APPEARANCES - atsieb.com.auatsieb.com.au/wp-content/.../08/...Transcript-Day-One-9 … · Web viewOverton-Clarke, Ms Bronwen, Deputy Director-General, Workforce Capability and Governance

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER ELECTED BODY

(Reference: Estimates process 2015-16)

Members:

MS DIANE COLLINS (The Chair)MS JOANNE CHIVERS (The Deputy Chair)

MR MAURICE WALKERMR RICHARD ALLAN

MR TONY MCCULLOCHMR ROSS FOWLER

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE

CANBERRA

WEDNESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2015

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

APPEARANCES

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

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

Environment and Planning Directorate...................................................................70

The elected body met at 9.31 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, Workforce Capability

and Governance DivisionAlderson, Dr Karl, Deputy Director-General, Policy and CabinetRutledge, Mr Geoffrey, Executive Director, Strategic Policy and CabinetMiners, Mr Stephen, Executive Director, Finance and Budget DivisionDawes, Mr David, Director-General Kelley, Ms Rebecca, Deputy Executive Director, Sport and Recreation ServicesHartley, Ms Laura, Senior Manager, Small Business and Skills, Innovation,

Trade and Investment BranchHill, Mr Ian, Director, VisitCanberraHouse, Mr Jeff, Deputy Director-General, Arts, Business, Events, Sport and

Tourism DivisionStankevicius, Mr Adam, Director, artsACT and Events ACTTomlins, Mr George, Executive Director, Procurement and Capital Works

THE CHAIR: Welcome. We will start with a minute’s silence, to acknowledge those who have gone before us and the significant loss we have had in our communities this year. Thank you. Let me start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land that we are meeting on today and by paying my respects to elders, both past and present. My name is Diane Collins, and I am the Chairperson of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body. I gladly took on this position as of yesterday. I am very excited. I thank all of you for coming along. Firstly, I will ask members to introduce themselves, and identify portfolio responsibilities. Obviously mine is CMTEDD.

MR WALKER: I have the Health portfolio.

MR McCULLOCH: I have the Environment and Planning Directorate.

MR FOWLER: I have the Education and Training Directorate.

MS CHIVERS: I have the Community Services Directorate.

THE CHAIR: I have an opening statement, and then we will go to questions. As you are aware, the elected body has been working very hard over the past 12 months with the ACT government, ministers and all directorates to progress a range of issues, including improving programs and services and service delivery on behalf of and for the benefit of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here in the ACT.

Over the next two days elected body members will be meeting with all directorates and seeking responses to questions which our communities require answers to. The

ATSIEB—09-12-15 1 Chief Minister, Treasury andEconomic Development Directorate

elected body has been elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities here in the ACT to make a difference, and that is exactly what we expect of ourselves.

The elected body holds the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples central to all that we do as an elected representative voice for our peoples in our pursuit of rights and social and emotional wellbeing improvements for our communities.

You have already received a copy of the generic questions. Throughout the next two days each of the members will take the lead by asking questions relevant to each directorate. The elected body values your cooperation in this process to pursue clarity and evidence to confirm performance in relation to the achievement of outcomes.

Please focus your responses on addressing programs, services and outcomes for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the ACT. Owing to the time frames, there may not be an opportunity to ask all the questions we have, so we will send them through to you. Also note that, for any questions taken on notice, the elected body will require a response within five working days of the hearings. You can submit those responses to our ATSIEB email address.

Let us begin. As I said, I have the lead for this. Since the 2014 hearings process we have been able to negotiate an agreement, an ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Agreement, and the Justice Partnership, which are accompanied by community priorities established in consultation with our peoples and based on their needs. This is significant for some of the lines of questioning in the hearing today.

Firstly, I acknowledge CMTEDD in terms of encouraging the directorates to use the protocols which were developed. We are very happy that some significant work has gone into that, and we are happy that CMTEDD has promoted the use of that across all directorates. Bronwen, do you have an opening statement that you would like to make?

Ms Overton-Clarke: No. We just wanted to congratulate you, Diane, on becoming the chairperson of the elected body, and also congratulations to Jo on becoming deputy chair. We are here to answer as much as we can with clarity and evidence to demonstrate performance. So we will be as clear as we can in our answers to your questions.

Mr Nicol: Madam Chair, I did write to you to say that I would be unavailable today, but there was a last-minute change. I was very keen to be here. I also want to apologise on Kathy Leigh’s behalf. She had a personal issue that she had to deal with. I would also like to acknowledge Rod Little’s contribution. I found him to be a very good person to work with, and we had a very productive relationship. I think the rest of us would concur with that. We look forward to working with you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. The first question: the 2011 ACT public service inquiry highlighted 31 recommendations for attention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment and retention, and included references to research done in other industries—for example, mining—to give guidance. At the last hearings you mentioned that most of the recommendations had been implemented. Can you advise


which of the recommendations have not been implemented, if any, and explain what have been the effects of the ones that have been?

Ms Overton-Clarke: The main thrust of the recommendations was about getting more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into the ACT public service, retaining them better, and developing them in terms of leadership positions. I believe we have gone a substantial way towards starting that in a more systemic way than we had previously.

At the end of the last calendar year and into this year we developed the inclusion program, and the first tranche of that was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traineeship program, which started in August this year. We have 11 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander trainees who are with us at the moment. We started with 14, and two left because they had got better jobs. So we were comfortable about that.

We absolutely recognise, as both Kathy and I said at the hearings last year, that we need to do more systemic things to help get more people into the service. Kathy has also put performance targets into every director-general’s performance agreement, both for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for people with disabilities. In fact, in terms of the targets for 2014-15, we exceeded the target that we had hoped for. We wanted to get an additional 30 people and we got 45. So we have started to make better progress against the targets than we had done. We absolutely recognise, as we said last year, that we were not going to hit those targets of two per cent by this year. We have, we believe, started on the process of doing better in that area.

The area that we still need to work on is the leadership initiatives. We have two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates starting, as part of the 52 graduates who will start in February next year. In terms of identifying that at different levels, and bringing people in, we need to do that better. That is a good start as well. But in terms of the leadership initiatives, we need to do more work in that area.

They are the main steps that we have taken this year. I know you asked about those recommendations that we have not implemented. Judi, can you remember?

Ms Childs: I cannot, but I can take it on notice. Parallel with those recommendations we had the review of the RED framework as well. We actually wrapped all of those recommendations into an implementation plan because there was substantial crossover in some of the recommendations. I have not, as of today, done a specific audit against those recommendations. We did it a few months ago. I would be happy to provide further information.

The important shift that we have started on with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment is to develop a sustainable employment strategy, rather than just go for numbers. I think it is very easy to just go for numbers, but the proof for me will be in the sustainability of employment outcomes for the people we bring in. We have done work with Muranga Muranga, the internal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff network. They have provided mentors for the trainees in our current cohort. I have employed an additional resource in my team to work directly with the trainees in a pastoral care and nurturing type of role. It is all about sustainable outcomes, not just gaining numbers.


All of the successful trainees will be permanently appointed to the service. For the first time in a traineeship program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the qualifications that the trainees are completing have not been a one-way street. We have not just said, “You have to do a certificate IV in government,” or whatever. We have actually looked at what people’s interests are and what the directorate’s needs are, and matched the qualifications to the trainees and placed them in roles where they can use those qualifications.

THE CHAIR: You have spoken a lot about the trainees. At other levels what recruitment efforts are happening there?

Ms Childs: We have been in negotiations with the commonwealth for some time for a bit of money. We have not got that yet. We have been analysing what our senior officer cohort is like and what the demographics are. At the moment we are finalising some work for next year in having leadership development at three levels in the organisation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—funnelling trainees who are interested into further study, looking at our senior officer cohort and looking at our feeder group into the senior officer cohort as three separate cohorts with development needs. We are just scoping that work at the moment.

THE CHAIR: Recommendation 28 refers to broadening the scope of data collections. Has this been undertaken and what findings have contributed to a shift towards meeting the 2017 targets? How many exit interviews have been completed and what have been the outcomes from the traineeship program moving back into the Chief Minister’s directorate?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Some of the things that Judi spoke about in terms of sustainability were very much the lessons that we took from the review of the previous program—things like having a permanent job at the end, and the support of trainees as they continue through the year. All of those ongoing things have been very much because of the experience of sitting in CSD. Even though at the start of that program in CSD they wanted to be able to do that, as the program went on all of those things fell away. Very much part of the transfer back into Chief Minister’s was to be able to ensure that the program was conducted in the same way across all directorates, and that there was that support function in CMTEDD. So that is the main thing, as well as working with a good provider in the territory through Habitat and being clear about the assessment process, so that trainees had the opportunity to understand at the start what the work was going to be like.

In terms of data collections, Judi just talked about the different cohorts within the territory and within the public service. As she said we are just doing that work now to look at exactly what the needs are, in terms of leadership of the different segments who are employed—the 299 employees that we have. So we are just doing that work at the moment.

THE CHAIR: And the exit interviews?

Ms Childs: Certainly, with the trainees there are exit interviews, but we would like to think we catch on before we actually have to do an exit interview. It is much more


important for us to have continuous feedback. So there is not yet a whole-of-government exit interview process. That is one thing that my team is looking at and it will be on the work program for collection by HR directors next year, to look at how we do that, and so that we get some systemic information.

We do know that the separation rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff is higher than the general separation rate, so it is important to get that information. With the trainees themselves, we are much more interested in keeping them employed rather than exit interviewing them. We bring them together every six to eight weeks to try to keep on top of any emerging issues there may be that might threaten their employment.

THE CHAIR: There is a section on service-wide cross-cultural training. To what extent has this been rolled out? What is the timing and frequency of the training and what effectiveness measures have been implemented?

Ms Overton-Clarke: There are different initiatives in different directorates, and they are all at different stages. It is a bit like the reconciliation action plans—different directorates are at different stages. Part of the work next year will be to better understand the stage that different directorates are at and whether we need to have a single approach across the service. We are not sure yet that we do, because of the different approaches, but we have not yet collected all the information across the different directorates. So that is in our work plan for next year.

THE CHAIR: My next question refers to recommendations from the fourth hearing’s report and beyond. It appears that some of those recommendations have not been actioned. Priority 5 of the fourth report is the most significant. That seeks to address capacity concerns held by the elected body since its inception. What commitment will you provide to enable the elected body to effectively meet its legislative obligation to regularly engage with directorates and progress the agreement and the partnership?

Dr Alderson: If I have understood your question correctly, I think a lot of that is tied in with the current review of the act because I know that, in the consultation and discussion around that, the question of the resourcing of the elected body, the performance functions and how it can perform the many expectations on it has been a central question on which I have had, along with others, some briefings on the draft findings. I have not yet seen the proposed report which I think has been received by Sue Chapman in CSD. It has not come to other directorates including this one yet. I suppose the positive news is the question: how can the elected body’s framework be organised? How can it be supported to most effectively be able to deliver for the community? I think, in one way or another, that comes to a head in the response to this report. That is probably the most practical thing I can say on that.

THE CHAIR: What progress has been made on the other priority areas of the fourth report? Of particular interest is the evidence of access and impact. How are efforts and investment being measured for impact?

Dr Alderson: If I may continue on and then if my colleagues have anything to add I will offer that opportunity. Again I think there is a better story on the opportunity we now have than perhaps what we have achieved so far. The opportunity we now have


is due to the existence of the whole-of-government agreement because beforehand we never really had a framework to coherently add the total picture of policies and services to support the advancement of Aboriginal people in our community. Therefore, I think our attempts to say how we are measuring this did not really get the traction they might have.

I know there is a lot of work going on, led by CSD and involving a lot of others including our directorate, to say, “Okay, now we have got that clear framework with the whole-of-government agreement what are the particular initiatives and actions under it and how will we measure success?”

My area coordinates a whole-of-government commitments reporting framework that we use to do things like monitor capital works projects and delivery of election commitments and I have proposed that CMTEDD take the lead using that same framework to be checking monthly with all directorates on progress against these commitments. And really the most important part of that—and I think that is what your question alludes to—is working out how we will measure impact not just activities. That is, I think, a very important piece of work that is going on at the moment on those initiatives and how we will measure success, with it being resolved hopefully by around March next year. And then we will all have something we can look at and have a shared conversation, “Do we agree that this is going to tell us a story about that impact?”

THE CHAIR: The next question is: each hearing’s report is presented to government in accordance with the act for a consideration of actions over the following 12 months. Our 2014 hearing report has only just been finalised. Generally it is completed within the first few months post hearing. Can you assist us in going forward to ensure that future delays are not experienced again?

Dr Alderson: In relation to identifying the themes that come out of this discussion, questions you asked, things that you asked to be followed up, we certainly intend to pursue that without waiting for a formal publication or what have you to take forward. I suppose there are two parts to this. There is the part about what support the elected body has to perform its functions. I have talked a little about that in a previous answer in terms of specifically CMTEDD and how it makes sure that it is acting on the issues that you are raising.

One mechanism that we have is that in the regularly occurring meetings now between you, Diane, and three directors-general, Kathy, David and David, I would suggest that we add a standing item to that agenda, which is “actioned in response to the issues arising out of this hearing”. That might be a practical way to be continuously monitoring what has happened in response to issues raised here and questions asked.

MR FOWLER: I suppose from a CMTEDD point of view that is good but how will other directorates be able to adhere to the reports and actually respond to them as well? I suppose the question for you, and it could be taken to Kathy Leigh as such, is: is this going to be also included in the performance agreements for directors-general?

Dr Alderson: I probably need to take that on notice. The question is: have responses to questions or issues arising in these hearings been responded to adequately? I think I


will take the specific question about performance agreements on notice if I may as being a question for Kathy, but obviously I am happy, having made that as a suggestion for how CMTEDD would deal with it, to also offer it up as a suggestion that other directorates could consider as well as all that you might wish to propose to other directorates.

THE CHAIR: We have already spoken about the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agreement and it has been a significant outcome for the elected body, for government and certainly for our community to improve the lives of our peoples. You have already spoken about some of this but is there anything else you want to add in terms of how directorate leaders could be held to account for performance against the key indicators?

Dr Alderson: Probably the primary thing I would add from my own area’s experience of managing whole-of-government reporting indicators is that the most crucial thing is getting the description of the action right because the problem is that, if that is ambiguous or there are different understandings, then no matter how vigorously you enforce reporting that reporting does not necessarily tell you a clear story. The discussions that I had previously with Natalie Howson, with Sue Chapman and her team, have been to offer the input of my area on what we have learned about how to try to hone those so that once there is clarity everyone can understand what is expected under a particular item, to offer our experience on that so that then you set it up then the reporting really will tell the story and that will enable us all to have the discussion: are things playing out in the way that we hoped and expected? And if not what corrective actions are needed?

THE CHAIR: My next question is around the closing the gap report. Will ATSIEB be consulted before the next ACT report and when is it due?

Dr Alderson: I ask Mr Rutledge to answer.

Mr Rutledge: This is a challenge with the nationwide closing the gap report as opposed to the ACT one. The ACT one is really just a follow-up reprint and more detailed reporting and that is done as required. Will you be consulted on the broader report on closing the gap? Yes you will. The national Indigenous reform agreement was agreed by COAG, the indicators are set and really it is just a performance report against those indicators. There has been some discussion recently both in community and within the press about whether or not we need a corrections incarceration target within that and certainly our own Attorney-General has made his view clear that there should be. The Leader of the Opposition federally has made their position clear.

When that is being discussed by the nation’s leaders, there is a reluctance to reopen the closing the gap targets because, as we would all know, pretty much to the shame of all governments, not a lot of progress is being made across the closing the gap targets. There is a concern expressed that if we reopen the targets, then that will open up all those policy debates about what are the right targets and, having agreed those targets and not yet making the progress that I think everyone expected to make, it is best to remain focused on that. That is a long way of saying that we can engage with you as much as we like and we can give you updates on the performance report that is closing the gap but it is really a procedural thing about the production of that report. It


is probably a low value engagement.

As to broader policy debates of whether or not we should reopen closing the gap targets—as I said, there is some commentary around that—I think that would be a more worthwhile one. If it looks like they are going to be reopened, that is absolutely an opportunity to engage with the elected body about what our targets should be, what the national targets should be and how we would influence those.

At a national level, when I talk to my counterparts in other states and territories I see that we stand in a uniquely well-placed position in that we do have the whole-of-government agreement now and there are more ambitious targets in that than there are in closing the gap targets. When people talk to me about that I look straight to the agreement and say, “We’re an urban environment with high-achieving, high-expectation communities and, therefore, these are our targets.” And I look to the whole-of-government agreement to do that. Therefore, I suppose I am less worried about those national targets because I think what we have got is agreed, well-consulted, well-agreed priority targets for our government, and that remains our focus. Again, when I talk to my colleagues, because we have that whole-of-government agreement we are envied by other jurisdictions because we have got the community to sign up to it, we have got some very specific and high-achieving targets. I think we are better placed in those national policy debates because of the strength of our agreement.

THE CHAIR: Whether it is an ACT closing the gap agreement/report, have you got some time frames around when we might expect to see something from that?

Mr Rutledge: I do not have them with me. With regard to the closing the gap, I will just map out the process and provide it to the elected body. I can do that without any problem. I think that if we were going to spend any effort with the elected body, it would be working out how we are measuring progress against the whole-of-government agreement and what we would like to see from the whole-of-government agreement, how we would like to see that actioned. I think that is where we would be better spending our time. But for the purposes of process and transparency, I am happy to share all those national time frames as well.

THE CHAIR: The matter of cross-border services has been raised in previous hearings and with the Chief Minister. Can you please advise what progress has been made on cross-border negotiations and how Aboriginal families are informed?

Dr Alderson: Sorry, can I ask: does the question encompass both Jervis Bay and arrangements between the ACT and New South Wales specifically? In relation to Jervis Bay, in one sense there have been no definitive developments over the past few months in that the process of seeking a shared view between the commonwealth and New South Wales and ACT continues. When the Chief Minister was in Sydney recently and met with the New South Wales Premier my understanding is that the question was raised again and we have had some discussions with our New South Wales counterparts and, a little while earlier, commonwealth officials on taking the discussion forward, but we are still in the situation that we have been in for a while, which is that no decisions have been taken.


The ACT government has on a number of occasions indicated that it believes that service delivery to Jervis Bay would be most effective and best in the long term if provided through New South Wales. But that is subject to further consultation and, as I say, no decision has been arrived at.

One development there has been is that, in terms of the way the commonwealth provides funding support for those arrangements, in the meantime this mapping out of the services is being done so that the commonwealth can think more holistically about how it funds and supports that service delivery. That is the situation on Jervis Bay.

On cross-border issues between the ACT and New South Wales and also surrounding local government regions, this is an area where we are really hoping to kick-start some further focus. I suppose as a principle it seems clear that there are social needs that cross the border in terms of housing, community support and so forth. As part of our broader relationship with the surrounding councils and within New South Wales government, we are wanting to kick off a bit more of a dialogue about whether there are opportunities about how services are delivered on both sides of the border. It has been raised from time to time in years gone by but in terms of us doing a renewed effort on it, that is at pretty early stages. We have raised with New South Wales that we are interested in those discussions to see whether there are any possibilities that might provide better support to people. That is where that one stands.

MR WALKER: It is good to hear about the cross-border discussions. Gugan Gulwan and Winnunga Nimmityjah are two of our major services and they are really affected by that cross-border traffic because they have got more presentations, I guess, than our whole population in the ACT. So it is really good to hear that we are looking at new ways of providing that service delivery as well.

I have one question about leadership, to Bronwyn or Judi. The Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre is located here in Canberra. One of the priorities of the elected body is around developing leadership. For a while now we have been talking about the Ngunnawal-Galamby leadership as well and looking at how we can engage the leadership centre or look at leadership programs in relation to assisting the Ngunnawal group to look at leadership in the future.

I want to know what the capacity is, particularly around not only the Ngunnawal leadership but just generally leadership around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and particularly around the trainees. I want to know if you could consider any capacity to engage with the Indigenous Leadership Centre and possibly make that part of that traineeship program as well. There are a cert II and a cert IV which both take about six months to do both those things. I want to know if there was any capacity in that regard.

Ms Childs: We were actually supposed to be meeting this week with a number of people. That has now been impacted by community loss. So we will be reconvening early in the new year. But part of the process for the ongoing development of the successful cohort of trainees will be in the mix, particularly the certificate in Indigenous leadership run by that organisation. In the past, in a former role, I have taken trainees who have demonstrated leadership capability and followed them basically directly into that leadership certificate from the Indigenous Leadership


Centre. And that will be one of the options that will be presented to successful trainees on successful completion of their current qualifications. It also needs to be in the mix when we look at that next cohort, the feeder group to senior officers, I believe, and that will be in the mix for that as well.

MR ALLAN: I have a question for Karl. In cross-border services I notice that you are saying you are having a lot of meetings and things like that. What commitment is there and what is the time frame that you think things will happen in? You keep saying that you have these meetings and things are being talked about, but what commitment is there and what is the time frame?

Dr Alderson: The problem is that the governments themselves have not identified a specific time frame for resolution. Being quite open, the history of this is that at various times between the three governments, when one or two have wanted to focus on it, another one has not been focused on it. At the moment we have, particularly, the ACT and New South Wales but, I would have to say, that from my assessment the time frame is not a quick one. I would be surprised if there were any announcement of a fundamental change during next year.

I think there has been a commitment, whenever there is a proposal that emerges, to consult with the community about that, but at the moment there is really nothing tangibly new. I understand there would be clarity for the community to say that something is happening in 2016 or whatever but, unfortunately, that is not the position at the moment.

THE CHAIR: We will move to budgets. The elected body received information outlining the 2014-15 budget and maintained relationships and received presentations on the budget. Unfortunately, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program investment information was not very clear in the 2015-16 budget announcements. However, after some negotiations a useful budget pamphlet was produced to inform the elected body and also community. How will investments be made to priority areas of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agreement in the next budget process? That was such a useful tool for people to understand what is going on, and I thank you guys for being able to produce that and inform our community.

Mr Nicol: Thank you, chair. We appreciate the feedback. We have quite substantial scope to present information in a way that is useful to people, but we need to have that engagement to adjust our publications, and we are very keen and happy to do that.

In terms of your question about budget allocations, we are looking at how we can get better identification of Indigenous-related expenditure in the ACT government. It is a very difficult project. We can identify those areas of spending that are solely Indigenous focused, and we are doing more to do that. The greater area of difficulty is where we have services that are generic but are also provided to Indigenous people where maybe Indigenous people are over-represented simply because of their status or level of disadvantage or whatever. It is very hard. Our systems do not record who gets our general services, so it is very hard to identify where those resources are going and consequently how you can potentially change or redirect those resources or programs.

