through; it is not well developed. We cannot see the evidence of how you are going to roll it out. So let us put some money in and develop a plan to get a really good proposal.”

It might take a little more time to get the good proposal. But in my experience implementing a bad proposal wastes more time. You think you are getting an objective but it is not going to work. The program goes for several years before you find out that it is not going to work; so we come back and try to revise it again.

That is generally the way the process works. But the best way—this relates to a lot of the reforms I have personally put in place in my time here—is to get more investment up-front in the proposal development by directorates. That means engagement with the stakeholders so that we can get a really solid proposal. But every budget system relies on those line directorates, line departments, to do that work and do that engagement. I do not know if that answers your question, chair. I am trying to give you an overall view about how we go about addressing these things.

THE CHAIR: Obviously, the thing we are very mindful of is that whilst we need to


take into account and address a lot of issues for all Canberrans, we on the elected body are very much concerned about what effect that has on our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

Mr Nicol: Indeed.

THE CHAIR: So we like our questions and your responses to relate to how you are going to address that for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. But thank you for the overview, because I can see how we would fit into that process.

Another question arising from that is what commitment would you undertake as the Under Treasurer to ensure that within budget there is a fair output that will identify needs for our Aboriginal community, such as addressing the whole-of-government agreement? For example, how does your agency interact with the Property Group to look at the issues at Boomanulla Oval and look at how the government can support Boomanulla Oval to stay self-sufficient for a longer time and not end up in the position that it is in now? Or how does your budget look at supporting Gugan Gulwan Youth Aboriginal Corporation in getting better and reliable premises? How does CSD work within that budget to help them achieve that? That is the type of stuff I would be looking to you to talk to us about.

Mr Nicol: I can talk briefly. I can add briefly. Being more specific, when there is a proposal that comes forward in budget that is Indigenous related, we certainly brief cabinet on the interaction with the agreement, even if it is not a specific Indigenous proposal but has a large Indigenous component to it.

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Nicol: We brief and we give our view about whether it is consistent with the agreement and whether we think it will work. That is part of our job. Our involvement with directorates in solving particular budget issues is very limited in one sense, because my resources are quite limited. So I do not partner with directorates on every budget-related issue. I am putting you in the sense of every budget-related issue, but we tend to focus on that budget process or areas that have particular financial risk for the budget, for the government as a whole. These are things like our entire superannuation budget. That is the sort of thing we get involved with.

Of course, if a particular issue arises and we are asked to be involved, we will be. But by and large, chair, we do not go backing up directorates. It is directorates’ responsibility to implement government policy and government agreements and decisions of cabinet.

THE CHAIR: Okay, but don’t you have a responsibility to look at how the budgets for those directors-general are able to achieve that?

Mr Nicol: Certainly, but that is through the proposals in the budget. So when—

THE CHAIR: What I am getting is that you have limited involvement other than, “Thank you, let us assess it; let us get it through cabinet; yea or nay.”


Mr Nicol: I would not call it—

THE CHAIR: Is that a pretty quick summarisation of it?

Mr Nicol: I would not quite describe it like that. We assess them and give advice to cabinet. As part of that advice, we are responsible for assessing whether the budget proposal will be sufficient to achieve the objectives; so we will give that advice. But we will see 260 proposals each budget.

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Nicol: I just do not have the resources to track every one and ensure that every one is delivered as accepted by the government, in terms of the objectives set out in the business case. Part of my responsibility, however, is to ensure that the business case is robust and that it is achievable when we assess that. At times we will also give advice that a business case or a proposal, if agreed, should be subject to review. That review should come back and demonstrate that the case has been made.

When a program gets into trouble, that tends to be when Treasury gets involved and tries to give our assistance to ensure that it is going to be fixed properly. Certainly in my experience, it is also the budget, or issues surrounding the budget and financial management, that is often a contributing cause to lack of success in a program. But often lack of success is driven by a lot of other factors as well. It is driven by experience. It is driven by miscommunications with stakeholders. It is driven by lack of communications with others et cetera. Then, of course, I have an interest in that, but really that has to be led by the directorate that is involved.

THE CHAIR: Members, do you have any further questions? If not, that is basically it for this morning. Thank you for your time.

Mr Nicol: Thank you, chair.

THE CHAIR: And thank you for your responses.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Thank you.

Hearing suspended from 10.34 to 11.15 am.


Appearances:

Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development DirectorateDawes, Mr David, Director-General and Chief Executive, Land Development

AgencyHill, Mr Ian, Executive Director, Enterprise Canberra, VisitCanberraHassett, Mr Glen, Director, Programs, Enterprise Canberra, Innovate Canberra,

Investment and Enterprise DevelopmentPriest, Ms Jenny, Director, Enterprise Canberra, Active CanberraStankevicius, Mr Adam, Director, Enterprise Canberra, Cultural CanberraTomlins, Mr George, Executive Director, Procurement and Capital Works

THE CHAIR: I will make an opening statement. I have a series of questions, and then we will go to questions specifically relating to the economic development side of Chief Minister’s. Since the last hearings of the elected body, we have been able to release our fifth and sixth reports on the outcomes of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body hearings from 2014 and 2015. We have commenced the review into the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body Act, to which the ACT government have responded. We have progressed in the areas of the whole-of-government agreement and the Aboriginal justice partnership. This will bear on some of our questions today, but in this particular instance maybe not directly to your side of Chief Minister’s.

My opening question is in three parts. Over the past financial year, please outline any new programs or services your directorate has implemented. How are those programs and services progressing? What outcomes are they producing for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community? How are you measuring the success of these programs and initiatives? And if these programs and services are not producing better outcomes, what measures are you taking to make changes or turn the program and services around?

Mr Dawes: From the get-go we would obviously like to be doing things quicker with some of the initiatives we will discuss a little later, but I am happy to share some of the things I believe have been successful over the last 12 months and some of the things we are doing. I will summarise it at the end, to talk about some of the things that we are doing to improve the systems. We might start with Adam to talk on some of the arts things we have been doing.

Mr Stankevicius: At the last hearing we talked about the need to not just go into the community but actually engage with the community before we started doing more serious or more active work in the arts space. That is what we have been doing over the past 12 months—we have had a dedicated officer in our team engaging across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We have done that through a series of both face-to-face interviews through key organisations like the Yurauna Centre as well as an online survey. We have talked to quite a wide range of people, and we have a report that has been drafted on the basis of those consultations, with the consolidated feedback from what we have heard from the sector about the way forward.

With the parts of that draft report that specifically quote people or have specific ideas


that have come from individuals, we have gone back to those individuals to make sure they are comfortable with the way in which they are referred to. There are a few case studies in there, so we want people to be comfortable with the way their organisation or their activity or their arts practice has been represented in that report. We are going back to those people at the moment, and then we will put the report to the minister, with a series of recommendations about the way in which we engage going forward.

There were some themes coming out of that which are really interesting for us, particularly around the way we communicate arts activities going on in the ACT and the way we represent Indigenous arts activity in particular. You are most likely all aware that in the ACT it ranges from professional and semi-professional practice right through to arts as culture. We do not want to interfere in the arts-as-culture practice. That is certainly not our intention, but if there are ways in which we can help people move along the continuum to take their arts-as-culture practice to a professional or semi-professional practice, we are really keen to work on how it is we can facilitate that.

The focus for us has been on improving our communication with the sector and amongst the sector. We will be looking at ways in which we can improve the accessibility of our grants programs. At the moment they are built around the model we have always used, and certainly some of the feedback we have got is that that is not very accessible for the way in which arts is practised in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We want to make them much more accessible.

We will also be focusing on the engagement across the sector. The really interesting thing about the consultation process for us as a team in Cultural Canberra has been the breadth of the sector that we did not know about until we started this conversation. That has been a real eye-opener for us. Obviously the nationally rated practice and the formally funded practice is something we had been aware of, but we had not been aware of that arts-as-culture practice until we started this process.

The kind of feedback we are getting from right across the sector is that there is a real interest in coming together not necessarily as a formally established network but on a more regular basis, with a focus on how it is we can better engage with that sector. That is what we will be putting up to the minister for his consideration—the ways in which that can happen.

THE CHAIR: You are exactly right; the arts are a big thing for our community and, yes, we have different scales of that community. You work with existing arts groups such as Tuggeranong Arts Centre and all of those other facilities around the ACT. What mechanisms is your area putting in place to ensure that we have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented on their governance boards, not just assisting them in the arts space but also having some sort of leadership opportunity to bring direct advice, not necessarily from an elected body point of view, at that level? It would be interesting to know what you are doing in that space.

Mr Stankevicius: The governance of our arts organisations is specifically focused on a professional governance model. We do not encourage organisations to appoint board members on the basis of their representational capacity; it is on the basis of their skills. We are looking for lawyers and accountants, people who are experienced in


governance. We do not allow artists who are funded within arts organisations to be board members because that is obviously a conflict of interest.

THE CHAIR: Of course, but—

Mr Stankevicius: There are a variety of ways our organisations seek the views of artists. Some of those organisations have formally established artist subcommittees of their board or artist advisory committees. I am aware that one or two of those have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on them. I am not sure if they are Ngunnawal, but they are certainly practising artists in the ACT.

It is not something we have enforced, but it is something we are strongly encouraging in terms of the relationship of those more mainstream organisations working with the different community groups. But, as I said, we were not aware of those to begin with, so we did not understand the breadth of the networks out there. Now we are strongly encouraging, in all of our conversations with those organisations, that they go out and establish their own networks with those groups.

There is a great group out in west Belconnen of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rappers, particularly young female rappers. We know Belconnen Arts Centre has been working very strongly with them, for example. We know there are less formal dance groups in some of the other areas that some of those organisations have also been working quite strongly with.

A difference this year is in our artist residency program. That is the one where we bring artists from other parts of Australia to do a residency for a period of time in six of our organisations that can manage accommodation residency. For the first time we have made them all focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists from across the country. That has been really warmly welcomed by those organisations. It is the Glassworks, the Megalo print studio, some of the art centres and Craft ACT. They have really embraced that as a priority, and we would like to continue doing that kind of work. That fusion is really important to the local arts scene as well.

THE CHAIR: What about art in public spaces? Are you working in conjunction with Transport Canberra and such on the light rail project? You will have sites, different stops, along the way. Obviously we have a question for Transport Canberra and City Services on that, but from an arts point of view what is your particular unit looking at to support that?

Another question is that, whilst I get that you cannot determine how organisations determine the make-up of their bodies, certainly you can put mechanisms in place within a funding agreement. Is your area considering that as part of the process when you fund these organisations in the art space?

Mr Stankevicius: Yes. We have basically done a year-long consultation on the development of a new funding plan for the arts in the ACT. Part of that was essentially driven by the introduction of the government’s 2015 ACT arts policy, with the fourth principle being engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and culture.


The funding plan has been through a significant consultation process with both individual artists and organisations. Part of that funding plan will centre on the very strong focus of the new minister, Gordon Ramsay, on community inclusion. It basically will be driving stronger community inclusion outcomes right across the sectors. That will include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, as well as multicultural groups, people with disability, a stronger gender representation, LGBTI communities—right across that spectrum. We think there is an opportunity—we are not quite sure how we do it yet—to push our mainstream organisations to go a bit further in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space.

THE CHAIR: We welcome the opportunity to work with you on that one.

Mr Stankevicius: Absolutely. Whatever mechanism the minister decides, in terms of a formal network or more informal network going forward, that will help us absolutely drive that amongst those mainstream organisations.

In terms of the public art stuff and capital metro, we had initial discussions with them about six months ago on their plans. I made contact again recently to ask them how that work is going. We intend to have discussions with them, probably over the next few months, in terms of what it is. They had various conceptual plans when we talked to them previously, and they are exactly the things you are talking about: site treatments, stop treatments, terminal treatments, everything from the glass to the music to how the carriages might be wrapped, as well as our existing public art along the stage 1 route. We have a number of pieces along that route and we want them to be complementary with the way that relates to the city and all the suburbs going through. We will definitely continue those conversations. I would hope there is a very strong Indigenous or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artist representation, or at least opportunities for that, up and down there.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. I will let you continue. Sorry to digress.

Mr Dawes: No, not at all. I am quite happy to continue. What we might try and do, because I am conscious of time, is go to the others. I started off with Adam because he is quite involved in that space. Ian, do you want to talk a bit about visits, interpreters and that?

Mr Hill: Yes. No problem.

Mr Dawes: And then Glen will talk about the business side as well, which I think is important.

Mr Hill: There are a couple of layers that we have been working on that I think are highly relevant to this forum. The visitor economies are going through some really rapid growth here in the ACT. We have had the direct international flights by Singapore Airlines and we have seen four quarters of really strong growth in international visitor numbers. They are record numbers now, about 208,000 international visitors to Canberra.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experiences are a really important aspect of what international tourists are looking for when they come to Australia more broadly, and


there is the opportunity for the ACT to play a role in that. We are on some fairly new and exciting ground, looking at how we can bring some of these experiences to the fore for international tourists. Whether they are from Singapore, whether they are from China, whether they are hubbing through from Europe, with the connectivity of the Singapore Airlines flight which comes through Changi Airport and then on to Wellington, it gives us a really good opportunity.

There are some really practical things that we are doing straight away. One of those things has been the move of our visitors centre. The Canberra regional visitors centre moved from Northbourne Avenue to Regatta Point in the course of the last 12 months, which is relevant to the time frame of your question. A couple of things that we have done there that are already showing some positive results include some interpretation around the actual centre and the entrance.

There is an Indigenous garden that is being planted there, with the help of Neil Hobbs and an elder on the design, and some interpretation around a phonological clock that sits out the front of that garden. There is a bit more work to do with the National Capital Authority around interpretation and some signage, but it is a really positive step that becomes a gateway for up to 240,000 people going through that centre a year—how we can tell a story right at the point of entry. Inside the building there is a total refit. There are 46 TV screens in there. There is a lot of digital content. There are a lot of opportunities to tell real, authentic stories about Canberra.

Yes, we tell the story of national attractions and blockbuster exhibitions—and all those things are tourism demand driving—but we also can tell some stories with more layers. We are seeing, off the back of that international drive, a number of companies coming to us about Aboriginal tours, tour guides, through places like Namadgi. We have a dedicated officer in David Barker who is working very closely with those operators to get their tour product ready, not just for a domestic market but for an international market. Then as a tourism body we are looking at how we help to promote that. So there are some very tangible things going on.

We have got two new tourism operators that have come on board in the last 12 months, doing tours through Namadgi, which is great. There are some amazing guides out there, as you would well know. I think there are a couple of guys in particular that we go to. We would love 10 of those guys rather than two, to be honest. I am sure we could book out more tours. But there is an incremental growth that needs to occur here.

The flights with Singapore Airlines only started last September. We are seeing some response from the marketplace, wanting more tour guiding through some of these areas, which is great. They tell a great story and we are absolutely proactively working with operators to help them commercialise their experience and be profitable in a business in the tourism space. That is being done through a mentoring, hands-on project lead, as well as through places like the visitors centre that can help to promote the story and promote the experience.

We have totally revamped our VisitCanberra website and there are opportunities now for a range of tour businesses or tourism operators to more actively have their experience booked through our channel. We are providing an enabling service. It is a


free service. It is a fantastic new website that is getting 1.8 million visits a year. Some of those visits create business leads for tour bookings. There are really practical things, to be honest, that are working to drag through the opportunity that these international flights are providing for us.

There is probably not a dissimilar story with domestic tourism. Domestic tourism is sitting at about 2.4 million overnight visitors, which, for six quarters in a row, has been a record for the ACT. There are some excellent opportunities in the domestic market as well as the international. But I think, to be honest, the international is probably where there is more latent demand for these sorts of experiences because a lot of international travellers expect to get the story of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders wherever they visit in Australia.

We do have a national gallery with amazing artworks, but we also have amazing tours and things that are a bit more granular rather than always the big end of town-type activity. That is a quick snapshot.

THE CHAIR: From our perspective, whilst it is great that you are looking at the international market, we do see the demand there. We certainly see that. I suppose there is a question here about how we can support small businesses to be brought along in that journey especially our Indigenous small businesses. But certainly branding within the airport is important, public display within the airport. You talk about 52 screens in one centre, yet there is not one local person talking about their local story.

So I suppose the question for us here is: what will you consider looking at with local people such as the United Ngunnawal Elders Council, the registered Representative Aboriginal Oorganisations and independent Aboriginal custodians, traditional owners? Will you look at doing some work with them to increase tourism in this area?

Mr Hill: It is a really good question, I think. Where we are sitting with the new visitors centre is that those opportunities are almost limitless. There really are some great opportunities there. David Barker is a dedicated officer who is working with some of the businesses—and I am talking international—which are very small businesses. These tour companies are four or five people, two or three people; they are not big multinationals; they are local ACT businesses. How we give them a face and a voice and share a voice in the visitors centre is something we are working on, on a regular basis. And it is a bit of demand and supply, to be honest, as well. There has got be demand for that experience. The demand we are getting we are able to convert into a business lead and get more bookings.

I absolutely take your point that we could be doing more, and there is more to do around that very first experience when you walk inside the visitors centre with all the screens and digital content. Our next step is about generating more of the content. We need those visual assets in order to display them. There is no cost in doing that. It is about some effort from us and getting the right digital displays going, with rolling footage and storytelling at the centre. I absolutely take that on board.

THE CHAIR: I have another question. David, I am mindful of the time.


Mr Dawes: I was going to add something anyway.

THE CHAIR: I suppose the other question—and again I know that it may not be a responsibility of your area as such—is about looking at tourism. What kinds of opportunities is your area looking at exploring, especially around the cultural centre on Lady Denman Drive and the impact that that could have for the tourism industry, such as a Jabiluka for the ACT, as an example, or an amphitheatre where you can look at arts and culture from an international perspective, such as a Bangarra? I am looking at the alignment between all your areas here and a centre sitting out there going under-resourced. So the question is: what is your area doing to look at that?

Mr Dawes: With regard to this, one of the things VisitCanberra are currently doing—and I think this is more broadly what we are doing as part of an economic development—is a product and needs analysis. We are doing an audit to look at what we can do to drive some of those things. I think you hit some very salient points about our centre out there at Yarramundi Reach. As well, I know there has been some discussion, and that was a little while ago, with the National Museum on how we might be able to get the two organisations together. These are things that probably have not, at the start, advanced as much as we would have liked. But these are things that we will certainly be exploring and driving forward. But, as I said, when we look at how we can develop future product, it is then a matter of looking at what we have that is underutilised, such as that facility. That will help us drive it in that direction.

THE CHAIR: Another question on that cultural centre is—and again it would be something that we would need to talk about across the directorates—the ability to hire that centre. Not all of our organisations, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can hire the centre at its current cost. What is being looked at is a mechanism to reduce that cost to make it more accessible first and foremost to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to hold events but also to our non-Indigenous community who utilise that service as well.

We also acknowledge that that centre is not just for us. It may be titled for us but we also understand and acknowledge that Canberra is a broader place. We embrace that not only through the traditional custodians but as local guests like me and some other members here. I suppose that is another question.

Mr Dawes: I will certainly take that on board and we will come back on it. One of the themes that you will find as we talk a bit about what we are doing is that we want to improve our whole communications and stakeholder engagement as well. A question coming out of our discussion yesterday that we had regarding Boomanulla is: how do we work a little closer with the elected body? I know we have our individual representation to the various directorates, but from time to time we should be coming back and talking to the elected body about some of these things.

