Money to fight Aurukun crime went unspent
23.02.2008
Queensland Government was warned three years ago that its failure to provide services for Aboriginal communities represented a serious breach of its statutory duties.
An internal Department of Communities report which looked specifically at Aurukun Aboriginal community on western Cape York found hundreds of thousands of dollars -- allocated to employ staff and provide justice facilities to combat youth crime -- had not been spent.
Government reporting was also found to be so poor and inaccurate the department did not know how many young people from Aurukun were on court orders or in prison.
The report, by Yolie Swinkels, was completed in 2005 and looked at the previous year's efforts by DOC to deal with youths who had committed crimes.
It said recidivism rates were ``unacceptably high'' at 92 per cent and the levels of service delivery were failing the people of Aurukun, increasing the likelihood of reoffending and repeat incarceration.
Court-imposed sanctions on juvenile offenders were not enforced nor enforcible, making a mockery of the court and justice process. Offenders were aware they would not be punished for their crimes.
This finding was made two years before six juveniles and three adults who pleaded guilty to gang-raping a 10-year-old intellectually impaired Aurukun girl in 2005 escaped jail terms.
The report said community-based orders were poorly supervised, court-ordered conditions were not met by the department and no services to address offending behaviour or alcohol and substance abuse were available. There were no caseworkers allocated to oversee juvenile offenders and when a court ordered a juvenile offender to attend substance abuse counselling, none was available within Aurukun.
Dr Swinkels wrote that police did not cite petrol sniffing as a contributing factor to offending ``because the mention of sniffing is considered by police to be derogative''.
The most scathing criticism was in regard to Treasury allocations to fund projects and the employment of DOC officers. The report found that the people were not employed and the projects not conducted.
The management of a public intoxication program had an annual allocation of $98,274, but Dr Swinkels wrote: ``This service is now in its fifth year of not operating. The original service model was developed by the community, and a vehicle was purchased. The model was universally regarded as unsuccessful during the short time it operated and the vehicle was subsequently written off by an unauthorised driver. The funding remains on offer, but unused.''
The report also found that the Government failed to provide an office for youth workers, court caseworkers and other staff in Aurukun, and did not provide them with vehicles or accommodation.
Department of Communities Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr, who was not the minister when the Swinkels report was completed, yesterday said the problem of staff facilities had been addressed.
``But the fact is that the community has to work with us,'' she said.
``There are several communities, including Aurukun, that have a history of rioting and unrest, and the only public servants who should be there on those occasions are police.
``On Aurukun we have appointed an indigenous conferencing support officer and a service support officer to look after youth justice issues and co-ordination of government services.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from a 2005 report into youth justice at Aurukun
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department does not have the infrastructure or service capacity within
Aurukun to meet the basic requirements of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1992.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Police indicated many of the offenders in court were sniffers. They reported the
figure to be as high as 92% ... Police did not have a data base on which to register
the sniffers and the office police reports (QP9's) did not mention sniffing as a
contributing factor to offending because the mention of sniffing is considered by
police to be derogative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community based Orders were poorly supervised and rarely included the services of
an actual treatment program. Court ordered conditions on community based orders
were not met by the Department and no services to address offending behaviour,
alcohol and substance abuse were available.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