We are having a think internally and across government about how we do that in a


way that is efficient, because I would much rather spend the resources on front-line services than administration and data interrogation, although having good data is obviously very important in making good decisions. We are trying to find that balance and we are continuing to work on that.

In terms of allocation of resources to priorities within the agreement and more broadly, the government has the agreement, obviously, and directorates have the agreement. Your submission was received in the community budget process. That process—I will ask Mr Miners to comment a bit further on this—involved all ministers reporting back to cabinet on the major topics raised in submissions. Cabinet had a discussion about all submissions that we received. It was 100 and—

Mr Miners: It was 79 this year.

Mr Nicol: It was 140 last year. That was a process that we had not done in past years. Generally, in past years, submissions were left to the responsible ministers, for them to work through and develop their budget proposals for cabinet consideration. This year we decided to put a bit more focus on budget submissions. I just raise this to say that those submissions are important, and it is an important form of communication to the government; I encourage and congratulate you on your submission.

There was a discussion in cabinet about those priorities in general. Now it is up to ministers to reflect on those discussions and bring them back into their budget bids; we are now in the process of considering those proposals. Ultimately, where funding is directed is obviously a question for cabinet.

Stephen, do you want to add anything to that?

Mr Miners: I think it is good. As part of the consultation process, I met with the elected body a couple of times, which I thought was a really good discussion in terms of helping us gain an understanding of what issues were important and where we should be focusing. We will certainly be using that as we go through the next stages of the budget to work out our advice as the government deliberates on what initiatives it will actually introduce.

Certainly I reiterate the point that we will use the framework as part of our evaluation in terms of looking at what proposals come forward and trying to make sure that what directorates are suggesting and what we are supporting going through them are consistent with the framework. That will be something that is central in our minds as well.

Mr Nicol: I can add one other thing: a change this year that the government has agreed to is that all of our proposals that have a significant impact on Indigenous people will be coming back to cabinet in one submission. So they will not be scattered across all ministers’ submissions; we will draw them together to have a focused discussion in cabinet. I hope that will be a much better way of (1) giving it a lot more focus and attention and (2) giving cabinet an idea of how it sits in the priority list and how it can prioritise and consider those issues.

THE CHAIR: I think it is fantastic to have that where you are looking at a focus on


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people submissions holistically rather than separately.

Mr Nicol: Thank you.

Dr Alderson: I may add one more thing: the Chief Minister is committed at the other end of the process to producing something similar to that booklet you mentioned from this year.

THE CHAIR: That is good. As previously stated, preparations for our hearings include informing ourselves of expenditure contained in the Indigenous expenditure report. Each report working group includes ACT representatives who were heard last year, but it is a complicated process. How are these people informed, and what information is being presented? And, from this same report, there is a total expenditure of $420 million on Indigenous services for roughly 1.7 per cent of the total ACT population. We did not quite get to the workshop. Will your area commit to working with the elected body to better understand the levels of investment and expenditure to reconcile with on-the-ground services and target needs to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage?

Mr Rutledge: As we spoke about last year with the Indigenous expenditure report, I will again talk about the national focus and then I will let Stephen talk about ACT-specific issues. As we spoke about last year, there is quite a complex process in developing the Indigenous expenditure report and data mining all of those sources of expenditure, as David Nicol said. There is a steering committee that looks at the Indigenous expenditure report at that national level; I sit on that committee and we as a committee have talked about the value of that report. We have found, not just in this jurisdiction but in all jurisdictions, that the complexity of it going in and then the focus on a single figure that comes out the other side is not particularly helpful for either policy-makers or community members to understand, and the focus remains on that single figure.

Although we as a committee are committed to producing another Indigenous expenditure report for 2017, I daresay that would be the last. We are undertaking a review of the value of that report, the value of the time and effort put in to create that report and then whether or not it is useful to either policy-makers or community at the other end. Something that I have taken from our discussions with the elected body and other soundings is that rather than focusing on a figure, focusing on what works or evaluation would be of more use. I have advocated for that quite strongly, and in part that has helped assist an undertaking of the review.

The 2017 Indigenous expenditure report will probably be the last one we see, because there is a lot of effort in for not a lot of value out. If we were able to free up those resources, not just in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions, and even if we just focused half of those resources on doing a better evaluation, we would probably get a better outcome for both policy-makers and community. That is where that is heading at that national level.

Mr Miners: In terms of calculating the ACT’s numbers, Treasury’s budget system does not record down to that finite level; it is a much higher level system. The actual


data that we provide or pull together as part of that report comes from directorates, based on their understanding of specific programs; we are very reliant on that information coming in. We survey them and ask them the questions, and pull that information together. In terms of where the individual specific lines are and where they line up, that is something the directorates manage themselves, rather than Treasury trying to take a central role on that.

One of the things we are doing at the moment is having a look at that type of information and having a look at how our budget system records that information. I do not think we will be able to make it more granular, but we are having a look at just what we can record in the system, so that we can see and have greater visibility of Indigenous programs.

MS CHIVERS: In terms of the workshops and work with the elected body to understand, we have had a couple of meetings, but I feel the elected body needs some more ongoing workshops, meetings and conversations around the budget process and how it works—the best level of influence, I guess, for the elected body.

Mr Miners: I am certainly happy to continue those conversations. We also arranged a workshop through ACTCOSS this year which had Indigenous representation. We are certainly happy to continue that conversation and to arrange those sorts of workshops—to target them into the workshops that meets your needs in the process and also help us to understand how best to evaluate proposals for Indigenous programs as they come through the budget process.

Mr Nicol: Chair, can I just emphasise, too, the importance of the Indigenous body engaging with all directorates on budget matters, not just Treasury. We do not prepare the proposals or design the programs; we tend to coordinate the process and give a view based on discussions we have about where things work and where the priorities are. It is really the directorates and their ministers that have in one way a far greater role with the proposals that come up through the system and how we can change the way existing programs work. We do as much as we can, but that engagement at the other end is very important as well.

THE CHAIR: The next question is around Boomanulla Oval. The members and community are aware of collaborative processes underway, in relation to returning Boomanulla as a culturally safe community facility.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Diane, sorry, just before you go on, is that a better one for when David Dawes is here after morning tea? The economic directorate is here, and they will be able to answer it.

THE CHAIR: Sorry. Tourism and business?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Yes, that is the same.

THE CHAIR: That is the same.

MS CHIVERS: I reckon we have finished.


MR McCULLOCH: May I ask a question?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Of course.

MR McCULLOCH: Bronwyn, you mentioned leadership initiatives and that you were not quite there yet. One of the strategies you are using is the graduate program.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Yes.

MR McCULLOCH: What are other initiatives that you are implementing in terms of leadership?

Ms Overton-Clarke: What we are doing across the service is to identify what initiatives we need to do at different levels. In terms of a whole-of-government approach, Kathy Leigh as the Head of Service has decided that we really need to––and I am talking more generally at first––put a lot of effort into the joined up nature of government.

This year in terms of the executive development we have had a number of workshops looking at how we can work better collaboratively across directorates. Whole-of-government budget bids as CSD and others are doing around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander budget bids are a good example of us starting to work in a more cross-government way.

I guess what we have done or are starting to do this year is to really look at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership as a cohort that we need to do more work on from Chief Minister’s. We have a good structure across different directorates. We have meetings that cascade down from strategic board, which is the directors-general, and that is the body that we will take both for my group and also at Judi’s level where we will discuss exactly what it is that we need to do in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander development.

But, as Judi said, really the first stage and what we are doing now is having a look at our data. Of our 299 people, we know where they are. The state of the service report says that while we have got a large cohort as trainees and apprentices—that is 11.9 per cent—the next area is actually dentists and dental officers and then rangers. We know where Indigenous people are in the service, but what we do not have a good handle on is how that development is working and is being done. We need to do centrally more work around that.

What we do know, as Judi said, is that our separation rate is higher for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. It is not significantly higher and it is actually becoming more like the norm, but that is why we have put such a big effort into the traineeship to really look at the retention strategy. I know I am answering your question in a very general way, but it is really in next year’s work that we are going to really focus in on it.

MR McCULLOCH: You mentioned 299 employees. Is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees across government?



MR McCULLOCH: Does each of those have professional development plans?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Each employee across ACT government is meant to have a performance management plan, and part of that is a professional development plan. What we do know is that only 54 per cent of our employees last year had performance management plans, and one of the initiatives that we have taken this year is to really stress that performance management and professional development are a really important part of staff development.

One of the reasons that we have rolled out what we have called our manager’s toolkit this year, which is on the web and easily accessible for everyone, is that where we find misalignment between staff and managers is generally around expectations. We want managers to sit down with their staff twice a year at a minimum to discuss what it is they are doing in the workplace. Of course, part of that discussion is to talk about what those individuals need in terms of professional development.

MR McCULLOCH: You said 54 per cent have the performance management plan, so obviously that is not everyone.

Ms Overton-Clarke: That was a survey about 18 months ago. Hopefully with more of an emphasis on it we have increased the rate.

MR McCULLOCH: Yes, okay.

MR WALKER: Is that Aboriginal staff or general––

Ms Overton-Clarke: No, no, no; that is across the whole service. When we go out to TAMS and different front-line areas, they say, “Oh, for goodness sake, how can an area like this do something as formal as that?” And we say, “It’s actually not about that. This is just a mechanism to identify the fact that you need to sit down and talk with your staff at least twice a year about what it is they are doing.

You know how it is—we all get incredibly busy and people are going off doing things. Well, do people know they are doing the right things, and is someone actually making sure that they are doing the right things? It is very easy for managers to say, “Oh, so-and-so isn’t doing what they’re meant to be doing,” and we always say, “Well, have you talked to them about it?” Talking is pretty fundamental, really.

MR WALKER: Communication as well.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Communication, that is exactly right, Maurice; it is all about communication.

MR McCULLOCH: I think you mentioned there were built-in targets in—

Ms Overton-Clarke: Directors-general performance agreements, yes.

MR McCULLOCH: Yes, in their agreements. How are they then made accountable?


If we have only got 54 per cent who have PDPs, how are they made accountable? If it is built in …

Ms Overton-Clarke: The targets that are built in are actually about employment, so getting people into the service.

MR McCULLOCH: It aids in retention, though, PDP.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Yes, that is right. There are a couple of things. The first is that the initiatives that Judi and I have outlined this morning are just the new initiatives in terms of helping those directorates look at all the different levels they need to look at in terms of attraction and getting people in. All the things that we normally do as the public service are still there to be able to attract and retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, just like they are for anyone else.

You would have a number that are on attraction and retention initiatives. This is sort of over and above what do we need to do from the centre to kick start a number of the employment initiatives. As Judi said, we have employed someone within our area to really help focus in on those initiatives to be able to help directorates. We are giving that data back in every quarter to those directors-general. We are saying, “Okay, this is the target that you were set. This is now how you are going against that target.”

We will keep doing that and we have other things in progress to be able to help. But we are getting more and more calls from directorates to go out and help them with employment processes. We have done a lot of sessions with different directorates about understanding different ways of interviewing and bringing people into the service as well. We are making it clearer to directorates that this is part of their normal business.

Mr Nicol: I re-emphasise that, as a signatory to one of these performance agreements, I am measured. I get data, so if I do not reach the targets that I have been set, I expect Kathy Leigh to have a discussion with me. Even though it is not specifically in my performance agreement, you mentioned the issue about professional development plans. I get data on how many of my staff have signed up to a professional development plan. When those figures are not good enough, I talk to my direct reports and we focus on improvement.

It is very important to measure the things you want to achieve because if you do not measure them, how can you tell if you achieve them? Whilst the issues of employment targets that have been raised are explicitly put in our agreements, we monitor data on the health of our workforce in a hundred other ways, from the amount of personal leave taken, the amount of overtime and turnover. If something happens that looks a bit unusual or we consider is too high and we see there might be a problem here, we need to go investigate it. That guides us into looking at what the issue and seeing what we can do. If turnover suddenly spikes in an area, what is the cause? If overtime suddenly spikes in an area, is there a work-family balance issue that we need to address?

That is the sort of approach we take as CEOs to address these things. We are improving our data set. It was only in the past six months that I think that I actually


got data on how many of my staff had signed a professional development plan, for example. So now I have got the data to actually take action and try and improve the situation. That is a key part.

We are putting the building blocks in place that Bronwyn talked about in a structural sense. We are also looking at a lot of our cultural development and leadership development across the service, as Bronwyn mentioned, which I think is very important. I think we need specific tools for leadership and other programs for our Indigenous employees, but we also need those tools for our broader managers. Part of leadership is leading all staff, regardless of background, level of skill and capability and developing them and bringing them on in achieving the outcomes that we want to achieve. I think we need a greater focus on outcomes rather than process. Process is still important, but we need to shift these sorts of goalposts, and a lot of what Bronwyn has talked about is part of that holistic approach that the strategic board is putting in place to try to get these changes and outcomes.

MR FOWLER: Great. I have a couple of questions. My first one I believe either Judi or Bronwen can answer. Back to the targets you identified for graduates: you said 52 were engaged but only two were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Why such a low number?

Ms Childs: We got six applications—only six. Three withdrew prior to going through the assessment centre process and two of the remaining three were successful. We did modify our recruitment approach in going out. We did a lot of work with the panels. We had a dual focus. We wanted to attract more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates and also graduates with a disability. We were very successful in the disability space—

MR FOWLER: That is great.

Ms Childs: but not as successful in the Indigenous space. We are currently undertaking a major evaluation and review of the whole process. We put in place training for all of the panels, both in cultural proficiency and appropriate interviewing techniques, as well as reasonable adjustment and things like that for the disability cohort.

We had designated positions available—up to 20 designated positions available out of that cohort of 52—and we had a commitment to fill those if we could. So we need to go back and look at why, at the attraction end of it, we did not do as well in one cohort as we did with the other.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Can I just also emphasise that in the last financial year the numbers grew by 45 across the whole service. That was an 18.2 per cent increase in the numbers, which, considering the rest of the service grew by 1.8 per cent, is a pretty phenomenal increase. We would not be arrogant enough to say that some of the small things that we have started to put in place were—well, all we would say is that that lifting of the profile through some of the things that David has talked about, through the initiatives that Kathy has taken, is starting to really put to the fore the need to increase the numbers. So we are much more comfortable where we are now as opposed to this time last year.


MR FOWLER: Okay, so that is one question answered. You detailed a lot about the traineeship. I think we have heard enough about traineeships today. My real focus in this question is around middle management and senior management.

Ms Childs: Yes.

MR FOWLER: One day we would like to see an Aboriginal director-general or a Torres Strait Islander director-general that we would be asking these questions of.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Sure.

MR FOWLER: But, unfortunately, it just does not seem to be happening. We cannot get them to ED level, let alone SOG A, SOG B, and SOG C is quite a big component. What is the ACT government doing to increase that at the directorate level, and what is the head of service going to do to increase that as well?

Ms Overton-Clarke: The other thing we have talked quite a lot about this morning is that we do need to do more work in that area, and the start of that is getting the identification of those classifications. We have got that information and we are doing work on that now to be able to identify exactly what it is next year we do put in place to work on that.

MR FOWLER: The leadership courses are fantastic. I fully support them personally. I cannot speak on behalf of all members, but I personally support them. Some of our individuals in the ACT government have done leadership till the cows come home, so they are quite ready for leadership and have been waiting to take on these roles. But, again, they are not forthcoming to these individuals. I still believe that the head of service needs to do a lot of work around that. I know Kathy is not present, but the question is: what is she going to do to increase that?

Ms Overton-Clarke: She has put it on me, and I put it with Judi, that we are the ones really working with directorates and then making strong suggestions to her about the sorts of things that we put in place. When Kathy and I came this time last year, we said that we were really disappointed at not being able to meet the employment targets and Kathy made a commitment that she would be putting those targets into performance agreements for directors-general. She has done that and it is starting to lead to a result. So I completely appreciate, Ross, what you are saying, and you are right: we do need to do more work in that area, and that is a focus that we have for next year.

MR FOWLER: My third question is around the respect, equity and diversity framework. What is the ACT government doing, in particular through the head of service, to make that a one-government document rather than seven different directorates having seven different focuses around that framework?

Ms Overton-Clarke: We have a single framework. It is on the manager’s toolkit. It is a one-government approach to RED.

MR FOWLER: But directorates then adapt it down to get what they need to have in


the framework.

Ms Overton-Clarke: And that is fine; whatever works for them. In doing the review, I would encourage you all to have a look at the manager’s toolkit.

MR FOWLER: I have read it, and I know the toolkit. You know I do.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Yes. What we have done is to say, “Okay, we need to now have a very practical approach to this.” That is what is on the toolkit. It is a bit like talking to TAMS. I mean, how directorates then use it is entirely up to them. What we do have are RED executive officers across the service who come and meet with us every six months. We have REDCOs within directorates. They work closely both with HR areas but also with the executive sponsor and we support them as well. So we have had a complete refresh of RED in the last 12 months. Judi, did you want to add anything?

Ms Childs: I think it is important also that, as part of the implementation of the outcomes of the RED review, we have had a whole of government working party working on that for most of last year and it will continue. One of the deliverables that has just come out is a very useful clarification of the roles of REDCOs that has been accepted across the whole service because there has been some inconsistency in the application of RED at directorate level. That is one of the most vibrant groups of people who are committed to having a whole of government view on the further implementation of RED and the renewed emphasis through the review recommendations.

MR FOWLER: My final question is around, I suppose, the reconciliation action plans and employment action plans. Again, is the head of service going to be looking at doing one ACT government RAP and one ACT employment action plan and not have them at the directorate levels?

Ms Overton-Clarke: I do not know that there is a plan for that. I tend to think that one of the most useful things about the development of RAPS in my experience is that you get that really solid engagement through the directorate and it is through the RAP working group you work out for your directorate what it is that will work. I imagine that if you move to a single whole of government RAP you would still have to have an implementation focus that was across individual directorates, just given the breadth of the service delivery that we do. I think we would like to have all directorates having RAPs. I know that a number are on to their second and third iteration but, in terms of plans for a single whole of government RAP, I do not think we have any particular plans.

MR FOWLER: I would like you to take that on board, because thinking about driving the whole of government agreement would be one way to look at how you could drive that.


MR FOWLER: I just want to make a final statement. I have heard a couple of times today about the Muranga Muranga network. That network does not exist, so can we


please go back and find out what we are doing about engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff in each of the directorates?

Ms Overton-Clarke: Okay. We will. Presumably you will be talking to CSD and—

MR FOWLER: Every directorate. As you know, we talk to every directorate.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Sure. I am just thinking about Muranga Muranga. That is run out of CSD and the sponsor was Diane Joseph, who has now been replaced temporarily by Natalie. So I imagine both Sue Chapman and Natalie would be good people to ask about that. That is not our understanding, but we are happy to go back and clarify.

MR FOWLER: No worries. Thank you. THE CHAIR: Thanks, Ross.

MR ALLAN: I just have one little thing. When you have all these processes and targets that you are meeting and want to achieve, are there any Indigenous leaders consulted, or there at the table with you, when you do this?

Dr Alderson: I will leave to my colleagues particular staffing targets. The work about how should we measure effectiveness under the whole of government agreement is being oversighted by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subcommittee of strategic board, which is attended by the elected body chair, and my understanding is that there have been workshops and processes. So I agree that the full engagement of both the elected body and the Aboriginal community with these measures, targets, outcomes makes sense and is critical. My understanding is there has been the process led by Sue Chapman and her team in Community Services Directorate, and if there are any gaps in that we would be keen to ensure they are addressed on the staffing side.

Mr Nicol: Can I add that we do it in several ways. Firstly, I find these hearings very important to find out what is important to you. They do not fall on deaf ears. They do affect us. Secondly, I met with the chair, Rod Little, with Kathy and with David Dawes on a regular basis—I think it was at least monthly and sometimes more often on an ad hoc basis. We had a set agenda and we worked through issues. Issues that we have discussed today are on that agenda and I, and I think Kathy and David as well, genuinely seek the input from Rod and from you all. If you think we have the wrong target or are doing something in the wrong way, please tell us and we will reflect on that and it will go into our thought processes. If you think we are doing the right things, also tell us, because we can reinforce that and keep going with it. That is part of the way the dialogue works and the deliberate structure we have set up to take these issues forward.

Ms Childs: Part of the process for leadership development options next year will be to consult with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff about what they see as what they might require, what support they might require and what barriers there are, because I am not going to prescribe something without having consulted with the cohort.


THE CHAIR: I have just got a couple of questions and we will close. In terms of your response to the generic questions, you have spoken about the ACT government rolling out service wide cultural proficiency training for all staff. Is there a time frame around that and how is it going to happen?

Ms Overton-Clarke: In CMTEDD or across—

THE CHAIR: It says “service wide”.

Ms Overton-Clarke: Okay. I think what I said earlier is that we know that different directorates are at different stages in that, so we need to really understand what it is that all directorates need. We will be doing that in 2016 as well.

THE CHAIR: The last question I have got is around reconciliation and practical actions that contribute to that. I am talking about the flying of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags during NAIDOC and Reconciliation weeks. That really is significant for a lot of people in our community, not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but certainly non-Indigenous people. Does CMTEDD have responsibility for ensuring that those flags are flown not only on Capital Hill but down along Commonwealth Avenue, and is there some assurance from you that that will happen and continue to happen?

Mr Nicol: Unless my colleagues know, TAMS has general responsibility, but that would also take into account the National Capital Authority on Commonwealth land. So perhaps we can—

Dr Alderson: I think we will take that on notice. In our directorate we do have responsibility for matters of protocol, and this might form part of it. The specific areas that you mentioned, Diane, are ones within National Capital Authority responsibility. I suspect what we do is liaise or negotiate with them about what they are intending to do. But, for the specifics of that, if we may take that on notice.

THE CHAIR: That will be good. Thank you. There are no more questions, so I thank you all, Bronwen and your team, for your time and for attending. It has been interesting and a very good session:

Ms Overton-Clarke: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to talk about things we have done. We will try not to talk too much about trainees next time. We absolutely recognise that this is work in progress. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 10.52 to 11.16 am.