One of the key messages that I want to leave with the group here is about the engagement. Obviously there is the old saying, “You have one mouth and two ears and you should use them in those proportions as well.” It is a matter of getting out and talking to people and listening and learning as well, and that can feed back into our processes.


THE CHAIR: Thank you. I will stop asking questions.

Mr Dawes: That is all right; no problem at all.

THE CHAIR: What you have got to understand is that for many years arts and tourism have been under-resourced in our community and it is important that we see where your agency is coming from and what commitment you have to our community, especially our local artists. Some of them are not established artists and they do not charge 20 grand apiece, but the pieces that they do offer equate to those 20,000-plus pieces; they are the same. It is just that the national focus is on the Northern Territory and Far North Queensland and not on here in Ngunnawal country and the artists that we produce here at the local level.

It is important that what we ask is taken on board, because we do have artists. Three of us here are artists. I am a dancer, and I have two visual artists beside me. So it is important that we look at this.

Mr Stankevicius: And certainly it has been part of our consultations in developing that report.

Mr Dawes: Just on Yarramundi Reach, there has been some conversation with the NCA about how we can connect to the water a little more than we do. That is an ongoing conversation, and I will make sure that that is left behind to follow up as well. That, to me, is another important thing that we would like to achieve there.

THE CHAIR: That is why I asked the question, because it is an important space to us as well.

Mr Dawes: Yes, certainly.

THE CHAIR: Boomanulla; we are not dropping that one either.

Mr Dawes: That is all right; no problem at all.

THE CHAIR: It is most important to us, that one.

Mr Dawes: That is at the forefront of our minds, I think, from a business innovation perspective.

Mr Hassett: I am responsible for investment and enterprise development programs across the areas of innovation, trade and investment. From a sort of macro perspective, we have been working pretty purposefully over the last two to three years to connect up the ecosystem in Canberra to support businesses across the board.

One of the key things that we have done is to work closely with significant, important institutions like the ANU, CSIRO and University of Canberra in the development of the CBR Innovation Network, which has been brought together at 1 Moore Street to deliver services to businesses from the early stage through to high growth. That has been a really fantastic initiative that has delivered activities across different areas of the economy, including social enterprise and women in business. With our partnership


with the network, we delivered a series of activities in Indigenous business development last year that Dion was central to.

In terms of specific activities last year, we supported an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business development entrepreneurship model. That supported targeted workshops, delivered a trade show in June and was central to the development of a documentary. There was a final report prepared and provided to government. We are keen to deliver a like program through 2017 again.

THE CHAIR: Is there a possibility of making that report available to the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body?

Mr Hassett: Absolutely.

THE CHAIR: So that we can consider what is in the report and perhaps provide advice?

Mr Dawes: Certainly.

Mr Hassett: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: Clearly, one of the things I would like all of you to take on board is: how are all your programs meeting the priorities in our whole-of-government agreement? You are definitely looking at a priority for economic participation and leadership.

Mr Dawes: Yes.

Mr Hassett: Absolutely.

THE CHAIR: If you want to look at arts, it is about economic participation. Tourism is also part of economic participation.

Mr Hassett: Yes.

THE CHAIR: I would like you to reflect on that when you provide your responses, but thank you for that, Glen. Were you finished?

Mr Hassett: Yes. That is correct, yes.

Mr Dawes: Jenny, do you want to give a brief summary from the sport and recreation perspective?

Ms Priest: Yes, sure. Active Canberra, or sport and recreation, as we were previously known, have been the recipient of Indigenous advancement strategy funding. I have briefed on this previously, but, given that there are a few new people involved, it is probably useful to give a bit of context. The Aboriginal corporation for sport and rec activities were once recipients of Indigenous sport and rec program funding. Around the time the changeover to IAS was occurring, ACSRA ceased to be. It was very important to us at the time, and we had support from a number of Indigenous


organisations still operating within the territory, to ensure that our application for Indigenous advancement strategy funding was not left to the territory.

We were successful in that application. We received, in the initial stages, $264,396. Then, in the subsequent stage, we were topped up, in 2016-17, with $155,000 for these four programs. There is the individual grants program, which is about supporting eligible individuals to participate in active sport and recreation; registration fees, things that will support them in getting into their own sporting and recreational endeavours. That is something that we have actively sought to promote and get out there amongst the community.

I would be interested to hear any feedback from you as to whether or not you are aware of that, because an extreme amount of effort has gone into trying to reach out to the community, including attending recent market days that have been held on a Saturday. We had our guys set up a stall there, promoting this and letting people know that these grants were available. They continue to be available, obviously, as we are moving into the winter sports season, so it is really important at this point in time to again heighten the awareness around that. We are actively working to do that, but, again, we are always happy to receive feedback as to different avenues we can use to get that reach into the community, which we have tried to do on a number of different fronts.

There are the partnered programs, which are another component of the IAS funding, which relate to effectively partnering up with and supporting new and existing programs, again to get greater participation in sport and active recreation across the territory. In 2016 we supported or funded five programs. There was the Canberra district Rugby League connecting to country, to grow the Indigenous Rugby League legacy across the region. There was the Indigenous Marathon Foundation, with the Queanbeyan Deadly Runners. The important thing to note here is that it is Canberra and the immediate region that we are seeking to reach with our funding through IAS. There is Outward Bound Australia. Step up and step out is another program funded in 2016. There was also Royal Life Saving ACT, the Aboriginal youth leadership program, a pilot extension to a program being run by Royal Life Saving. The Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service boxing program was also funded.

Through 2016-17 a further eight programs were funded. We are talking about the current financial year. There were the AFL New South Wales kickstart program; Ainslie football club AFL Indigenous pathway program; Guramaa Global Indigenous Corporation global surfing program; Outward Bound Australia; step up, step out; Ted Noffs deadly dreaming dance program; Tuggeranong Netball Association 2016 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander netball tournament; Winnunga Warriors sporting club cultural fast forward basketball comp; and Yeddung Mura (Good Pathways) Aboriginal Corporation Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s fitness program. That is just a sampling of the programs that we have funded since receiving the IAS funding. That was the partnered programs aspect.

There is also a research report on the community need for physical activity that is being funded through IAS. What we are doing there is this. You may or may not be aware that the Australian Sports Commission has traditionally been the coordinator of


all of the sport and active recreation participation stats for all of the jurisdictions across the country, and different jurisdictions can top up the research. They have recently brought on a new provider, and they are producing a new survey called AusPlay. We are currently working with the Sports Commission to top up the research that is being done into Indigenous participation in sport and recreation.

What I can tell you about that program is that it relates to production of a report to research the sport and recreation participation needs of that community. Through the research program, focus groups and intermediary interviews will be held across four states and territories, including the ACT. Not all states and territories decided to opt into that additional research. Other states have the option to contribute. As part of the research program, the literature and data review is currently underway, with the fieldwork and qualitative research scheduled to occur in May. So it is getting really close. We will be able to tell you more about that as it progresses, but that piece of work is happening with the Sports Commission and through the AusPlay survey.

We also have funding that is available. Recently, in late March, we released some funding to Winnunga Nimmityjah—we can talk about Boomanulla in more detail shortly—to provide a guiding strategy for Boomanulla Oval. Part of the IAS funding was set aside for that. We are finally at a point, after quite a bit of work, where we can see that there is traction in that space. Winnunga have engaged JUDD.studio, planning consultants, to work with them and consult with key stakeholders, particularly the community, around that guiding strategy for Boomanulla Oval. I am having a meeting with JUDD.studio later today. We will be providing them with survey work that has been done to date, and consultation with the community to this point.

There was some work done through the elected body, an earlier iteration of this group, back in around 2014-15, around the time the community was feeling a disassociation with Boomanulla under the previous lessee. What we were doing at the time was trying to help ACSRA reconnect with the community and better understand what the community’s needs were. The elected body helped and facilitated a workshop at that time. Obviously we want to provide any of that earlier consultation that was done to JUDD.studio so that they are not starting from a zero base of information but are starting from a point of understanding what the community has said to date.

There was also a survey that was undertaken in the community in 2015 which, again, was about asking the community. It was rolled out through the elected body and the interim advisory group coordinating things for Boomanulla at the time, to basically understand what the community’s aspirations, hopes and passions were for Boomanulla. Very clearly coming out—and we have been saying this quite consistently all along—is that the cultural and sporting ties to that facility are the centrepiece. We need to make sure that we do not lose sight of that, and those things will be provided and shared with JUDD.studio. They will then work at developing a community engagement strategy.

As I said—and we talked about this yesterday in our brief meeting—whilst I know there has been a sense that perhaps the silence in recent times has been a bit deafening, I think we will find that the traction and the re-engagement with community will start to occur again very shortly.


THE CHAIR: I have a question on Boomanulla. In light of the briefing we received on 16 March, and in light of our meeting yesterday, we do have an understanding of a way forward—not a complete way forward but a way forward. One of the questions I have—I raised this with you yesterday and I am going to raise it again today—is about a plan B. You have everything pinned on a plan A, with Winnunga meeting that tender outcome, but what assurances will you give the elected body and the community that if that falls over something is going to be picked up straightaway? We are mindful of the work that you have done and we appreciate that, as an elected body, but we are also mindful that the oval is a very important cultural space. I know that you are very aware of this from the agency point of view, but I come back to that question: what is your plan B if your plan A does not work?

Ms Priest: In terms of the re-engagement with community, what may be an option as a plan B will start to unfold over the next little while. We are on this pathway at the moment, and everyone is hopeful that this will produce a good outcome—an outcome that will deliver and meet the needs of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, bring that facility back online and into operation so that it will be fantastic for the community, and it will be the community heart again.

I also believe that this process will allow us to find out, if there needs to be a fork, what that fork is. Through the process we will have had additional community engagement and feedback, which will help to inform what a plan B might need to be. So we do not have a plan B absolutely pegged at the moment, but I suspect that the process will be delivering us a plan B over the next little while.

Mr Dawes: Obviously there is interest across CSD as well, and there was representation from CSD at our meeting and discussion yesterday. As this community engagement with JUDD.studio rolls out, that will ensure that the two agencies are working collaboratively to resolve that.

One of the key things that came out of it—and it is even coming out of today’s discussion—is how we then engage with the elected body. I know that you will be going out to an election, and it is important that we connect with the new elected body post that. By the time the elections for the elected body occur, we will be much further down the track. I anticipate us coming back and reporting very early. I certainly would encourage having that discussion very early after the new elected body is formed.

THE CHAIR: These questions were raised with me at midnight last night, so it is not something that I have structured formally, and I apologise for that. The other thing that was alarming from yesterday’s discussion was that, whilst I note that the directorate has received some money under the IAS, the Indigenous advancement strategy—and I acknowledge that $50,000 and the guiding strategy that you are developing—on the other hand one of the things I noted in the briefing was the formal commitment from your agency to support Boomanulla in its new form. The question is: as part of your moving forward and having a plan B, what will you promise to our community in supporting Boomanulla once the doors are open?

The problem that was raised before was that Boomanulla is the heart of this community, meaning that the services delivered to our people today all started from


Boomanulla. But Boomanulla is down here, and all the services are up here. We know that the government support those services as best they possibly can, and we know there are gaps, but what alarms the elected body the most is that there is no real commitment from the ACT government to ongoing support. I am asking the question because of the simple fact that that ongoing support was offered, the service was run into the ground, and we do not want to see that pattern happening again. Going back to the question: what can you offer us in relation to supporting that service beyond this process?

Mr Dawes: As we discussed yesterday—and it is probably something on which I will give you a commitment here—one of the frustrations is that we would have been a lot happier if we were further down the track with our negotiations. That is the number one point. I think we discussed what a plan B might be, and we can feed that into a budget process. I can never guarantee anything; we would have to go into that process, as you know. But, because we cannot inform that sort of process as much as we would like, we have lost 12 months. I expressed that yesterday as well.

I am hinging quite a lot on our next phase of community engagement. Even though that will be done by way of supporting the Winnunga proposal, it will certainly, as Jenny has pointed out, point us in the right direction with respect to the ongoing aspects, and that will make clearer where, what and how we then work with CSD. There would be a collaborative approach with CSD to formulate a business case that would then feed into our budget process. Obviously I would see that as being a matter of working with the elected body.

That is the commitment that I will certainly give. As you know, I cannot guarantee funding or whatever, but that will certainly inform, and if we can get to that point where we have a proper business case, we can argue that case and we have the support of ministers et cetera, we can go from there. That is what I am hoping to get out of this process. As I said, I would love to have had it completed six months ago, but I think we have now got there. We have that appointment, so I am certainly very much looking forward to getting that information, and out of that we will get a way forward.

Ms Priest: If I can add one other point, perhaps there is a legacy that can be reflected on regarding ACSRA and the work that Percy Knight and others did at the time. Aspirationally—and I know there are all sorts of challenges in getting to that aspiration—the vision for Boomanulla was to get that place back to what it needed to be and what it should be for the community: the heart of the community. But the aspiration was to have it get there in such a way that it becomes self-realising and self-sufficient. There may need to be a co-contribution by a range of partners in getting it to that point, but we are hoping that this process will deliver a business model, an operational model and a tenure model that will allow that to happen over time, so that the community can be proud of what it is and so that it is self-realising and it does not have to keep coming back to government for funding.

There may always be funding like Indigenous advancement strategy funding that can help to run programs. Our view is that, when the time comes, the baton and the holder of the Indigenous advancement strategy funding should go back to the organisation that ends up running Boomanulla. That is what we want to see happen. We are the


temporary custodian both of the land and of the program funding that should really be managed and worked through that facility.

Mr Dawes: I think that is a very important point because the whole objective of previous chairs of the elected body and our interim advisory group was to ensure whatever we could do to make that self-sustaining, so that it is not reliant on grants. Let us face it: all governments are looking at grants across all areas and the pot to be divided is getting smaller. Whatever we do, we want to make sure we have a sustainable business model that will then fund the oval for the long term rather than hand to mouth, from year to year. That, to me, is an important imperative.

THE CHAIR: Again, I do not like making statements but I need to make one thing clear. We on the elected body and in the community do not want government funding for the remainder of however long we can keep Boomanulla’s doors open.

Mr Dawes: I understand.

THE CHAIR: We certainly do not want you, meaning the government, handing money out willy-nilly. What we do want from the government is some support to keep the doors open—not necessarily, as I said, to keep funding it but to help how we access different avenues, to look at mainstream providers and at how they can fund and support this organisation. That is something I would like you to reflect on. It is my last term, so I would like you to reflect on it. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I will go from being an elected body member to a community member using those services; I still have the same aspirations and I know this community does as well.

I apologise for making a statement, but I wanted to let you know that we are not waiting to be handed money by the government. We are still waiting on our free cars and our free houses from government! Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is not about that. It has always been about self-sufficiency. We signed up for the Redfern statement. We have the solutions to our problems, meaning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and that includes making sure that our services are self-sufficient. We do not want to be reliant on money from government. I just want to make that clear.

Mr Dawes: I think we are all on the one page.

THE CHAIR: I think that has been a misinterpretation, and it is not that at all.

Ms Priest: That is understood. The contribution from those people in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community that have engaged in the process to date has absolutely been all about that, which is a really positive thing. I think it is important that we get the process and the outcome right, rather than rush in. I know it is frustrating because—

THE CHAIR: It is.

Ms Priest: I know the aspiration is to open up that facility and have the community re-engage as soon as possible. I think that, within a reasonable measure, we want to get it right—not rush it, get it wrong and then be back where we are in two years time.


THE CHAIR: Certainly.

Mr Dawes: We might talk a bit about procurement, capital works and our local participation plan, if people are interested in that.

THE CHAIR: We definitely are.

MS WALKER: Jenny, just back to that individual sports grants program, the one that pays the registration stuff, thank you for that, and credit to Philip Turini, who does that. He works really well with our community. In terms of the promotion, just a suggestion: perhaps there could be an announcement to sporting groups, because I know it is not well known.

Ms Priest: What was that? A note to the sporting groups?

MS WALKER: Yes.

Ms Priest: Again you would not know this, but we have a monthly newsletter that goes out to all of our sporting organisations. We have promoted it regularly in that, as something they need to be aware of and to be hooking into. If there is a way in which we can further elevate that awareness we will, but we have tried to do that through our regular newsletter. It is not a big, long, waffling newsletter; it is deliberately a sharp, succinct thing because we know our sporting orgs are pretty much based on volunteers and they do not have time to read reams of stuff. We have sharp, important updates, and they tend to value them. That is the feedback we are getting. But I will take on board that we should try to up the ante on the promotion through our sporting clubs.

MS WALKER: That process is only an online application. Is there consideration for other avenues in our community? We have elders who cannot operate a phone, let alone a computer.

Ms Priest: Let me double-check on that. We have gone out of our way to ensure we have always provided a couple of modes of opportunity. If that is a barrier and if that is creating an issue—I have spoken to different people, including individuals from UNEC—we have tried to help facilitate things for them. Phil Turini is always happy on the end of the line to help step people through. If they pick up the phone and give him a call, we will help facilitate. Sometimes the online application thing, when it comes to grants, is a little bit of a challenge to get around, but I will take that on board.

MS WALKER: And perhaps not in the context of actually doing the application but even in your promotion. I know some community members are turned away from it because it says, “Go to the online application.” A lot of the community members are like, “I don’t know how. I don’t want to.”

Ms Priest: Too hard.

THE CHAIR: So it has been underutilised.


Ms Priest: Underutilised because there is a sense of a barrier because of it being online.

THE CHAIR: It is not just our people; a lot of people hate computers. And it is our age audience. When you go back to volunteering, it is elders and other leaders in our community who take on the responsibilities, and sometimes they are past the computer stuff. They are old school and want it in hard copy. Perhaps having officers go out to sporting events could be done. Recently there was a young kids’ footy comp. Having staff on board at that and being there to talk to them would be good. Because you are not only targeting your Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community; you are targeting the broader community.

Ms Priest: Thank you for that. That is exactly what I am after in terms of feedback. We are really trying, but sometimes you need to hear more of that direct feedback so that you can eliminate any potential or perceived barriers.

MR DEVOW: I have a question for Glen in relation to the work that was done through CBRIN with funding from your directorate. Did I hear you correctly in saying that the works are to continue?

Mr Hassett: That is our intention. From the report, it is to work with the elected body to find out which parts of those programs make the most sense to keep delivering or if there are new activities you want to pursue. But, working with Liz Kobold and the CBR Innovation Network, it is our intention to replicate the yarning circle and the business showcase.

MR DEVOW: I think it relates directly to what you were saying, Ian, about supporting local Indigenous businesses and TOs and so forth. But I know that that particular bucket of funding was not Indigenous-specific.

Mr Hassett: We are going to support Indigenous business development support programs, or recommendations from here, through our program environment.

MR DEVOW: And do you know how much that will be?

Mr Hassett: There is an appropriation of $100,000 in the budget papers that will be deployed, in consultation with you about what are the elements of that program that we should continue to deliver each year.

Mr Dawes: I think it is important to get that feedback so that we are not delivering something that is not going to be of value. We will certainly work with you as well.

THE CHAIR: No worries.

Mr Dawes: George, did you want to talk a bit about our procurement of goods and services?

Mr Tomlins: Yes, sure.