THE CHAIR: I welcome officials from economic development and thank them for attending. As you are aware, the elected body has been working very hard over the past 12 months with the ACT government and all of the directorates to progress a range of issues, including improving programs and service delivery on behalf of and for the benefit of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here in the ACT. Over the next two days, the elected body members will be meeting with all directorates, seeking responses to questions which our communities require answers


to. The elected body was elected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities here in the ACT to make a difference, and that is exactly what we expect of ourselves.

You will have received a copy of the generic questions. Throughout the next two days, each of the members will take a lead by asking questions relevant to each directorate, and we would value your cooperation in this process to put some clarity in evidence, to confirm performance in relation to the achievement of outcomes.

The elected body holds the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples central to what we do as an elected representative voice for our peoples and in our pursuit of rights and social and emotional wellbeing improvements for our communities. If you can focus your responses on addressing programs, services and outcomes for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the ACT, that will be appreciated.

Due to time frames, there may not be an opportunity to ask all the questions we have composed; outstanding questions will be sent through to you later. I also note that with any questions on notice, the elected body will require a response within five working days of the hearings, submitted to the elected body secretariat.

I invite you to provide an opening statement.

Mr Dawes: Economic development has undertaken a number of things. Some things have moved more quickly than others. In general, we have been trying to work proactively with the elected body. Obviously Rod was the cemented contact, and I had a number of meetings with Rod about various issues and how we can actually drive some things. Some of the things that will emerge as we go through discussions throughout the hearings will be some of the things that we have been doing around some of our tourism activities. There have been some broad discussions starting to emerge, looking at what we can be doing there. They were probably started when Maurice was the link that we had with economic development as well. So there has been some progress. There have been some other things around the CBR network, and the yarning circles. These are all things that we will be evaluating and looking at as to how we can improve. As you know, we have been quite active with Boomanulla, trying to resolve the issues there. I might be able to give you a bit of an update on that. Again, there has been very good collaboration between the directorate and the elected body in trying to resolve those issues.

THE CHAIR: As CMTEDD is my directorate, I will lead the questions with this session, but other members will also have questions on top of that. In terms of Boomanulla oval, members and community are aware of collaborative processes underway in relation to returning Boomanulla as a culturally safe community facility. Will the facility be accessible by the end of 2015? If not, can you explain the current status and what the next steps will be to enable its readiness for use as soon as possible?

Mr Dawes: We might do a big of a tag team thing between me and Rebecca. As the elected body would be aware, ACSRA went into administration. There has been a process with Bird Cameron, which was the administrator and liquidator of that entity.


The land, the oval, has recently been handed back to the territory. I have had ACT Property Group, which is part of our portfolio, going through to look at a safety and condition report of the site. There has been very good collaboration, and I thank Maurice for assisting in looking at the relocation of some of the tenants there. We are working towards getting some of those issues resolved as well. We have also looked at some of the artefacts that are there and that they are being appropriately handled.

Earlier I signed off on a communique which will also come to you, Di, for sign-off. I am very keen to get a communique back out to the broader community before Christmas. That will come out, and it will come from both you and me as the co-chairs of that at this time. We are working on an expression of interest which the members of the subcommittee have been working on. We hope to get that out early in the new year. It was always my intention to ensure that we got that back into the hands of the community as quickly as possible. We were just there to ensure that. Obviously, with the uncertainty of administration and liquidation, they were looking at what the value of that lease might be and how they might be able to sell it. A lot of discussion occurred with Bird Cameron in that case as well. At the end of the day, the oval is for community use. We will have the committee sign off on the final EOI that will go out, to make sure that we are all comfortable with that document. That will go out in the new year.

As you would be aware, one of the things with that uncertainty is that we are in the throes of mopping up some of the residual money. We think we have a bit of money left there; we will be doing some small grants there as well for the community. We do have some broader funding from the commonwealth as well that we will be able to utilise and put back into the ground. Rebecca, did you want to add anything else?

Ms Kelley: Sure. David mentioned the condition reports that we are working to have done on the facility at the moment. The update on those is that with the oval condition report, we have engaged Cardno to undertake that work. They are currently working through that; we are hoping to have that finalised in January. We understand that it is being mowed today, which will assist that work, to allow that assessment to occur.

The building condition report is also scheduled for completion in January. There have been a couple of things that ACT Property Group is working through to get that happening. One which David mentioned is the management of the sensitive items there but it is also about wanting to assist the residents that are currently there to be off site to allow a safe environment for that building report to be undertaken. Once that is complete, we will have the full information to feed into the EOI process to allow informed respondents there.

THE CHAIR: In terms of the EOI process, what are the time frames around advertising and how long it is open for?

Mr Dawes: Again that needs to be approved by the Indigenous advisory group that we are working with. We cannot rush that process. It needs to go out. You need to have time for people to be able to respond adequately to it. I would like to see it happen, but there is no point rushing it out now because we have a couple of those other matters to fix. I would envisage getting it out by the end of January and going out to the market for a six-week period. I think that is appropriate and fair. We want to


make sure that no-one misses out on the opportunity to be involved in that process. I think it is sort of building again. What we have tried to do in the documentation to date is—as you know, we went out with a survey and we tried to incorporate a lot of the survey responses, because there was a very good response to that survey. There were just on 150 responses to that survey. We try to incorporate as many things as possible there.

We have also had some discussion about possible uses. Because it has been surrendered, we can create a new lease and we can put some additional uses in that particular lease. We have looked at what other appropriate things we can do because the important thing, and I think it has been discussed by the advisory board, is how we can make sure that it is sustainable for the long term rather than sort of living off a grant of somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000 from the commonwealth. It is about what other opportunities we need to put in the lease to make sure it is going to be commercially viable for the long term.

I think it has been a long-held view that Indigenous communities are very important but it should be a place where all Canberrans can be beneficiaries of it, in effect, to ensure that it is financially viable for the longer term. I am quite keen to get that—not that I am trying to run away from it, but to make sure that we have the appropriate person in, looking after, maintaining and running it as well and handing it back to the community.

The bit of work that we need to do as an advisory group is about what the model is going to be when we get all that in place going forward and ensuring that we have the right skill sets on the board to oversee it and ensure that what happened does not happen again.

THE CHAIR: Thank you.

MR WALKER: Thanks for that, David. I do not know if you know, but both Keith and David have been offered properties by ACT Housing.

Mr Dawes: Yes.

MR WALKER: Part of the delay was around getting them off the property.

Mr Dawes: And I thank you, Maurice, for the assistance you gave the team in achieving that outcome. Again it shows that there has been very good collaboration. I knew that, but I did not want to go into too much of the personal detail.

MR WALKER: Yes. The other question I have relates to the land tenure or the lease of land. Is that an area for you, or is it TAMS?

Mr Dawes: The leasing will be EPD, planning, there, but we will be liaising with planning about some of the uses that we can put into that, because the lease has been surrendered, and create that new lease. It can be then reissued. My learned colleague, in his previous life, used to work for planning, and he can go into some of that finer detail. I would envisage that we would create a new 99-year lease, but I can take that on notice and confer. I do not want to mislead anyone.


MR WALKER: That was the point of my question.

Mr Dawes: That would be my suggestion as well.

MR WALKER: You said something about looking at the possibility of future sustainability. With organisations like the LDA and the Indigenous Land Corporation, the national organisations, with a 99-year lease, in approaching organisations like that, the organisation would be better placed to look at securing funding knowing that the land would not be taken away by any government sort of thing. That is a priority as part of that process around handing back the property to the Aboriginal community.

Mr Dawes: Depending on what it might be used for, for leverage, there might be financial assistance required from banks and all of that. If it is only a 10-year lease or something of that nature, you are not going to attract that. That is why we envisage it being that, with a new 99-year lease being created.

MR WALKER: Yes, excellent.

MR ALLAN: Boomanulla is, like you said, a cultural place for our community to go to, not just for sporting things but for other things as well. I am just curious as to why you said you wanted to open it up to all to come in.

Mr Dawes: That was the advice that we took back from various responses back through the survey, but also it is coming through from the advisory group, to make it sustainable for the long term. One of the key things in the expressions of interest will be that it is not going to be a closed enclave; that it is there for the community. It is a community asset at the end of the day, so it will be absolutely crucial how we frame the lease and frame whoever might be successful in that EOI process.

One of the key things that we have to be careful about—I am happy to take advice, and this can be fed back through the advisory group as well—is that, whatever we do there, we are not in a situation where someone else moves in and then falls over, relying on overseas investment and a whole lot of other things that were there that came to be the lifeblood because there was going to be some Chinese investment put into that particular place. We need to have something really concrete; we need to have people with a proven track record. I see it very much as an Indigenous organisation that would be managing it—the oval. We will not be going out to property developers per se to take over the site. That is not what is envisaged.

So it is very marked. I see it as a community asset and I understand the importance of it. I know that has come through very loud and strong from the people in the advisory group, but also in the broader sense. I know that when I attended one of the sessions with Bird Cameron there last year, that came through very loud and clear. Probably the best conversation was after the official bit, just talking to some of the people that attended that forum. You certainly learn how important that is to the local Indigenous people.

I am mindful of that and respectful of that, and that is the reason why it is not my decision alone. It has been very much working with the advisory group to make sure


that we capture all of that. If we need to double-check, we can do that as well just to make sure that is fairly ironclad.

MR ALLAN: I think you can maybe include the elected body as well as the advisory group.

THE CHAIR: We are on the advisory board.

Mr Dawes: Diane now is the co-chair of that organisation, so the elected body is very much involved, Richard.

THE CHAIR: The next question is around the tourism and business component. The elected body has prioritised economic participation for ACT residents. We have held business and tourism activities to stimulate creativity and excitement into the other industries. Our 2020 tourism strategy mentions “Indigenous” twice only in tourism. What will your directorate do to assist the creation of Indigenous business growth in our community over the next 12 months? I have got a couple of others but I will start with that first.

Mr Dawes: I might hand straight over, rather than giving out a few of the dot points. I will hand over to Ian Hill who is the Director of VisitCanberra and he can lead that. Obviously there are some other things that we have been doing around the business and yarning circles, and I have got Laura Hartley who can talk to that as well and follow on from that point.

Ms Hartley: I will talk first about the economic development and business development and enterprise development components. It has been a really exciting past eight months to be honest in this space. We did the yarning circle, which was a little bit of a toe-in-the-water pilot program for us. We did it at the innovation network, and that was on the back of some feedback from these hearings where the Indigenous community was not aware of the mainstream programs and business support that are available. We also had two Indigenous businesses in that environment, so there was an element of trust that had been built there.

That yarning circle, the feedback we got from that—and that was fed right through to the Chief Minister—was that it was a real genuine collaboration. There was a really nice feel in the room. On the back of that we have further developed a program, an eight-month program, called the Indigenous business development program. That is managed by a steering committee, which Rod Little was on. I am assuming that, Di, perhaps you will be on that steering committee or involved in that.

That has a few elements: it has the yarning circle, which is still that consultation process. It has, like I said, the steering committee. There are workshops—I think there three or four are organised. The first one will be in February, which will be around cash flow and accountancy, a theme that came out of the original yarning circle as a support area needed. There will also be a trade show that we are looking at. There will be film documentaries of business intenders with ideas, some successful businesses. So we have got that happening. I think that is all that is on the program at the moment in that space.


We are also still sponsoring the NAIDOC business of the year award, and that has been really good for us to leverage off that award winner. They have really been involved and wanting to work with us about what the Indigenous community needs. They have been a really good sounding board for us and introducing us to the elected body economic development rep and bringing Rod Little into the fold in that context also.

THE CHAIR: Can I ask, the elected body did run a workshop around business prior to working with CBRIN, and one of the recommendations out of that was the development of an Indigenous business chamber. Have there been any discussions in the yarning circles around that?

Ms Hartley: I understand there have. The government wants to remain at arm’s length from that. I understand there have been discussions, and part of the funding has been to look at the feasibility of the Indigenous business chamber. We are waiting to hear back. The first report from the development program is due to us in December––so we are waiting to hear back as to where that is at and where those discussions are at on the chamber. But certainly happy to be involved and happy to facilitate whatever the Indigenous community want in that regard about reinstating and the formation of that chamber.

THE CHAIR: I attended the first yarning circle; I did not attend the one recently. There was certainly a positive vibe in that room from businesses and people participating around doing work in this space. There have obviously been lots of conversations with individuals over a long time. I do applaud your directorate in terms of the efforts that have been focused there.

Mr Dawes: I think it is important as well—I know that was quite successful—to evaluate. Even when things run really well, I am always very keen to have a look at what we can do better. I believe there were some things that did not go down quite as well as they could have. We can eliminate those, but it is always about how we can improve these things. I think it is important, and we will be learning from that as well.

Ian, did you want to give a bit of background on tourism, because I think that was the first question Diane asked.

Mr Hill: Our role at VisitCanberra is around promoting Canberra as a short break destination, particularly domestically and a little bit more overseas. Diane, the 2020 strategy that you referred to is the blueprint; it is a national framework and it is being replicated here in the ACT. The goal there is to grow tourism from around at the moment about 1.7 billion to 2.5 billion by 2020, and we do that by estimating demand for visitation here.

In terms of what we are doing right here right now around some of the Indigenous experiences that we are promoting, we have got a range of platforms, including VisitCanberra, our website, which generates about 1.4 million visits a year. It varies from in the social and digital spaces around Instagram and Facebook and using social channels to tell the stories. We often use–and some of our most liked images are-things like Namadgi and Tidbinbilla on Instagram, in particular. It is amazing how you can get 500 or 600 likes of some of those amazing panoramic. That allows us to


engage with people around some of the stories there.

We also do an annual visitor guide, about a 130,000 print run. There is a fair bit of content in that. It has also gone live on iTunes, so we have done an electronic version this year, which again allows us to continually update that visitor guide. That is exposed at trade shows to consumers in the state and to consumers overseas.

We also work closely with Tourism Australia who we have an excellent relationship with. We just had their board down here recently and took them on a bit of a tour up to places like the Arboretum. Tourism Australia are very strong on Indigenous tourism programs because I think globally Australia has got a real opportunity in that space. The ACT has not been as strong in that space as it could be, and it is something that we are certainly committed to doing.

Currently our visitation makeup is about 92 per cent domestic and about seven per cent international. We are working specifically on a project around trying to attract direct international air services here. That has been in the public domain for a while and obviously to grow the number of international tourists, our need to build greater exposure around Indigenous experiences is really, really important, because that is exactly what international tourists are looking for when they come to Australia. I think we have the big advantage of proximity and diversity so close to Canberra rather than some of the remote areas. We have got a real opportunity in our own backyard here to put Canberra on the map around some of that activity.

We are working pretty closely and I think the fact that we are in this division at the moment that is headed up by Jeff and Ian Coz and Laura in the business capacity space and with another colleague down the end there, Adam, who is in the arts space and us in VisitCanberra there are some really good synergies across this directorate for capacity building and, in our role, marketing and exposing to a broader audience some of the great Indigenous experiences that we have here. It is a bit of a demand and supply issue that we have got to work on collaboratively.

THE CHAIR: You speak about some good stuff there, but how are you doing that and how are you working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities and traditional owners around all of that to highlight Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and history?

Mr Hill: Part of it is done through things like Tidbinbilla and Namadgi and the guided rangers walks. We went out there just recently, I think Jackson and Kie were two guys that I met and they did an amazing tour just off the back of Birrigai there. I would love 10 of those guys because their knowledge and their interpretation are what visitors are looking for. What we need to do is work closely with TAMS around building capacity to have more of those types of rangers so we can have a bookable product every weekend rather than an open day and the guys can take us on a tour. Consumers are looking for that potentially seven days a week. We have got this capacity issue of needing to build them up, because the experience and the stories that people like Jackson tell are fantastic. It is relatively close; it is easy to get to from Canberra, but the ability to have more and more of those rangers doing that sort of activity is certainly an area that we want to encourage and work with TAMS closely on.


THE CHAIR: Is that a commitment from you to choose to undertake that in the next 12 months to continue to develop?

Mr Dawes: That is a commitment, and we have actually started having that dialogue with Gary Byles of TAMS as well. We had a meeting with him and Daniel just a few weeks ago to look at how we can drive that. I have always had this view––and Ian is quite correct––it needs to be an activity seven days a week and not just an open day at Tidbinbilla. We need to help build some capacity.

We do need as well, I think, at the end of the day to look at how CIT can actually feed into this so it is an educative process. It would be fantastic especially if we can get these direct flights either to China or Singapore in those markets that we are working on. It will be very, very important to have that welcome to country as well. That looks at how we can actually do that.

I am very fortunate; I went out on one of those tours to Yankee Hat––a strange name for Indigenous art. That was very empowering and the narrative around that was very, very good. I think that is a fantastic opportunity, and that can then even lead to looking at how we might be able to even do some things around ecotourism and have that sort of experience. People certainly want that and will pay for that sort of experience. That is something that we do need to do and we need to have that dialogue through that.

Mr Hill: There is a lot of work to do in the capacity space because if we get flights from overseas, if a distribution channel like a retail outlet in Singapore is booking a holiday to Australia and they are booking Canberra and someone wants an Indigenous tour—which is highly likely—that could be a six-month lead time or a four-month lead time. So they are going to say, “We want to go this date, this time slot. We want to commission it packaged up with the hotel accommodation and transfers out to Tidbinbilla.” So we have obviously got a lot of work to do cooperatively to make sure we can actually make that happen, because I think there will demand for it, absolutely.

THE CHAIR: And certainly building into businesses here and where that is fitting into in terms of the business discussions and the yarning circles around tourism.

Mr Hill: That is right.

Mr Dawes: I think also that potentially can lead into art and that whole space around Indigenous art. That is something that we are keen to follow up and probably something, Di, about which we need to have a follow-up conversation further to the one I had with Rod around Yarramundi Reach and how we can really drive that and—excuse the expression—sweat that asset a little more than what it is at the present time. That could become a hub when you look at where it is situated—close to the Arboretum and other attractions. It is not far from the National Museum. It has got tremendous potential, and I have been talking about that as well.

THE CHAIR: That is one of the questions we have got: will the directorate assist the elected body to develop a proposition to National Capital Authority and the ACT government for the expansion of Yarramundi boundaries to enable maximum use and


economic growth for the community from the facility?

Mr Dawes: That is actually the conversation I had recently with Rod, even though it was the day after his announcement of resigning from the chair of the elected body. But that is very much in focus. I have had some broad conversations about how we can involve some of the institutions, but that is very high level at this point in time. We need now to bring that back and get the people that will make these things happen on the ground. We are very supportive of that initiative. Connectivity to the water is another consideration, because it is quite an isolated block.

MR FOWLER: I have a question. I still do not think I have got that answer correct. I know that you have done some work but I notice that you spoke about doing some work with the rangers to increase tourism at that level. What are you actually doing with the United Ngunnawal Elders Council and the local traditional owners directly? Rangers are employed by government, by you guys, to operate in a role, and that is okay. They just happen to be Aboriginal and happen to be locals. So you are getting double for nothing, basically. I want to get an idea of whether there is a commitment to work on this with the local United Ngunnawal Elders Council but also to work with other Ngunnawal family groups here as well.

Mr Hill: That is absolutely a valid question. I met with the elders council representatives two weeks ago. It is our first foray into how we build more capacity and that is really where we are coming from. It is about building capacity and getting a shared understanding of what the market requirements would be, both domestically and internationally, and actually then saying, “How can we fulfil that need?” There have been some initial discussions. It has only been in the last fortnight. I will be really honest with you about that. It was only two weeks ago that I met with some representatives.

We are very keen to keep pursuing that. We have got a range of mechanisms, I suppose, that can help market and promote Indigenous businesses but we also need to make sure that we have got Indigenous businesses that can meet the needs of the marketplace. I think this is an exciting time at the moment because there is a lot of upside to all of that. That comes back to the sustainable business opportunities and I think tourism can play a really, really strong role in that. You can see the face of Canberra at the moment, how much change is going on. We have seen some strong numbers both domestically and internationally at the moment. If things like aviation come off then I think we go into a whole new world around the types of visitors that will come here. They will be high-yielding, international visitors who are looking for very authentic experiences.

MR FOWLER: Definitely but we are talking a lot about and we are placing a lot of emphasis on the airport. What about Murrays coaches, Greyhound coaches and using those other enterprises and opportunities to bring other tourism to the ACT? I think that also needs to be factored in. I want to also ask a quick question but do you want to answer that?

Mr Hill: Yes. We have got a great relationship with Ron Murray and Murrays generally around a range of activities from events to bringing people to Canberra. He provides a brilliant service, very high quality, and brings a lot of people here.


The other thing we are looking at—and I should have said this before—is that our visitors centre is in the process of moving from where it is on Northbourne Avenue to a new site. I think that provides an opportunity for how we are going to bring the Ngunnawal story and other stories to life. I think, to be honest, it is a bit of a no-brainer to be able to do that in a new site in a way that I hope is really immersive and could be digitally done. It could be done in a range of ways. We are very open to ideas that give people a real sense of things when they come to our visitors centre. There are about 130,000-odd people a year who come through our visitors centre. That is often their first point of call when they come to Canberra.

What are we doing to actually engage with them around the story? If we got digital walls and we got a YouTube clip of Jackson, for example, giving a story, how good would that be for a three or four-minute reel as part of your experience at Regatta Point? I think there is a lot of opportunity in that space.

Mr House: If I could quickly add to that: for someone who has come into this position only recently, one of the things I would like to do is liaise with the elected body and other Indigenous bodies to make sure that the engagement that we have, not just in the tourism space but across sport and across arts and all of the areas that are part of, certainly, my division, with the Indigenous community is not just based on a particular issue or a particular tourism event or a particular push that the ACT government is involved in but that we actually have that regular engagement, that constant engagement, across all of our areas to make sure we are, as a matter of process and procedure, engaging with you, whether there is a particular event or tourism push on, so that we can have that feedback.

The ideas that generate out of that are obviously valuable. The yarning circle is a very good example of that but what I want to do is make sure we are doing that across the length and breadth of certainly this division so that we can have that regular engagement that is not just about the airport or direct flights or Namadgi or whatever but across the length and breadth and see how we can actually incorporate some of the ideas that will generate from that.

MR FOWLER: One of the other things that I raised when Ian was talking was art. I am curious about what it is you are going to do because when we look at the airport and the type of art that is being rolled out we want to ensure that it is not made in China and is actually authentically and locally made. We want that kind of commitment as well. We also want to utilise the existing art gallery here in the ACT, the Burrunju Art Gallery. What work have you done to increase their business support for them to be able to continue to sell local art?