THE CHAIR: You have five minutes to do that. I am being a time stickler today because last hearings we lost a lot of time with waffle—not from you guys—and I am not having waffle this year.

Mr Dawes: Hopefully we are not waffling.

Mr Tomlins: Okay, I am on notice. On procurement, we are required by our act to achieve value for money in a way that is open and fair and with probity. We have a focus on accessibility so that Indigenous organisations can apply for tenders. Up to $200,000 agencies have to get three quotations, and we put all the Supply Nation accredited Indigenous organisations on our website. We do put other Indigenous-owned companies that are not registered with Supply Nation on the website, where those companies ask to be added to the list of suppliers. We tell our directorates they will have to undertake their own due diligence on those, so there is an added availability there.

We also are working to make it easier for Indigenous organisations to submit tenders. There is a protocol which allows evaluation committees to go back to organisations that have not filled it out properly. We know we have about five contracts with Indigenous infrastructure companies and we have some goods and service maintenance contracts as well in the fire area.

The local industry participation plan, which came into effect on 1 January, has an employment contribution test up to $5 million, and then above $5 million they are required to fill out a local industry participation plan. In that plan there is an explicit requirement to talk about training and Indigenous training, so that is an added requirement.

We are essentially joining a New South Wales contractor central which requests Indigenous and other companies to self-disclose, so we can get the data on those contracts and use that information in the tender assessment. We are also looking at how we can get more information on labour relations, workforce, employment and training information into our contracts. Very quickly, that is what we are doing on the procurement and infrastructure side of the business.

THE CHAIR: I have one question around Supply Nation. A lot of our services are aware of Supply Nation, but how they go about it is another area of concern. Under the social procurement we are very aware of that. We also note that social procurement goes with a lot of the inclusion strategies and the aims being targeted by the ACT government. What we are concerned about and what we want to know from your agency is what you do to support local Indigenous businesses to ensure that they are on the Supply Nation list and are being utilised by the directorates, such as small businesses like Bandu Catering, Darkies Design and other individual businesses that are out there.

Mr Tomlins: We essentially pay to be part of Supply Nation. I am not aware that we do a great deal to help people get on Supply Nation. But if anybody asked us we would certainly make the connection. What we do is this: if an Indigenous organisation does not want to join or is having trouble getting onto Supply Nation we are happy to put them beside the Supply Nation companies on our website. So our


agencies will have a full look at both the companies who are with Supply Nation and the other companies. The only qualification we say is that the directorates will have to then do their own due diligence on those companies and make sure they are authentic.

THE CHAIR: Do you promote that to other directorates so that their officers can look at, for example, reconciliation action working plan groups? They use procurement a lot to look at catering for reconciliation events, NAIDOC Week events and so on.

Mr Tomlins: Yes, and various groups like that get contracts with the territory.

Mr Dawes: We have been working with a number of the directorates, and this is ongoing work. I know when we did go out for some goods and services contracts we did not get to everyone. Some of the directorates were utilising Indigenous organisations to provide mentoring or other things that did not get onto those lists. That information then was provided to us from those directorates and we went back and assisted some of those organisations. Again, they delivered the programs very, very well but they struggled online. We are working with the various directors to identify any of those. That work is ongoing, though.

THE CHAIR: That is what we are asking—is any support being provided—so thank you for that. We are pretty well at the end of our questions, but I do have a question on cross-border negotiations between New South Wales and the ACT in particular. I suppose, David, that question should have been directed at Chief Minister’s.

Mr Dawes: That is more the mainstream, but I am happy to take that on notice and we can provide some information to you as well.

THE CHAIR: I will get you to take it on notice, considering you are representing the directorate in your capacity. The elected body is very interested in the current status of the cross-border negotiations. We are very much aware that when we talk about cross-border negotiations in this instance we are talking about the school at Jervis Bay and the relationship between ETD, ACT government and obviously the New South Wales government more broadly.

We have multiple concerns but especially about meeting the aspirations for the Jervis Bay community. We are really keen to know the current status, and we certainly will be asking ETD this question. But we want to know the status from a Chief Minister’s point of view. I am sorry; I should have asked this question earlier on, but if you could take that on notice and ask your agency to respond to that, that would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Dawes: Yes, no problems at all.

THE CHAIR: Are there any further questions that members would like to ask?

MR WALKER: Yes. David, you alluded to this earlier. In last year’s hearings we asked about being assisted in our approach to acquiring the land between the cultural centre and the lake. Are there any plans, or is there any progress on this? The public art question before was mainly directed at light rail. A couple of years back we did the


stuff on the GDE. Are there any other plans to do public art around the region? I do not know whether there is a crossover between tourism and heritage. In relation to the Sullivans Creek development, I remember that when I was looking after the portfolio we were having conversations with environment at the time. I am just wondering what the crossover is between that and tourism. They were talking about placing Ngunnawal history along certain parts of it, leading up to Mount Ainslie from the lake. I remember attending a couple of workshops with the minister at the time, Mick Gentleman, on doing some work and engaging with the Ngunnawal Elders Council and other groups to develop a history of that part of this land and focusing on that storytelling from the traditional custodians’ point of view. Those are my three questions. You can either take them on notice or answer them now.

Mr Dawes: As to public art, we can. Just in relation to the facility at Yarramundi, that is something that has not progressed. That is what I was alluding to earlier. I will have a conversation with the NCA and trigger that again and ensure that it is handed over to someone to follow through. We will come back and report back to the new elected body.

MR WALKER: Thank you.

Mr Dawes: I do not think a lot will happen between now and the election of the new body.

MR WALKER: No.

Mr Dawes: But we will come back to you; we will ensure that. Public art?

Mr Stankevicius: From the previous discussions we had with the NCA about Burringiri and the culture centre space, I think there are three different designations of the land down there. Some of it is the Lindsay Pryor National Arboretum space that goes up to a particular point and some of it is native grasslands which have a management plan and have to be kept as native grasslands. The other, I think, is national capital land, which possibly could be reclaimed. They are all in shards. It is very strangely designed down there.

THE CHAIR: The good old Westminster system.

Mr Stankevicius: It is not an easy one, unfortunately, in terms of working out those sight lines.

MR WALKER: We asked at the time about seeking clarity. If we cannot then that is fine.

Mr Dawes: There is one portion where there is a possibility.

Mr Stankevicius: Yes, but we will definitely come back to you on that.

MR WALKER: All right.

Mr Stankevicius: In terms of public art, we do not have any additional public art


annual funding. At this point we have funding to support the portfolio that we have at the moment, which is 103 artworks right across the territory in the public art space, including the bogong stand at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, but we do not have any additional new money at this point.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much for that.

Mr Hill: Did we cover everything you asked about Sullivans Creek?

MR WATERS: Yes, the Sullivans Creek development.

Mr Hill: I might take that one on notice. I do not have the full details on me. I would rather come back with a more comprehensive answer, if I can.

THE CHAIR: Yes. I would like you to take it on notice. Thank you, members. Thank you, directorate, for your responses; we greatly appreciate them. David, you are moving on, so good luck.

Mr Dawes: Yes, I am moving on.

THE CHAIR: Yes. I am not making any announcements. I am not firing him and saying he is redundant. It is a choice that he has made. David, on behalf of the elected body, thank you for the work that you have undertaken with us—we appreciate it—and good luck with your new endeavours in life.

Mr Dawes: Thank you very much.

Hearing suspended from 12.23 to 12.56 pm.


Appearances:

Community Services DirectorateDe’Ath, Mr Michael, Director-GeneralMitcherson, Mrs Bernadette, Deputy Director-GeneralSheehan, Ms Maureen, Executive Director, Strategy, Participation and Early

InterventionCollis, Dr Mark, Executive Director, Child and Youth Protection ServicesPappas, Ms Helen, Senior Director, Child and Youth Protection ServicesSaballa, Ms Melanie, Director, Child Development and Family ProgramsDuggan, Mr Frank, Senior Director/Chief Operating Officer, Housing and

Community Services ACT

THE CHAIR: Welcome, everyone. Welcome to the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body hearings. My name is Ross Fowler. I am the Chairperson of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body. I will start with an opening comment and hand over to the relevant directorate with responsibility. I would like to make an apology for one of our current members, Mr Tony McCulloch, who has the Education and Training Directorate. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us over the next two days. I will make an opening comment, Michael. I will then hand over to Dion to lead into the questions, and I will allow you to make an opening statement.

Thank you, everyone, for being here this morning. As I said, I will make my opening comments and then I will hand over to Mr Devow. Since the last hearings the elected body has been able to release the fifth and sixth reports on the outcomes of the ATSIEB hearings for 2014 and 2015. We have commenced a review into the elected body act, which I know your directorate is fully aware of and is assisting us with. The ACT government have now responded and we have progressed in the areas of the whole-of-government agreement and the Aboriginal justice partnership. This will bear on some of our questions today. I would now like to hand over to Dion to lead this session.

MR DEVOW: Thanks, Ross.

THE CHAIR: Sorry, Dion, just before you start: Michael, did you want to make an opening statement? We do ask that you keep it very short and sweet. Then Dion will proceed to ask the directorate some questions.

Mr De’Ath: Thank you, Ross. Thanks for the opportunity. I will attempt to be brief, but I thought it was important to make a few opening remarks. I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and celebrate their ongoing culture and contribution to the ACT. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ross Fowler and other elected body members for their hard work in representing the needs and priorities of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I know that you appreciate the importance of this to our directorate.

I do really want to take the opportunity to recognise and value the huge contribution that you make and the time you dedicate to the role that your community has elected

ATSIEB—12-04-17 39 Community Services Directorate

you to fulfil. I know members have other jobs and other responsibilities and continue to make the time to do this very important work. I very sincerely thank you for that. I am sure that the advice the elected body members have given the Community Services Directorate and other directorates has been valuable and is greatly appreciated.

I have advised the chair that unfortunately I need to leave at 2.30 pm today for an unavoidable family commitment, but the Deputy Director-General, Mrs Bernadette Mitcherson, will continue to answer questions on my behalf. Thank you for allowing that.

I do want to make a brief opening statement by saying that at CSD we are very deeply committed to delivering quality outcomes for members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs ministerial portfolio through a dedicated Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, a responsibility we take very seriously. This office provides advice to the ACT government on policy, programs and services, and coordinates whole-of-government reporting on the ACT and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agreement, something I am sure you will ask us about today.

The delivery of these quality outcomes for the community is something that is part of every part of our CSD business. It is not just about having the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Every staff member is focused on this and should consider this in their work. In fact, we require that of them. We do want to ensure that the discourse is strength based, not deficit based, and that we think deeply about how we understand the issues and then respond. Since starting in this role, this is something I have been very focused on. I am sure members would have heard me speak about that, and I think we share that agreement.

In the interests of time, and to be brief, those were the sincere remarks I wanted to make to open this hearing. I think it is important to put up-front just how seriously our directorate takes this work. We know we deal with a lot of the tertiary end of the system in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and families. That is hard work at times, but when I look across all of the work that has been put together in preparation for these hearings, I see just how much is happening. Sometimes I think we feel that there is not enough happening or not much happening. We probably never do enough, but there is a considerable amount. I look forward to our team discussing that today. Thank you, Ross.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Now I will hand over to our member Dion Devow to lead this discussion.

MR DEVOW: Thanks, Ross. Thanks, Michael. The first lot of questions relates to programs, initiatives and services within CSD. Please outline, over the past financial year, any new programs or services which your directorate has implemented. How are these programs and services progressing? What are they producing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? How are you measuring the success of these programs and initiatives? If the programs and services are not producing better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, what measures are you taking to make changes or turn the programs and services around?


Mr De’Ath: Thank you, Dion, very much. That is a very broad question. I think the best way to approach that is for me to ask each executive director in turn to make a response in terms of the responsibilities and accountabilities that relate to them. I may come in with a few remarks along the way. Bernadette might also, or certainly at the conclusion of it she will. We will take a little bit of time over this. I think that is probably what you are looking for.

MR DEVOW: Yes.

Mr De’Ath: We will start with housing.

Mr Duggan: I will talk about two particular programs that I think the elected body has been involved in. One was the development of the Mura Gunya older people’s accommodation at Jenke Circuit. We think that was a very important and strong initiative. That was opened on 7 September by our minister. Effectively, we have full uptake for residences in that development.

From the elected body’s perspective, the second piece of work is the request for a future budget initiative for $4.4 million in the new budget cycle. We are developing a business case to utilise that opportunity to commence the feasibility study. We would like to work with the elected body, to work through the selection process, as we did before, in respect of the relevant blocks of land that may be available to us to instigate that development. We would like to follow the very well-tested and excellent process that we had with you before to develop that proposal. We are hoping that if we are able to secure the budget we will be able to build 10 properties, if we can obtain the community facilities land to commence that initiative.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the work we are doing on trying to accommodate larger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. We have had a budget initiative of about $1 million to work with in that area. We have been doing some feasibility work and assessments internally of the family sizes and their needs.

We had only one family that was on our priority housing list. Because of the significance of the needs of that family—we have been working with our colleagues in CSD—we have developed and built a brand new class C property, a five-bedroom property. This means that it will be available for people who might be disabled. It is constructed in that form. We have built the property. We should be able to accommodate the family in the property in the next month or two. The family came and had a look through the property last week. They were very happy with it.

The other piece of work with the $1.1 million is to look at other opportunities. We have just purchased another property, again for a family that was in overcrowded housing. We will accommodate them and we will continue to initiate that work over the next six to 12 months to build, purchase or redevelop properties that meet the needs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who have a smaller number of kids.

Mr De’Ath: If you want to follow up, please do not hesitate; otherwise we will just keep moving through.


THE CHAIR: What we will do on this end is take out the questions that are relevant. Thank you, Frank, for that. We had a question on the housing project and the commitment.

Mr De’Ath: We will keep moving through. Maureen.

Ms Sheehan: Thank you. My responsibilities include the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It now has the job of coordinating the implementation of the new funding that came in through the 2016-17 budget. The elected body would be aware of the range of initiatives there. I can run through those initiatives, though I am not directly responsible for them. However, I do have a coordination responsibility. Would that be useful?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Sheehan: Thank you. It was the first time that the ACT government had gone to budget cabinet with a consolidated bid. We called it the omnibus budget bid. Usually directorates and ministers find themselves in the position of competing against each other for scarce funds. Instead, what we did with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander funding was to go forward to cabinet with a consolidated position on a series of reforms. Some of those reforms gained extra funding. Others of them were done within existing resources. This was the totality of things that we are now managing that arose from the last budget.

The first thing was that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services received an additional $1.6 million funding. I am sure that Health will speak to you about that. That was to extend services to support additional specialist outreach programs.

The next matter is the strengthening Ngunnawal culture and history in schools, which is an education directorate initiative. It provides $300,000 for a two-year pilot to increase opportunities for local youth to build their connection and engagement with Ngunnawal culture and history. I am sure that the education directorate will speak to you about that.

The kickstart my career program is being implemented by the Environment and Planning Directorate. If Dorte Ekelund was here, she would be speaking very strongly in support of that program. The kickstart my career program supports young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at risk of leaving school. What is happening with that project is that there is support for positions right across ACT government to connect young people who are at risk of leaving school with workplace experience environments that they would find interesting. Instead of leaving school they have the opportunity to continue their education but to maintain that connection to training, education and learning, and to enjoy learning, so that they do stay in the—

MR DEVOW: Is there a dollar amount against that particular program?


Ms Sheehan: Yes, $651,000, and that is provided within the resources of the Environment and Planning Directorate. Then, through the justice directorate, there is $1.99 million. I do not know why we do not say “about $2 million”; let us say about $2 million, which includes $1.3 million from the confiscated asset trust fund. That is establishing the justice reinvestment trial, which I am sure the justice directorate will speak to you about.

The justice reinvestment trial is based very much on the strengthening families model, which was developed in the Community Services Directorate, the idea being that you need to look at an individual in the context of their whole family, look at all of the issues facing the family, and then provide coordinated support led by the family themselves, not the view of the caring professions on what they think would be good for the family. The persons themselves identify what are the goals that they would like to achieve.

In this instance, it is a person coming out of the justice system; so they and their families will identify what goals they want to achieve. It will be supported by key workers located at Winnunga. That is being currently negotiated and established with Winnunga. That is worth $850,000.

They are also piloting a bail support service, which is worth $400,000. It will also fund a life skills program supporting sentencing options at the Galambany Court and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience reports. An amount of $50,000 will go towards to informing the court sentencing practices.

In the arts area there is $100,000 that will be provided to support arts and culture and to build that capacity. An amount of $107,000 will be provided through the Chief Minister’s directorate. Chief Minister’s most likely will have spoken to you about that in their session this morning. That is to develop a mentoring and training program for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the ACT public service. The ACT government will establish a new position for an Aboriginal staff member to manage the recently created ACT Parks Aboriginal Advisory Group.

Finally, there is a position funded in the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs which has a coordination role, to work with directorates to make sure that their initiatives have been established and to work on the CSD initiatives, which include the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander portal. This is a portal that provides information about ACT government services and grants programs.

This has been done not by reinventing what is already in existence but by establishing what I am going to call a one-stop shop. Perhaps if I was more ICT savvy I would be told that was not right, but to my understanding it is a one-stop shop that contains the information or has links into the websites of other directorates so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can go to one place to then access information about services.

The other very important role that the officer inside the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is responsible for is to coordinate the reporting on the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agreement through coordination of the traffic light reports which are being produced on a quarterly basis.


Finally, and this is quite different from a coordination role—with your agreement, chair, and the Director-General’s agreement—I refer to the establishment of the child development service. It was established as a diagnostic service when Therapy ACT was closing. Under the national disability insurance scheme we still have a responsibility for the clinical diagnosis of children with a disability.

That new service has established fantastic outreach programs to Winnunga and also to child and family centres to assist young children to enter the national disability insurance scheme, but also to access early intervention services. With your agreement, Melanie Saballa, who is the director of that service, would be able to give you more information about the outreach activities of that service.

Mr De’Ath: In fact, I suggest, with the permission of the chair, that we do hand over to Melanie for a few minutes to introduce herself and talk about some of that fantastic work that is going on, which relates strongly to your question about services.

THE CHAIR: Yes, please.

Ms Saballa: I would be very pleased to give you an outline of some of the things that we are doing, particularly around improving outcomes for children and their families broadly across the ACT but with a particular commitment to improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families.

The first thing that I would like to do is give you a bit more information about the child development service that my colleague Maureen Sheehan was talking about. That is located out at Holder. It is a service that has a multi-disciplinary staff team. You have got occupational therapists, you have got speech pathologists, you have got psychologists and you have got social workers. We also have identified staffing positions. What it means is that, if you have a concern about your child’s development—maybe your preschool teacher has said, “I am just not quite sure about how your child is going. Why don’t you go to the child development service?”—all families are welcome and you can go in and your child can be assessed, whether you are a parent or a carer, and get some really good advice about maybe some early intervention support or whether there might be some other supports you could access to support your child’s development.

Some of the work that we have done over the past eight months has been some really proactive outreach work with our Aboriginal-run services, Winnunga and also Gugan, and what has been important about that is that we really want to make sure that all families know about our service. But we also work on the premise that not all families are going to walk in the door. So our role is to make sure that we go out to services, we talk about what we do, we say, “This is what is available. My staff can come out and run joint programs.” That is what we are doing with Winnunga and also with Gugan.

What has been successful in that approach is that we are working with families that may never have come in the door of the child development service. It means that they are able to talk with our staff. Our staff are very, very skilled. One of the commitments that I have in working with my teams is that we are skilled in the way


that we work with all the people. So we are culturally proficient in the way we work with people and we are very inclusive in terms of the materials that we develop as well.

This is something I just wanted to show you. This is the flyer that we developed for the child development service that we are sharing with families when we go out to Winnunga and Gugan. We are very aware of the accessibility of what we offer and also welcome people into our service.

What we have seen through that outreach work is that we do have families that are comfortable working and talking with our staff. They are happy to take on suggestions about further supports that are available, and we can also do some very positive linking in to other services such as the child and family centres. That is the child development service’s first example that I wanted to give.

Mr Devow, when you were asking your question you wanted to know how things were progressing. Through the child development service over the past year we have seen over 2,000 children and families come through our doors, and there are about 300 children that we have been able to refer to the National Disability Insurance Agency because it looks as though they would be eligible for a package under the NDIS.

THE CHAIR: Can I interrupt there. You talk about 2,000 families. We are particularly interested in how that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. It is not that we are not respectful of our broader non-Indigenous community members, it is just we are very much interested in what the agency is doing around our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space, please.

Ms Saballa: Absolutely, and thank you very much for that clarification. I do not have the exact data about the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families on me now, but with agreement of the director-general I would be happy to follow up that data.

Mr De’Ath: We can provide that out of session.

Ms Saballa: And then provide it out of session.

THE CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Saballa: In terms of outcomes, we are seeing very high satisfaction rates. If I talk broadly, in terms of outcomes there is that very strong and positive engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families through the outreach work and then connecting into mainstream services. And certainly having a finer grain and level of data around uptake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and their children is something that we are looking at over this year with our output reporting. That was around the child development service.

I could now talk briefly about growing healthy families. I hope that that is a program that you are aware of. Growing healthy families had been in place with the West Belconnen Child and Family Centre for a number of years and then, based on the


success of that program, two budgets ago it was funded by the ACT government for around $1.2 million. That was to, I guess, strengthen the growing healthy families approach in the west Belconnen centre but also to build its presence in the other two child and family centres, Tuggeranong and also Gungahlin.

From my perspective, I think this has been the cornerstone of the work that we are doing with young Aboriginal children and their families and there is something particular about the approach that I would like to talk through. What we offer is something that is very tailored and flexible, and it is about meeting the needs and aspirations and suggestions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families that come through our doors.

What it means is that we have got a multi-disciplinary team in the child and family centres, again early childhood educators; we have got psychologists; we have got social workers. There is a very strong focus on how we best support children’s development but also support parents in their parenting role. It could be kinship carers, it could be carers, it could be parents themselves. It is a very strong focus of the work that we do.

We work very strongly with partner organisations. We see that the best way we can support children and their families is through linkages into universal services, triaging families into higher support services as their needs suggest and also link them into what I would call a whole lot of in-reach services that we have operating from the child and family centres. We have our matched health colleagues in-posted into the child and family centres. We have a range of community sector organisations that we work really well with.

You can see when you have a family that is engaging really well with your child and family centre. What has happened over time, if I look at the outcomes, is that local Aboriginal families come in and see our centres as a hub. What has happened is that our child and family centres are seen as a base. It means that they can come in. They may not necessarily talk to their dedicated growing healthy families worker but they can talk to any of the staff very comfortably and say, “Can you just direct me on this? I need a bit of information on this. Who is the best person to talk to about this? Can I make a suggestion about a program?” Because of all the work that we have done in growing healthy families, something that I am particularly proud of is that our centres are culturally inclusive and seen as culturally safe as well, and we have seen the numbers of families grow over the past few years.

The other thing I want to talk about is the strong collaborative work that we do in growing healthy families with Koori preschools. Again we have the Indigenous engagement officers who work out of Education but we also have early childhood engagement officers in the Koori preschools working with children and their families. Again it is that very soft and light touch and on referral. We have got great examples where families may not have enrolled their children in an ACT government preschool yet, so we are able to say, “Let us have a look at the process together. Can I help you with the paperwork?” We did have an example where someone did not have a birth certificate. Again it is just that way of being able to support things happening within the families.


The other thing that we have done through growing healthy families is successfully run some fantastic cultural events attracting large members of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community but also of our wider community as well.

I do see the child and family centres playing an important educative role in terms of what really sound and good practice looks like, how you can create really safe and inviting environments for children and their families and then how you share that more broadly. That has been really fantastic.

The other thing that we do is have broader programs like, in January, a kids and families program that was run from the three child and family centres. We had over 600 children come in the January holidays. Many families had not touched the child and family centres before—again another really fantastic way to engage families. We had a very strong focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, exchange of knowledge and understanding, and also performers. That was really well received.

I want to talk quickly about some very specific outcomes. I would really like to do that if I have got time. It is around participants’ achievements. Of course you would realise that the success stories are very powerful when you look at individuals and their families. One of the group members involved in freshen it up was from west Belconnen, and that was a partnership with the Belconnen Fresh Food Markets. It was a program that was seeded out of ideas from the Aboriginal women’s group and young parents group. They said, “We would really like some information and some tools to help us make healthy living choices for us and our families.” We did a whole lot of wellbeing sessions. There was yoga. There was gym membership. We went to the markets. We had a nutritionist. We did a whole lot of things over a six-week program that was very tailored to what families had asked us for.

One of the participants has registered her own traditional weaving business and facilitates workshops in schools and community groups. She was featured in the ACT closing the gap report in 2015 and has had an exhibition of her work planned for later in 2017. The child and family centre recently assisted this group member in applying for an ABCT cultural grant to further progress her business. That is one example.

Three other women involved in freshen it up have successfully completed the CIT Yurauna Centre, north side, certificate III in community services, as another example. Two of the participants from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men’s group at the Strathnairn arts centre have gone on to gain employment.

I just wanted to give you a sense of the individual journeys and success stories of people. You can see that it is something that I would like to talk to at length but there are lots of people that would like to talk as well.

Mr De’Ath: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Melanie, for that. I was going to pull you up shortly, just to allow your colleagues to talk. We do have a series of questions to get through.

Ms Saballa: Of course.


THE CHAIR: As you are fully aware, your directorate is quite huge and we want to allow time for housing. We have a lot of questions around care and protection in light of the recent media and the unfortunate circumstances and numbers of our kids. We do want to get onto those questions as well. Can I ask that you perhaps provide an overview of all the programs?

Ms Saballa: I would be happy to.

THE CHAIR: Could you specifically focus on some Indigenous outcomes within those?

Ms Saballa: Yes I have that.

THE CHAIR: If you could provide it to the elected body through our secretariat out of session that would be appreciated.

Ms Saballa: I would be happy to. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR: Thank you for sharing that as well. We appreciate it but we have got to be mindful of time.

Ms Saballa: Of course.

THE CHAIR: Do you want to add something, Michael?

Mr De’Ath: Chair, thank you; and thank you, Melanie. I think it was particularly important to get some of those grounded stories about the real impacts for real people, and just to get the sense of the breadth of opportunities that are created for people, because I think that gets lost in some of what I call the deficit story. These are really great initiatives, so thank you for allowing Melanie to talk about that. I will hand over to Mark Collis to give an overview of—

THE CHAIR: Can I interrupt? Melanie, can you come back? One of our members has a couple of questions for you.

MS WALKER: In regard to the child development service, how else are you promoting it, in terms of getting it out to the broader community, other than through Gugan and Winnunga, and bearing in mind that not all of our community access those two services?

Ms Saballa: That is a really good question; thank you. Certainly, we have a lot of material available in our child and family centres, and we are seeing broad connection with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families through the centres. We also have some programs operating with child development service staff in the child and family centres. We have a website presence. But you raise a good point, in that we could do some more work in terms of broadening our communications around what we do.

MS WALKER: When the community are accessing this child development, what about confidentiality? There is the fear and stigma around, “What if I go there and my


child is deemed to be underdeveloped?” I know there is a fear that it will then go to care and protection and there will be removals et cetera, especially with the recent release of the care and protection stats, which are atrocious. Can you explain a bit about how that is managed?

Ms Saballa: It is a very important issue for all families, and I really appreciate your bringing that issue up. First of all, our staff are trained professionals. There are a whole lot of processes, procedures and guidelines on the way we treat information. We also talk with families before we provide any service to them about how their information is used. So we would be entering it on a database: their name, the name of the child and the date of birth. There are very strict controls about how we share information. When my staff go out and meet with any family, or when somebody comes in to one of the drop-in clinics, we would say, “We’re taking down your details. We enter it on the database. This is how it’s to be used. It’s not going to be shared.” So we take that very seriously.

The other thing is that if we are to share information, we would ask for consent from families, because it can work so well for families if you say, “I think it would be great, if you’re happy for me to call this person or this service, I’m very happy to do that.” Certainly, it is a confidential database and only a few people have access to the information. The amount of access you have is really based on your level in the organisation. We are certainly very respectful about treating information well.

Mr De’Ath: One comment I would add to that, Ms Walker, is about something that is inescapable in this: the responsibility of mandatory reporters where there are genuine, serious concerns. I think everybody understands that.

MS WALKER: Yes.

Ms Saballa: The other thing to point out is that schools may contact the child development service as well. So we do get referrals in, but it is the parents, the kinship carers and the carers themselves that we will talk to about how information is used.

MS WALKER: No referral is necessary to access that service?

Ms Saballa: No, it is a free service. It is what I would call a universal access platform. I know that sounds quite bureaucratic but it means everybody is welcome. We work very hard to make sure that everyone feels welcome. They are entering a service where their needs are respected, as is their confidentiality.

MS WALKER: Finally, if it is not already in place, is there any consideration being given to transport, to access that service?

Ms Saballa: I could certainly look at that. The staff from the child development service have been going out to services. They are also doing home visits. My staff in the child and family centres do outreach, whether it is services or home visits. We do access community transport, and we do work with that part of government, too. Also, the community sector organisations would have transport. We are very good at being flexible in arranging things that work, but if it is a particular issue, that is something we would talk to families about: “If it’s difficult for you to come in or if you need


some assistance, let us know.” We could look at that as well.

Mr De’Ath: Further to that, it is important to say at this point that, in relation to all of the early intervention and prevention resources that Melanie was talking about—and there are many more—this is a piece of work we are embarking on, to have a look at the arrangement of all of this, the barriers to various groups, and primarily in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and families, given some of the outcomes that we have seen. What is it that we can do to find people, and build trust in and accessibility to the very types of services that are needed to support people? So it is a very good question that you have asked about transport alone.

Ms WALKER: Thank you.

Mr De’Ath: By way of an opening comment—Mark probably will not say this but I will—in relation to the work in child and youth protection services, and primarily in that statutory space, having worked now in a number of jurisdictions, it was refreshing to come to the territory and find policy platform matters in place. It is in its early stages but we are seeing some gains from it.

There are various components to it that Mark can outline. I am not for a moment suggesting that we disregard any of these very negative statistics. These negative statistics are deeply troubling and concerning to us, and they are absolutely things that we are constantly reflecting on and looking at in terms of this new policy platform, about how we better meet the needs of Aboriginal children and young people.

Part of that is also about looking at the data that is across the jurisdictions of Australia and understanding the nuances. There are times when the ACT may be painted with a particular negative statistic and then we find out that there are different accounting rules, for example, particularly in Tasmania and New South Wales. This is a very complex space, and I have asked Mark to step you through some of the elements of step up for our kids, because I think it is well worth doing that, as well as some of the data nuances.

Dr Collis: Thank you for the question. I will briefly talk about the youth justice side of the equation and then turn to the child protection side.

THE CHAIR: Can we please keep it around the original question of the new programs that are currently running in the 12 months? I know that some of this stuff is ongoing and some of it has new components to it. But please keep relating back to the first question we asked: any new programs that CSD has embarked on in the past 12 months.

Dr Collis: The issue, particularly in the youth justice space, is that, because of the size of the cohort, a lot of our programs are very bespoke. They are planned and designed around individual cohorts and individual needs as they occur.

What I would like to briefly address, in terms of the youth justice space, is that we are at the halfway point of the 10-year strategy for the youth justice blueprint. This is the fifth year of implementation of that. That had as an overriding principle to divert and intervene early to reduce the number of young people generally in the justice system


and specifically Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system. We have reported annually on that. So it goes, Dion, to your particular question: how do you evaluate this? We report each year on the programs that we run and the outcomes that we achieve against those programs.

Currently, within the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre, we have partnerships with Gugan Gulwan, Winnunga and Relationships Australia to provide these bespoke services. We have also invested in a family engagement officer role that is designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, with the purpose of inputting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in the management area as well as outlining the importance of kinship to all children and young people in the justice system.

We know of some of our successes there. We know, and you will have seen published, that over the course of that time, as of last year, there was a 65 per cent reduction in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in detention, and about a 30 per cent reduction in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people over the course of that on community-based orders.

This has been a great story of the community getting around, opening up Bimberi and bringing that in. I have to be frank: it is a project that we need to keep on top of because the challenges change very quickly, particularly in the ACT where a relatively small cohort of young people can present really large challenges to our service system. To that end we are not happy with where we have arrived at. We will be doing a half-yearly report and we will be talking to the elected body about how we re-energise and move forward in this space. That five-year mark is in October this year, so we would be expecting to do that.

A critical component of the youth justice blueprint is that it is important to understand, with anything in government, that whilst new initiatives as they are played out are important, they are part of the long river of investment. One of the things that is critical around the work we do is that we sometimes do bits of work and stop at other times. The criticism we get from people is that we do not invest long enough for people to make big enough differences. Some of those partnerships that I just talked about are partnerships that now go back five or six years. So it is important for us that we continue those partnerships and reinvest in those areas.

When you read the youth justice blueprint you will see that one of the places we wanted to get to was to address the issues that are a precursor to justice involvement. For us—and the community told us—that is about trauma that children experience pre moving into the justice system. Quite frankly, as you know, there is a trauma that young people experience developmentally, as babies and children, because of different circumstances around their exposure to particular events in families. That is overarching intergenerational trauma from dispossession and so forth, which is a major challenge.

Just before last year, we brought youth justice and care and protection together. That is why we are child and youth protection services. We wanted to try to develop a system which minimised trauma as early as we could. The positive platform is A step up for our kids. If you read the youth justice blueprint, before it was given a name it was called the five-year out-of-home care strategy, which is probably a bit more


explicit.

Over the course of last year there was a culmination of a design period, a consultation and a procurement process, that led from January last year to the setting up of a whole series of new services that culminated in the whole system being in place in October last year. So that is our view of what the process is. With those particular services, there were different dimensions to them.

The three fundamental dimensions are the services around strengthening high risk families, which we now call the child and families program, which is run by Uniting, and I will come back and talk about that in a moment. The second dimension is the continuum of care. When young people cannot be maintained at home safely and have to have times in care, there is a quality service response which is trauma informed and will move children to permanent, safe, loving families as quickly as we can. The third element was basically looking at accountability and the setting up of the human services register and so forth around that.

I would like to speak specifically about the strengthening high risk families program, the child and families program. That is being delivered in conjunction with Uniting. There are a number of elements to this program. It was always determined that this program would have a specific focus on supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families to keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families together, to keep kids of out of care and to restore children to care as soon as possible. So that was the focus of that service. The service was chosen because it had a commitment to have skilled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers working at a proportion that was the same as the client base. That is one of the important features of the child and families program. Indeed the manager of that, Jill Kelly, is a very skilled and experienced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander worker in this area. So we have leadership in that program and they have been doing some great work. One hundred and seven families, as of December last year, have been engaged in that program, of which 33 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

With that program, as Michael was discussing, the early experiences are that there are green shoots. We are seeing some families preserved. We are seeing some returned very early. Is that to the extent that we would like? That is a question that we will answer over the next 12 months. How do we know whether that will be successful or not? That largely lies in the fact that one of the things we did was to set up an outcomes framework which looks at assessing what the outcomes are for the families within that program.

Some of you will recall that in December 2015 there was a commencing workshop to look at focusing in on how we can look at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific outcomes, or advice around that. In July last year, when we were finalising the outcomes framework, we reported back to the elected body on the work that we did on that day and what impact it had.

We identified 10 outcomes that we wanted to achieve—specific outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and their families. You have to understand that just because there are 10 specifically dedicated outcomes, all of the other outcomes need to relate to all kids, including Aboriginals and Torres


Strait Islanders. But these 10 outcomes are specific outcomes and they were built around the advice we received from the elected body about the need to have not only cross-cutting outcomes but specific outcomes.

The outcomes include the percentage of Aboriginal children at risk who, within three, six and 12 months of completing a placement prevention service—that is the child and families program—do not enter care. So we are actually measuring whether the program is keeping young people out of care. We are also asking the same thing of the Karinya House mother and baby unit program, again, to a three, six and 12 months duration. We are also looking at an outcome which goes to the extent that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families are engaging in intensive parenting support programs and how many of those are kept out of care over a period of three, six and 12 months. We are applying the same outcomes to reunification services—for those children and young people who are brought into care and are part of our program, how many get back within three, six and 12 months down the line.

At this point in time we are about to run our first tranche of data against the outcomes that we have put. We are hoping that will be available and understood so that we can start to report on those outcomes in May this year. So in May-June, at the end of this month, we send the data off. We have employed KPMG to do the external advice against that.

The outcomes framework in totality is how we want to measure our success and measure the progress over time. I will be very frank about the challenges over the past 12 to 18 months. If I had been given some power to look at a crystal ball and to affect the future, I would have hoped beyond hope that this community was not visited with the level of family violence that it has experienced in that period of time. That has translated into a massive increase in child concern reports. These are unsolicited reports to us by Canberra citizens. So there has been a really significant rise in reporting. It is clear that family violence, and some aspects of drug and alcohol—changes in behaviour patterns around that—are impacted and related as well. So this reform is in the backdrop of that massive change.

A step up for our kids never said that we would do a program and that would be the end of it; we would just implement that. We will continue to mature these services. We have already determined in this particular area that given our monitoring of the data, we need to do more. The next step in doing more—and we will need to talk to you, Dion, and the elected body to brief you on this and seek some feedback on it—is that in the near future we will be setting up a trial of family group conferencing, led by skilled and qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, independent of our organisation, to look at doing family group conferencing around a number of Aboriginal families who volunteer to come into that process, and have that process to review placement options and supports.

This is built on the knowledge of the success that some of these programs have had in parts of New South Wales. We have the ability under our legislation to do this. We figure that what we are doing is good but it is not enough and we need to take another step, and that is a first step that we will take. We will monitor that and we will continue to take steps until we get to the point of knowing how much the child protection system can influence the kids in care.


THE CHAIR: I am sorry, but I am just trying to be mindful that we have a series of questions to get through and we still have to allow Helen to speak. Helen, can I ask that you give your introduction in the care and protection space in a nutshell? Once you have done that, I am going to ask Member Devow to lead straight into the care and protection questions. I am just being mindful that your D-G is leaving in 35 minutes, you still have an hour to go and we have not started one question yet and we have been in the room an hour.

Ms Pappas: I will be really quick and say that I would not have anything else to add. What Mark said is what I would be saying anyway. If you want to go straight to questions, please do.

THE CHAIR: Can we do that, please. Members, anything to add to that?