Mr Stankevicius: Obviously the art at the airport is the responsibility of the Canberra Airport Corporation. The ACT government does not have a role in terms of that art. It is a private space, it is private land and it is a private facility. They have a history for the art that is on that site of doing private commissions and they do commission work. They do not buy stuff that is made in China. However, some of the artists that they commission to do work may have been born in China but they also may have been born in Berlin or the US. It is completely up to them. There is no requirement on them whatsoever to engage with local artists but obviously if they want to be part of telling


that genuine story, they are discussions that either the elected body or we can have with them as part of the work that we do.

In terms of the ACT arts policy, for the first time our fourth principle is about the development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and culture. We have not had that before. I have not had that as a focus of the arts policy previously. The policy was launched in June this year but through the consultation process that led up to that, while we did not have many Indigenous artists contributing to the consultation process, organisations right across the spectrum raised with us the fact that they had concerns that it was not represented very well across the spectrum of arts and events activities going on in the ACT.

We have had, again, conversations with Rod—and I think we all keep coming back to Rod—but we have also had initial consultations with the elders council and a range of artists right across the spectrum. We were at the market day last week down at Burrunju. We are aware, of course, that this is one small business operating out of that facility at this point in time. It does not represent the entire spectrum of not only local but regional artists that the Ngunnawal cover. So we are not going there expecting that we are going to get one answer on how it is we do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and culture. We recognise there is a much broader conversation to be had.

We are working with OATSIA in terms of the four market days they have at the Yarramundi Reach Cultural Centre and seeing whether at one of those next year we can actually add on to ours a consultation forum that is jointly held between them and us at that space, recognising a lot of those regional artists will actually be there on the site, and if we can capture them for a few hours before to start the conversation.

We are not going into this saying we know all the answers, because obviously we are starting probably about 20—when was self-government? 30 years ago? We are starting probably about 30 years too late in terms of working this up. But there are a whole range of benefits here that we need to be talking about. Ian and Jeff talked about the opportunities across the division.

It is not only tourism and economic development but it is also obviously cultural and spiritual, and it is intrinsic as well as economic. I think we need to recognise the role that that plays. As David said, we have a range of national institutions here at the moment—everyone from the gallery to the museum, the archives, the library, the portrait gallery—that are part of telling that story but importantly they are telling the national story. Often the local story gets lost.

I think that is probably why for the first time this has appeared as a principle for us in the policy, because the local community is reflecting on the fact that that local story is getting lost. We want to heighten the local story but, as Ian again reflected on, I think we actually have to have something that is—I do not want to say “marketable”—a product that we as a community are proud to sell and proud to put out there. That is not just an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art story, that is a local art story generally right across the spectrum.

We have to be willing to show ourselves on the national stage and be comfortable in


doing that and have our sense of identity in what it is that we have got that is special to offer in a tourism sense, in an economic sense and in a cultural sense. And we are still at the start of that discussion I think with the local community.

MR FOWLER: As part of that discussion, I would also like you to consider performing arts. You talked a lot about visual arts.

Mr Stankevicius: Yes, absolutely.

MR FOWLER: You have mentioned nothing about performing arts.


MR FOWLER: And that is a very integral part of our culture as well, being able to tell our stories through dance and represent that as well as another factor.

Mr Stankevicius: Yes.

MR FOWLER: I would like to see that Yarramundi precinct become an arts and cultural centre where we can have dance troupes on display, we can talk about local foods and products. We can then obviously take individuals to see galleries and have local and guest presenters. We acknowledge here on the elected body that not every one of us is a local custodian. We are guests from our own communities that have called Canberra home. We demonstrate what we all learn. I am a trained dancer. It is very interesting for me to know what you are doing in this space for my world.


MR FOWLER: Not only just the visual paint brush; and that is a quite extensive world itself in the individual arts.

Mr Stankevicius: I think part of telling that story is the fact that not many people know that Jenni Martiniello comes from here, that she has a residency at the glassworks. She is an internationally renowned Indigenous glass artist. We have not told that story; we have not got a sense of ourselves yet to say, “Actually this is something that we should not only be nationally proud of but internationally proud of.” And it is one of the reasons why certain groups of people go to the glassworks, to see Jenni work and see what inspires her, to see what has made her so successful. And that is an important story to tell.

But one of the conversations we have had with OATSIA and the Community Services Directorate is trying to find from 20 years ago the original plans, what was then the bogong moth design of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre, which had as one wing of the bogong a performing arts space. The other wing was the gallery space, and then in the middle I think was admin and retail or something like that.

MR FOWLER: That is correct. It was a giant moth.

Mr Stankevicius: That is the way it is described. So we are all digging jointly back


through the archives of the ACT, maybe even pre self-government, to work out whether we can find these plans, because everyone talks about them in this kind of mythology and how wonderful it would be to realise that vision.

MR FOWLER: We might have to get an artist to do another interpretation.

Mr Stankevicius: To do it, yes.

MR FOWLER: Instead of spending months looking for old plans. I commend you. We always say, “Use what is there; do not recreate what is good.” Maybe another way is that you could hire a local artist to do an interpretation of that site, in conjunction with the United Ngunnawal Elders Council, the elected body and other interested members in that arts space.

Mr Stankevicius: Yes. It is not something that we would just pick up and design if we found it. As David said, I think there are a whole range of conditions and experiences we need to think about in terms of Yarramundi Reach: placement, the connection with the water, the connection with the mountains, the view, the vista, whether the existing facility is the best facility going forward. Are we talking about putting something next to it or instead of it or what? It would be a broad consultation that we would need to take forward in terms of whether we kept it or whether we decided to go with another model, and even whether the bogong is still the most relevant physical symbol. We have obviously used it quite widely across a range of national institutions. I do not know. We have not had that conversation with the local community about whether it is the most identifiable and recognisable and locally embraced symbol or whether there is something else that might better influence the design going forward.

MR FOWLER: And something I encourage you to do is engage strongly with your community.


MR FOWLER: Increase your knowledge around that space.


MR FOWLER: Thank you. I have no further questions.

Ms Hartley: Can I share a little story with all of you about a dance troupe. We did a student welcome for our international students, and we had 200 or 250 international students in the room. It is an annual event. For the first time, this year we did a welcome to country and we also did a dance interpretation. It went for about 15 to 20 minutes for that welcome. All the student feedback when we surveyed them was not about the speech from the minister for education, the awards or the presentation of the student ambassadors; it was the dance troupe that stood out. So we can do that a lot better and utilise the cultural and arts side of things when we are hosting events investors and that sort of thing.

MR FOWLER: Arts is broad. People have visual arts, and they have their scene and


what they like. And they will have their performing arts. People pay hundreds of dollars to see Bangarra here, and I would like to see that happen for the local dance troupes here. There are some young vibrant dancers out there just waiting to be noticed by your directorate and to be able to get the relevant funding to get out there.

Ms Hartley: It is also an opportunity for us to support small businesses.

THE CHAIR: Can I just go back to a couple of things in terms of the Canberra Airport. We have had discussion around that being privately owned and run. Will the directorate—

Mr Stankevicius: Can I just say, though, that Stephen Byron and some others would absolutely be open to a discussion about that. They have made a significant investment in a lot of the public art that you see around the airport. Being willing to engage in a conversation which we could broker or that you could approach them directly on; they would absolutely engage in that conversation.

THE CHAIR: My question does say that. It says, “Will the directorate assist the elected body with the creation of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander welcome to Canberra by the traditional owners at the Canberra Airport”?


THE CHAIR: Particularly in light of international visitors coming in and the lack of any Indigenous flavour represented out there.

Mr Dawes: Before you lead into another question, to sum that up, I was going to say that I will facilitate a meeting with Stephen and the elected body to have that conversation. Perhaps we can get Terry in town as well. The Snow Foundation has done enormous things for the broad Canberra community; it is just a matter of having that dialogue. I am happy to facilitate such a meeting.

Mr Stankevicius: I am just thinking about Jenny’s biggest work that I have seen, the eel trap. I think it was two metres long; it must have involved an extraordinary effort. That would make a wonderful centrepiece in the airport as something that has the scale. You recognise when you go into it that the ceilings are so high, the space is so big. If you just have something small, no-one will notice it. You have a position where you have to have something that captures the moment and captures attention in order to make people go over to it and go, “Wow! What’s that?” There are many “Wow! What’s that?” things that we can use in that space but, as David said, we have to negotiate and work and see how we can bring that to life.

THE CHAIR: That sounds good. In terms of Indigenous businesses that are receiving successful tenders within government, has there been discussion in the yarning circles around that focus of being on tender panels to be able to vie for some of the work that has been offered by government?

Ms Hartley: There has. This is probably an opportunity for George Tomlins from procurement to come to the table; but something that we have instigated and that is working well is an Indigenous directory of Canberra businesses and businesses


supplying services to Canberra on the front page of our procurement and public works website. They are listed there. It has produced opportunities for some of our Canberra businesses. I had a meeting yesterday with Alliance FM. They have received some subcontract work out of that from a bigger contractor, to do some work. There are three or four that are getting benefit from that. I will let George speak in more detail.

Mr Tomlins: Essentially that is the story. We have a procurement website that puts all the contracts up. Really the only list of businesses up there is the list of Indigenous businesses that comes from Supply Nation. We are adjusting that to put other Indigenous businesses on. At the moment that is only from the ACT region, but we have also talked to Supply Nation about getting a list of businesses from the surrounding region and putting those on. We do not deal with the smaller contracts. Contracts under $200,000 for goods and services are dealt with by individual agencies, but where there is a relevant Indigenous business we encourage the agencies to seek a quotation from that business.

Mr Stankevicius: One of the fantastic stories from the time when I was with the centenary of Canberra was about when we started using the local Indigenous catering company, particularly with interstate visitors. The inclusion of things like wattle seed in ingredients and a whole series of Indigenous or traditional Indigenous ingredients in standard things that they had never experienced before was part of the fascination with some of those events, things like kangaroo meat pies, wattle seed and having a particular kind of plum in some of the desserts. That is not only positive support for Indigenous businesses but also an added experience for people that have not encountered that kind of culinary exercise before.

THE CHAIR: In terms of the businesses that are receiving these tenders, do you collect statistics on how many and the total amount et cetera?

Mr Tomlins: No, we do not, because of the fact that it is all with the agencies. We do not have those statistics at this stage. At the moment we are trying to put in an IT system that will enable us to pick up the information on the tenders that are let by the agencies. When we get that system in place, we will be able to get into that data and analyse those sorts of things, but that is a little way off at the moment.

Mr Dawes: It is work in progress that is important for a number of different reasons, but this is one of them: a holistic approach to the ACT government’s procurement and contracts.

THE CHAIR: And the detail in terms of how far down you are drilling in relation to the number of contracts et cetera?

Mr Tomlins: Yes, that is right. At the moment it is a problem that there are just so many people doing so many things and it is really hard to aggregate the data. When we get a better information system, we will be able to do that.

Another initiative that we are working on is a local industry participation policy. That is something that the government has announced. The government will be appointing an industry advocate. We have started working on that policy. The policy has to be finalised by the industry advocate, but the sorts of things that will be asked for in that


policy include information about local employment, local investment, how local companies are being informed and what knowledge transfer is occurring. And the last one—we have based this on what other jurisdictions are doing—is that we are adding in an apprenticeships and trainees area and we are looking at how we tweak that to ask for Indigenous apprenticeships, traineeships and employment. That is another work in progress. It is going a bit more slowly than we had hoped but, in the interim, we have got some of that into capital metro, the courts and the University of Canberra public hospital. So we are starting. And we are rolling that out with industries, so there will be more work in that space over the next year.

Mr Dawes: Diane, one of the other things George and I have been discussing—it covers not just Indigenous but the whole spectrum of constructions and goods and services—is running forums next year. Even in some of the other large projects that have been occurring here, it is about how we can encourage some of the local organisations to do joint ventures. We will be having some joint venture discussions with industry through the building construction organisations and looking at how we can encourage even some of the tier 1s to link and do a JV with a local company here. Again, I look at that much further. That is for the big end of town, and that local participation will be crucial for that, but how do we deal with the goods and services? We will be going out and doing that. I will ensure that we look at how we engage more proactively with the Indigenous community around goods and services and contracting.

THE CHAIR: No other questions?

MS CHIVERS: I have a couple of questions around the recent sports grants program in particular where people could access up to $200 in relation to fees, to increase Indigenous participation in sporting activities. How many people to date have accessed that program?

Mr Dawes: Rebecca, I might pass over to you, because you will have a handle on those statistics.

Ms Kelley: Through the small grants program, we have received 10 applications to date. They are currently being assessed, and one of them has been approved. The nature of our system means that we can also tell applications that are commenced, so we note that there are a further 15 that have commenced. So in total 25 have either been submitted or commenced the process for the $200 grants.

MS CHIVERS: I have another question around that. In the future would you consider allowing non-incorporated organisations to receive that funding? Under the current grant guidelines, that money can only be paid directly to incorporated organisations. We have several non-incorporated Indigenous sporting clubs here that particularly cater for children who might not otherwise be able to access playing sport and cannot access that funding because they are not incorporated.

Ms Kelley: Yes, sure. The structure of our initial grants program this year—we are working with the commonwealth and really putting it out as a new opportunity—is that we have made it align with our current sport and recreation grants program that does have the requirement to be an incorporated body. But certainly we are more than


happy to take that sort of feedback and look at what is going to best suit the community going forward. We can certainly explore that further in future rounds.

MS CHIVERS: I have one more question, which is probably more for Adam. In relation to the artsACT policy and the strategic plan, has the consultation with the community commenced yet?

Mr Stankevicius: That is the kind of process that I was talking about before. We have talked to Rod; we have talked to the elders council; we have talked to a range of artists. We attended the market day last week and we had a survey there that we got people to fill in. I have not got a report back on how many people filled in that survey yet. We have put our toe in the water, but we are not even halfway there in terms of the consultation we need to do in terms of fleshing that out.

As I said, we are going to try and work with OATSIA next year to do a consultation before one of their quarterly market days, in that space when we have artists all in the one place. You are right that they might be more visual artists than they are performance artists, so obviously we have to get a better understanding of who they are and what areas they might be working in. But, as I said, we are only a fifth of the way into the consultation process so far; there is certainly a lot more work for us to do.

THE CHAIR: That sees us at the end of our time. There is some significant work happening and it is an exciting space to be in. David, we look forward to working with you and your colleagues over the next 12 months to continue to progress some of these significant initiatives for the elected body, for the traditional custodians and for the wider community, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Thank you for coming today.

Mr Dawes: Thank you; I look forward to working with the elected body.

Sitting suspended from 12.15 to 1 pm.


Appearances:

Community Services DirectorateChapman, Ms Sue, Director-GeneralWyles, Mr Paul, Director, Early Intervention and Prevention ServicesCollis, Dr Mark, Executive Director, Office for Children, Youth and Family

SupportMatthews, Mr David, Executive Director, Housing and Community Services

ACTHubbard, Mr Ian, Senior Director, Finance and Budget Forester, Ms Robyn, Director, Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

AffairsSheehan, Ms Maureen, Executive Director, Service Strategy and Community

Building

MS CHIVERS: Welcome, everyone. I am the recently elected deputy chairperson, and I have lead responsibility for the Community Services Directorate. I will start by reading a general statement. As you may be aware, the elected body members have been working very hard over the past 12 months with the ACT government, ministers and directorates to progress a range of issues, including improving programs and service delivery on behalf of and for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here in the ACT.

Over the next two days elected body members will be meeting with all directorates and seeking responses to questions which our community requires answers to. The elected body was elected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community here in the ACT to make a difference, and that is exactly what we expect of ourselves.

You will have received a copy of the generic questions. Throughout the next two days each member will take the lead and ask questions relevant to each directorate. The elected body values your cooperation in this process to pursue clarity and evidence to confirm performance in relation to the achievement of outcomes. Please focus your responses on addressing programs, services and outcomes for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT.

Owing to the time frames we may have questions we do not have time to ask. We will send these through to the directorate after the hearings. Also please note that any questions on notice will require a response within five working days of the hearings, and should be submitted to the secretariat mailbox. I will ask members to introduce themselves and their portfolio responsibilities.

MR FOWLER: My portfolio responsibility is the Education and Training Directorate.

MR ALLAN: I am responsible for TAMS.

THE CHAIR: My portfolio responsibility is CMTEDD.

MR McCULLOCH: I am responsible for Environment and Planning.

ATSIEB—09-12-15 39 Community Services Directorate

MR WALKER: My area is Health.

MS CHIVERS: Since the 2014 hearings process we have been able to negotiate an agreement and a justice partnership, which are accompanied by community priorities established in consultation with our peoples, and based on their needs. This is significant for some of the lines of questioning in today’s hearings. Sue, would you like to make an opening statement?

Ms Chapman: No, I am happy to go straight to questions.

MS CHIVERS: The first few questions that I have are in relation to the directorate’s response to the generic questions. The first one is: can you please provide specific examples of how the growing healthy families program supports inclusion and access to culturally informed services by the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community?

Ms Chapman: I might start, and I would ask Mr Wyles to come to the table. In terms of the growing healthy families program, the aim is to ensure that we connect with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the community who need services. The aim is to do exactly that: to grow healthy, strong families. We know that strong families are the centrepiece of the agreement, and that will be the focus.

The program grew out of some work that started in the Belconnen child and family centre, and it is now being rolled out. It is already operating in Gungahlin and it will come to Tuggeranong as well. There are a range of subparts of that program which directly address issues that have been raised by the community, particularly around men’s issues and having strong, healthy fathers and members of their community. There are things to do with raising young children, such as the playgroup and those kinds of things. I will hand over to Mr Wyles on the specific matters.

Mr Wyles: We are pleased that the ACT government has funded growing healthy families. This is a program that ran across the West Belconnen and Gungahlin child and family services, with funding from various commonwealth agencies over probably the past five years.

It works at three levels. It works at an individual level, a group level, including a family level, and a community level. The idea is that it responds to local area need and families’ needs. Some of the things we have done in the past are community events. One good example is that earlier this year they ran a community event for fathers at the West Belconnen Child and Family Centre. They had a great turn-up of about 70 people with kids. That was really about connecting. There was some really good feedback that it was something they would like to run again.

We have established a reference group that met on Friday. Minister Berry met the reference group and the staff group. In terms of staffing, we have a team leader, three community development workers—one at each of the child and family centres—and two early years engagement officers, who work between the child and family centres and the Koori preschools and schools.

One of those early years engagement officers is being funded through Indigenous


advancement strategy money, through Prime Minister and Cabinet. We see this as a really important area to connect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families into the education system and support them in those important transitioning years.

Dr Collis: Can I add something. I know you are talking about outcomes and outputs. There is some pretty interesting data that is available and it might be worthwhile putting it on the table. In the 2014-15 year, for example, 282 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people participated in growing healthy families, out of a total of 340. Being family oriented, sometimes people identified as Aboriginal and sometimes they did not. That included, as a breakdown, 35 men and 90 women.

With respect to youth between the age of 13 and 17, there were 31 young people involved in growing healthy families over that time. There were 96 children in the middle years, five to 12, and 88 in the birth to four-year-old level. That gives you a breakdown of the size of the program. It is quite an impactful program.

Mr Wyles: One of the key aims of the program is to connect these families with mainstream services wherever possible. For that reason the Education and Training Directorate and ACT Health are on the reference group. As is the case in most of the child and family centres, we are really keen to, wherever we can, connect families to mainstream services, whether it is back into the education system, to child care or to parts of the health system, particularly maternal and child health. That is critical.

MS CHIVERS: My next question, in relation to the generic questions, is: are the three identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander positions under the 2015 housing manager traineeship program currently occupied?

Mr Matthews: The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that, as part of our commitment to introduce more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff to Housing, we decided to look at how we could expand our existing housing traineeship program to include more positions. We advertised both designated positions and general housing manager positions in our recent recruitment round.

Originally, we were not necessarily sure how many trainees we would take on. We looked at the quality of the field and we were very pleased with the number of applicants that we got. The three individuals that were selected as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing managers were very impressive applicants. So we decided to take all three on. They will go through together, as part of a cohort of four people in our traineeship program this year. We will continue to assess that on a case-by-case basis. If it is successful this year, we would certainly look at continuing and looking at how we might expand it.

The way that the traineeship program works is that they get a year of support and on-the-job training. On successful completion of that program, they get appointed to permanent ASO5 housing manager positions in Housing ACT. So it is a good way of getting staff into the organisation and providing them with that support.

THE CHAIR: Can I ask an add-on question to that? This program has been around since 2009. Can you tell me where they are now? That might be a good story to hear.


Mr Matthews: Across our whole traineeship program we have a number of graduates who are still with Housing ACT, including some previous Indigenous people that completed the program. We have been fortunate enough to retain some of those staff members. I was talking to one of the officers yesterday about how he is enjoying his time working at Housing. He is very happy in his role, working for our organisation.

THE CHAIR: You do not have specific numbers, though?

Mr Matthews: No, I do not.

THE CHAIR: Have they been promoted or are they still at that level? It is the retention and development—

Mr Matthews: The person I was speaking to yesterday is a housing manager. Upon completion of the program they were at ASO5, and that is still the role that they are occupying. If the committee wanted me to, I could look back and see what numbers we have.

THE CHAIR: Yes, that would be good.

MR FOWLER: It started in 2009, and someone who started in 2009 and successfully completed it is now a housing manager at the APS5 level. That was six years ago. Have they progressed up to a 6, SOGC et cetera? We want to see if there is growth in being able to retain beyond 3.5 years.

Mr Matthews: We will look at what data we have. I am happy to provide that.

Mr FOWLER: Take it on notice.

MS CHIVERS: The response to question 8 of the generic questions outlines resources that are already offered to the elected body. What additional resources could your directorate offer to the elected body to assist it in carrying out its functions and operations?

Ms Chapman: I will start with a generic answer, and Mr Hubbard, who is the head of our corporate and finance area, might be able to add something to it. In directorates in the ACT government, when issues arise, if a particular project comes up or a particular need is identified, and we need to find additional resources for that project for that period of time, we try to find them within our current resources, because we cannot keep going back to government and asking for some more money. If there is something that we believe we need to focus on for a period of time because there is a particular question that needs to be answered or there is a particular report that needs to be prepared or some research or whatever, we put that into our range of responsibilities that we have and outcomes that the government is asking us for and say, “This is a priority,”—or not, because sometimes there are higher priorities because of other things the government has asked us to do. We then look at how we can support that, whether we can support it now or whether we can say, “We can’t support it now but in six months we’ll be over that hump and we can deal with it in that period of time.”