MR DEVOW: It led into the next lot of questions that relate to care and protection. It is just about the fact that members here and community members are really concerned about the high numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children being removed from their families and placed with non-Indigenous carers. To enable us to understand the process better, could you please tell us what processes are in place to ensure that children are returned to their families? Can you outline also what cultural capabilities employees have around the removal of children and their knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures? Also, is there appropriate cultural awareness for all staff in these areas with a focus on children and young people? And what impact has the development of the cultural team within care and protection had?

Dr Collis: In relation to the process for children returning back, the commitment and the driver behind A step up for our kids is to prevent all children from coming into care. The more kids come into care, the worse are the outcomes for us as a system. We set the system to invest heavily in keeping children out of care. That is why, when there is a child concern report, child concern reports come in and are assessed for whether they move forward to an investigation. At that investigation stage, if there are concerns that there are not parents willing and/or able at that point in time, the process is to immediately engage with an assessment of the family. The preference, as is articulated in our legislation, is that, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, we look for kinship placements first up. We do that for all kids, but we have special structures within our service that are skilled in doing that.

The first thing is: can we support these children in the family? If we cannot, what supports can we give to get the children back as soon as possible? That is where uniting child and family programs come in, right there. That might mean Karinya House, some support there. It might mean intensive in-home support to get routines and things happening. That service is obviously one that you cannot force on people, but it is assertively and strongly engaged with at that point in time.

Should we seek to look outside of the birth parents or birth families network because it is determined that there is not a parent willing or able, our absolute first step is to look for family to have children cared for by their broader family system. We really need help around that, and I will hand to Helen in a moment to talk about the cultural proficiency work that our staff are undertaking in regard to that and also the supports


around kinship, finding kin to look after the kids. If we cannot keep the kids out of care, we seek the broader family, we seek Aboriginal family, in that circumstance. We seek knowledge from both the family and our cultural services team, and we seek knowledge from community members who may be involved in that circumstance.

The second line of carers is foster carers. Our priority is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander foster carers to be the next choice. We have very few Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander foster carers in the ACT. As you may be aware, it was one of the requests for assistance that I brought to our last meeting in July last year. If we can talk about explaining how we might be able to do something about that, we would be very appreciative for that knowledge.

Finally, we would move to non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander foster carers where there were no alternatives.

We have about 60 per cent of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in kinship care. About half of those are with Aboriginal kin. In terms of finding kin placements, we are one of the most successful jurisdictions in regard to that, and we are on an upward trajectory. Again, because it is one of the things we need, we are very keen on achieving out of the step up program.

MR DEVOW: Did you say that 60 per cent of the kids in care are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids?

Dr Collis: Sixty per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care are with kin. About 26 per cent, I think, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander—

Mr De’Ath: It is not high enough, but it is high comparatively.

Mrs Mitcherson: We will look outside the ACT for kin as well. That might be supporting family outside in New South Wales or other parts. We absolutely do not just confine that to the ACT boundaries now.

Dr Collis: I would like to pass to Helen to talk about the last two aspects of your question. Helen is the senior director for performance and practice, and she oversights some of the cultural awareness programs as well the cultural services team.

Ms Pappas: We took a position when we were thinking about how we can support our staff to do better when they are engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, their families and the community. We took leadership from our cultural services team leader at the time. That person has changed, but Jane Adams has now taken that on board.

We decided that we wanted to invest quite a bit of time in giving people information, and allowing them to go away, reflect and then come back and have a conversation giving them some more information. We set up a four-month program which has a combination of an accredited online component through New South Wales TAFE, face-to-face conversations with the cultural services team and other people across the ACT and some cultural experiences like the ones where ACT parks offer to


take our staff out for a day.

There are about 20 people who go through at any one time. We have had 56 of our staff go through the program. This is the third time we are running it. There are currently people who have just started this program now. We are committed to doing this. We roll it out twice a year to get people who are coming into our system and catch them as soon as we can.

Jane and her team facilitate it. People identify themselves. They come forward and they say, “I want to participate.” We prefer it if people want to do that. We do not tap anyone on the shoulder, but we will get there because it is a mandatory process that everybody has to go through. Jane and her team do an introduction. They introduce the subject matter. People register and start to do the online learning.

There are a number of components of the online learning. The program talks about the importance of cultural confidence: why do it or why is it important in the child protection context? It provides information about Australia’s first people. We are going back to basics. We want people to understand why it is as it is. We talk about world views, kinship and culture. This is the online component; these are the modules. When they have done those three modules, staff go out to ACT parks and have an experience on country. That is the light bulb moment for a lot of people where they think about what they have learnt and then have conversations with people and understand that and immerse themselves in that conversation. That is where the light bulb goes on for a lot of our staff.

Then Jane and her team come in again and do some discussion around what that was like, asking, “What are your experiences, and have you got any questions?” Some of that discussion goes backwards and forwards. Then the team go back and do some more online learning. They talk about dispossession and understanding the impact of that. They talk about early colonisation and protest and resistance. That is the next lot of e-learning that they do.

Then the team come together and watch a Bob Randall DVD which talks about the history of Australia’s Indigenous people. He explains how they have been dispossessed and talks about beliefs, systems, spirituality, land and family. All of this is about helping people understand and put together the story. They experience it, they are learning it, and they are listening to it. Everybody learns differently, and we just wanted to make sure that there was something there for everyone.

Then the team go to meet with Narelle Rivers and her team and go in amongst them to see what it is to find family and records. They go out to the AIATSIS unit and Narelle walks them through the types of things that are available to staff when they are working with families to help people reconnect with family, to find family and to understand the impact of record keeping, and to understand, in relation to children and young people, when they grow up and they are accessing their records, what is going to be their experience of what is written down about them and the importance of language and the importance of getting that right on children’s files.

Then they go back and they do some more relearning. They talk about the time from 1973 to 2008 and then from 2008 to the present day. There is an e-learning


component specifically for Torres Strait Islander people. Then the second group of staff go out to the AIATSIS unit. We wanted to keep the groups pretty small.

Then Jane brings the team back together again and they have some more conversations, some more reflections, some more critical questions around how they have been practising, what they have learnt and what they might do differently when they are working alongside children and young people and their families.

Then they have a cross-cultural panel where we bring together people from Gugan, from Winnunga, from the child and family centres. The team come around and they talk. It is an informal conversation. They talk about their experiences, how they experienced that, and they think about what they would do differently and how they are going to demonstrate that. We then connect those people into supervision programs so that the team leaders understand: “I am a case worker and I want to learn how to do this a bit differently. How am I going to support that case worker to do that?”

That is the experience. It goes over a four-month period. There have been 98 people. I think we have had only two people who were not able to complete it. It is a pretty intensive commitment. It is pretty robust. It is very confronting, as it should be, for our staff. Jane and her team do a great job in keeping people honest in terms of finishing their e-learning and contributing to those conversations.

Mr De’Ath: I might make a further comment. I opened by talking about how seriously we take this. Those words roll off the tongue, but this is something that is of critical importance to us in terms of how this workforce engages in a highly sensitive space in culturally appropriate ways. I am pleased that Helen took the time to outline that.

I would like to mention one further thing that we are doing which relates to the question asked about overrepresentation, judgements and decision-making. It is not unusual for any jurisdiction in this country in this space—not just in the child and youth protection space; it happens with police, corrections and so on—to be questioned, sometimes very heavily, about the nature of judgements and the fairness of judgements. Sometimes the accusation sits at either end of a continuum. One is that we are too harsh and unfair. One is that we are too soft and lenient. Those are the sorts of criticisms, if you like, that the systems receive at times.

We have taken it upon ourselves to front-foot that very issue. Government has established the child and youth protection quality assurance and improvement, CYPQAI, committee. This is an innovation in the territory that has not been replicated in any other jurisdiction, I understand, but it now has been looked to for replication. New South Wales are now looking to us for this. It has representation of expertise from within these types of systems from outside the jurisdiction. If you like, it is watchful eyes and advisers on how we are going about our work.

At the last meeting of this group—I chair that group, which met last week, and there is a communique that the minister releases following the meetings—the group resolved, as part of their work program and as their first priority, to look at this very matter. What is more, they brought much more to the table—and that is why we have


their expertise there—in terms of what they really want out of it.

I wanted to let you know of that development, because I think it is a very important one. It is not just about the directorate looking within itself to try to find the answers to some things that come from outside and questioning us. It is about opening it right up and saying to other members outside of the jurisdiction, “What do you think? You are experts.”

The other thing that committee is doing is looking at how to bring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation onto the committee. That is currently absent. That is the issue that we are addressing at the moment. The committee resolved to investigate that fully and look at options for that to strengthen that membership in that regard. I wanted you to know that that was also happening. There is a lot happening in this space.

THE CHAIR: That was my question. Obviously, you could probably see the strained look on my face. We are concerned that there are all these experts out there but nothing really looking at the local level, talking about our local kids here in the ACT. We will be watching this space to look at what type of output and what type of representative, and I use that term loosely, is being chosen to talk about the cultural needs of our kids in the ACT. That is alarming. Whilst I know why you do it, with jurisdictions having a check on each other, it is still alarming for us to have these experts coming from other jurisdictions. It goes back to the point of my question: why did CSD decide to disband the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander care and protection unit? It is something I know about, because I helped set it up. Mr Duggan is very much aware of that.

Mr De’Ath: Sorry, I am not aware. It is before my time, I imagine.

MRS CHURCH: I think the point that Ross is trying to make is in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being at the forefront of addressing these issues within the community and, more specifically, having front-line workers in that space, acting in that space as a kind of area officer. With that, there have been some changes. But we understand, being members within the community, the effect that that has on the kinds of supports that families need or do not get. We do have expertise within the community that can very much work with child protection and whatever other space. I really think that it needs to go much broader than what we are looking at at the moment. Does that make sense?

I will refer back to your comment, Mark, in relation to family group conferencing. I am very much aware of how that works within New South Wales and understand that process. We do have people within the community here that are trained to run that and can come and do that quite well. But it is also looking at local people that can be involved in that. It is about that self-determination; it is about empowering communities to take care of their business. At times that can be disempowering for communities if they are looking outside what we already have here.

THE CHAIR: Can I go back to the point? In part Lynnice is right. My question was: why did the Community Services Directorate disband the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander unit which looked after care and protection needs? That unit was set up in


2008 or 2009.

Mr De’Ath: I will have to take that on notice, chair.

THE CHAIR: Frank Duggan, you were in charge of that group. It was led by Caroline—

Mr Duggan: It was led by Caroline. You worked on it; then it was Paul. He took over.

THE CHAIR: Then there was an executive, Neil Harwood, who headed up—

Mr Duggan: Sorry. Then I think there was a change made in how we wanted to work with the Aboriginal community, around more face giving and support. I know there were issues that confronted our colleagues who worked in that unit, as you would know, Ross, about actually dealing in an environment where we were removing kids. It was a very difficult environment for people to work in. The direction of CSD was to change how we were going to do business in that unit. I know, as you know, that they are difficult roles for those staff, being confronted with the issues that we were dealing with. And there were members of the community who made it known how they felt about being involved in the care and protection agency that was out removing children, their children, their community members, their family and broader community members. I know that there was a feeling amongst the staff and the director at the time that they may have to move into a more policy context and develop more of a cultural support and response to care and protection moving forward. That was my recollection. I left not long after that to pursue other opportunities, so I cannot give you the final reason.

Mrs Church: Can I ask that the director take that on notice and provide us with some background as to why that happened?

Mr Duggan: Yes.

Mrs Church: I do acknowledge that, Frank, and I was one of those people, but I do not want to have that reflection on Ross, because today is not about Ross.

Mr Duggan: No, it is not.

THE CHAIR: I would love to make it about Ross, but it is not. It is about our community, and this is a very important aspect of our community. I and members—and I am not just talking about the members at the table with me; I am talking about the community that vote for us to be at this table—are horrified at the results. We are being challenged on the street as elected members on this issue. We have amazing keyboard warriors out there telling us through Facebook and other multimedia avenues. We are not sitting at this table because Ross was shitty because you shut down that unit. We are sitting at this table because we are asked by the community whether that care and protection unit was disbanded, shut down, closed off—whatever you want to call it—for multiple reasons. Like every other unit, it was shut down for many reasons. It would be nice to know exactly why. With that unit, for all the good and the bad and the negative stuff attached to it, we were still having our people in


control of our kids in this community and working with families to make sure that the best possible care and placement of the child was at the utmost. I used to do the family history and preservation and looked at kinship structures, so I am fully aware of where that aspect comes from.

This leads to my question to Helen. We talk about cultural awareness, cultural immersion and using the local services, but it comes back to the fact that it sounds fantastic—the immersion and the cultural proficiency around that—but it still does not meet the high numbers of kids being removed. We have staff going through all of this, which sounds fantastic to me—I am impressed—but when I look at the outcome of it on this side, we have 40 per cent of kids in care and protection. We have 60 per cent in kinship, which is fantastic, but we have 40 per cent with non-Indigenous carers. My question to care and protection here is this: whilst kin cannot take on the child and these non-Indigenous carers have these children, what cultural mechanisms do care and protection have in place to justify to you that they are carers? Ultimately, at the end of the day, you are giving them to Joe and Mary but with no cultural background. It is great creating a cultural plan but, again, that is on paper.

Dr Collis: Can I just address a couple of things. This is a really inflammatory area in the community. It is an area that we are all very connected with and we get a lot of information about. Some of the data that sits around this needs to be talked about in an objective way as well, because there has been data that says that 40 per cent of children are in out of home care in the ACT. That is not true. There was not a 40 per cent increase in that data, and there was misreporting around that. There are far too many Aboriginal kids in care, but to escalate it to the catastrophic level of discourse about this is problematic. As to the number of kids in care in the year that the AIHW report talked about, the proportion was 26 per cent. The year before it was about 27 per cent. It is far too much, and we want to work to reduce.

In relation to your question, I am aware that in regard to the work that Katrina Fanning did around the redesign of Aboriginal services within CSD, we will be able to get information that sits around that process, that report, and how that was worked through, which will address your previous question about what happened to the previous iteration of the Aboriginal services. But I would not discount our cultural services unit. That unit is continuing to grow and is continuing to incubate front-line workers. I can say today that if we take into account the child and families programs and our work there, we have not had more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in the front-line child protection space—certainly not to my knowledge. We talk about the cultural services unit and how that supports the decision-making that goes on at that really critical time.

THE CHAIR: Can I ask that you provide that to us out of session? It will be a lengthy outcome. I just want to be mindful of one member, Dion. We need to get through a series of questions. I know I have taken up some time, and I apologise to CSD and my colleagues here at this table, but I reiterate that it is an important area for us. We have had questions from our community around this. It is important that we get some things in Hansard and we take some things on notice and report back to our community. The second caveat I would like to add to taking this on notice is this: Mark, can you detail that out? We have a newspaper article. If you can give us the snapshot of the agency, we would appreciate that. We will be able to share that with


our community as well.

Dr Collis: I will commit to give a whole snapshot of data.


Mrs Mitcherson: The Canberra Times article, unfortunately did not verify—often, as you know yourself, they ring up to verify. They did not verify that or ask us any questions to correct that data. We attempted to manage a correction but, as you know yourself from your own experience in the public service, you cannot always get the correction you want. We were alarmed by that reporting. We certainly acknowledge that that would have caused some angst for the elected body and we did try to correct it. We would be really happy to provide that appropriately for you, and for Hansard to reflect that as well.

THE CHAIR: Yes, you are right; it would have caused us angst, but we signed up for this as elected members and we are really representing our community.

Mrs Mitcherson: I just wanted to acknowledge that we were alarmed by it too, and we do not often have control over that space.

THE CHAIR: We understand, because we see it all the time with our prison numbers, as you know too well.

Mrs Mitcherson: I know; thank you.

Mr De’Ath: I acknowledge there are more questions, but there is a comment that I would like to make, chair.

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Mr De’Ath: I think we all understand the very issues that we are talking about here. Whatever that representation figure is, it is bestowed upon this directorate through various drivers. They are things that Mark referenced about family violence, drugs and alcohol. There are a whole lot of parts of the system that contribute to what we ultimately receive. We would love to change that trajectory. Part of what Mark and Helen have just explained is that we do not see ourselves just as a part of the system that takes kids into care and finds a care arrangement and, if we can, moves them out.

Some of those initiatives that I wanted to explain around step up are actually about how you make sure your workforce is culturally skilled, how you improve the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers within the workforce, how you do restoration really effectively and how you get good carers on board. By putting it further out into the service system and not just making it solely about the directorate’s responsibility for finding carers and so on, you get it closer to community where those organisations can work with community and improve those things. We are seeing some improvements in that. This is a long-run game, sadly.

One more comment: there is an overarching piece of work that is really important for all of us. Jo was at the last meeting of the subcommittee of the strategic board. That is


our outcomes framework. When I talk about the various parts of the system that play into this, not just CSD, it is really important that we land that piece of work on the outcomes framework, because the outcomes framework is the part that you can use and we can use through our office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs to hold everyone to account and to acquit against the deliverables that we see in there. There is probably not a more important piece of work for us to do together, in my view. If we do not do that, it will probably be that we will be sitting here in 12, 24 or 36 months time having exactly the same conversation about the number of kids and families we are working with, only more.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Michael.

MS WALKER: Can you just clarify? You mentioned that with regard to the stats, the year before it was like 25 or 27 and the year before that—

Dr Collis: Yes.

MS WALKER: What years are you referring to?

Dr Collis: The AIHW report was talking about 2015-16 data. That was the representation rate. The 2015-16 year was 26 per cent. In the 2014-15 year, the year immediately prior to that, it was 27 per cent. I am not doing a victory dance around that. We have an intractable number in the ACT, going back a decade now, which is around 25 per cent. At the moment it is really frustrating for all of us to just bang our head to get a transformational change. We should be making it a 15 per cent target.

MS WALKER: In what year was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander care and protection unit disbanded?

THE CHAIR: We have asked him the question. I have asked for that on notice; I have asked them to provide that information back to us. Then we will talk and have a discussion about that.

MRS CHURCH: Can I just add something, Michael. One of the things that need to be promoted more within the community is that the Community Services Directorate has gone through a reform. Obviously you are still in the early stages of implementing that, and it is a little disheartening for community members to see things like that in the papers. They are quite responsive and reactive. My suggestion would be that you might have more of those conversations with people about what is happening: we are making changes, but we are dedicated to improving things. That is the reassurance I think people need to have.

Mr De’Ath: Thank you. It is a hard story to get out.

MRS CHURCH: It is, yes.

Mr De’Ath: We have made significant attempts. We will continue to try. We rely very heavily on the community to help us with that story, and community members who know as well. I think at the first meeting I had with Dion, which was a great meeting, by the way—and I thank Dion again for it—we talked about how we can


work together to tell the story in the way the story needs to be told, and in a positively framed sense.

THE CHAIR: We are going to try to get through the remainder of our questions as best we can. There are no more for care and protection, I am sorry, and anything else out of that we will send on notice to you. Dion, can you please move into housing now?