The answer to the question is not necessarily that there are always additional resources we can find; it is how we use the resources we currently have in a way that provides the outcomes that we are trying to achieve based on what the priorities are that we are asked to deliver. So it is a movable feast, I guess. That is probably the best way to answer the question, depending on the needs as they arise. Is there anything else you wanted to say, Ian?

Mr Hubbard: It is an important question for us, given the resource constraints that we have across governments. One of the big things that we have achieved this year is to start implementing the agreement. Part of implementing the agreement was getting a whole-of-government working group together. The chair usually attends those meetings. What we are trying to do is to leverage off all the work that is being done across the whole of government.

To pick up Sue’s point, rather than just see the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs as a little policy group within CSD, we have tried to broaden out the networks within government. This is just looking at government; I might ask Robyn to have a chat about what we have done pushing out into the community. It is really about saying, “Let’s send some representatives from each of the directorates. They can tell us what sort of work they’re doing. How can they then use the work that they’re doing to leverage off other directorates and make their work effort a lot more effective?” I think that will deliver some really important extra effort going into all of the big issues that are confronting the community.

If people just go out there in isolation and ask for a budget bid to do this little bit, it is not as effective as when we all get together and try and do something together. Di, you would have seen that this year because you have been to a few of those meetings. There is some really great feeling from across the directorates about meeting each other, listening to what each other is doing and then working with each other to deliver a much bigger thing overall. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

This year the budget for OATSIA, for instance, was $2.45 million. I know Robyn would say that while the elected body has a dedicated resource specifically for them, one of the things we have really tried to do this year is so that, when there are big things happening, the whole team comes together and helps out. Robyn can also ask other people around the directorate to weigh in as required. We do not just keep a little, isolated bulge as the elected body; we try and use all the skills that CSD can bring to bear.

MS CHIVERS: From our perspective, you have covered more about what the directorates are doing in relation to services, but the question was specifically around what you can do to help the elected body to fulfil its functions.

Ms Forester: I am happy to answer your question, Jo. As you are aware from what we have put in there, through the office we provide the secretariat support. We also provide an additional 0.5 policy officer to assist the elected body with any of the work that is happening there. OATSIA from time to time has always tried to assist the elected body where required. Where there has been a need for additional support to assist with the development of a response or a paper, OATSIA staff, particularly through our strategic policy team, have always been able to provide that support and


assistance.

In the past 12 months there has been only one occasion when we have not been able to support a request, and that was really because of timing: a 5 pm on a Friday request for a 9 am Monday response. But at any time when there has been a request the policy team are always mobilised to assist where we can from the CSD perspective.

Ms Chapman: Going to Ian’s point, OATSIA has a responsibility and does provide that support as outlined—a dedicated officer and other help. But across CSD we have a policy unit that looks after CSD as a whole. We can get in-kind support—not as part of the budget that Ian has talked about. If, for example, some really large piece of work needs to be done that needs some policy input, we have some policy people who can support the office’s policy team to be able to deliver what needs to be delivered. What I want to keep stressing is that there are dedicated resources for the elected body within the office. The office exists also to provide support, but CSD and other directorates can be called upon if we need to put effort in a particular way for a particular thing. The elected body elections are probably an example of that. The office takes responsibility for making sure the elections happen, that there are ballot boxes wherever they need to be and that people get advised. That is about mobilising a group of people whose job is not normally to do elections, but at that point in time that is what we ask them to do.

THE CHAIR: Can I just raise a question about that? You spoke about the additional half—0.5—person. I do not see that as additional because certainly in our earlier terms we had five members dedicated, apparently, to the elected body. We were under multicultural affairs and then we have moved into Community Services Directorate. With OATSIA being formed, we have lost. So I would not say it is an additional person; it is about trying to get back what was always communicated from ACT government that was available to the elected body.

Ms Chapman: I will ask Maureen—she was around at the time; I was not—if she could perhaps talk about that transition.

Ms Sheehan: Thanks, Di. When the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was part of the multicultural area, there were five FTE for the whole function at that time. That included the policy function. The unit that Robyn now heads has 14 FTE. So in fact we have got more public service FTE devoted to the whole function. You are quite right that the unit that supported the elected body at that time had three people in it, so it was not five people just to support the elected body. What I would say is that we have got more staff directed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs specifically and to support the elected body.

THE CHAIR: I thank you, Sue, for your comments around if OATSIA are unable to provide that support. Robyn spoke about a time when that was not able to be happening but that we have wider CSD to call upon should we require some assistance. That is important for me as a member, and I certainly was not aware of it before that.

The other thing was the elected body’s discretionary funds as $40,000. Is there opportunity to increase that and, if so, how might that happen? We often talk as the


elected body about resources, capacity, opportunities—and development opportunities, I guess, in particular for members. How can we enable that to happen?

Mr Hubbard: Thanks for that question, Di. When we set up the budgets like this, what we do is have FTE. It is a bit of an artifice, the way we present these sorts of things, because there is a lot more fluidity across the lines than how we put it in there. A lot of this budgeting is done so that it all adds up in the end.

But when you look at some of these budgets—and I can say that $40,000 admin that we have got nominally as OATSIA will definitely well and truly go beyond that this year, for instance, because of all the work we have done in a whole lot of areas this year. I must admit that OATSIA come to me quite often and say, “No, we cannot do that because we have not got the money,” and I say that we will find the money.

We had a big consultancy arrangement this year, we had big print jobs that were required to put out the agreement—work around that—so we locate additional funding to actually get the job done. So, when I do the budget overall for CSD, we plug in certain amounts of money. That is our budget. Then we have our actual by the end of the year, what we are actually going to spend, and I can tell you now that Robyn’s group on the admin side are going to go beyond that $40,000 this year.

Other areas would have done a lot more the year before, so we basically do flexibility across the line. Say the Office of Ageing had a big policy, big promotion, big events, funds would have been attracted to that. This year we have had the agreement for you guys, plus the review of the act et cetera, so that will attract a bit more funding to get those jobs done.

So, while that $40,000 is there and is in the budget, that is well below what we would normally publish. If you look at our budget papers, you do not get that sort of detail. So we do have a bit of flexibility right across that output, which is community participation. I can assure you that that 40 is not a fixed amount. It needs to be flexible, depending on which part of that group is doing what at a certain amount in each year. I do not like telling the executives this, but we do have quite a bit of flexibility across those funds, depending on what it is required for.

MS CHIVERS: Given that, for example, the review of the act was a government commissioned review, I do not quite see how that would fit into that $40,000 that Di is talking about.

Mr Hubbard: No, it does not. We would—

MS CHIVERS: So I am not quite sure why you would mention—

Mr Hubbard: We would have drawn on that. If we were reporting it from a budget point of view about which area, people from outside would say that the review of the act has got to do with that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space so we expect to record that expense in that area, because it fits. Whether the money actually comes out of that $40,000 or not is really more accounting than actual. If you read our annual report chapters, in the words, that review would be in that part of the department. Just


focusing on the dollars and where they are spent does not give you an accurate picture of the actual budget that is available for an effort. I would say the review is way more than the 40, so—

MS CHIVERS: Did anyone have any follow-up questions? No? The next couple of questions are around the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Culture Centre. What progress has been made to date by the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on the development of a cultural strategy with the elected body and the community?

Ms Forester: Thanks, Jo, for that question. The development of a cultural strategy is one component of the whole of government agreement. The implementation group at the moment has identified the cultural strategy and better use of the cultural centre for a whole range of different topics, whether that be through culture and heritage, community groups being able to use it or whatever. That work is being developed at the moment. The office in particular has been really keen to ensure that the community get an opportunity to use the cultural centre to the best ability that we can, and we try to do that now. So the cultural strategy will include a whole range of different activities. Most recently, the markets have been a key cornerstone of the cultural strategy, and that is what we will be building on to get something broader happening through that development out there at the cultural centre.

MS CHIVERS: The next question is about the cultural centre. The Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs met with representatives from Tourism ACT on 8 November 2013 for an initial discussion about potential tourism opportunities for the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Culture Centre. When did the follow-up meetings occur, and what were the outcomes of those meetings?

Ms Forester: I will have to take that question on notice, because I do not have that detail in front of me to answer those specific comments.

MS CHIVERS: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Can I just ask a couple of questions about the cultural centre?

MS CHIVERS: Yes, absolutely.

THE CHAIR: Is it part of the cultural strategy that the cultural centre will eventually be community controlled?

Ms Forester: That would be the ideal for where we would like to see that happen. The practical realities of that at the moment are probably a little bit broader, further off, and this is the work that we need to develop within the strategy. As you know, part of the implementation of the whole of government agreement will be a conversation that will be had in conjunction with both government and the elected body involved in that process.

MS CHIVERS: Thank you. The next question I have is in relation to the Office for Ageing. What is the status of the Canberra age-friendly city guiding principles 2015-2018 document and the accompanying annual action plan? How did the Office


for Ageing engage with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in its development?

Ms Chapman: I might start with this, Jo, just in the broader sense. We have had the development of the active ageing framework, which I think you have just alluded to, which followed a long consultation process—the Older Persons Assembly, aged roundtable; a range of things—involving a number of community representatives from the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The Older Persons Assembly, for example, had two people from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander—

MS CHIVERS: They did not attend. I actually went from the elected body, so I know that I was the only—

Ms Chapman: Okay. I stand corrected, but my notes say that. One of the aims of the development of the ageing persons framework was to have a range of lenses. So there is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lens, there is an older persons lens, there is a planning lens, there is what is a look and feel of the city lens, there is a transport lens—to look at it from the perspective of an older person in Canberra. So it is a broad-based framework looking through all those lenses at the impact of the planning decisions or the transport decisions on older people, and one of the lenses is: how does this work for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

There will be more consultations. I know Minister Gentlemen, as the current Minister for Ageing, is really keen to listen to older people—he does see them a lot—and I am sure that he would always be interested in hearing the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to ageing in place, things that work for older people in the community.

MS CHIVERS: Will the office commit to looking at how that consultation will be done with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander—

Ms Chapman: Absolutely. One of the things I would say is that when we have consultations on any topic we always try to personally invite people. There is often the broad invitation to peak bodies or groups that represent other groups, but we also do try to talk to individuals and encourage them to participate. Consultation is done in a range of ways, as you know, Jo. It can be done face to face. It can be done through forums. It can be done online. It can be done through people answering a survey. So, when we talk about consultation, the main thing for me is that we use every medium that we can to get points of view from all parts of the community that we want to consult with about whatever.

The aim is not just to simply say we will have a roundtable and that is the whole consultation; the aim is to say how best to reach the people that we are really trying to hear from at all levels. I might say that we often invite people, people accept and then they often do not turn up. There is not a lot we can do when other things get in the way of people attending. It is probably not from lack of effort; it is just that people have incredibly busy lives and sometimes other things take priority as well.

MS CHIVERS: My next couple of questions are about the older persons housing


project. Given that there has been a further significant delay of around eight weeks in progressing the construction phase, how is Housing ACT specifically going to mitigate further delays in this important project to ensure that the project’s revised completion date of September-October 2016 is met?

Mr Matthews: Thank you, Jo, for that question. We were pleased to be able to meet with the elected body representatives recently and give an update on where that was up to and also the processes that we are putting in place to closely monitor the delivery of that project. Where we are up to as of today is that we actually have an approved development application in place. The planning authority has given us the green light to proceed, but there is an appeal period that is allowed after that decision is granted in which people can lodge objections and then decide to take that to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have their objections ruled on by the ACAT.

Where we are up to as of today is that that period of appeal lapses next week. We are expecting to have a final decision on that by 17 December, which would mean that at that point, if there were no further objections lodged, we would have the approved development application and we would be able to proceed with the construction program.

In order to manage or mitigate any further loss of time, we have commenced our tender process for that particular project. The way that works is that we have a panel of builders who are pre-qualified and we use that panel of builders to seek bids for particular construction projects. We have commenced that process with three of the panel members. We have not yet finalised that, and I guess this is the timing issue for us about making sure that we can get a final answer from the planning authority before we execute a contract with a builder. But we are going to be ready to go; we have done the pre-work.

Alongside the early work on tendering, we have also progressed the finalisation of the design. In a normal building project we would enter into a contract with a builder and they would complete the design and then the construction would commence. We have been doing some parallel work on the finalisation of the design, engaging with authorities like TAMS around things like trees. We are confident that we are going to be ready to go once we get the final go ahead from the planning authority.

In the case that we have no objections lodged and that we have got our development application in, then we would be able to let that contract in early January and the site would be established in late January-early February, and it would be able to meet the time frame that you have talked about in terms of September-October.

When we have gone to our builders we have asked for options to accelerate the works. As part of this particular tender we have said, “If you’d like to give us options about how you can do it quicker”–that would, of course, include paying people overtime or working on weekends in order to make sure that we can accelerate the completion of the project—we have given them that option as well and we will assess that on a value-for-money basis.

The last thing that we have included in this tender which is different is we have asked


for builders to identify whether there are employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under this particular contract. That would become one of the considerations that we assess against when we make decisions.

All that being said, obviously we regret the delays in the project to date, which have been through numerous different causes. We are very excited about the project. We have really appreciated the cooperative relationship with the elected body, and we are looking forward to getting out the shovels, establishing the site and getting on with this important initiative.

MS CHIVERS: The next question that I have is: when will Housing ACT start the process of seeking a budget allocation for future older persons housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT?

Mr Matthews: I guess the budget process itself is, of course, ongoing. It happens obviously on an annual basis, and that provides the community with the opportunity to make submissions to government about priorities and then government to weigh up the difficult task of forming a budget in a fairly constrained fiscal environment.

The current government has made an election commitment which we have met through this project that we have been talking about, which was for five designated older persons accommodation units. That is the current mandate that we have got from the current government. But I would also want to make sure that the body was very clear that it is not the only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing that is provided. Across our whole portfolio we have over 850 tenancies which are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenancies.

We obviously have some designated programs, but we want to make sure that across our whole portfolio there is housing provided for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and that includes older persons housing. So obviously as a general rule we have got an ageing tenant population and as tenants age they are going to need different forms of accommodation, including accessible and adaptable accommodation. We are trying to build as much of our housing so that it can be adapted and people can age in place.

The additional consideration we have given for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is to lower the age of eligibility for older persons accommodation. The general rule is that people qualify for that at the age of 65, but that is 50 years of age for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in recognition of the closing the gap issue about life expectancy and also some of the chronic health conditions that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders face as they age. That is the range of measures that we have got in place to provide a range of accommodation options.

MS CHIVERS: Correct me if I am wrong, members that were here on previous terms, but my understanding is that the initial conversation around the project was around 10 two-bedroom units. From our perspective, we are certainly still pursuing the other five.

Ms Chapman: I understand that. David made mention of the fact that the government makes a decision at the end of the day about what money is available to do what with.


This was the decision: we got appropriated for five. It certainly does not preclude community members, the elected body, putting up suggestions for future budgets that additional funding be found. But, at the end of the day, the government makes the decision based on the funds that they have available for all of the things that they need to provide in the ACT. We need to respond to that as a directorate.

Mr Matthews: If it might benefit the committee, the latest data I have got is as of 26 November 2015, and there are 189 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants aged 50 and above in ACT housing. That is the total aged population of public housing for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The project that we are working on is an important contribution to that but is only a small part of that overall contribution.

THE CHAIR: Can I ask a question? In the fourth hearing’s report the elected body developed the wording around commitment to establish the housing, which certainly is this project we are talking about. But it has also got respite accommodation for at least five individuals with relatively high support needs. Has Housing ACT had an opportunity to consider that from the fourth report and if not, do you have a view on looking at what that means and if it is possible to be achieved.

MR FOWLER: And to add to that question—sorry, chair—is also with the high proportion of numbers entering prison in the AMC and then when on post-release what is Housing doing to address those social needs as well?

Mr Matthews: On the question of respite firstly, there was another government commitment on that issue and we provided advice to government about how they might address it. The thing that has happened, I guess, during the term of this Assembly is the establishment of the national disability insurance scheme. With a respite service there are two components: there is the built form, which is an appropriate dwelling or appropriate facility, and then there are the support dollars that are required to offer support to people who are in that facility, whether on a short or a longer term basis.

So under the NDIS––which Ms Sheehan would be able to talk in more detail about than I––we have to make sure that any facility established has an appropriate amount of funding available for it as well. That has been one of the things that have changed over this term of the Assembly. It represents an exciting opportunity for people with a disability in the ACT, but it certainly has changed the funding mix that is required to establish something like a respite centre.

On the question of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people exiting prison or other types of facilities, there are a few specific initiatives that we have in place, including the boarding house network, which is run by Inanna. That is six homes specifically providing temporary accommodation for a range of purposes, including people who have come to the ACT to visit relatives in hospital, for example, but it also supports people stepping down from facilities, including the prison.

We have got a number of other exit-from-custody programs which are run by groups such as the Canberra Men’s Centre as well. That can often involve somebody coming into a public housing property with a support arrangement and then being able to


remain in that property once they are established.

We very much recognise and support the government’s approach to through care more generally and obviously housing is a key component of any through-care model. We work very closely with the through-care unit to ensure that our processes line up with their processes as much as possible.

THE CHAIR: You have spoken about Inanna et cetera, but are you aware of how many require accommodation? Do you understand what the need is in terms of numbers and is what is being provided adequate to accommodate that need, for want of better words? As I understand it, some of those people who are coming out of AMC do not have accommodation to go to therefore they are not released, which then impacts on people being incarcerated for longer periods of time.

Mr Matthews: That is a very important issue—to allow people to get out of custody as soon as they are able to. Our gateway services team, which is the area in housing that manages all housing applications, does work very closely with the AMC and also Corrections ACT is part of their exiting arrangements. I do not know as of today how many prisoners are awaiting accommodation, but what we have tried to do on a year-on-year basis is increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenancies in Housing ACT. We have done that over successive years, including 83 additional tenancies last year. That is about making sure that that housing is available when people need it.

THE CHAIR: I hear what you are saying, but it is not answering the question. The need is there, it is identified. Are you aware of what the need is in terms of numbers, and what is the approach to enable more accommodation to be made available?

Ms Chapman: I want to say in a broader sense, in terms of us knowing on a daily basis how many people are coming out of prison, we do not know that. JACS would know that and certainly their through-care team and the people who plan for release of people from the AMC would know that. They know where to go to provide that advice and that is what they go to our housing gateway for.

I think one of the things that we should also say, though, is that housing people who are coming out of prison is not just a public housing response. What we aim to do—I know that the Canberra Men’s Centre, for example, and others such as the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and the other providers of services—look for ways of supporting people in stable housing, but it does not necessarily mean it is public housing. It is working with some of the non-government groups to see if they can help with that. It might be that there is a way of getting people into low-cost rentals. If the supports are there to maintain them in those low-cost rentals, that is also something that gets looked at by the people who are planning their release.

I want to put on the record that public housing is public housing, but housing and getting stability in people’s housing arrangements is more than just looking for a public housing property.

MR WALKER: Sue, thanks for that. Being an employee at Housing and a liaison contact for community, unfortunately some workers and support workers do not know


those other avenues of funding and public housing is the only avenue they see available. From my point of view, I get calls weekly from people who are in custody and who are being released in three months, six months, 12 months. Housing does not work with those people until they are out of jail, so that makes the issue really important around where do those people go. I take your point about liaison or support people making sure that other avenues beside public housing are explored. But unfortunately that is not the case.

For the people that I have been dealing with over the past 10 years—people who are coming in and out of custody—they are looking for a safe place so that when they come out they can start visitation with their children, things like that. We do not do that until they are out of custody.

There is a flaw in that process. We need to support those in the community who are rehabilitating and that when they come out in 12 months to two years’ time they want to get away from their old lifestyle. But in the first three or four weeks when they come out, they are faced with being in that situation straight away. Our system is not assisting them to break free of that lifestyle.

I would like Housing and CSD to maybe consider a systematic sort of approach to looking at people who are in custody short term or within 12 months and having liaison officers working with them and exploring other avenues—Housing being one of them—for their accommodation post-AMC. There are lots of things going on in their lives prior to going in; they do not want to go back to that.

Ms Chapman: Can I say I absolutely agree with you, Maurice, in terms of making sure the system as a whole works for those people. It is certainly something that we can take up. Our whole human service blueprint approach is to join up services to provide support to people who need help at whatever point in their lives they need help.

I am happy to take that on board because I think that that may well be something we could do some more work on with our colleagues in other parts of the human service system. Because it is not just a CSD/Housing issue; it is a much broader issue than that.

Mr Matthews: As to Di’s question, we are aware, I think, that there are pretty good relationships between gateway and the through-care team. If we need to do more to improve those we are always open to that. I am aware of situations where we have gone and done assessments and sign-ups, or take an applications for people who are in custody. Again I am not trying to diminish Maurice’s experience—I very much trust his judgment—but we do have the ability to go into the AMC, for example, and talk to people while they are still in custody and to take housing applications.

The other thing that still happens as well is where people are in custody or in a drug and alcohol facility for a short period of time we actually do hold their properties for a shorter period of time while people are incarcerated. If somebody is going in for a relatively shorter period of time, then there are numerous instances where we will lower people’s rents and hold on to that property and let them return to that property if they are leaving in a relatively short period of time. We try to be as flexible as we


possibly can be and to have as much continuity for people when they do leave custody. But it is a challenge.

For the record, I would have to say there is obviously a waiting list for public housing; there are some 2,100 people waiting for housing. We cannot meet total demand; that is a challenge that we have to face. We have to prioritise relative demand—

THE CHAIR: I totally understand what you are saying, David. I have heard lots of these conversations before. But, at the end of the day, if it is about keeping our Aboriginal men and women out of the justice system, then this has to happen. Based on our conversations and questions, clearly some more work needs to be done around working together to achieve some of those outcomes for our mob so they are out of jail at the end of the day.

Sue, those people that you refer to as “those people”, they are our people. They are our mob. So, please, do not ever use that term again.

Ms Chapman: Sorry.

MR FOWLER: And answer the question.

THE CHAIR: The last thing I would like to say is that certainly some more work needs to be done. We are all working together around this. I do not feel that that is adequate enough, certainly from an elected body perspective. I am not aware of JACS’s conversations with Housing; I would welcome an understanding of how that works. Some of the things you are saying are not happening. How are we capturing what is not happening to assist with that happening? I do not want the statement to be, “We are doing this; we are doing that.” That is great. There are things where it is not happening still. That is what I am interested in addressing.

Ms Sheehan: I am a CSD member of the justice reform advisory group, and we were discussing these housing issues at our meeting only last week, most particularly because of the abolition of periodic detention, looking at the new sentencing options, the legislation that has just been introduced into the Assembly, which is for the intensive corrections order which will be served in the community—what the housing implications of that are, what the bail implications of that are. In the spirit of “Let’s work on it together,” I will go back to my colleagues from JACS on that advisory group and feed in the issues that you are raising. I am sure that you will be raising them with JACS at the hearing as well.

There is certainly a lot of experience that we have and that David and the housing and community services crew have at linking into community housing, as David was saying, even into affordable private accommodation, including access to rental bonds and looking at feedback from the Real Estate Institute about the sorts of guarantees that landlords are looking for while still being prepared to rent to people who would otherwise be public housing tenants. We can take all of that on board, go back into that justice reform advisory group and work through it there.

Mr FOWLER: Can I just add one thing. I want to know about transitional housing for our men and women leaving custody and if that has been brought onto the radar as


well. It is either pre or post that could be utilised. It has been cried out for for many years here in the ACT; our elders are calling for it, and it is something that we gravely need.

When individuals are released from custody, it could be just a temporary measure until other suitable and appropriate housing is made available or help is given to facilitate that transition back to their community. Some of our individuals in the AMC are not necessarily permanent residents of the ACT. We do take that on board. But there are some ways, as the chairperson has raised, that we really need to be looking at, because the smaller the way in which we can handle these issues at these ends for these individuals, the less recidivism we are going to have down the track. Transitional housing can be good around our domestic violence. I know there is a lot of money being poured into that at the moment, and it could be something to leverage off that as well. Maureen, I encourage you to talk to your JACS colleagues.

MR WALKER: Two things, chair.

MS CHIVERS: Okay.

MR WALKER: We were saying before, David, that detainees may have applications in, but their applications are not processed until they come out of custody, if that makes any sense.

Ms Chapman: Yes.

MR WALKER: On the question of accommodation and domestic violence, I guess it is about men’s shelters. Is there any conversation amongst those men’s services around looking at refuges and/or places to go for men—emergency places. Housing brought in a program about the stay at home policy a few years ago where women and children were leaving the property and the perpetrator was in a three to four-bedroom house while the family was looking for a refuge. When that process turned around, men were put down on the streets and things like that; we did not have a backup plan for men. It would be interesting to find out if that is a part of talks with the responsibility of JACS and/or CSD.

Mr Matthews: I guess in the whole area of domestic and family violence I would expect that to be a really important matter for this committee, as it is for the community in general at the moment. One of the key discussion points is about how you support perpetrators to stop the cycle of violence and how you guarantee safety for women and children. There is a whole range of different measures that are required to do that.

In terms of men and their need for accommodation whilst they are not living with their family due to violence, it is one of the key roles of our homelessness services to provide that short-term accommodation. The last time I looked at the data, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were about 13 per cent of the population of users of homelessness services which, of course, is an overrepresentation of the population. I guess the only positive area of that is that it shows that the services are then proactive about providing access to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including men. I know that organisations like Samaritan House, which is a men’s accommodation


service, often provide time-out arrangements for men in such situations. There are other options as well—Havelock House and Ainslie Village, for example—where people can stay on a shorter term basis while they either get appropriate support or renegotiate arrangements with their families.

There is an existing range of measures in place. I think the whole focus on domestic and family violence has said, “Are we doing enough?” That is the conversation that we are going through as a community at the moment and that we need to continue to have.

Ms Chapman: I would agree. I normally sit on the domestic violence reference group that is chaired by the coordinator-general from JACS. One of the things that have become a focus is the issue of perpetrators. Historically it is about the women and the children, and services to support them in emergencies and so on. But everything from the national government’s research down, and certainly what we are looking at in terms of our gap analysis and those kinds of things in the DV space, indicates that we need to do something more in the perpetrator space. I suspect that as we roll out the outcomes of the gap analysis, we will see more discussion about that very issue. If one of the issues is housing or short-term accommodation, that will become a part of the response to that gap analysis.

Ms Sheehan: I was going to add that one thing that the men’s homelessness services in Canberra have taken up themselves is recognition of the fact that quite a number of men that come into homelessness services are there because of their perpetration of domestic violence and the need for those services to work with those men from the start on issues around domestic violence. As David said, it is the short-term housing possibility, but also starting to work on the issues around domestic violence as soon as possible.

MR FOWLER: Around the issue around domestic violence, we have to also consider that not all perpetrators are men.

Ms Chapman: The vast majority of them are men, Ross.

MR FOWLER: Yes; I know they are. I know they are.

Ms Chapman: It is true that there is a small proportion that is not.

MR FOWLER: We are talking about the generic heterosexual make-up here, too. We are not talking about same-sex relationships at all. I just want—

Ms Chapman: We are talking about domestic violence and family violence in all of its forms, but the reality is—as the research says, and John Hinchey always quotes this research—that the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic and family violence are males, whether they are in a same-sex relationship or not.

MS CHIVERS: We might move on. We have a few more questions in relation to housing but, given the time and the number of other questions in other areas that we have, we will either come back to those at the end or provide them to the directorate after the hearings, for responses.


The next question I am going to ask is in relation to UNEC. What progress has been made regarding recommendation 17 of the elected body’s third report to government relating to the transfer of administrative responsibility for the operation of UNEC to what is now the Environment and Planning Directorate?

Ms Sheehan: We are all looking at each other, Jo. I was not here so I did not know of that recommendation. Thank you for the question. Every time the government looks at ministerial responsibilities when they are making administrative orders under various pieces of legislation, they consider the allocation of specific responsibilities. As recently as January this year, when the government considered administrative orders they decided again that responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs would sit with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and that administrative support would come through the Community Services Directorate. The Community Services Directorate is not able to transfer administrative responsibilities to another directorate. It is a decision of the government which happens through administrative orders.

MS CHIVERS: Does anyone have any further questions? The next series of questions that I have are in relation to the connections program run from Northside Community Service. The first one is this: does the child care provided at CIT Yurauna for the participants of the program meet the national quality standards?

Ms Sheehan: I will take the question on the childcare issue. The ACT is part of a national system and has passed appropriate legislation. We are not the regulator of child care, though we were the regulator of child care at the time the national legislation was passed. Responsibility for the regulation of child care was passed to the Education and Training Directorate, but we can say, as the funder of the service, that our absolute expectation is that if we are funding child care, it meets the standards that it is required to under legislation.

MS CHIVERS: With the national quality standards, I guess I am talking about under the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, the national body.

Ms Sheehan: Yes, which the ACT is a part of. ACT providers are required to meet those standards.

MS CHIVERS: Are you saying that the room where child care is provided was assessed by ACECQA?

Ms Chapman: Can I answer this question? We might need to take the detail on notice, but my understanding is that the nature of the child care provided for that particular program is a non-regulated childcare arrangement based on the fact that the family member, the parent, remains on site at the time of the training. So the requirements that you would have if you left your child there and then went to work are different, and there are distinctions made. It is non-regulated in the sense that you are talking about now, but with the non-regulated providers, there are requirements of non-regulated providers to do with safety, supervision and those kinds of things. It is not the same as a regulated childcare provider, because the family member, the parent, stays on site and does not leave. If something happens, they are in close call. It is a


different arrangement from a childcare facility where you leave your child and go to work. There is that distinction that is provided for.

MS CHIVERS: We previously received advice from Natalie Howson that it was accredited care.

Ms Chapman: It is non-regulated care in that regulatory sense that there are requirements even if you are non-regulated that you need to meet. As I said, there are OH&S standards, supervision standards and requirements like that.

MS CHIVERS: It is obviously not accredited care. Given that there have been several incidents regarding the injury of children, including a child who broke both of their wrists, what is being done, and by whom, to ensure that a healthy and safe environment is being provided for the children?

Ms Chapman: Again I will talk with the broad knowledge that I have, not on the specifics. If I need to provide more information, I can. My understanding is that the incidents that you have referred to were investigated by Northside according to their protocol and processes; that they were thorough investigations; and that the parents of the children, including the child who broke both their wrists, were satisfied about (1) the investigation and (2) the action that had been taken in relation to the care of their child. In that particular example, there was a sibling involved, and they understood that there was a dare. We asked Northside to show us their investigation, what their procedures are, what their protocols are. We sought advice about what were the parents’ issues. As far as we are concerned, Northside have done what they needed to do according to their own protocols.

THE CHAIR: Does the directorate have any concern about an independent review of that? Northside are not going to report their own incident. They are not going to come back and say to you, “We did something wrong.”

Dr Collis: There is a requirement for Northside to report to us incidents within their programs and we follow up those incidents as a consequence of those reports and those critical incidents.

THE CHAIR: Was Northside followed up, I guess, in relation to that incident or was it just a follow up with the parents in terms of what had gone on?

Dr Collis: I would have to take on notice that particular incident. I do not have before me the actual processes.

THE CHAIR: There has been more than one incident there.

Dr Collis: I am aware of critical incidents that have been reported and that have been followed up but that particular incident I cannot talk about. But I have personally had contact with Simon Rosenberg at Northside about complaints and issues to do with any incident in child care. But that was at Yurauna. I cannot go into the ins and outs of those bits of—

THE CHAIR: I understand that. Certainly you are investigating the complaints and


incidents. What are the consequences, I guess, is the next step around that and who is going to be held accountable and who is going to manage those consequences? As you have said, you are going to take that on notice and come back with what investigations happened.

Dr Collis: I can answer that in part. There is a capability under the service funding agreement around consequences for not having processes and not reporting and responding appropriately to incidents that occur in their programs. There are ways and means under the service funding agreement to take up that issue. If the issue is one that goes to a breach of a regulation then that is another—

THE CHAIR: I would be interested in understanding the delegate’s decision around that. I hope that the elected body’s perspective in terms of what has been raised here and what the outcome is, that we are aware of, is taken into account so that we are able to relay back to community about what is the outcome. Is it a good outcome and, again, the consequences around this? For future incidents that will continue.

Dr Collis: Certainly I will take on notice the processes in general. It will be difficult to actually relate to community the incidents of—

THE CHAIR: No, I am asking you to come back to the elected body, not community. We are happy to relay that back. We have taken on the responsibility of raising these issues with CSD and we want to understand what has gone on and what the outcome was and if there are any consequences for us to take back to community but also just to understand these types of processes, what are the requirements, whether there are regulations that we can understand for future arrangements.

Ms Chapman: Can I say that whenever we get an issue like this or really any other issue that goes to the services, the processes, the competence, the quality of services that we fund, that we buy from the community, we take them very, very seriously. Of course, if a child gets hurt we are very concerned about that. That is the nature of our business. We should be concerned and we are. We do not accept that that is okay. What we have to do is follow the processes and, as Mark says, we have got a service funding agreement with community service providers, and there are requirements in that. We would always investigate them according to whatever is required in that agreement or in that regulation or in that procedure. If we found that a service was not providing the quality of service that we have contracted—

THE CHAIR: But how do you find that they are not providing? From these incidents, these families have then been investigated by child protection and then you have asked Simon Rosenberg a question about it and accepted that. I do not think that is a fair process for both and for Yurauna Centre in terms of this particular circumstance. I do not want to continue to get into the detail but I just want to understand a fair process.

Ms Chapman: We will take it on notice and we will talk about the processes and how we follow the process, what the process is and what the consequences are if we find that there is—

THE CHAIR: For all stakeholders involved.


Ms Chapman: Yes, we will do that.

Dr Collis: Can I clarify one thing around the unregulated element? It is not that different to what we would do ourselves if we were running a community-based consultation and we were required to put in place child care and to have parents available for that event, that is the non-regulated child care element, to allow for those times where parents are on site and eyeball this. For example, in our training for trauma-informed practice for kinship carers, the Australian Childhood Foundation employs an organisation to come and mind those children during those two days of training. But they are not a childcare centre or do not have that regulation. So it is part of the act or part of the regulation to specifically determine to allow for those kinds of events of child care at sites other than a childcare centre.

The other thing I will say about the service funding agreement is that there need to be really clear processes for complaints and complaints management. Those are things that I can say I have personally viewed in terms of Northside in regard to the connections program, and that can lead to external inquiry if required. I am aware that those complaints mechanisms were and are in place as we speak.

THE CHAIR: I will be interested to see if those who were involved have been advised of those complaints processes. I know that is certainly one of the questions that we are going to be asking CIT and the Yurauna Centre. The other thing is: is it appropriate for a child to be changed on the floor in a toilet? Is that appropriate? No, it is not. I want to make this program a better program. It is important. It is needed in our community. It is how to make it work better and hold people accountable.

MR FOWLER: And understanding the regulations. I am getting where you are coming from Dr Collis but you are talking about a program for two days. This is a program being rolled out over months, and that childcare facility is not a quick snap. It is part of the rollout of this program. It raises a whole level of concerns for our community and for us as elected body members. While I understand where you are coming from, we have to look at the mechanism a bit stronger here. We are dealing with CIT, which is government at the end of the day anyway. The government are in breach of this as well. CIT is part of government, correct? Am I wrong or not? You are funding a government service to deliver an educational outcome with a childcare service attached to it, therefore, the government is breaching.

Dr Collis: Everything I agree with to the point of let us talk about what the process was in regard to what is allowed—

MR FOWLER: Because our kids mean the world to us.

Dr Collis: Yes, and they do to us also.

MS CHIVERS: The next question in relation to connections is: with only four weeks remaining of the 2015 program, at least one student was still not properly enrolled and did not have access to their e-learn account. What will be done to ensure that for future programs all students will be fully enrolled and have access to all resources prior to the commencement of the program?


Ms Chapman: I am not aware of that specific issue, as you said, four weeks before the end of the program. I will take on notice what the arrangement is for getting students enrolled in a timely way to allow them to have access to what they need to do the course. That is the undertaking that I give.

Dr Collis: Can I just clarify that? Whilst I am uncertain about that particular instance, I do have the 2014-15 enrolment details where I understand 16 participants enrolled and 14 participants completed the task 10 with a certificate level qualification. That is the performance outcome that I have had in keeping an eye on what is happening. If there is an individual situation about an individual person who could not engage and achieve those, then I would be very interested to know.

MS CHIVERS: I understand that they still managed to complete that but the issue was that they were not formally enrolled with still four weeks of the program to go and did not have access to all of the resources that every other participant did. We certainly hope that for future programs all students are enrolled properly prior to the commencement and that everybody has access to all of the available resources.

MR FOWLER: This individual student—as you know from my introduction, education and training is my portfolio—was actually using the coordinator’s logon. Again, an ACT government department having a logon that is specifically for them to be able to run a course and assess those particular individuals who were part of that course has given a student access to that logon. That is another breach.

Ms Chapman: As I said, I will take that on notice because we want to make sure that students get properly enrolled so that they can properly participate in the course.

MS CHIVERS: The next question is: what qualifications are required? Do all teaching staff that are running the connections program have the appropriate qualifications to do so, and does that also include the connections program coordinator?

Dr Collis: It is my understanding that the program meets the requirements for the certificate level course that it has, and all qualifications requirements fit under those regulations, if you like. Again, I would be happy to take those specific questions on notice about specific positions, but the course is an accredited course with requirements met in regard to that. That is my understanding. But I will take on notice the specific questions regarding positions in the program.

MS CHIVERS: The last question in relation to the connections program is: what is the process for lodging grievances that is safe and respectful for the participants?

Dr Collis: There is a grievance process that occurs within the requirement of the service funding agreement but, equally, the participants can contact the directorate’s complaints management, like any government service, to complain directly about the program and have that complaint independently investigated.

MS CHIVERS: Are participants aware that they have that option?


Dr Collis: I am led to understand that that is catered for in the induction period, and also there is a weekly feedback program as well that is undertaken about the feedback around the quality of the program as well. Not having been there at the induction period, I am informed that it is a requirement that a grievance and complaint mechanism is explained to the participants.

MS CHIVERS: Does anyone else have any further questions around the connections program? No. The next couple of questions I have got are actually provided by a member of the community around the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholarship grants. The first one is: why did the ACT government not meet the target of outcomes of the round 2 scholarship 2014-15 grants, which closed on 30 June 2015? Guidelines stated that the outcomes would be available two months after the closing date. However, applicants were not advised until early October, and even then the website details were uploaded prior to applicants being formally notified of the outcomes.

Ms Forester: I will answer that one for you. The scholarship grants program was very highly subscribed, in excess of 550 per cent on what we had previously ever received, and that slowed the process down in the assessment of those applications. That took the process out beyond the two months, as stated in the guidelines.

I would have to check on the uploading of the information on the website, because my understanding is that the letters went out prior to the information being put on the website, whether there was a delay in people receiving the correspondence prior to it going on the website.

MS CHIVERS: And then the next question in relation to the scholarship grants is: in previous rounds the Community Services Directorate’s website listed the successful applicants, the amount of funding each applicant received, and the purpose of the funding. Why is not the purpose of the funding listed for the round 2 scholarship 2014-15 grants?

Ms Forester: Again, I would have to take that on notice to check that for you.

MS CHIVERS: And then the last question in relation to the scholarship grants is: as the grants guidelines do not provide a complaints process or provide a name and contact details, can you please describe the complaints process for individuals if they wish to make a formal complaint?

Ms Forester: On the letters of offer that are provided to each of the applicants there is a statement that says if somebody is unhappy with the decision that is made, it outlines a process there of whom to contact, which is normally within the grants—

MS CHIVERS: But only for successful applicants?

Ms Forester: No, that is for all applicants.

MS CHIVERS: But why does an unsuccessful applicant get a letter of offer?

Ms Forester: I should rephrase that and say the letters that are provided to all


applicants.

MS CHIVERS: Thank you. The next couple of questions were also from community members and are around the ACT’s Torres Strait Islander population. Is there specific service reporting for Torres Strait Islanders in the ACT?

Ms Chapman: I will start and my colleagues will jump in if there are particular things that they are aware of. There is data collected that can be disaggregated into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; obviously gender is one of the disaggregations. So there are some datasets that we can disaggregate. There are some datasets that we collect that are specifically collected for reporting on particularly the closing the gap report, that we need to report on annually, and there are some datasets collected which would be difficult, if not impossible, I think, to disaggregate, certainly at the moment. Whether it is possible to do that depends on the purpose for which the data has been collected. One of the things that we have undertaken and we have agreed to do is to try to start collecting data specifically around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander outcomes for particular things that we put in place. The agreement talks about that as one of the things we need to do. The outcomes framework, for example, that we are developing for our step up for kids out of home care strategy will have particular sets of information that we collect off, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

So the answer is that sometimes we can; if we are asked a particular question we can sometimes disaggregate it. But we are starting to develop datasets that are particular to outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as we move forward in our new programs. Certainly we have to collect the data for the closing the gap reporting, and ROGS as well. But I do not know if there are any other specifics that separate—

Ms Forester: The only data that we will have is whatever comes through the census. With the last census they did start to put separate categories that people could tick the box also.

MS CHIVERS: Fantastic. Thank you. The next series of questions that I will ask will be around youth justice. The average number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in custody decreased from 2013-14 to 2014-15. Can you explain why?

Dr Collis: The reduction in numbers from 2013-14 to 2014-15 was a slight reduction from the overall reduction in 2010-11. So I think there has been a growing momentum, from about 2012, around two things. One is the continuity of case management that has occurred in detention, as in the community. Before that there were two different case management systems and we are starting to realise the benefits of one case management system, one person looking after kids whether they come in or out of the community or not.

I think there are a number of factors which go to the reduction in the numbers. In 2013 a specific forum was held at Yarramundi Reach where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providers of services came together with some young people who were at that time in detention, and the Bimberi staff, and we sat around and looked at what actions would need to happen.


The leadership of a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies and support groups, not least the program through Relationships Australia, the yarning program, but also the ongoing work with Gugan into the schooling sector, provided programs of resilience which actually engaged kids better into the community.

There are actually a lot broader levers which need to be understood that are changing as well in the ACT in terms of youth justice and one is that there has been a continued reduction in youth offending over probably the last four or five years and that has been for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people as well as non-Indigenous young people. We are the only jurisdiction that appears to have this trend happening. As much as I would like to take credit for all of that, I think that there are some things happening more broadly that are obviously supporting it. It is hard to process that information when you get the feeling in the media that things are getting worse and more dangerous and whatever. But, if you look at the trends in youth justice in the ACT, the offending types, offending rates, are reducing, and that is a fairly significant factor.

I will say that the program around the Galambany court and the restorative justice programs have to take fair credit for intervening early and getting responsibility as well. There have been some really good restorative sentencing practices, and that has been a particular focus in, obviously, our Galambany court. There has been lots of work. The pickup for Aboriginal young people in that has been excellent. I will say that of recent times that has plateaued a bit. We are trying to understand why that is the case, and we will look at that.

In short, I think there are a number of possible levers as to why the numbers are dropping in detention. They are also dropping, by the way, in community-based youth supervision, so it is not like we are keeping kids in the community who otherwise would have been in detention and that is where it is growing. There has been a reduction right across the stream. So it is a very good story, but it is a story that has got a long way to go for us to be in any way congratulatory about it.

MS CHIVERS: Fantastic. Thank you for your response. So the average number of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under community-based supervision also decreased from 2013-14 to 2014-15. Again, can you explain why?

Dr Collis: I think that my previous answer probably goes to a number of the things. One of the things that we wanted to be clear on was that the community-based supervision and the detention story were the same story, same kids in essence, and we needed to have a system that operated right across that.

Again, I think some of the work that started in detention develops good contact in the community. I would note particularly the Gugan Gulwan youth engagement program. That program would be an example where there are good links made between young people in detention and the community.

I do note that in the Aboriginal Justice Partnership there are a number of indicators and measures about trying to ensure that kids are hooked in with community organisations on leaving Bimberi or leaving community-based supervision. We have moved to a child youth protection service where we brought youth justice and care


and protection together fundamentally because we believe that the majority of reasons for kids being in the youth justice system are about trauma—early trauma. We have made some good gains, and that is great, but if we are going to continue to make more gains we are going to have to deal with more fundamental trauma-based issues, both intergenerational trauma as well as trauma induced by life experiences of young people. So that is one of the reasons we are trying to make that next shift.

MS CHIVERS: You have touched on the next question I am going to ask, which is that during 2014-15 approximately 27 per cent of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were under youth justice supervision during the year. Can you determine the factors that contribute to this statistic, and how can this be decreased?

Dr Collis: I have gone partly to that in that answer. I think I would be disingenuous if I sat here and said I knew all of the answers to these things. This is why we need to continually have a discussion. What we are pretty certain about is that the experience of trauma in the early years of a child’s life—and what that means to a child’s ability to regulate their learning and their behaviour—leads to poor experiences in schools, poor experiences in making decisions about friends and behaviours and, in later years, increases risk taking and dislocation from those services.

It would be true that that would be the experience of trauma. The differential experience of trauma, abuse and neglect for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders versus non-Indigenous is something that we will be able to look at more closely as we get better data around strengthening high risk families and the continuum of care information and see what that looks like.

We talked about growing healthy families. Growing healthy families is absolutely where we want the primary prevention to be, and to be able to get to the investment down there. That is where strengthening families kicks in, well connected with universal services, and prevents that trauma which goes on to cause that unregulated behaviour.

MR ALLAN: I have a question. You are talking about reinvestment. Would it not be better to reinvest in the family and connect children with their own culture and identity, as opposed to taking them away?

Dr Collis: Yes. If I go for a moment to the ‘step up for our kids’ program, built into that model or theory is a reinvestment model. It says that we actually want to reduce the number of kids in care and we want to shift that investment into the early intervention and prevention space.

In fact, we had organisations that we have commissioned sign up to that mission. So we have asked them to demonstrate for us how, in their service model, we can see that there is a reinvestment that occurs there. Of course, it is a tricky thing. We do not want to diminish quality of experience when kids come into care, because I suspect there will always be children who have to come into permanent care arrangements. We want those children and young people to experience the best possible life outcomes they can in that experience.

But in the long term you are absolutely right. It is where I think in the design of the


step up for our kids something very clever happened at a point where people went out to say, “How do we get a really great out of home care system?” The answer from the community and from the research came back: you do not start in the out of home care sector; you start by keeping them out of there. So that is what we have done. We have got two arms, and it is the first time that any jurisdiction has invested strongly in what I call a tertiary prevention system to prevent that. But, unless we get the growing healthy families sitting around that, and schools sitting around that, and good health systems sitting around that, we will not realise all of the benefits we could. So that is our challenge as a community over the next five years.

MS CHIVERS: My next question is this. In the ACT, the average length of time an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young person was in custody or on community-based supervision is well above average. What targeted efforts are being pursued to address this?

Dr Collis: The answer to that is that currently we are trying to understand what that means. That may be a negative or may not; we do not know. Let me explain. When you look at a lot of youth justice data, you get a snake with two heads: you think you know that a statistic is bad, and then you find out that actually both ends of the statistic are bad. For example, with recidivism, I would argue that a high recidivism rate and a low recidivism rate are actually both bad. If there is a low recidivism rate, it means you are putting people in custody who do not need to be there; if you have a high one, it means you have a whole bunch of people who are continuing to cycle around.

We are trying to understand this particular statistic. What we do know is that in the design of the child and youth protection service we suddenly realised that, particularly for young people, they received in the youth justice system very episodic support. What would happen is that they would come in contact with the justice system, they would get remanded, they would get services, the justice order would drop, all the services would fall away, and then they would come back into the justice system. So they end up getting this sort of episodic treatment.

When we move the child and youth protection service, we want to see the experience of young people being more consistent—that there is not this episodic dropping off of services as we go along. I hope I can go back and report next year about some of the data I want to see around that, which unfortunately might make that data larger rather than smaller. In short, I guess I have to own up and say that we are really trying to understand what that is, but we think that the more significant question is how many occasions of support they have had rather than how long the support is. That is the big thing.

THE CHAIR: I might just make a comment about that. You have spoken about the growing healthy families program. Again, it is a great initiative where you have families determine their own stories and priorities and enable families to collect that story in a form that helps them when they are engaging with various services, as I understand. Is that the gist of what it is, Mark?

Dr Collis: That is part of the story of growing healthy families. At the heart of growing healthy families is the community leading and guiding what the community


needs—so local area governance. That is why, when you see the services and programs that were offered last year, they may not be identical to the ones offered this year. The men’s program was one that came out of a community-based consultation. It is using a community building approach. We would like to be able to invest more in terms of autonomy of decision-making and getting decision-making at the local level around that. That is one of the things we would like to see.

THE CHAIR: Yes. Enabling an individual and family to understand what their story is and identify what their needs are from now into the future, but also enabling them to be able to then advocate that story to others, is a fantastic initiative. It is a good program. Again I applaud CSD and the child and family centres for that initiative; it is a really good one, and I do not think it is promoted enough.

Dr Collis: Thanks for that. I will take that on board and see what we can do.

MS CHIVERS: Fantastic. The next series of questions are about out of home care. In 2013-14 in the ACT there were more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children admitted to care than exiting care. Can you advise why?

Dr Collis: In short, that data is quite volatile and moves from year to year. I think you will find that in the following year we will potentially see that there were not so many people exiting care as entering care. The thing that those numbers do not capture is how long kids stay in care. We have a whole plan to capture much better data, and I know we have been talking with you about it, to better understand what the intricacies of that number are. However, we do know that, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, generally their time in care experience is longer than that for non-Indigenous kids. That is one of the major factors driving overrepresentation. The actual in and out is not so much of a driver; it is about, when kids come in, how quickly we can move to restore or reunify the child with their family or how quickly we can safely move them to a more permanent arrangement.

Over that period of time, we went through an unusual period of growth in out of home care, where all out of home care plateaued; the growth plateaued. It had been going up quite steadily; it plateaued for a year; then it started to go up again. At the moment I would not say it is a trend. I think it is potentially just a bit of an aberration at the moment.

MS CHIVERS: In 2013-14 in the ACT, around 25 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are on care and protection orders—12 times the number of non-Aboriginal children and well above the national rate. What is being done to address this appalling statistic?

Dr Collis: Yes, it is an appalling statistic. The ‘step up’ program has as its second driver the overrepresentation; this statistic represents a second driver as to why we commissioned that service. The suite of new services I talked about, strengthening high risk families, is probably the centrepiece. I will go to that first, because it is the part of our system which we are building up to improve our capability to prevent kids coming into care and to restore quickly those kids for whom it is safe to be in care. As you know, in commissioning that service, UnitingCare New South Wales and ACT were the successful agency. Within that agency, the autonomous unit of Jaanimili has


brought a significant amount of capability to building those services up from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective.

We made the decision early on to focus directly on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who had come into emergency action in the preceding 12 months as our priority. The first cohorts in that very intensive early intervention system will be offered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. The purpose is to put a proof of concept that we can drive that number down over a period of time. As of January, there will be a focus. It will be the main focus; it will not be the sole focus. There will be a period of time in which we will start to bring in prenatal work with expectant mums, because we know that expectant mums are the biggest effect for our support. We know that if we can get support, we get the best outcomes generally. We would still be focusing on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but not only in that next cohort or prenatal work.

MS CHIVERS: In 2013-14 in the ACT around 25 per cent of children in out of home care were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, 11 times as many children in out of home care compared to non-Aboriginal children, and again above the national average. What is the approach to reverse this trend?

Dr Collis: That is a ditto in terms of big investment, the big $5 million of new money into the new services. We are just focusing on that. The next thing we will be working towards is identifying opportunities for children or young people who have been in care for a long time, potentially in residential care and so forth: what the opportunities for restoration and movement back into the community are. That is another thing that will be a priority.

MS CHIVERS: Approximately 28 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are being placed with non-Aboriginal relatives or kin. Can you explain why?

Dr Collis: In the ACT the legislation has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placement priority, as it is called. It is a principle which provides a sequence of decision-making that needs to happen for when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children come into care. The sequence includes Aboriginal families with family. For example, what is not infrequently the case in this situation is that children have one Aboriginal parent and one non-Aboriginal parent. When looking for kin placements, for roughly half the time the Aboriginal parent’s family have the capabilities and capacities to step up and look after that child, and half the time the non-Indigenous side of the family do.

The challenge for us is to understand that from a point of view of cultural connection. It is an ongoing issue for us. It has not been infrequent that there has been tension and conflict culturally between two sides of the family in that. So it is operating assertively to ensure that connection happens, including connection to previous supports that might be in place which might have a cultural connection, for example, ensuring that if the primary health care for the child was received through Winnunga, we make sure that that primary health care continues to occur in that space and so on. That is the nuts and bolts of why that figure is such.

THE CHAIR: I guess it places the importance on the cultural care plans. Would that


example you have used be included in the cultural care plan?

Dr Collis: Yes.

THE CHAIR: You spoke about how difficult it is in terms of conflict between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and families in that situation—how to maintain a strong cultural connection that is appropriate and who is deciding that that is the case. I could not believe that a non-Aboriginal person could understand the context of that, let alone how to implement or enable that to happen. Usually your care worker is a non-Aboriginal person who has very little understanding of culture—of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, in particular. Where is the balance around all of that?

Dr Collis: In terms of those longer term arrangements, one thing we do have in terms of the data we are talking about there is that they are longer term so we have time on our side. It is not the emergency action where the decisions are made. There is no excuse for not engaging the right people in the decision-making process around that.

You would be aware, Di, I know, that this is where we deployed some of the capabilities of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander independent adviser in terms of understanding the cultural connections and so forth. But we also are in the process of building and developing the cultural team, and we want to continue to work out how we interact. We are still in an action research phase about what is the best way of influencing our own workforce around making those decisions. We do know that we are getting a pretty good pick-up of caseworkers coming for advice around this now.

The other thing we are finding very interesting up in the cultural team, which has almost doubled in this last 12 months, is that the cultural team is becoming a bit of an incubator for people coming in and then moving into front-line casework themselves. There are Aboriginal people coming in, working as a cultural adviser and then moving. We will have two, I think, in this position, maybe going into three very soon. This is interesting, because it is a place of how culturally mature the organisation is when we start to see Aboriginal people making these decisions broadly for all children and there is a resource out there influencing decision-making day to day around it. We are still early; we do not think we are there yet. But we have Aboriginal people who can do the case management work, and we are finding that that is a really good way for people to come in, influence an organisation and then move in.

THE CHAIR: That sounds great. I think the cultural proficiency program or package that OATSIA is driving can play an integral role in that. As I said, usually it is non-Indigenous people who are in that area and are making some significant decisions. Whilst you have got the cultural team there to provide that advice and support in terms of sustainability and helping people change attitudes, and the bigger picture of reconciliation and recognising Australia’s first peoples, that is a broader approach to that. I would love to see how that might play out in time to come.

I did have another question, but I will come back to it.

MS CHIVERS: More generally, following on from one of Di’s questions, what is the effectiveness of cultural care plans and how is it being measured?


Dr Collis: Currently, cultural care plans are being measured in two ways. The first is a very blunt instrument about what proportion of uptake there is. We have an internal process of oversight of the cultural plans which has from time to time required us to re-lift the cultural plans up in quality. I will say that in the early days the advice that I got, and what I saw, was that many cultural plans were lists of community events that kids would go to. That was a pretty low level kind of activity. They did not address the things that you were talking about, Di, such as saying, “There will be tensions between this community and this family based around culture, and how are we going to account for this in this particular case?” Or, as you would be aware, for many of the children and young people we work with and their families, engagement with our services sometimes leads to a change or moment of contact with identity that is different.

The first thing we look for when we have to take children into care safely is “Can we put this child”—Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal—“with their family?” That is where we start. The curious thing we find in that process is that, as we explore who family is and what family is, it sometimes changes people’s perspectives on their own family histories and things. That is, again, where our cultural adviser has brought it to account. In the youth justice space, I am aware of a young fellow who has found a whole family in another part of New South Wales that he did not know he had because of the cultural planning that has gone on around that.

THE CHAIR: Mark, can I just make one more comment around that? The cultural care plans are important. The rights of the child and the safety of the child are why we are here and making those decisions at the end of the day. But where are the children’s voices being heard in this, particularly when we talk about the experience of the child and how to reflect back on that in terms of how you might change the way you do things, your policy and programs and the future? Is the voice of the child heard in helping influence how you work better—if “better” is the right word?

Dr Collis: As you know, the project we have got underway now in terms of hearing the voice of the child, the program where the kids interact and give us—

Ms Chapman: Viewpoint.

Dr Collis: Viewpoint; thank you very much. Even last week we identified some opportunities to adapt viewpoint, which is an independent interview about a child’s experience of care. That is one example. We have 140 young people who have currently opted into that, and it is really quite positive. It is independent of the carers, so it is information that the carers do not influence. We are hoping that we can grow that, and grow that methodology slightly differently for younger children, and we are looking at some cultural quality assurance around the questions. We have been talking about that recently.

MS CHIVERS: Are there any members who have an absolute burning last question they need to ask? No. We have around 10 questions that we will provide after the hearings that we did not get time to ask today. Thank you all very much for your time.

Ms Chapman: Thank you.


Sitting suspended from 3.02 to 3.19 pm.


Appearances:

Environment and Planning DirectorateRake, Mr Gary, Acting Director-General Lane, Dr Annie, Executive Director, Environment Tomlinson, Ms Heather, Senior Manager, Nature Conservation PolicyChong, Mr Darren, Aboriginal Natural Resource Management Facilitator,

Natural Resources ManagementFitzgerald, Mr Bruce, Director, Finance and Operational SupportMoore, Ms Fiona, Acting Manager, Heritage, Planning and Heritage BranchCarmichael, Mr Tony, Executive Director, Strategic Planning

MR McCULLOCH: Good afternoon everyone. It is good to have you here. I will read an opening statement. As you may be aware, the elected body members have been working very hard over the past 12 months with the ACT government and all the directorates to progress a range of issues, including improving programs and service delivery on behalf of and for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here in the ACT. Over the next two days elected body members will be meeting with all directorates, seeking responses to questions which our community requires answers to. The elected body was elected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community here in the ACT to make a difference, and that is exactly what we expect of ourselves.

You will have received a copy of the generic questions. Throughout the next two days each member will take a lead by asking questions relevant to each directorate. ATSIEB values your cooperation in the process to pursue clarity and evidence to confirm performance in relation to achievement of outcomes. Please focus your responses on addressing programs, services and outcomes for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT. Owing to the time frames we may have questions that we do not have time to ask, and we will send these through to the directorates after the hearings. Also note that, for any questions taken on notice, ATSIEB will require you to respond within five working days. Submit them to the secretariat.

Environment and Planning is my portfolio. I will let the other members introduce themselves.

MR WALKER: I have the Health portfolio this year.

THE CHAIR: I have CMTEDD as my portfolio.

MR ALLAN: I have TAMS.

MR FOWLER: I have Education and Training.

MS CHIVERS: I am the deputy chairperson and I have Community Services.

MR McCULLOCH: I invite you to say something, Gary.

ATSIEB—09-12-15 71 Environment and PlanningDirectorate

Mr Rake: I am the acting director-general at the moment. The director-general, Dorte Eklund, is overseas at the 21 climate talks and sends her apologies. I have met some of you previously. I moved to the directorate only recently from the Chief Minister’s portfolio. I previously had responsibility for economic development and I had a fair bit to do with the elected body there.

MR McCULLOCH: I will ask my first question. Basically the format I have taken here is to start off with questions regarding your response to the generic questions. For question 1, the question is: how can you demonstrate equitable access and an increased or improved impact on outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT? You refer to basing this program on community wants and needs. Which program were you referring to? What were you basing that on?

Dr Lane: That is the natural resources management program. We have a facilitator for that program, an Aboriginal liaison facilitator. Obviously that is based on community consultation and understanding what the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal community are and how they would like to contribute to natural resources management. Another area where we are canvassing and trying to get the views and the values of the community is in the area of water resource planning. We are trying to understand this perspective of cultural water: understanding how Aboriginal people value water, how they use water and how we can incorporate that into our planning. We are improving in trying to incorporate values into our land management planning, but our water management planning is not quite up there yet. So that is another area that we are working on.

Ms Tomlinson: In my area we have the regional body that manages our national Landcare program for the commonwealth. The NRM Aboriginal facilitator is a project under that national Landcare program. We have taken an approach to our Aboriginal landcare that is different from a lot of other regional bodies in states and territories. There was a genuine effort to say that the objective was not environmental outcomes as the number one objective; our number one objective was to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people. Darren Chong is our NRM facilitator. He went out to the community and said, “What are your needs?” It really came through strongly about health, education and justice. The priorities were about improving skills, cultural healing and connection to country.

We then looked at it through the lens of: with natural resource management, connecting to country and environmental issues, how can we utilise that to achieve these Aboriginal outcomes? We recently did a presentation to the commonwealth. South Australia was also in the audience and they were very impressed with that approach. It was like saying, “We understand why you approached it that way,” looking at Aboriginal outcomes first order. Some of the examples include working in the Alexander Maconochie Centre, identifying the importance of culture, skills and training, then connecting that to things like identification of scar trees, seeds, bush foods, gardens and things like that. There is a whole avenue of opportunities that we are continuing to identify. We are thinking of seed propagation, planting trees and having a whole transition into the future. I think it has been quite successful and we are receiving really good feedback from the Alexander Maconochie Centre as well as the original funder, which is the commonwealth.


THE CHAIR: Is the program in AMC only for when they are in AMC? There is no work that goes on outside AMC?

Ms Tomlinson: This is where it is focusing on one part and then engaging by saying, “With the transitional mechanisms, how do we work more on that?”

THE CHAIR: By “transitional”, do you mean through care?

Ms Tomlinson: Yes. Darren has also been working with the Winnunga men’s group. It is a matter of whether we can align things and bring things together. It is true that once you have engaged people, once you have lifted them up to look for better choices in the future or different opportunities, it is about how you support that as a pathway. That is an area that we need to go into, and it is an important area.

THE CHAIR: In conjunction with JACS, I would imagine?

Ms Tomlinson: Yes, we are working very closely with JACS.

THE CHAIR: I know that focuses heavily on the men. In terms of our women who are in the AMC and the process around what goes on in there, and with through care, has there been some thinking around what activities are there for our women and what that might mean in the future?

Ms Tomlinson: We do provide activities for the women. The women seem to be easier to engage and more willing, I suppose, and increase their participation. A lot of activities are quite similar. For instance, with weaving, the women took to that, and that was great. We provided a similar thing for the men. We were a bit uncertain, but the take-up showed high levels of interest. It was a good response.

Of course, people do leave the AMC, which is good, but then you have new people coming to AMC, and, again, you have to try to find a way to engage them. A recent leadership cultural initiative was to use hip-hop. That is engaging people who did not want to engage before and now have tapped in to that interest. Again that is the key. You have to tap in to interest, engage and then go from there.

MR FOWLER: That still does not answer the question. Can you go back a step? How do the women get access to this program and what are we doing with them around this?

Ms Tomlinson: Within the AMC?

MR FOWLER: We are staying with the AMC. I should come back a step. Within the AMC, talking about this program, how do our women access this program?

Ms Tomlinson: We are providing similar activities and—

MR FOWLER: Basket weaving is one thing.

Ms Tomlinson: One thing. Darren has been centrally involved and has been working with Greening Australia to design some of the activities.


Mr Chong: We had a program that ran parallel with the women, because at times we had zero women. We were running off JACS staff, and they highlighted to us that there was a low level of women, or zero. So we have just been running it ad hoc. It has not been as prominent as with the men. With the men we have focused on not just hip-hop but trying to focus on cultural awareness and simple leadership skills. We would definitely like to focus on women in the future. Another thing we would like to look at is that transition, as well as preventive measures—helping before they reach that, with early education.

MR FOWLER: And engaging them after their incarceration; post as well?

Mr Chong: That is right; a bit of a pathway.

THE CHAIR: In terms of that approach, what will that look like in the next 12 months and how are you going to achieve that?

Mr Chong: It is really in the early stages. We have just finished our first pilot program, a 12-month pilot program. We have looked at what is successful and what has engaged the detainees. AMC is a different jail from your standard jail, in the sense of the dynamics in the jail; they are very young. We are trying to address their interests.

We have been changing it a bit as we go along. It is really about trying to get our mob back in touch with culture, back in touch with community and trying to use NRM to develop skills for employment. We work with Greening Australia quite closely. At the moment it is case by case because there has to be a certain security clearance. When we have enough in the transitional release centre then they can go out with Adam and do some fieldwork.

THE CHAIR: Darren, you are doing some really good stuff in that program and I would like to see it captured somewhere. If it is a 12-month pilot, as you said, could the elected body see an evaluation of it?

Mr Chong: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Also we should share that success with the broader community, because it is so important. It is a perspective outside JACS. You are really hearing the voices of that mob who are in AMC, whether they are men or women, and you are able to get some good outcomes there. I would love to see something in a report of some sort that we can share.

Mr Chong: The approach has been a bit different. I am funded under the commonwealth, so I need to report the outcomes that I achieve. With the AMC project I have engaged 2XX, the community radio station, Sovereign, to go in there and talk to the detainees to see what they got out of it first hand, to have that recorded and hopefully get it out to the community.

MR McCULLOCH: You mentioned that the pilot program ceased. Is that continuing?


Mr Chong: That is definitely continuing. We have just started the new round. The aim is to establish this program and then pass it over. In the early stages I and Adam Shipp from Greening Australia have been delivering this ourselves. I do not normally deliver; I normally coordinate and put things together. This was an experiment. I helped to deliver it. It is becoming successful. The aim long term is to pass it over to JACS.

Ms Tomlinson: We have started up the culture in country program; that is its current name. With respect to the evaluation process that Darren referred to, it is unique in that it is trying to use interviews as a process, and to learn as we go. We are modifying the program, rolling things out new and taking information from participants and others involved to continually meet needs, and grow the program.

MR FOWLER: Within the culture in country program, as it is called, how is country picked up through the Ngunnawal aspects, considering that AMC and the program that is being rolled out are on Ngunnawal country?

Mr Chong: We have identified some local sites. Obviously these guys cannot actually access them. We try to get familiar sites for these guys, like Birrigai rock shelter and the Gubur Dhaura ochre quarry. We will bring in some ochre; they have used ochre to paint. We are just trying to get that next access.

THE CHAIR: Can I please encourage you, in terms of where to from here and what your outcomes are with the evaluation, to allow the opportunity for the elected body to provide some input into that. If you are saying you are going to give it to JACS to run, it will not be run the way that you guys run it and that is significant. I would be worried about how that might work or happen the way it has with you guys leading that work.

MR FOWLER: And the cultural integrity.

Mr Chong: Yes, let me rephrase that. Ideally it should be community taking it over, not JACS, but––

Ms Tomlinson: We will stay involved and strengthen those linkages working on country and––

THE CHAIR: But it takes the leadership, and you have led the way through that. If you are going to choose to take a step back, then do that. I guess from my perspective the elected body have confidence in terms of where it is going to, but that is concerning.

Mr Rake: Chair, I will take that on notice and give you a commitment that we will come forward with a report on how the pilot has gone, how we can share the success and what our initial thoughts are on the future. We can have a dialogue and get your feedback on how to make that better.

THE CHAIR: Excellent, thank you.


Ms Tomlinson: One other thing to mention is that Darren is funded through the commonwealth to 2017-18. We will be very involved as we have got stability of funding.

MR FOWLER: It is good that Darren’s position is funded to 2017-18, and he has definitely put the outputs there and grown the position locally here in the community. What is EPD’s responsibility to keep Darren on permanently—funded by you guys?

Mr Rake: If we can show that the program produces good outcomes for people who have either been through AMC or, even better, if we can stop people getting into AMC I would argue that it is cheaper to have a program that supports community than locking people up. We should be able to compete pretty squarely in the budget process for that. That is the argument that we would make. From what we hear about Darren’s work, it is perfect evidence to feed into the budget process.

MR McCULLOCH: Question 1, dot point 2 says an Aboriginal trainee has recently joined the NRM team. In what capacity is that?

Ms Tomlinson: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traineeship is a whole-of-government program. Jessika Spencer has joined us. She is a Wiradjuri woman and currently working with Darren. She will have another opportunity for experience in the heritage team, and that is going––

MR McCULLOCH: Is it like succession planning with Darren? You are telling me Darren is funded by the commonwealth. Is this person coming in––

Ms Tomlinson: She is funded by the ACT government.

THE CHAIR: With a permanent position at the end?

Mr Rake: Correct. This is us broadening our engagement and fulfilling the employment––

MR McCULLOCH: She is in an ongoing position with you guys?

Mr Rake: Yes, it starts as a traineeship and then goes to a position.

MR ALLAN: I want to know, at the moment do you have any Indigenous leaders in your directorate and in what capacity? Do you have a time frame? Like you said, you have got Darren there. Like anyone, if you are not going to progress up the ladder, you will lose them ultimately. What sort of leadership do you have and what sort of time frame are you looking at?

Mr Rake: We already have three identified positions in the organisation and two of those are at the level that is next in line to move into management, at the ASO5 and 6 levels. Straightaway the next steps there are moving them into senior officer and management positions. Would you like to add any more?

Dr Lane: The only thing I could add is that there may be people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who have not identified themselves in that way, so we


may well have people in management positions that we are not aware of.

MR FOWLER: From leadership, I think I need a little bit more from that than just, “There’s an APS5 and 6 and they’re in line.” Everyone is in line for something, mate. My question is: how is your directorate going to assist in that leadership and development, besides their individual performance plans?

Mr Rake: All of our management development is done through the individual performance plans, and we try to take a very individualised approach for that. It is a discussion with each officer to help understand what their aspirations are. Some people aspire to leadership and others do not. There is a fair discussion to have there. There are two parts to this: the actual leadership and the seniority that comes with capital “L” leadership, I guess. We want people to feel that both are paths that are open to them; so, senior management positions or just leadership in your team showing a path, having a vision for what could be.

MR FOWLER: What about mentoring or coaching?

Mr Rake: Yes, the ACT government supports mentoring and coaching programs, and we are very active participants in that. We are just about to embark on our next round of that. Our framework was put together within the last two or three days.

Ms Tomlinson: If I may add some specific examples, Darren is currently in terms of his development doing a certificate IV in training and assessment which will enable him to develop training skills and then take that forward. Darren and Jessika attended a Wiradjuri dreaming conference at Bathurst, and that linked in very well with Jessika being a Wiradjuri woman. That has been over the past six months. We always scan for opportunities et cetera.

In terms of our national Landcare program, we have an NRM council—a natural resource management council—and that has an Aboriginal Ngunnawal man on it. It provides advice, and a new member is also I think of Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage. We do try to provide that mentoring and leadership through those advisory committees as well.

THE CHAIR: Just to continue on with that, representation targets have been given to the D-Gs, so I imagine that Dorte does have that target in her performance plan. Your response here to what your directorate has done specifically to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership through senior classifications is that all vacancies are subject to a merit selection process. The evidence shows that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not represented throughout all directorates in government and there is a way to go in terms of the target, but it is not only about the target. It concerns me that you do not have a targeted approach. What is that for you guys to increase your representation at all levels? Whilst you are at, according to what you have reported here, 1.9 per cent—an ASO1, 5 and 6—surely that has to be a concern. What is the targeted approach to help increase that?

MR FOWLER: On from that, before you answer, Gary, do you have an employment action plan in place within your directorate?


Mr Rake: Bruce will give you that: I am going to have to plead the ‘I’ve-been-here-five-minutes rule’.

Mr Fitzgerald: We do have a reconciliation action plan which we have had in place since June 2014. I believe that is when we launched that program. Yes, we do have the plan in place. We have a very good document just there. We do have regular meetings of that group. That is chaired by a senior executive within the directorate. We are conscious of our need to increase employment, but there is the issue around the fact that we are subject to the merit process. We have to take that into account, but also we are actively pursuing measures to try to increase—

THE CHAIR: There are special measures, are there not, to engage—

Mr Fitzgerald: There are within the plan itself, yes.

MR FOWLER: My question was about an employment action plan. I am fully aware of what a reconciliation action plan is: that is your relationships with the community. Now you have got that in place and it is just over a year of having that in place, the next step from that is looking at your employment capabilities and increasing them. Do you have an employment action plan, which was my original question?

THE CHAIR: Or are there targets in the RAP?

Mr Fitzgerald: We obviously have targets. At this point we are exceeding our targets when it comes to representation. Those targets, I think, are small because we are a small directorate. We are always trying to increase those targets. Once exceeded, it does not mean we stop; we continue to look at ways that we can increase that. But at this point, no, we do not have a dedicated employment action plan in place.

Mr Rake: If I may, chair, I might take your comment about our answer to question 4 as being inadequate and perhaps take on notice that we should come back with a better answer. If we cannot say that we have done things better than that, we should tell you what we will do that is better than that. Would that be in order?

THE CHAIR: Thanks, Gary.

MR McCULLOCH: Your answer to question 4 is “subject to the merit selection process”. Can you describe that process?

Mr Rake: What it essentially means is that officers are judged on their ability to do the job, the claims against the specific criteria for a job. If people need assistance to prepare for an interview or if they need assistance in the interview process, we do not let any barrier get in the way of proving that you are the best person for a job. We have flexible forms of interview. We are open to flexible forms of recruitment but it does mean, by itself, everyone is in together.

What I would be thinking about for a revised answer here is: what are we doing in individual performance plans to help people make sure that when it comes to the merit process they have got what it takes to stick their own noses in front; we are not having to push them in front; they are equipped to get themselves in front. That is possibly


something we could do better. I would like to have a look.

MR FOWLER: I suppose from that, when addressing question 4 I would be really curious around how you engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from this community to sit on your panels. That is another way that you could have further attraction around interview processes if you have maybe some Aboriginal people who can identify some of these Aboriginal applicants. They will read an application differently to you. And that is just another tool to have when doing an effective selection process.

MR McCULLOCH: That was the point I was trying to get to. People who sit on a panel are subjective and have their views, and the make-up of the panel should be considered as part of that merit process.

In question 2, dot point 3, you state that a link will be provided for staff on the intranet. Has that been provided yet? Dot point 3, part (c), says in the last line—

Mr Rake: Yes, I can see it. I take that on notice and will come back with an absolute confirmation.

Mr Fitzgerald: I believe it has but I am happy to confirm. I believe it is in the past month or two that we have done that.

MR FOWLER: It is another way of also promoting the great work you have done to date as well.

MR McCULLOCH: It is about connecting employees, networking and so forth as well.

MR FOWLER: To be that employer of choice you need to have information there.

MR McCULLOCH: In question 3, dot point 8 gives the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait employees as six, at 1.9 per cent. However, in your annual report for 2014-15 it states you have three, at one per cent. There is a bit of discrepancy there. Can you expand on that?

Mr Rake: Three is the number of identified positions we have; six is the number of employees who have identified as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.

MR FOWLER: So that is nine in total?

Mr Rake: No.

THE CHAIR: Six.

Mr Rake: Six employees in total, three of whom occupy identified positions. I apologise if we have worded the annual report badly.


MR McCULLOCH: Looking at (d) in question 3 about classifications, you mentioned before that none are in leadership positions.

Mr Rake: Those are the classifications of the identified positions. There are three employees who are not in identified positions who are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. They may be in management positions.

Mr Fitzgerald: Unfortunately we do not have access to what level those positions are.

Mr Rake: We do not match that.

Mr Fitzgerald: So we cannot provide that linkage. As Annie mentioned, they may be in senior positions; we are just unaware.

THE CHAIR: How are you measuring that they are there, then?

Mr Fitzgerald: It is a self-disclosure option. Within our HR system they can nominate, disclose, as part of that system. Updating their details, they have a similar ability to update—

THE CHAIR: I am well aware of that. Your systems in HR allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to identify but why can you not identify the classification if you know that they are there?

Mr Rake: I think Shared Services can provide that information to you guys without disclosing privacy or breaches.

Mr Fitzgerald: I would suggest that is true, yes.

MR FOWLER: They can, believe me. I work in people and workplace strategy. They can provide it.

Mr Fitzgerald: We will seek that information.

MR McCULLOCH: Dot point (e) of that question talks about professional development plans. Have all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff got professional development plans? I asked that question of the Chief Minister’s directorate this morning and they stated that across the government only 54 per cent of employees had plans.

Mr Rake: We have some gaps in our compliance rate there as well.

Mr Fitzgerald: We have 87 per cent of our staff who currently have plans in place. At the moment I do not have specifics as to whether that encapsulates all. Certainly the identified positions have performance management plans in place.

MR McCULLOCH: All of them?

Mr Rake: And at 87, I am glad to hear we are doing better than Chief Minister’s.


MR McCULLOCH: Yes, better than the average. As part of those professional development plans, have any of these staff members been given higher duties or any staff assistance over the past 12 months?

Mr Rake: I take that on notice.

Ms Moore: I could take that. We have one of the identified positions within the heritage team, and part of that officer’s personal development plan this year has included other duties to develop his skills to enable him to be able to step up into the next level, being the senior officer level. He has really taken to those well and it is very encouraging to see. We are coming up to our six-month review of that personal development plan for this particular officer, and there may be further opportunity to increase some of those additional skills that he has taken on board and programs and job options.

MR McCULLOCH: Some skills can only be learnt on the job. In terms of higher duties—

Ms Moore: We are increasing these skills to enable him to have the opportunity to do higher duties without developing those skills, such as a merit process. There may be other applicants that have higher skills. So we are just increasing those to afford him the opportunities.

MR McCULLOCH: In question 5 you state that the CALM program run through the AMC has assisted a number of detainees to successfully complete their conservation and land management certificate II. How many detainees have successfully completed this certificate?

Mr Chong: We know of at least two but we need to confirm that with JACS. That was in the first eight months, I believe.

THE CHAIR: How long is that program for and how many have gone through outside of getting a certificate?

Mr Chong: The certificate II? You would have to talk to JACS again, because part of the CALM program is managed by JACS and that is through the RTO within the jail. I am trying to remember the name.

MR FOWLER: The education provider in the jail is Austwide.

Mr Chong: Austwide, thanks. Austwide would be able to give you the correct number. They also deliver a horticultural program.

MR McCULLOCH: Also in response to question 5 it was stated that the program is about to conduct an evaluation. I know you touched on that earlier. Is there any time frame for completion of that evaluation?

Mr Chong: We would like to start it ASAP. We did plan to commence last month. There was an issue with the person who was coming into AMC because she had an


illness in the family that she had to rush off to. So we plan to commence in January 2016. As you can understand, there are a lot of logistical issues there. The appropriate staff need to be there. The appropriate training for visitors needs to be conducted. There is a bit going on.

MR McCULLOCH: In question 6, in the last dot point you state that you have developed a reconciliation action plan, the RAP. Can you tell the elected body how this was developed, how it is used and how it will be developed in the future?

Mr Fitzgerald: The development happened over quite a long period. We actually did quite a lot of consultation, led by a previous executive director who has since left the public service. Since that point we have continued to highlight the fact that it is in place. We hold regular meetings about implementation and how we go about implementing that plan. The specifics on that, unfortunately, I do not have with me. I am happy to take on notice the exact steps we have gone about in implementing that plan.

Dr Lane: I could probably add a little there. We have undertaken cultural awareness training for all staff. We recognise the awareness week, NAIDOC Week. NAIDOC Week, we celebrated that, and all staff were certainly invited to come to that. We propose to undertake another lot of cultural awareness training for staff—that is an ongoing thing that we want to undertake—and also for some of our committees as well who are involved in natural resources management. I think that is important. Those are the ones that come to me at the moment.

THE CHAIR: Is the cross-cultural training compulsory and have all staff completed that training?

Dr Lane: It is not compulsory, but certainly staff are very strongly encouraged to attend. I would not say at this stage that all staff have attended but, as I said, we do have another round coming up next year.

THE CHAIR: Have you got a percentage of how many staff have completed it, though?

Dr Lane: Sorry, I could not answer that right now. I will take that on notice.

THE CHAIR: Because usually with cross-cultural training, we are all busy. In the public service, we are just going all the time. I totally understand that, but if the leadership of the directorate is not demonstrating that by participating in the training themselves and then encouraging their counterparts to do that, then it will not happen. It has to be demonstrated, reinforced and shown to be, like you said, ongoing. I really like that you have spoken about that it is just not one-off and that it continues on what is the journey of reconciliation; and cross-cultural training is certainly one component of it. There are lots of others, but that is a good approach to take.

MR FOWLER: On that, have those managers of those identified positions at least attended cultural awareness? That would be strongly encouraged.

Mr Rake: I will have to check and take that on notice and come back to you.


MR ALLAN: Because it is one thing to have the RAP and targets to meet, but one of the key targets should be everyone is doing cultural awareness programs. Ultimately, like you said, you are out in the community a lot and coming face to face with our community. Everyone should be culturally trained to say and do the cultural things.

THE CHAIR: It is a comprehensive approach to cultural proficiency. We know OATSIA are leading the work in that. It might be worthwhile that you guys have a conversation with OATSIA around what that looks like and how the directorate then implements that.

I would like to make a comment about the Ngunnawal Plant Use book. It is such a fantastic resource; you must be so proud of that. It covers everyone. You have got here the schools and adults. We see it at our functions and events around NAIDOC Week and at some other things. It is a great resource. Again, I acknowledge and applaud the work that has gone into that and how useful it is and will continue to be for quite a while. We are currently referring to that in terms of developing the older persons accommodation and the plants around that. Good on you, guys.

MR FOWLER: The chair strongly encouraged CSD through the housing component to purchase a copy and keep it within their structure to look at how they could add cultural plants to future housing developments as well, not just for our people but holistically to the community and to continue to maintain those natural resources within the local area.

Mr Fitzgerald: I am sure we can provide one free of charge and send it across.

Mr Rake: Thank you for those kind words. We will make sure that is passed on to the team who have done that.

THE CHAIR: Is the thinking, now you have got the book, about how it can be utilised across other directorates in terms of the work that is going on now you are leading the way in those initiatives?

Ms Tomlinson: If I may add, in providing a copy to each of the schools it is hard for us to actually understand how much use it is receiving, but my own daughter brought home extracts from the book and she needed to identify plants from the book. They went out into neighbouring reserves and they also needed to guess what the cultural use could have been. Then they went to the Ngunnawal Plant Use book and understood. I thought there was a really innovative, wonderful teacher behind that. Part of our role is enabling teachers to think about their setting and how to engage.

The other feedback we have got from the education department is that it is really important to engage Aboriginal students and non-Aboriginal students and that peer group. It is really good. We are currently in discussions with the education department about our source material and what more we can do, how to augment and things like that and our schools learning from other schools or are teachers learning from other teachers.


MR ALLAN: From my perspective of being the Aboriginal education officer in the Catholic system and constantly liaising with Darren, I must say the Catholic schools use it as part of their everyday teaching. I go to 25 Catholic schools in the ACT and in every single one it is used over and over again.

THE CHAIR: Maybe it is about putting that on your internet page: “Here’s some advice around resources for schools or organisations or directorates.” It is about the next phase of that book and what it is able to achieve. It is so good and there is still some potential around the utilisation of it.

MR McCULLOCH: A question from a community member while we are on this subject: how is the Ngunnawal Plant Use guide selling?

Ms Tomlinson: It is continuing to sell well. The botanic gardens is probably the main outlet, and we also created a banner for the Ngunnawal Plant Use book to help promote it. We are lending that to the botanic gardens during their Christmas sort of thing. We do not monitor the sale numbers but we do monitor the profits from it. It is now at $16,702, so we know it is continuing to sell and we continue to take over boxes to the botanic gardens in particular.

THE CHAIR: Where does that money go to?

Ms Tomlinson: We will be consulting with the community about what to do with that money. It will be going to further reprinting of the book, but we think there will be further funding available. We have not commenced that consultation process yet, but it might be about utilising the book more or there might be some other ideas that come up in expanding the Indigenous knowledge. We will be consulting on that.

Mr Rake: That is segregated there; it does not get dragged off to other directorate activities.

THE CHAIR: That is right. It is put back into community or Aboriginal education in some way for the schools or the community.

MR McCULLOCH: Just in regards to the RAP, under “Employment” it has got that Aboriginal employment is to be considered. How is it to be considered?

Mr Rake: I guess running through the structure and making sure that we have identified positions where they are appropriate, making sure that we actively participate in things like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traineeship program, which we are doing. It is probably a short line that has a lot hanging off it.

MR FOWLER: While you are on the RAP, can I mention something to be mindful of?

MR McCULLOCH: Sure.

MR FOWLER: I have personally developed over 52 RAPs for federal and state governments and for private companies. One of the things that you have got here is when you look at the responsibility within a directorate, try not to place it on an


individual, because individuals come and go while your directorate is going to stay. I am mindful that this is your first RAP, and I commend you on taking a lead and actually putting one out. But just be mindful that beyond the first RAP it becomes a second RAP and then it becomes a stretched RAP and an extended RAP. So by the time you get to there you really do not want to be attaching people within that structure; you really want to attaching unit heads or a role to that. I wanted to let you know to be mindful of that in the second stage of your RAP.

THE CHAIR: If I could ask about the RAOs, there are four RAOs that you regularly consult with in relation to heritage matters. Do you look outside that group as well? Again, where is the opportunity to engage the broader community and the traditional custodians such as UNEC, and others who are not even part of UNEC, to have a conversation?

Ms Moore: The Heritage Act determines that the Heritage Council must consult with representative Aboriginal organisations—RAOs—of which, as you have mentioned, there are four. The council also consults with UNEC. That is on Aboriginal registrations, management of Aboriginal places and patronage, site limitations or interpretation. They also consult on those. We also have on the council Gary Shipp. He represents the Aboriginal community on the Heritage Council. He is a conduit also for getting out to the community and delivering messages from the community to the council. Those are the three main areas that we consult with. We also have our Aboriginal liaison officer, Euroka Gilbert, who is our in-house government conduit between the Aboriginal community and the Heritage Council and heritage in the ACT.

MR McCULLOCH: What progress is being made regarding recommendation 17 of ATSIEB’s report to government relating to the transfer of the administrative responsibility for the operation of the United Ngunnawal Elders Council to the Environment and Planning Directorate?

Mr Rake: That is a matter that gets dealt with in the whole-of-government administrative arrangements. I am not aware of there being any recent moves on that. I am sorry; I do not have more.

MR McCULLOCH: No worries. That is about all I have for you guys.

THE CHAIR: I have just got one more question.

MR MCCULLOCH: Yes, please.

THE CHAIR: The heritage grants projects, looking at what has been written there, they are very interesting. They look really good. Is that captured on your internet? The last point around the analysis of Aboriginal cultural material currently held by the ACT government, is that information publicly available?

Ms Moore: Not as yet. That heritage grant has not concluded yet; it is still part way through its process.

THE CHAIR: But those grants are on your website saying that they have been successful?


Ms Moore: Some of these grants are for walks and tours and talks. Those tours have not been uploaded, but we could talk to the facilitators of those tours to see if they have perhaps a map that they could put up showing where the walk was with some interpretation. We could follow up and see if there are some things that we can—

THE CHAIR: I think it all contributes to promoting the fantastic work that you are doing in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space, whether it is in your new RAP or considering being an employer of choice. As an Aboriginal person going on to your website and having a look at that, that is really interesting stuff. You are doing some fantastic work.

Ms Moore: This year we have the Canberra tracks. You may or may not be familiar with that; it is a self-drive tour around Canberra. There are currently eight tracks, and one of those is dedicated to Ngunnawal country. We have a dedicated website for the Canberra tracks, and it features quite heavily. It is one of the key tracks. I think, in fact, it might even be track No 1. It is a very successful program that we run and there is interpretive signage littered throughout the ACT for these tracks. We also have a mobile app for them. We have received very good feedback on that.

MR FOWLER: It would be nice to know about that. We can encourage that. We were talking about business and tourism earlier on, how you can interact between directorates on this. I would look to put it to you, Gary, and your team: have a discussion with economic development and look at these enterprising schemes that we could look at through tourism and increase that. You talked about the sale of the plant book, Heather. That could be taken in. There are many overseas people who might want to buy that because they are horticulturists and are interested in plant life from other nations and other people and understanding the medicinal purposes attached to those natural resources.

Mr Carmichael: We are in the process of developing an ACT heritage strategy. A key component of that heritage strategy will be about promoting heritage within the ACT as a tourism destination. A key component will be about the Indigenous heritage of this region. We will probably release that early in the new year. The launch program got a bit crowded just now, but early in the new year we will launch that and one of the key objectives will be to promote Indigenous heritage.

THE CHAIR: I heard Euroka talking about the scarred tree when we did the Yankee Hat tour with the D-Gs. It was good to hear that that is now being moved out to Namadgi and being preserved. That is an important project that, again, is another good news story. It is nice to know that the funds have been allocated to enable that to happen for now and into the future in terms of generational education. I have no more questions. Thank you, Tony.

MR MCCULLOCH: Awesome, thank you. If there is no more, thanks very much guys. We appreciate your time.

The hearing adjourned at 4.15 pm.


Documents

APPEARANCES - atsieb.com.auatsieb.com.au/wp-content/.../08/...Transcript-Day-One-9 … · Web viewOverton-Clarke, Ms Bronwen, Deputy Director-General, Workforce Capability and Governance