MR DEVOW: I have got some questions about, as Ross said, ACT Housing. Michael, I think you touched briefly on the older people’s housing project. Some of the initial questions that I was going to ask have been answered. I will just go to the older people’s housing project. One of the questions around that—and members are interested in hearing this—is: what further work is underway in the ageing space? Can you also please update members whether there will be mechanisms in this process for respite carers et cetera? Is there the capacity to provide our group with additional support to develop the next policy proposal and funding for this facility? I am talking about the next lot of—

Mr Duggan: We will be very happy to be working with you as we move through this process. One of the things that did strike us when we were doing a piece of work recently with the executive on Aboriginal issues, and one of the issues that he raised, for example, was: you are building these two-bedroom houses for an older person, but we are a family and that family connectedness does not actually get achieved when you have a two-bedroom house. I need to be honest, I had not really thought about that as an individual. I will be honest about my reflection on that. So we would like to work with you as we develop the next stage of this.

I think the success of what we have built was good but we absolutely do recognise, and we recognise through public housing, that a lot of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants are also looking for bedroom discretion above their individual needs because of the family connectedness. I think we need to start talking to you about what the new older people’s units will look like. Will there be respite opportunities? And do people have carers? We allow one bedroom for carers, but that does not necessarily meet the community expectation. Certainly it is an expectation from a public housing lens but we would be very happy to work with you, even in development of the sites as we move forward, and we want to have those conversations earlier about sites.

The notional idea is the north this time, and we would like to really work with you about what sites, what development and what work we need to do collectively within that community setting about introducing this cohort into that community. That is what we would be intending to do.

Mrs Mitcherson: And also, I think, reflect on what worked really well last time around. There are always improvements too. What do we want to improve and do better in terms of the built structure or space as well? We are quite excited about that.

THE CHAIR: We are too. The project went well.

MR DEVOW: The next one is in relation to homelessness. Can you please update


members on the current work around homelessness for all Canberrans, including what is happening with the housing stock previously managed by Inanna? Is it possible for the Inanna housing stock to be utilised for our men and women who are leaving custody?

Mr Duggan: I will probably take the Inanna question first. As you know, when Inanna closed we did go out with a select tender process. EveryMan and Toora services actually were successful in that. We maintained the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs within that context. I can report that even during the transition we took the opportunity to reassess a lot of the people who were in the Inanna properties to see whether they could be saved in place, and we were very fortunate, from the elected body’s perspective, there were a number of tenancies that we were able to sign under public housing tenancies in the same house. Then we replicated the program with the first 12 houses going forward.

The Inanna program has been very heavily subscribed. Each of those houses is being utilised constantly, and they do pick up a range of folks who have different backgrounds and different experiences in why they came into that program.

On the broader question around folks exiting the Alexander Maconochie Centre, we actually are working with corrective services around those strategies. One of the things that we are experiencing is that there are quite a lot of people wanting to reintegrate into our community after periods of incarceration, and we are trying to work more successfully with them about expediency and how you go from making your application to getting onto a priority list and to getting housing. All of our perspectives in this area will be reviewed, and we will work continually to try to improve that as we go through.

MR DEVOW: In relation to the Indigenous supported accommodation scheme, can you please tell members if this scheme supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men? We are particularly interested in hearing how this might assist our men who are leaving custody. More generally what does the scheme do to assist our single men in our community?

Mr Duggan: That scheme, where it is actually based at the moment and they are now in the property, is really functioning with families more. It is actually functioning with six families and family groups. It is actually targeted for that. I think the question that you are asking is: what do we do about folks exiting AMC and others? I think we have to do a piece of work in that area, and we are working with corrective services to try to achieve better outcomes. I think this month there are at least 15 people leaving the AMC and a lot of them have applied for public housing. That is the work that we are trying to do.

We are working more broadly on the actual tenancy provision in public housing for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Nine per cent of our stock is now utilised by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants and that has facilitated over 2,014 folks who are living in our properties. That is a good story but it is not a good story. It is a good story of access to public housing. It is not a good story about where we need to work with people to actually not use public housing long term. I think the processes were started to be developed and were led by Maureen and those before my time. We


have actually built that opportunity for people from your community to access public housing stock more readily and more successfully and to maintain their tenancies, which is very significant when you think of the figures that are there today.

THE CHAIR: I just want to add one thing. When you talk about maintaining tenancies for those who are entering AMC under remand as such or on a very small sentence—

Mr Duggan: On a small sentence, we do not remove the property.

THE CHAIR: What is your time frame?

Mr Duggan: It is a six-month window. We allow the first six months because a lot of people will be on remand. A lot of people have delays in their matter before the court. We wait a full six months until the sentence is actually administered. When people pick up the sentence and have had access to the six months, we then seek to have the property returned because we have to reuse that property, as you can imagine, with our demands.

THE CHAIR: I find that interesting in light of Mr Eastman’s case and how—

Mr Duggan: We fought for six years in the court over that.

Mrs Mitcherson: If I could add, I think it is a really good question because the complexities of coming out of the AMC are really difficult, not just for single men but for men of varying ages because sometimes they cannot go back to the home for reasons that would cause issues in terms of family or in relation to their offending. Sometimes there are even placement issues about where we can put them depending on their offence. There are a lot of complexities around that. There has been a lot of work on that. Assuming it is still going on and we get pre-notice of who is coming out and when so that we can sort it out—it was fortnightly—if it is still happening, we even Skype the AMC in terms of people who have got properties and that kind of stuff.

From the day that someone comes in, we do that advice straight away if they have got a property, to make sure that they are not just ignoring their rent. We do the peppercorn to make sure that sort of stuff happens to avoid ACAT and all that stuff.

But the issue for single men particularly is problematic in terms of accommodation. Sometimes they step through and sometimes they do not manage the infrastructure of life well. Sometimes it is supported accommodation and then moving through tenancies and through a whole lot of other areas. But we do not resile from that being a really difficult issue around single men particularly.

THE CHAIR: I am going to go straight to another question. We are asking JACS the same question. I certainly will not be but my colleagues will be asking JACS this question around recommendation 12 of the report on the outcomes of the ATSIEB hearings in 2015. It recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the Community Services Directorate and the Justice and Community Safety Directorate enter into corroborative arrangements that ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait


Islander people are appropriately housed upon leaving detention at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. What consideration have you given to that recommendation? I believe you have answered that in part.

My next part of that question is: we are very interested in how CSD and JACS could work together in looking at some form of diversionary housing or diversionary type of service that is available. In particular we would like to see it for our males in the first instance, acknowledging pretty much what Bernadette Mitcherson mentioned earlier. But certainly we wanted to look at it in light of the number of males we have in custody at the moment both on remand and sentenced.

The direct question to CSD is: what would you do to look at this situation in conjunction with JACS and how would you be able to best support this from your perspective?

Mrs Mitcherson: I might start. I think there are some mechanisms already set up. I have put that hat on before. CSD is part of the government’s group in terms of throughcare, which is voluntary of course, as it should be, because that promotes the people having some control. But we know the take-up is good. Housing is probably the trickiest bit of work there. I can only speak about from before I left. There was quite a lot of work done in that area and I think the important thing about diversionary stuff depends on what someone comes into custody for and what we can actually divert them into and what kinds of supports they might need.

One of the drivers for custody as well as family function is alcohol and drugs. I would have to say that probably 70 per cent or 80 per cent of those in custody, particularly young men, have alcohol and drug issues. A lot of it would depend on at what point they are coming out of custody. I do not need to tell you this. You know that remand is about two-thirds, which is probably too high. This means that sometimes if they had time served there is very little time to scramble around for support. They might still need some really intensive work around drugs and alcohol on release.

Luckily most will volunteer for stuff but again there are issues around placements in rehab, the methadone program, and who can fit into what. I think there has been some work around throughcare in terms of that but I think that our first mechanism is working with JACS and corrections at that very bottom level.

I think the other issue about a diversionary place is that it happens to some extent in terms of using Everyman or other places. Again it is about who can be together as well. Sometimes people coming out of custody actually do not want to engage with other people in custody. They want to actually try to separate themselves and move on.

I think it will depend very much on self-determination in terms of trying to look at the things that keep bringing them back into custody. That might mean actually breaking away and doing some other things a bit separately. I would just say that in terms of making sure the person is centred in that approach, notwithstanding some might have some conditions of parole that they have to meet. I do not know if you want to add to that.


THE CHAIR: I do acknowledge and I do note what you are saying, Bernadette, but certainly the original question was: what will CSD do around looking into this in partnership with JACS? I know you note throughcare is one mechanism and you talk about remand and sentence. That is another and we are very much aware of that ourselves. But we are really keen on seeing what types of establishments we can look at putting in place for our men because the more we can do at either end the better the outcomes we will have. A return to family will reduce housing needs, which reduces many other things. Care and protection needs are another issue. We are not looking at one isolated thing. We are looking at the flow-on effect.

Mrs Mitcherson: There needs to be a suite of things that are available for men. They are all different ages, all different backgrounds. Particularly you have got older men who may be quite entrenched and have not spent a lot of their adult life out of custody. They would have quite different needs from a young man who might still show a little bravado and might need more engagement. But I think you need a suite of things. We would be happy to engage with JACS in relation to that.

Dr Collis: Can I just add that Narrabundah House, in terms of a support program for young men 15 to 18, was an attempt to divert, get in early. We are looking at running through and seeing what kinds of lessons we have learnt from that over time because it did not pan out exactly how we thought it would. It achieved some things differently and some things it did not achieve. But we would be really happy to be part of that broader conversation. We think in its own little way it did contribute a bit to reducing returns into custody.

MR DEVOW: That is no longer around, is it?

Dr Collis: Yes it is.

Mrs Mitcherson: We could look at some learnings from that.

Dr Collis: About three years ago we moved from a child protection-based scheme to fundamental youth diversion and youth justice diversion for older Aboriginal young men, 15 to 19.

THE CHAIR: And also there are the official visitor contacts in house as well as part of that function of custody, especially Bimberi and so forth, attached to that. We will talk later about that. I just wanted to get those questions in together. Frank, did you want to add something to that?

Mr Duggan: Just to say that I actually met with corrective services in the past week and we were talking about some options around how to work more conclusively in that area. EveryMan does get funding. They actually work with males who have had a period of incarceration or are on bail. I think it is a challenge, as you have indicated. There is a challenge very broadly.

We also have a new program with domestic violence services called room for change which will target men who have actually been involved in domestic violence in the family situation and that will be a diversionary program and quite a therapeutic program for men. Those are right there but I would not say it is not going to be a bit of


a challenge.

The thing I would say is that we do respond to housing very quickly, both to agencies who approach us like Winnunga and Gugan, around housing issues and around these particular subjects and we also respond quickly to corrective services. We meet with them fortnightly to discuss operationally folks who are either on remand or who are being released, and what would be the housing options. And we try to meet those, but demand is high and supply is not as good as we had hoped.

THE CHAIR: Maybe it is something you can explore with the elected body in the avenue of making sure that our justice rep and our CSD rep are included in that conversation.

Mrs Mitcherson: We are really keen to work with them.

THE CHAIR: If you would not mind considering that as well.

MR DEVOW: The next question is in relation to Gugan Gulwan Youth Aboriginal Corporation. As you are aware, capacity and property space have been an issue for some of our community organisations and in more recent times Gugan Gulwan Aboriginal Youth Corporation. In 2010 the director produced a forward design report for Gugan Gulwan youth centre. What has Housing ACT done to progress this report, and can we ask that this report be revisited to assist Gugan Gulwan with space and to continue to provide their important services to our young people?

Ms Sheehan: Thank you for that question. Previously community facilities were the responsibility of the Community Services Directorate. When I was the Executive Director of Housing and Community Services I had responsibility for community facilities, and we did an amount of work with Gugan to identify what were the changes and improvements they wanted made at the properties. But that responsibility moved away from Housing and Community Services and from CSD about two years ago. Now responsibility for that facility sits with the property group in Chief Minister’s and Treasury directorate.

Mr Duggan: We fund the programs but we do not fund the facilities. My apologies, but we cannot answer.

Mrs Mitcherson: We did respond to some feedback in terms of maintenance and those kinds of things. We initiated some discussions through OATSIA with property group to make sure that some of the outstanding maintenance issues were progressed—some had been but some had not, so we moved on those—and also to look at the issue of a site. As you know, that is an issue for Gugan in terms of going forward. We have started to work with the property group in the past couple of months to progress that a little bit even though, as Maureen says, it is not our space but we see we have a role to do a little pushing in that area.

THE CHAIR: I acknowledge it is not in your space. Thanks for that, Maureen. We have been dealing with the property group obviously around the Boomanulla space. But we see an alignment of CSD’s duty of care around this considering that you fund them heavily to deliver programs to our children in this community.


Mrs Mitcherson: Absolutely, which is why I have indicated in the past couple of months we have been working with property group around Gugan to see what has been progressed and what has not and how we can be a conduit to working there. I know Brian Wilson from OATSIA has done some work in that area as well. We absolutely acknowledge that and we do see we have a role to sometimes encourage, even if it is not our space.

MR DEVOW: The nest question is in relation to AHURI and the AHURI report. In the ACT context the report states that based on advice from ACT Housing the key challenge is the need to develop local capacity and over time build and sustain the capacity of self-managed Indigenous housing organisations to provide a sustainable housing response. Has the local capacity increased since the report, and has Housing contributed to building and sustaining the capacity of a self-managed Indigenous housing organisation or organisations?

Mr Duggan: I will be very honest and say that the capacity at this stage has not developed as much as we would like, but we have a strategy we are working on. The government is interested in putting together an affordable housing strategy, and there was a discussion paper released and a workshop. I think the elected body had been invited to participate in that. Out of that there was an action to be undertaken which was to canvas and build organisational capacity to develop an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing organisation. The minister is very keen on pursuing that objective, and she is arranging through the economic development directorate some focus groups which we hope will start to roll out in the next couple of months. One of the target areas will be a discussion around that.

We also are doing another piece of work where we are looking at how to help build capacities from a housing perspective. We have been talking to a number of community members, especially Winnunga Nimmityjah, because they are particularly interested in the whole concept of a housing organisation.

We hope to have that affordable housing strategy paper developed and out next year. But one of the objectives will be to build capacity beyond that. We acknowledge that it is a very advantageous thing to actually develop, and none of our community housing providers have that specific lens or expertise.

We would like to work through this process with yourselves and others cautiously, because our experience to date with some of our community housing providers is that commercial know-how is absolutely needed. The introduction of the NDIS has changed the commercial environment of operating community services, so I caution that we want to get it right. We want to work with you and others to put together a very feasible structure so it can be sustained. But that is a piece of work we are very interested in pursuing with you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. Do you want to add anything to that, members?

MR WALKER: I can’t.

THE CHAIR: That is right, Member Walker is remaining silent in this section.


MR DEVOW: The next question relates to the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It is the members’ understanding that the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs have undertaken some research into the development of a cultural proficiency program. Could you please update us on the status of this program, has it progressed, and where is the program at currently?

Ms Sheehan: I am the executive director with responsibility for the office, so I am happy to answer that question. Unfortunately—although fortunately for Robyn Forester—the director of the unit who has been responsible for development of the work is on leave, but I am able to update the elected body on the discussions that have taken place to date.

There are two aspects to the development of that work. The first is a responsibility inside the Community Services Directorate for building cultural proficiency in our organisation providing services to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The approach we have been taking is to work division by division. The first part of it is meeting with all of the senior managers in each division to discuss the issue of cultural proficiency, to get them thinking about how it is that they are providing services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Then the next part has been to survey staff to look at how they feel that they are providing services, and then to go back into improving services. The first division that has done that work has been led from the housing and homelessness side by Frank Duggan. I am sure Frank would be happy to talk about the work that has happened in Housing.

The second part is that in developing the cultural strategy the approach has been to work with directorates on their own service provision and looking at the culture in their organisations and are they providing culturally proficient services to members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

It is probably a bit of a misnomer; it is not a cultural strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so much as a cultural strategy for service delivery organisations in government to look at the culture in their organisation and how can they build cultural proficiency in their organisation in their own service delivery.

That is the work that the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has been doing in meeting with directorates and getting them to focus on the cultural proficiency of their own service delivery.

THE CHAIR: Who determines the cultural proficiency of that unit?

Ms Sheehan: In ACT government?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Sheehan: I will hand over to Frank to talk about how it has worked in Housing. It is not so much that OATSIA sets a standard and then makes an assessment of cultural proficiency against the standard; it is working with delivery agencies on the concept of cultural proficiency and then getting them to look at their own service delivery and then working towards cultural proficiency. So when you ask who sets the standard,


OATSIA works with service delivery organisations on focusing on what is proficiency.

THE CHAIR: But the question still stands: who determines their cultural proficiency? OATSIA?

Ms Sheehan: OATSIA does not test them against the standard, but OATSIA is working with them to identify what is cultural proficiency. In that sense OATSIA is helping service delivery organisations set a standard of cultural proficiency and work towards that. But it would be a mistake for me to describe it as OATSIA coming in with a standard of proficiency independently of working with the organisation on what proficiency looks like for them.

I will ask Frank to talk about how it has happened in Housing. That might be the case study.

Mr Duggan: It is a very impressive question, Ross, because it was not what I was thinking. We were trying to self-measure a lot of the stuff about how we were developing as an agency in this area. We set a benchmark through a survey at the start of this process, which was very ably supported by Craig Leon, who actually ran the program for us. We set a benchmark and asked some broad questions about cultural knowledge. One of the things we wanted to do was take the whole workforce on a journey so we put together a survey. We got a high participation rate, and then we set together some workshops. Those workshops were heavily attended, and I am very glad that they were. They were mostly around lunchtime and people turned up and had conversations.

One of the highlights for us was there was genuine support from our work group to talk about cultural proficiency and understand it for what it was. We will engage in more ongoing dialogue. We are a very diverse cultural group, and the way it was run was you could bring your own cultural understandings into that safe environment to talk about cultural issues from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

We found a great common understanding of some of the norms and values that we all have as an organisation, and then we wanted to take the process further. We are only at the start of a process of a conversation about it. I have honestly learned something about my cultural proficiency, even with the development of our new older people’s units. How I proceed from a housing perspective, for example, is two-bedroom unit, an elderly person per. You may see it from your perspective that that is not going to meet the needs of the community because your family dynamics are different. So it was that type of conversation that we were trying to promote and understand how each of our cultures interfaced and worked together.

I bring a set of values to that conversation, as Lynnice may bring a set of values to that conversation, so it was really about matching that. But we have never set the hierarchy of who would actually say we were a culturally proficient agency. We just wanted to start a journey about those conversations, and that is as far as we got. From our perspective it was very solid and it was very engaging.

Ms Sheehan: It very much links into, as Michael was saying earlier, the biggest piece


of work and the most important thing, which is to have the outcomes framework. It links back into the key result areas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agreement. In that sense, the standards and outcomes set in the key outcome area in the agreement will be the overarching framework about what we should be working towards in our own service delivery.

THE CHAIR: Yes. It still raises alarms for me. I think we need to have some further information based on that. Whilst I understand where you are coming from, every business unit should take a long hard look at themselves, for lack of a better term, and their service delivery not only to the Canberrans but especially to first Canberrans, the traditional owners and of course other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community members.

I still have this overarching niggly thing: I still do not know who determines you as culturally proficient to be able to operate within my community and deal with my community members and deal with our vulnerable care and protection issues and deal with the high rates of our men and women locked up out at AMC. I get where you are coming from, I certainly do. And I get where OATSIA are trying to lead this into getting organisations to look at themselves. But there is still that overarching question for me of who determines you are culturally proficient to be operating in that space?

Mrs Mitcherson: I think that is a really good question and a good discussion.

THE CHAIR: Because it would horrify me if it is OATSIA.

Ms Mitcherson: The role for CSD and OATSIA is part of what I said before in terms of Gugan—we are nudging sometimes. Some directorates are more mature than others in their service delivery. Helen described that we are looking at an integrated approach with staff and that kind of stuff. If we look at another directorate—I am just going to pick a directorate like the bus service—there is also a need for people who drive buses to respond to the community in certain ways. People are at different levels of maturity. For us I think the role is often about nudging other directorates at different levels of maturity, different workforces in terms of background, skill and recognising that this is really important for everyone who is a public servant in terms of the service we provide.

It is not about us, as Maureen said, saying this is the standard the bus drivers should have; this is us nudging the directorate to look at their service delivery. What do you do? In this area you drive buses, you do parks and garden service or whatever. How do you provide those services and what do you understand that means to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who use those services or live in that community where you provide a service? For me it is about the nudge and the push and influencing all directorates to be part of that process.

Ms Sheehan: OATSIA has just provided me some advice to remind me that as part of our RAP, we have a stretch RAP. We can work with Reconciliation Australia on the surveys they are able to do of staff in the directorate to have a look at them assisting us in looking at what cultural proficiency looks like.

THE CHAIR: And I will put to all directors-general—and I ask that you take this to


Michael De’Ath for me, please—that I have concerns around Reconciliation Australia, because they do not understand the mechanisms that you directorates have with our community. I am speaking positively about the work you have done to date. I would be very nervous about using Reconciliation Australia in that benchmark, all right? But again—

Mrs Mitcherson: I think it is about trying to draw from intel from everywhere in terms of trying to—

THE CHAIR: It is about having the discussion with us before OATSIA because we are the elected voices.

MR DEVOW: The next question is in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre has played quite a significant role in being a place that is utilised by our community for meetings, cultural events, circle sentencing court proceedings and the like. It was, however, during this time community controlled, and this unfortunately is no longer the case. There are currently substantial costs involved with utilising the space, and the loss of community control for such a significant site is considered quite disempowering. When will the control and management of the cultural centre be returned to the community? If so, when, and how will this occur? If not, how can we make this so?

Ms Sheehan: Thank you for that question. The cultural centre was managed as a community facility by the Community Services Directorate. When we first took over the facility, we had a contract with an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation to manage the centre. We had that possibly for as long as five years, but that organisation was not able to provide that on an ongoing basis.

We did go through a tender process after that, to look at other organisations that might be able to manage it. At the time the Chief Minister received representations from senior members of UNEC. The issue was, “We don’t just want a good facilities manager. It needs to be properly culturally managed.” As a result of that, there was a UNEC advisory committee set up with Aunty Agnes and Ros Brown. I am not sure who the other members were; we could certainly get that advice for you.

In the interim, because the organisation that used to manage it was not available, and we had not selected another provider because of all the concerns, it did go back to government to manage, and it has since moved from Community Services to the property group. We would be very happy to take up that issue with the property group on behalf of the elected body.

That is kind of a long-winded answer. There have been some genuine attempts to get it back into community hands. The issue with the management of the facility—of course, the elected body is well aware of this with respect to the management of Boomanulla—is that you want to have a good facilities manager but it has to be properly culturally managed as well. So it is a question of combining the two and getting really good advice from you on how that is to be properly done.

MR DEVOW: There was another part to the question, around the costs involved with


renting, but I think you talked about that earlier today, didn’t you?

THE CHAIR: Yes, we got that done earlier in the conversation. I think in the opening statements they mentioned that as well.

Mrs Mitcherson: We can certainly pass on this question to property group.

Ms Sheehan: Yes.

MR DEVOW: So you have covered those next two questions?

THE CHAIR: We have done the questions around there; we just have the last question here and then we are finished.

MR DEVOW: The last question is in relation to the ACT whole-of-government agreement. As identified in agreement priority 1, communication and engagement, and priority 2, representation and advocacy, what has your directorate done to drive more involvement from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially on ACT government boards and committees?

Ms Sheehan: Thank you for that question. In appointments to boards and committees, first of all, cabinet always looks for advice on what has been done to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander membership. The Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is consulted. The current minister has been—as was Minister Bourke, prior to Minister Stephen-Smith—incredibly active in drawing to everyone’s attention the need to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander membership.

The answer is that there has been strong activity from the office to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to nominate. There has been strong encouragement from ministers. An example of that incredibly successful work was that, in establishing the disability expert panel to advise on the establishment of a national disability insurance scheme, we had as an inaugural member Barbara Causon, who is a very senior public servant in Centrelink, and who played an extremely positive and active role in giving advice on the implementation of the national disability insurance scheme.

We have just gone to expressions of interest again for the disability reform group, as it is now known. Because we did not have any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nominees, the minister has kept a position aside so that we can spend more time finding an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person that can participate. The same is the case for the Ministerial Advisory Council on Women. With that council, its term of office ended in December, and no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women nominated. Again the minister has kept aside a position so that we can get an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander woman to participate.

I would like to be able to say that we can guarantee that there will be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander member of every government advisory committee, but the point is that it is our responsibility to work with you and the community to make sure that people know that the positions are coming up and that they are encouraged to


apply for the positions. The first thing that they might say is, “Oh, but I’m not qualified.” It is our responsibility to say, “Of course you are, and what are the things that you need from us to support your participation and your membership of those committees?”

For me—and I would say this because I have been involved in the NDIS for the past four years—because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were so under-represented in the ACT in receiving disability services, in going to a new system that was going to double the resources, it was incredibly important to make sure that we did have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on that committee.

The result was that we were very focused on it. The quarterly report from December of the NDIA shows that we have about 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants in the national disability insurance scheme, and that we have funded a program through the Nous Group which has supported Winnunga and other organisations to provide culturally appropriate services. We have also placed two officers at Gugan Gulwan to assist children to move into the NDIS.

It would be fair to say that having such a senior person as Barb Causon on that advisory group was incredibly important in making sure that we maintained our focus. We certainly see the benefit of that, and we understand and accept our responsibility to make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know that positions are coming up and that we support them, and find out what it is that they need in order to participate.

Mrs Mitcherson: We would also welcome some advice, if you think there are other opportunities we are missing. We have all struggled to get people to join committees. You might recall a few years ago in terms of the Sentence Administration Board; it is about getting people interested. It is one thing to advertise, but sometimes it is about the network or word of mouth. We would welcome any other thoughts you might have if we are missing something.

THE CHAIR: It is also about the way you advertise it.

Ms Sheehan: Yes, of course.

Mrs Mitcherson: Yes.

THE CHAIR: If you use high context, you are going to get low outcomes.

Mrs Mitcherson: Yes.

THE CHAIR: If you use medium context, you will get medium outcomes. If you use low context, you will get more outcomes. It is as simple as that. When you say you are using low context, you are still seeing someone sitting there with three degrees and probably doing their PhD. It is not about context based on education.

Mrs Mitcherson: No, I agree. We would welcome some advice if you think there are other opportunities that we could use to increase that.



Ms Sheehan: Minister Ramsay is the Minister for Veterans and Seniors. Because we did not get an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person nominating for the Ministerial Advisory Council on Ageing, he has kept a position aside as well, so that we can ensure that we get an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person.

THE CHAIR: Okay. I am looking at my colleague here, because I know our deputy chair was a representative.

MS CHIVERS: I was on it previously.

MS WALKER: Maureen, the two positions at Gugan Gulwan are ending soon; is that right?

Ms Sheehan: They are ending soon, yes.

MS WALKER: What is the forward plan to continue that access?

Ms Sheehan: That was commonwealth funding that was made available to the ACT to assist people into the NDIS and organisations. That funding is coming to an end, so it is really the responsibility now of the commonwealth to make sure that they are doing everything, and that the National Disability Insurance Agency needs to be doing everything that it can, to ensure that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders continue to access the NDIS.

I have to say that Gugan’s work with the education system as well, with the Education Directorate, has been really outstanding, and has really assisted children in the education system to access the NDIS, which has provided those extra supports. If we look at the really low rates of access to disability services previously and then look at the higher rates under the NDIS, again that shows the success of the strategy of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and assisting those families and children.

MS WALKER: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Mrs Mitcherson: Thank you, chair, and thank you, elected body.

Hearing suspended from 3.10 to 3.24 pm.


Appearances:

Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development DirectorateRake, Mr Gary, Deputy-Director-General and Coordinator General, ParkingLane, Dr Annie, Executive Director, EnvironmentIglesias, Mr Daniel, Director, ACT Parks and Conservation ServiceCarmichael, Mr Tony, Executive Director, Strategic PlanningMelaluca, Ms Deb, Partnership Coordinator, Indigenous ProgramsMudford, Ms Mary, Manager, Healthy Country

THE CHAIR: Welcome. I will make an opening statement and then we have some generic questions that we would like you to answer. Can I make one caveat after learning from our experiences today? Can you keep your responses short, sweet and on the point? It is not that we want to disregard our non-Indigenous counterparts in our community, but we are really only wanting to hear what your agency is doing around our Indigenous matters. If you could just be mindful of that, I would really appreciate it.

Mr Rake: Could I please record apologies from Dorte Ekelund, our director-general. She was unable to be here this afternoon because of a diary clash. It is Dorte’s last day tomorrow; this would otherwise have been her last appearance and she sends her apologies.

THE CHAIR: I will make an opening statement and then hand over to Member Church to lead the discussion today.

Since the last hearings the elected body has been able to release the fifth and sixth reports on the outcomes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander hearings. They were from 2014 and 2015. We have commenced a review into the elected body act which I am sure you are all aware of, and the government has responded. We have progressed in the areas of the whole-of-government agreement and the Aboriginal justice partnership that we have with the Justice and Community Safety Directorate. This will bear on some of our questions today, but be mindful that we will have questions specifically for your directorate.

I am now going to hand over to Member Church to lead this discussion. As I said, please keep your answers to our people directly.

Mr Rake: Sure.

THE CHAIR: Lynnice?

MRS CHURCH: I would like to acknowledge that we are on Ngunnawal country, the country of the traditional custodians of this area. I would like to acknowledge my elders as well. Let me go to my first question. Please outline any new programs or services which your directorate has implemented over the past financial year. How are these programs and services progressing? What outcomes are they producing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? How are you measuring the success of these programs and initiatives? And if the programs and services are not producing ATSIEB—12-04-17 77 Environment, Planning and

and Sustainable Development Directorate

better outcomes, what measures are you taking to make changes or turn the program and services around?

Mr Rake: We have brought with us today a short report, which I probably should have passed to you beforehand, that highlights some of our key activities. Three that we have highlighted here are our kickstart program, our healthy country manager and our Aboriginal waterways assessments. I would ask Annie, as our subject matter expert, to answer on those.

MRS CHURCH: Thank you.

Dr Lane: I will talk a bit about the kickstart program to start with. This is a very new program. It is targeting at-risk youth in schools. There are a number of facets to the program. It targets students that are in different age groups and it takes different approaches to those different age groups. The idea is to give the students exposure to the management of natural resources, in particular managing country, things like growing plants. They go out on country on field trips. It is trying to help them to reconnect to country. There are different learning options that they can take up, so it is quite a flexible program in that way, hence the name “flexible learning options”, the FLO program. That is for the older students. They can work through a nine-week program, and ultimately that will count towards some qualification in the future.

For younger children, there is a shorter exposure to a similar activity. They get a bit of a taste of what it would be like to undertake these longer programs. That is preparing them for future opportunities. We have recruited a SOGC-level officer who is running this program. So far she is signing up students and going out into schools on Mondays and Fridays and implementing this program. There is a lot of interest in it, which is fantastic. We are hoping that it will be fully subscribed and that students will be able to stick with it and work through it.

It is a collaborative program: it is our directorate, Education, CIT and Community Services Directorate. It is a cross-government program. All of those directorates are contributing financially to the program. It is about 651,000 over four years, so it is a reasonable length to try to get some outcomes, and some good outcomes, for the students involved.

MRS CHURCH: That is great.

Dr Lane: I can talk about the waterways assessment as well. This is a relatively new initiative. It has come about through the development of a water resource plan. We need to develop a water resource plan under the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. When we are developing that plan, we need to involve the traditional custodians in the development of the plan and also in the implementation of the plan. An important part is to work with traditional custodians and to go out on country and look at different sites, sites of their choosing that we go to; to assess those sites for their cultural values and their cultural uses, traditional and contemporary; and, importantly, to understand what objectives and outcomes traditional people might have for those particular sites and actually implement those actions. It is very much about an involvement all the way through the planning and the identification of the values and then the implementation of actions. ATSIEB—12-04-17 78 Environment, Planning and


To date we have undertaken three field trips and we have been to 18 different sites. We have run through a process that is called Aboriginal waterways assessment. Really it is a tool to help people work through different questions so that they can arrive at a bit of a score, an assessment or a rating on the cultural significance of that site.

The feedback has been really positive. People found that very useful. What they have really enjoyed about it is just the opportunity to go out and talk, to learn from each other, to share knowledge with their children, and also to exchange information with our rangers, for example. On a couple of occasions, we have had rangers accompany the group; people have been very interested to understand what management is happening on that land, whether it be weed management, reintroducing species or whatever it might be. That is really useful.

Our intention is to continue those field trips, to continue to go out on country, to increase the number of sites that are assessed and to go back and reassess sites. Once we put management actions in place, our intention is to go back and see if they are being effective. It is pretty exciting really.

As well as the three field trips, we have had a couple of workshops, and we are planning another one in the near future.

Ultimately the Aboriginal waterways assessment, in other jurisdictions in particular, is about securing water rights for traditional owners, traditional custodians. We will be looking at whether there are any impediments to doing that in the ACT. That is the next step in the process.



MRS CHURCH: How do you engage traditional owners within that process? How do you choose who is appropriate to participate?

Dr Lane: We invite a wide group, so different families. We send out letters of invitation. It is really up to them whether they want to participate. Our NRM facilitator has helped us along that journey, extending invitations by letter, phone, email or whatever it might be and arranging transport to make sure people can attend.

MRS CHURCH: That is wonderful.

Dr Lane: We have also, in the last trip, had Uncle Ramsay come from Tumut to join the group.

MRS CHURCH: That is nice.

Dr Lane: Obviously, water flows across the border, so we want to work closely with New South Wales to make sure we are picking up all that we can to make this a success. ATSIEB—12-04-17 79 Environment, Planning and


THE CHAIR: Remembering that our borders and your borders are not the same.

Dr Lane: That is right, yes.

THE CHAIR: It is great you are acknowledging it.

Dr Lane: And also it is land and water together. It is country. It is not one or the other.

THE CHAIR: That is right. Awesome.

MRS CHURCH: Thank you very much. I am also interested to know how many students you have participating in the kickstart program at the moment.

Dr Lane: There are two FLO programs run per week, Monday and Friday, and each of those has 14 students. So we have a total of 28 at the moment.

MRS CHURCH: That is wonderful.

THE CHAIR: That is awesome.

MRS CHURCH: I will confess that my daughter is one of those kids.

Dr Lane: Great; fantastic.

Mr Rake: How is she finding it?

MRS CHURCH: The feedback from that has been wonderful, about what they are learning.

Dr Lane: Yes, and we are in touch with eight schools around this. I think the program is being implemented in eight schools.

MRS CHURCH: It is all public high schools within Canberra?

Dr Lane: Erindale College, Melrose High, Calwell High School, Caroline Chisholm, Melba, Copland, Namadgi School and Yurauna Centre.

THE CHAIR: Excellent, and it is good that it is north side and south side.

MRS CHURCH: That is good, yes.

Mr Rake: Our aggregate target would be up to 200 students per year every year for four years.

MRS CHURCH: That is great.

MS WALKER: Of those 28, are they all Indigenous? They are all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander?ATSIEB—12-04-17 80 Environment, Planning and


Dr Lane: Twenty-seven of them are. The program is open to non-Aboriginal students.

MS WALKER: I was just wondering. I wanted to clarify.

Mr Rake: Ninety-nine per cent of that is Indigenous at the moment.

Dr Lane: Yes.


MRS CHURCH: I will move on to the next question. In light of recent changes in the movement of some staff from the old TAMS Directorate, can you tell members the following: how was the transition period for these staff, have these staff now got professional development plans and career aspiration plans in place, and does your directorate provide to your staff an opportunity to share their experiences, such as staff surveys or other mechanisms, to provide feedback to the directorate?

Mr Rake: I will make a couple of opening remarks and then I will ask Daniel and Annie to help with some detail. The summary report that we have had from the staff that came over was that it was a comfortable transition. The phrase that we heard most and that we are proudest of is that it felt like coming home. We want our colleagues to feel that they are in the right place.

We expect all staff to have professional development programs, and it is important for us. I would have to ask Daniel to answer whether he has stats handy on whether all of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff do. They should, as all of our staff should. We have a staff survey that enables all employees to give us a view. We are currently conducting that survey right now. It is open at this very moment.

The survey is about 90 questions. It takes about 15 minutes to work through. It covers everything from: how do people feel in the organisation? Do they want to stay working for us or do they want to get out? How do they feel about their professional development? How do they feel about the leadership of the organisation? How do they feel about the culture, and have they experienced anything that is particularly good or particularly bad in the organisation? All of our staff, we hope, will participate in that.

We also have an opportunity for staff to share knowledge with each other. One of the best fora for that is that we have a managers’ advisory group that brings together the broadest of leadership groups. That can be 20, 30 or 50 people at a time. We invite people from different parts of the organisation to come in and speak. So we try to share our knowledge.

Mr Iglesias: I can add to that. The Murumbung rangers is a term that was, in fact, chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—staff who work within the parks service. It numbers about a dozen at the moment. I am just getting the nod from the guys in the crowd that we actually do have performance plans. That is probably a better result than the parks service generally because we are still catching up. Not all of our staff have it, although it is a commitment for us to get it. It is reassuring to hear ATSIEB—12-04-17 81 Environment, Planning and


that we do have that in place for our Murumbung rangers, which is great.

I will just add to Gary’s words about the transition. He is absolutely right when he says that they felt it was positive. In truth, there was not a huge amount of change for the people out in the parks and reserves. But with regard to the little change that there was, I think it was remarkable how smoothly it went and how appreciated it was. It was a positive experience for us. It went well, basically.

THE CHAIR: That is great to hear. We just want to be mindful of the transition and change. That is why we ask these types of questions. We want to be mindful that we look after our community within the ACTPS as well.

MRS CHURCH: I go back to the question around staff having professional development plans and career aspiration plans in place.

Mr Iglesias: We call them performance development plans. Typically, they look to balance the need to, on the one hand, develop the skills and experiences for people and, on the other hand, deliver specific goals and objectives that the directorate requires of their staff. It is a bit like a discussion that is had between the supervisor and the employee. It looks to develop those sorts of skills and experiences in people identified by the supervisor and the employee. So it is a joint effort.

I cannot tell you the sorts of things exactly, but I can give you a description. Typically, it includes stuff like professional development, what can be done in-house and what might be able to be supported through the directorate. There may be some people that see they have an academic need. Some people may not have an academic need; they might have a more practical need. It might mean sharing some experiences with New South Wales that they may already know about, and we look at how we might be able to facilitate that.

On the other hand, it provides some key objectives that the directorate expects the staff members to achieve over the course of the next 12 months. Typically, we revise that about every three months. So the supervisor and the staffer will sit down and have a discussion: how have they gone, what have they hit, what have they missed. That is the sort of process.

MRS CHURCH: But there are ongoing conversations around those staff that are interested in developing their skills and knowledge in terms of maybe progressing their career and opportunities within the directorate or more broadly?

Mr Iglesias: Yes. Not that long ago we were able to take advantage of an opportunity that meant that some of our Murumbung rangers were able to go up north to exchange stories, to exchange experiences. That was invaluable for the staff concerned. I think there was reciprocation; some guys came down from up north as well. Those sorts of things are just once-in-a-lifetime stuff.

THE CHAIR: Can you define “up north”? Are we talking northern New South Wales or are we talking northern Queensland?

Mr Iglesias: It was the tropical north, wasn’t it?ATSIEB—12-04-17 82 Environment, Planning and


Dr Lane: Yes.

Mr Iglesias: It was up in Far North Queensland. It is an interesting story. I observed that the staff members involved were able to grow in relation to their understanding of how other areas operate and how they work.

Dr Lane: I will just say a little bit connected to what Daniel said. On the back of that exchange and, I guess, excursion up north, one of the staff members who actually participated in that has now been invited to present at a fire meeting. It was around cultural burning. He is now recognised as someone who has a leadership role, I guess, in that area, and is being sought out to go and speak with other people about it. That is great for his development.

MRS CHURCH: Who is that person?

Dr Lane: That is Dean Freeman.

THE CHAIR: He is your current face at the moment, I have noticed.

Dr Lane: Yes, he is everywhere.

MRS CHURCH: Thanks.

Ms Melaluca: I am the program support officer in the healthy country team within the Parks and Conservation Service. What I would say—to give you some reassurance—is that we have spent a lot of time working up a bit of a career path within the Murumbung ranger program itself. Our director and our new directorate have supported us to develop a different classification. We go from field officer—the classification is called GSO 5/6—right the way through to ranger grade 1, ranger grade 2, ASO positions, up to our new healthy country manager’s position of SOGC. They are all Indigenous-identified.

Separate to that, we have people who might want to work in different areas, like you are suggesting, Mrs Church. We encourage them and mentor them in taking up acting positions. Training opportunities—like Daniel, our director, has said—come up periodically. This was a traditional fire workshop in the cape. Kie Barratt and Dean Freeman went to it and, as Annie Lane has said, now they get other opportunities to talk. Recently Krystal Hurst, one of our other Murumbung rangers, went along with Dean to New South Wales and gave a presentation.

Our Murumbung rangers give presentations at the ANU. All of this gives them a lot of confidence in their speaking ability, as you can imagine. I would say to you that parks and now our new directorate, the environment directorate, actually listens to our rangers and supports their career paths. Kie Barratt is about to be offered another opportunity to act up in a position for a couple of months. We offer training for community members from time to time. Mr Brendan Little did our training last year with the fire program. We try to encourage that partnership for training opportunities with community members as well.

ATSIEB—12-04-17 83 Environment, Planning and and Sustainable Development

Directorate

MRS CHURCH: That is great. I have encouraged that that is put out to the community when opportunities come up.

Ms Melaluca: As mentioned in our briefing to you, there will be some further training that Mary Mudford, our new manager, will be putting out shortly—expressions of interest for casual tour leading or tour guiding positions that we need to assist our new senior Aboriginal ranger Jackson Taylor-Grant with since Adrian Brown has moved on from the position. We need to develop that capacity. So there are some short-term casual opportunities as well within our service for the community. I hope that has answered your questions.

MRS CHURCH: That is really good.

THE CHAIR: Thanks very much.

MRS CHURCH: Is there anything that members want to say?

THE CHAIR: No, I am fine, thanks. Lynnice?

MRS CHURCH: Can you please explain to members how you have supported or will support the United Ngunnawal Elders Council, especially around cultural and heritage matters, considering that they are not recognised within the Heritage Act at the moment as a registered organisation?

Mr Carmichael: As you know, the registered Representative Aboriginal oorganisations are the formal mechanism in which we consult, but we do use informal mechanisms to gain a broader understanding of Aboriginal issues: is it a specific heritage issue or a particular site or an object that we are seeking advice on? There is a very involved process, as you know, to become a registered Representative Aboriginal oorganisation. It is not an easy process. There are many more groups that would like to reach that sort of status. That raises a range of issues that need to be very carefully managed. We offer informal briefings and consultation with any groups that come to us.

MRS CHURCH: There is ongoing support in relation to consulting with UNEC on cultural heritage matters in the directorate?

Mr Carmichael: Yes.

MRS CHURCH: Wonderful. If there are other people within the community who, for example, are considering becoming a registered organisation, will the directorate be able to provide information and support about going through that process?

Mr Carmichael: We provide ongoing advice about that. We know that this is not a simple process for the Indigenous community itself so we are very mindful of the sensitivities around different groups coming forward. It is about trying to manage that as sensibly and as carefully as we can.



Directorate

THE CHAIR: It is good to know that you do support them in an informal manner. We appreciate that because we are obviously mindful to look out for our local custodians. The majority of us members are not local custodians. Noting that, how do you instruct your agency in that informal process? Whilst I know in the Heritage Act you refer to the registered Representative Aboriginal oorganisations—and I know you have got that, for want of a better word, down pat—I am curious as to how you support them in an informal way. Whilst we do agree with what you are saying, Tony, that the process involved is quite detailed—and, to be quite honest, it is probably beyond your directorate in some cases—I am just curious as to how you inform your agency of that informal process, if I may use that term loosely.

Mr Rake: At a cultural level, any time that we need to talk to the community broadly, we talk about how do we find the missing voices, the voices that will not bring themselves forward necessarily, so reaching out through our personnel connections to find missing voices. Missing voices do not respond to ads in the paper or internet surveys necessarily, so it will be person to person.

THE CHAIR: So you use your assets?

Mr Rake: Yes.

Mr Carmichael: We use our Aboriginal staff to inform us about the best approaches there. Whether it is within Annie’s or Daniel’s area or my own area, we have a good cross-working relationship. Often we will band together to support one another around these sorts of issues.

MRS CHURCH: The next question is around water resource management. At our last hearings you mentioned that you were canvassing and gaining views around the values of the community in relation to water resource management. Can you update members on progress against this? I think this was around the Aboriginal waterways assessment.

Dr Lane: That is right. There is probably not a lot more to add to what I have already said except to say that, with respect to the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, which is a representative organisation of 26 nations, the ACT was not represented on that body. Recently, we have managed to achieve representation on that body, which is great. So ACT region are sitting around the table now. Ideally, we would like to get another member on there, if we could.

THE CHAIR: But that is a start. Going from nothing to one is better than where we were at.

MRS CHURCH: My next question is around the Aboriginal natural resource management facilitator. Can you update members on the role of the Aboriginal natural resource management facilitator? At our last hearings you mentioned the work, and even had the occupant of the position outline some of the work that has been progressed. We would be particularly interested in work involving the AMC detainees and if the CALM program is being delivered to female detainees.

Dr Lane: Yes, I recall that question from last year, about female detainees. The ATSIEB—12-04-17 85 Environment, Planning and


program is still running, and running very successfully. Recently Darren—I think you all know Darren—ran a survey of some of the detainees in there, and they are very happy with the program and with the activities they are undertaking. So that is good news. We have not been able to run a women’s program. Last year we might have outlined the issues not only of women wanting to come forward and be involved but also some security issues. We have not been able to resolve those. Unfortunately, at the moment it is still just a men’s program.

It has engaged up to 20 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander detainees. The sort of topics they go through is looking at scarred trees, growing native plants. At the moment they are growing native forbs—herbaceous plants rather than trees. They are really enjoying that, I think. They are also identifying bush tucker plants and processing native seeds so that they can germinate better. That has been quite a steady program. Of course, it is in partnership with Greening Australia. So that will continue. It is one of the good success stories, I think.

THE CHAIR: Is there a possibility of your directorate working with the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to look at some of the post-release benefits of that CALM project? It could be a three-way partnership. The question is: what type of work will you do with other directorates to increase this program beyond the prison? To back that question up, I am saying that, from prison to learning those modules, to post-release out in the community, how can I put that CALM into practice? Is it about working with Transport Canberra and City Services to open up opportunities? Is it about working with Yurauna Centre and CIT? Is it about working with ED? I am curious about what your commitment is to perhaps look at it. I am not necessarily asking whether we have an A to Z plan of approach. I am just curious about whether you are exploring those avenues.

Dr Lane: It is the ultimate measure of success; that is the outcome we would be looking for: reintegration, if I could use that term, and employment. Certainly, we would work, and we do work, across directorates to try to get the best outcomes. Darren works quite closely with JACS on some of these issues, and TCCS is another good candidate where there is good potential to realise these outcomes. So we are absolutely open to doing that.

Mr Rake: Checking my diary, I have a feeling we may even have a meeting tomorrow talking about through-care extensions and that sort of stuff.

THE CHAIR: Ultimately, at the end of the day, the highest employer is the ACT public service and the APS. When you look at it across Canberra, it is very limited. We have no mining—thank God. We have really limited industries and small businesses that have achieved a lot in the community. Then you have the big mainstream ones: Myers, Coles and Woolworths, which have their own mechanisms in place. So from an ACT government perspective that is why my question was: what commitment is there around that partnership? The ACT government is the primary employer in the ACT and there is an expectation that under the whole-of-government agreement as a government you would explore economic participation. That is why I am asking what type of mechanisms or what you are looking at to explore that. I think, Annie, you have answered that in part.


Directorate

Dr Lane: Darren has facilitated a couple of didgeridoo-making workshops and had 20 to 25 people attending those. They were really well received, and by various ages: fathers, teenagers, elders and public servants. So that was really good. The Winnunga men’s group, with the Aboriginal health service, meets on the first Monday of every month. On average about 15 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men attend those sessions. That is also one of those programs that has had quite a steady progression and is embedded there now, so that is terrific. A number of field trips have been undertaken. That is in collaboration with the Murumbung rangers.

With respect to a cultural heritage survey, Darren developed a survey for the community to get their feedback on what they thought were the current priorities, the issues and opportunities. He had a response from 119 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which was fantastic. The first thing to say is that they were very supportive of the NRM program as it currently is. They outlined what their priorities are for the community, things like recording cultural knowledge and sharing that with the next generation. With respect to applying land management methods in the landscape, we have a lot of opportunity to do that within our directorate and we are certainly making progress in that regard.

Increasing employment positions for working on country, again, we are having some success there. With respect to engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth in cultural programs, kickstart my career is a good example of that. With respect to supporting traditional custodians in advisory roles, representation on MLDRIN is an example of that one. I refer also to using cultural programs to address health and justice issues and reconnect to culture. Those are the priorities that came out and we are doing bits of work in each of those areas.

THE CHAIR: Can we please have a copy of that survey, if possible?

Dr Lane: Yes, okay.

THE CHAIR: I do not remember seeing it, and I checked with my deputy chair. We do not remember seeing this survey.

Dr Lane: Okay.

THE CHAIR: We are certainly not questioning Darren’s work. We are just curious about the type of survey and the type of outcomes that come from that survey. Again that is another form of community feedback that we can share in working with our community around cultural and heritage matters.

Mr Rake: May I add to my last answer about our NRM program post custody? I can confirm we have a meeting booked with JACS to explore establishing a new partnership. It was booked for tomorrow. It has been deferred for a couple of weeks. Reading from the booking, the purpose of the partnership would be to increase employment opportunities for ex-detainees post release. It would be to build on the success of the current NRM and CALM programs. In particular, we would like to describe it as moving the program focus from being in custody to being in community. I am happy to report that now, and expect questions next year on how well it is going.ATSIEB—12-04-17 87 Environment, Planning and


THE CHAIR: Maybe not from me but certainly from other members.

Mr Rake: We will, in our partnership with JACS, make sure that those with portfolio interest are getting information on it regularly.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much, Gary; that is great.

MRS CHURCH: I have two more questions. In relation to recruitment and retention, I know that we have had a brief discussion around it, but is your directorate looking at a recruitment and retention strategy to employ more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

Mr Rake: We try to exceed whole-of-government targets. At the moment we are exceeding, and we are proud of that. I do not have any stats on retention.

Dr Lane: I do not know about retention but some of the things that Deb mentioned earlier go a long way towards retention: offering opportunities to do other types of work, to act in other positions and to provide some development opportunities. I think those aspects really help to retain all of our staff. I think that is really important. We have an Aboriginal traineeship as well. At the end of that traineeship we would retain the person who successfully completes that traineeship.

THE CHAIR: Is that traineeship part of the IEP traineeship or is that traineeship separate and specific for EPD?

Dr Lane: I think it is specific for EPD. Yes, it is.

THE CHAIR: That is great. As you were saying, Gary, you are exceeding and working beyond those targets. You are looking at other mechanisms to exceed that. When you look at career developmental opportunities, how many of your Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff have put their hands up for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander career development program being rolled out by Chief Minister’s? We are just talking about retention; this is a retention strategy.

Mr Rake: I do not know the answer. I know we have at least two that are putting their hands up.

THE CHAIR: That is fantastic.

MRS CHURCH: That is great. We have got two.

Dr Lane: Darren not so long ago went through the leadership development course. He found that really useful. It is quite an intensive course, I think.

THE CHAIR: Have I got this right in my head? The Aboriginal natural resource management facilitator role is only a temporary role within your organisation. When is it due to complete and what are the next stages for that role?


Directorate

Dr Lane: It is funded by the commonwealth and that funding program finishes in 2018. We expect that program will be continued, particularly for Aboriginal NRM. The funding comes in lots of three years, so we are hoping that that will continue on.

Mr Rake: That is fairly typical for a lot of the NRM partnerships that we enter into with the commonwealth. We are used to bidding and rebidding.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. I was just curious because it is a lot of investment and only this much time.

Mr Rake: And a lot of success.

Dr Lane: Absolutely.

MR WALKER: I posed this question to the tourism mob because previously I was looking after heritage as a responsibility and I was doing some work in relation to the Sullivans Creek corridor proposal. I was working with traditional custodians around telling stories about that part of the country and its links to the track that goes from Lake Burley Griffin to the base of Mount Ainslie. I would like to know where that is at. When I looked at your pamphlet I underlined it because I have asked the question before. Do you mind giving us an update on that?

Mr Rake: I do not have an update on whether work is actively underway. Fiona, have you heard anything about that one?

THE CHAIR: If you cannot answer, we are happy—

Mr Rake: We are happy to take it on notice. Could we take that on notice and come back?

THE CHAIR: That is fine.

Mr Rake: One of the opportunities for us to investigate it would be that within our heritage team we have a heritage tracks app which helps tell cultural stories, and we do have one Aboriginal track in there already. It is titled Ngunnawal country, and it would be feasible for us to work something up for Sullivans Creek and—

MR WALKER: I asked the question of tourism. Ian Hill will probably contact you and ask for information. Like I said, from my recollection at the time that I was looking after the portfolio, they were talking about doing some work and there were a couple of conferences with Minister Gentleman especially around the Northbourne corridor and things like that. Sullivans Creek was a part of that discussion about the development of a walking track, particularly around the cultural aspect of the traditional custodians and their involvement with this part of the country.

Mr Rake: We are very happy to take that on notice and we will come back to you.

MRS CHURCH: We have had a discussion around registered Representative Aboriginal oorganisations and the processes that are undertaken there but what I am ATSIEB—12-04-17 89 Environment, Planning and


particularly interested in is: will there be a review of the act to look at broadening the consultation and engagement processes to include traditional custodians?

Mr Carmichael: Sorry, just to clarify the question, is it a review of the Heritage Act?

MRS CHURCH: Yes, to broaden the consultation and engagement processes to ensure that there are broader views being taken into consideration around culture and heritage here.

Mr Carmichael: It is not anticipated that we will review the act soon because a new act was introduced only a few years ago but we are developing an ACT heritage strategy and one of the aspirations of that—and there was a discussion paper out last year—is how we more effectively engage with the broader community. We have taken advice through a consultation process. We are in the process of writing the strategy up but one of the core aspirations of the strategy is how we more effectively engage with the Aboriginal community and the broader community around heritage.

Just to go back a little to Mr Walker’s question around the links to tourism, we see it as an opportunity with our Indigenous heritage and the local heritage more broadly to add an additional day or a couple of days to people’s trips to Canberra by leveraging some of the local stories about Canberra that go beyond the national capital story. We all know the national capital story, it is an important story, but there is also the Ngunnawal story and Aunty Agnes’s story and all those sorts of things that will also enliven somebody’s tourism experience in Canberra.

Part of the strategy will be dealing with that, but part of it certainly will be how we more effectively can engage the broader community and different groups. One of the targets will be more effectively engaging Aboriginal people. One of the other groups is young people. But that will certainly be one of the things that the strategy seeks to address.

MRS CHURCH: Just clarifying this, we have different groups of people that that might be targeting. We have traditional custodians here in the ACT, the Ngunnawal people, then we have other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here who also need to be consulted. I guess the question around the review of the act—and I understand that that has only just recently happened—is that it really does need to be able to be more inclusive of other views. I am trying to get some reassurance from the directorate that there is a commitment to actually looking at other mechanisms to do that effectively.

Mr Rake: Are you really asking whether there should be a broad—

MRS CHURCH: I might ask this question: is the directorate able to commit to developing a specific consultation and engagement framework to complement the Heritage Act that is specifically around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement?

Mr Carmichael: We would be very open to that.

Mr Rake: In relation to heritage specifically or more broadly?ATSIEB—12-04-17 90 Environment, Planning and


Mr Carmichael: I think more broadly.

MRS CHURCH: More broadly.

Mr Rake: Okay.

MRS CHURCH: To complement the Heritage Act, noting that that is in place but we could do a little more work in terms of getting more participation from the general community.

Ms Mudford: Can I add to that a little more? I am a very proud Ngunnawal woman with Wiradjuri ties. I would like to also pay my respects to country and recognise that we are meeting on Ngunnawal country. I would like to also state that, through the role that I am undertaking, we are looking at establishing an Aboriginal advisory group, which has been mentioned in the brief. At this stage we are reviewing also the Namadgi interim board and we have decided at this stage that we need to resolve the direction of that board and whether it is going to continue. At this stage I would say that it would need to.

From there, we will decide whether we need to have the secondary Aboriginal advisory group but my vision for that group is that they would assist with community consultation and also disseminating information to the broader community as well.

MRS CHURCH: Do any other members want to add something or ask questions? No? I thank you for coming today and sharing with us the really positive things that are happening in your directorate and the work that has been undertaken by your staff, particularly your Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. I want to acknowledge them here today. Thank you very much.

Dr Lane: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Before you leave, as regards the questions that you have taken on notice, we generally would allow 14 days for a response. We are only giving seven days at this stage. We go into caretaker conventions shortly. So we need to wrap our business up. We head into caretaker conventions, like I said, and then we will head into a new election with new members and those returning. If you could provide it in that time frame, that would be greatly appreciated. This gives us time to come back and resolve the matter before we move on, some of us.

Mr Rake: To those of you who are re-standing, best of luck. To those of you who are not, thank you for helping us with our work and helping us with discussion.

THE CHAIR: Thanks.

Hearing adjourned at 4.13 pm.


Directorate

Documents

atsieb.com.au€¦ · Web viewi. ATSIEB—12-04-1776Community Services Directorate. ATSIEB—12-04-17. ATSIEB—12-04-1719Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate