fecca access and equity report 2006 ‐ 1 · pdf fileclothing like a hijab. questionnaire...

FECCA Access and Equity Report 2006 ‐ 1 ‐

ACCESS AND EQUITY REPORT

DECEMBER 2006

Feedback from FECCA’s consultation regarding access and equity issues for people from culturally and

linguistically diverse backgrounds, conducted during November and December 2006.


Executive Summary

FECCA conducted a consultation via questionnaire and through discussions at the Transformations conference to inform this report on access and equity issues for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDB).

Feedback from our consultation indicates that there are still barriers to access and equitable outcomes for people from CLDB, with particularly poor outcomes for people who do not have good functional English language skills, including older people from CLDB and newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants; people who are “physically different” in appearance (for example, people who wear distinctive clothing such as a hijab); people from CLDB with disabilities; people from new and emerging communities; and people with complex needs.

There was general agreement that the principles laid out in the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society are positive and well constructed, and if properly implemented, they would facilitate good access and equity. However, there was a strong perception that the principles in the Charter are not integrated into service delivery mechanisms by all government agencies and departments, and that in fact, there are few examples of consistent best practice.

Centrelink was highlighted as a department that consistently utilised a good practice approach to implementing access and equity principles, as were particular areas administered by DIMA, especially the Translating and Interpreter Service. Medicare Australia and the Family Court of Australia were also identified as organisations utilising good practice approaches to improving access and equity outcomes.

Several departments including Department of Health and Ageing, Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Department of Science, Education and Training were identified as needing to do more to improve access and equitable outcomes for people from CLDB.

Generally, respondents felt that it was difficult to describe best practice as this indicated consistent high standards with a clear leader. There were strong perceptions that many government agencies were not performing as well as could be expected, given that the Charter was introduced in 1998.

FECCA believes that this report highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy to improve access and equity outcomes for people with poor or developing English language skills, including continued well funded, government support for English language skills acquisition, and improved work force training and translator and interpreter resources for government agencies directly involved in service provision.


The Charter for public service for a culturally diverse society aims to provide a key tool for ensuring that all government services meet the needs of our culturally and linguistically diverse society.

FECCA undertook a community consultation during November and December 2006 to investigate access and equity issues for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Our consultation asked people to indicate:

• their satisfaction regarding the extent to which the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society is being met

• good practice, • areas where improvements are needed, and • examples of best practice models utilised by government agencies.

This report is the compilation of feedback from respondents from a wide range of stakeholders including people in receipt of services, organisations working with migrants and refugees, including newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants, and people who have been in Australia for many years, community advocates and FECCA members.

A consultation on access and equity was also conducted during the Transformations 2006 conference. This allowed us to reach a wider range of stakeholders who had not received the questionnaire.

A copy of the questionnaire can be found at appendix 1.

While the focus of this report is on commonwealth government services, in order to present a more complete picture of barriers to full access and equity, we have included feedback about state and local government services. We have done this, as we believe it provides “food for thought” through the use of examples that departments looking to improve access and equity may be able to learn from.

This report highlights several areas in which access and equity issues are of concern, or multicultural communities are experiencing poorer service outcomes that other Australians.

General feedback from those stakeholders we canvassed was that on the whole, government agencies are seen as being fair, accessible and providing good quality services to people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, as long as people have reasonable English language skills and did not have complex needs. However, once people have language barriers or special needs, there are strong perceptions that there are many challenges in government agencies being able to meet people’s needs effectively.


Our consultation drew comments that while access had improved for people from CLDB, equitable outcomes were still not being achieved. It was perceived that some people from CLDB, particularly people who were “physically different in appearance” or had poor English language skills still encountered structural racism and/or discrimination when they engaged with government services providers, as well as NGOs delivering services on behalf of government. As a response to this, it was felt that there needed to be a stronger focus on accountability measures and outcomes for clients receiving services.

While there are some clear leaders, feedback from our questionnaire indicates that government departments are not doing as well as they should be doing. There are continual reports of barriers to receiving good service across a range of government departments and agencies, experienced by people from CLDB, particularly for people whose first language is not English. The fact that these reports are still being received regularly indicates that the Charter for Public Service in a culturally diverse society is still not being implemented effectively and the need to ensure service responsiveness to people from CLDB is still not regarded as “core business” by some departments.

Effective monitoring and proper accountability processes were identified as a clear gap. Data collection was also identified as a very important key to ensuring effective service delivery through the development of an understanding of the client group which service providers need to engage with. A lack of responsive to client’s specific needs was also identified.

There was general agreement that the principles laid out in the Charter are positive and well constructed, and if implemented, they would facilitate good access and equity. However, there is a strong perception that the principles in the Charter are not integrated into service delivery mechanisms by all government agencies and departments, and that in fact, there are few examples of consistent best practice.

Comments from our questionnaire respondents included:

What I would really like is for someone to say, “help me to help you”, to discuss the range of services that are available, and what I may need, rather than them being the “expert” and deciding for themselves what I need.

CLDB Delegate at Transformations conference


FECCA believes that the voluntary nature of the Charter is an issue that is leading to poorer service delivery outcomes for people from CLDB, particularly those whose first language is not English. We advocate for mandatory reporting against the Charter, as a way of imbedding best practice in the policies, procedures, protocols and planning of all Government departments.

Increasingly, as a wider range of services are being delivered by non government organisations, on behalf of government, it is important that the Charter becomes a strong tool to guide service delivery. We advocate for further investigation into how this might be able to be brought about, and for a strong focus on integrating the principles outlined in the Charter into accountability measures by services funded by government.

POOR PERFORMANCE IN RELATION TO ACCESS AND EQUITY

Direct discrimination or poorer access and equity to services General comments

Respondents indicated that there were several key areas that impacted on poor access and equity:

• Service delivery models that are predicated on a “white Anglo‐celtic” paradigm,

• A lack of cultural diversity of counter staff, • A lack of understanding of the background and experiences of people

from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly humanitarian entrants, and how this may impact on their ability to access and utilise services, and

• Racial and religious discrimination, particularly in the context of the global “war on terror” and marginalisation of particular communities

People who do not have well‐developed English language skills are seen as experiencing poorer outcomes, and in some cases, direct discrimination.

Many respondents felt that new and emerging community members were particularly disadvantaged and experienced both poor access and equity and direct discrimination across a number of settings.

No government agencies exhibit best practice. I don’t like the term best practice as it assumes there are good and better practices for something to be considered best.

Questionnaire respondent


Groups that stand out physically were seen to be particularly affected and vulnerable to poor service delivery outcomes. This can include people with readily identifiable facial or physical features, or wearing identifiable clothing like a hijab. Questionnaire respondents indicated that neglect by omission, as well as active discrimination was experienced by people seeking to access services.

This backs up the findings of the Isma project 1 conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that found that the majority of participants in the Isma project reported experiencing various forms of prejudice because of their race or religion. (This included) discrimination in the provision of some government services, particularly police services…

Communities that “blend in” are perceived as doing better and experiencing fewer barriers to full access and equity. An example provided was young men from African backgrounds being “targeted” or “profiled” by police. This example of stereotyping has implications for access and equity and potential discrimination when people are trying to access services from police or justice services when they are vulnerable or in need, or indeed being tried before the courts.

Lack of trust is a major issue and will lead to poor access and equity outcomes, as people are reticent to approach services they may need to access. There are a variety of possible reasons for this including fear of authority and government agencies as a result of experiences in a person’s country of origin.

Older people from non English speaking backgrounds, particularly those experiencing ill health, who need special or long term services were seen as being particularly disadvantaged.

Both older unemployed people and people with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds were seen as being particularly disadvantaged by Welfare to Work reforms.

Cultural barriers were also identified as an issue that impacts on poor access and equity. Many ethnic groups come from predominantly patriarchal societies and they have to learn quickly to adapt to a new environment in Australia. Researchers on communication have essentially distilled the contrasts in social interaction of the “host” (Australian) and “migrant” cultures as between polychronic (oriented to people, human relationships and family (“migrant culture”)) and monochronic (oriented to tasks, schedules and procedures (“host” culture, particularly in the context of accessing government services).

1 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Isma – Listen. National consultations on eliminating prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians. 2004.


NEEDS OF PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES

New and emerging communities Health related issues Issues impacting on the ability of new and emerging community members to access a wide variety of health services that effectively meet their needs 2

Humanitarian entrants are more likely to face a greater complexity of physical and mental health problems that may be compounded by their histories of migration and settlement. Issues of trust and confidence in health and community workers, crucial to fostering a receptivity to health promotion messages, are affected by cross‐cultural issues and experiences of trauma and torture directly arising out of their experiences of migration.

The health issues faced by new and emerging communities are complex and acute, requiring close monitoring and intensive treatments. At the same time, concerns relating to the under‐utilisation of mental health services by migrants and the problems of administering treatments of infectious and parasitic diseases in terms of screening and consumer compliance to prescribed treatments are regularly voiced by health and community workers. Consumer behaviours are attributed to the stresses of settlement, cross‐cultural understandings of health, and knowledge gaps and confidence in the health system and health providers.

Newly arrived migrants’ lack of knowledge about existing health and social services and lack of transportation may be compounded by service providers’ inability or lack of interest in providing culturally sensitive services that address clients’ needs. Secondly, service providers may display a lack of understanding of clients’ ‘beliefs about the cause, course,

2 Kordes, D. Literature review see FECCA for further details.

Some possible solutions were seen as:

• Recruitment and employment strategies that encourage greater diversity in our service delivery workforce – particularly in senior decision making positions

• Cross cultural training of staff across all levels of government departments, but most particularly of “counter staff”

• A zero tolerance policy and effective monitoring of client/service provider interactions to ensure that clients do not encounter racial, cultural or religious discrimination.


and consequence of illness’. 3 Conversely, clients’ knowledge of disease aetiology may differ from Western, science‐based understandings. 4

We would advocate that the Department of Health and Ageing take a leadership role in ensuring that workforce development and accreditation programs allow health professionals working in a variety of health settings, but especially in hospital and community health settings, to develop this knowledge.

Also relevant to the success of health promotion programs with new and emerging communities is the evidence of low literacy levels among some national groups, particularly among women, for cultural reasons (oral tradition, gender roles) and/or disruptions to education (war, displacement). The literature also connects access issues with literacy levels in English and first language.

Falicia Paul connects barriers of access to low literacy levels (Somali has mainly depended on oral traditions), the (lack of) providing culturally appropriate locations for classes, issues around transport and child care and a lack of understanding of the importance of taking religious values and practice into consideration. 5 Based on a qualitative research project examining settlement issues faced by Somali women in Sydney, Paul describes barriers to women’s participation in English language classes and in their access of services.

Gaining the confidence of refugee populations involves demonstrating that the health system both understands and respects their ‘health care needs, belief systems, and patterns of health services utilisation’. 6 Gaining the confidence and the trust of the community relies on the development of communication methods that are effective in negotiating between different health care models.

Comprehension relates to the issue of impaired cognitive ability, in particular the barriers created by mental health conditions. It is recognised that there is a need to develop materials that would ‘make refugees receptive to the idea of using mental health services’. 7 The challenges of successfully implementing this strategy are considerable, not only because of the stigma attached to psychiatric disability but also because for some communities the concept of mental health and illness may be alien to their

3 ibid. 4 ibid. 5 Falicia Paul. 1999. English Acquisition and Mental Health for Somali Women. Nobody Wants To Talk About It. Refugee Women’s Mental Health. Barbara Ferguson and Eileen Pittaway (editors). Parramatta: Transcultural Mental Health Centre, pp. 3139. 6 ibid. 7 ibid.


culture. 8 Cultural sensitivity to the nuances of language is therefore crucial.

Earlier this year, FECCA conducted a consultation about issues impacting on safe use of medicines, and access and equity issues relating to health and settlement services. The advisory group identified the need for managing risk in medicines use for the newly arrived, for example, the risk associated with sudden exposure to pharmaceuticals. Feedback included the following:

Working effectively with persons from refugee backgrounds necessitates having skills and/or awareness of the following: • The need to be both culturally sensitive and culturally responsive • The importance of not imposing values on each community and the need

to be aware of diversity in values. • Literacy issues. In the first years of their settlement, word of mouth is

the most effective form of getting health information out into the community.

FECCA has received feedback that there is a clear lack of champions in relation to policies and services for New and Emerging Communities, particularly in the health area.

Questionnaire respondents indicated that DIMA has a direct focus on this area, and so does better than most others. There was perceived to be a lack of a clear focus by other departments, including the Department of Health and Ageing on the needs of new and emerging communities, or indeed a whole of government approach.

Police and the legal system Concerns were raised about racist attitudes being expressed by police, and that people were being targeted because of the colour of their skin. Young people from CLDB (particularly those of Middle Eastern and African backgrounds) were seen as being vulnerable to being targeted by police, especially when young men were together in groups, either in cars, or on

8 For example, the women in Paul’s qualitative study were more likely to associate mental illness or disorder with spiritual beliefs and consequently, more likely to turn to their religion for support, Paul, p.32

The first six months are a critical time in refugees’ settlement: people are dying because they do not know how to dial 000. I have first‐hand knowledge of cases of accidental overdoses, misunderstandings relating to inadequate knowledge/experience of managing complexities of medicine. You can’t wait until people have settled in before providing information about safe and effective use of medicines, and the complexity of Australia’s health system.


the streets. This suggests strongly that particular communities are experiencing less equitable outcomes from their interactions with police.

There is a perception that complaints made by people from CLDB, particularly people from new and emerging communities, are not taken seriously, particularly when reporting experiences of racial or religious vilification or physical assault or harassment based on a persons skin colour or cultural background (raised by several people from different parts of Australia). This clearly points to difficulties with the principle identified in the Charter relating to responsiveness to the needs of service users.

The use of ethnic profiling, both formal (in the case of NSW) and informal (in other jurisdictions) is impacting negatively on service delivery. In Tasmania, there are no specific police liaison officers who are able to help to negotiate and overcome language and cultural barriers to good interactions between police and the public. This is a particularly important gap given the push to settle new migrants and humanitarian entrants in regional areas, including Tasmania. It takes time for people to trust police, particularly if they have negative experiences with police in their country of origin (where police may be corrupt, and not to be trusted). The use of police liaison officers helps new arrivals to build an understanding of the Australian legal system, so this is a gap that has a significant impact on new arrivals and humanitarian entrants in this geographic location.

The police in all states and territories are priority participants in case of any emergency that arises, be it fire, cyclone, riots or major public upheavals. Other major contributors in an emergency are local government, other emergency services, and the public, including people from multicultural communities. Unfortunately, there has been little communication with multicultural communities about emergency responses and this was highlighted at a recent Emergency Management Australia workshop. We are concerned that this lack of consultation, especially with members of new and emerging communities, may lead to poorer access to important information in times of crisis, and place communities at risk. We advocate for the development of community partnerships to help facilitate communication approaches that meet the needs of people from new and emerging communities.

I was walking on the pavement with some of my friends including another male friend of mine who is also Somali and my girlfriend who is Anglo‐Saxon. I had my arm around her shoulders. A passing police car did a u‐turn, pulled up next to us and the officer asked my girlfriend if she was alright three or four times. Why did they assume that she was in danger? I was in a group of boys and girls of different backgrounds, why did the policeman ask my girlfriend?

Respondent interviewed by FECCA


Education

Questionnaire respondents indicated that students are experiencing racism in educational settings that are not being adequately addressed by educational authorities. In some circumstances, this is leading to students withdrawing from school, in many cases exacerbating an already disrupted pattern of schooling.

The issue of refugee youth at risk is a significant one particularly when considering the current African intake. 9 Principals, community workers and police have raised the issue that some students are having particular problems in understanding and adapting to the education system and the culture of Australian schooling. This is not a new problem and has been identified with past groups where children/youth have been traumatised by the refugee experience; come from a culture that has substantially different norms and expectations of dress, gender, personal care and interaction between persons; and in the case of Sudanese students a limited or no experience with schooling.

9 This whole section is a paper prepared by John Gebhardt, FECCA Senior Deputy Chair, November 2006.

Some suggested solutions:

• Cross cultural training of all police officers, including senior personnel

• Public campaigns to outline Zero tolerance towards racial, cultural or religious discrimination exhibited by police

• Recruitment strategies that encourage a wider cultural, linguistic and faith diversity within police forces

• Establishment of community partnerships/liaison units that work effectively with members of multicultural communities, particularly in areas where there is a history of conflict/unease between communities and police

• Discontinuation of descriptors and profiling such as “of middle Eastern appearance” that create and perpetuate community inaccurate community stereotypes

• Continuation of advisory groups such as APMAB that foster stronger working relationships between police and multicultural communities and create important forums for discussion of issues of concern

• Police take responsibility for conducting workshops or exercises that would help in the overall improved management of emergencies, and are responsible for effective communication with communities at times of crisis


A consequence of this is a difficulty that both teachers and pupils have in ensuring that maximum benefit is gained from the learning experience and in the case of male youth a markedly increased risk of disillusionment, failure and ultimately dropping out of school. The result of the latter is increased levels of unemployability, potential for dysfunctional and antisocial behaviour and engagement in crime.

Previous experience has shown that there is a period of transition and settlement that occurs in the first five years of arrival. The learning of the English language is of course the first priority and is addressed by the ESL New Arrivals Program, albeit inadequately. However there are also the cultural, psychological and linguistic barriers during this period that are problematic and often impede effective English language development, effective learning, access to vocational training and career planning and employment.

The current group of African, more specifically Sudanese arrivals, face many barriers to full access and equity in relation to educational and English language services that effectively meet their needs, for a number of reasons.

They:

1. often have no previous experience of the educational context or the social skills to effectively engage in it;

2. they often lack literacy in their own language and have little or no English language skills;

3. they come from a society that is still tribal in its perceptions, behaviour and its mores;

4. they hold unrealistic perceptions of western society and material culture;

5. they often have a poor understanding of the operation and application of the law in Australia;

6. males appear to perform on average less well in the educational context than females, resulting in loss of status and avoidance behaviours which may include absenteeism, disruptive behaviour and dropping out of school;

7. some are traumatised and often exhibit delayed behaviours reflecting the refugee experience.


Our consultation asked which government agencies and departments needed to have a stronger focus on access and equity issues for new and emerging communities. The following Departments and agencies were identified as needing to do more:

• Office for Women • Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Possible solutions

A positive first step would be the development of a bipartisan agreement between Federal and State providers on acceptable benchmarks for the provision of ESL support and related youth services to prevent the lack of action currently caused by a debate about responsibility. The following coordinated remedial action needs to be taken by federal and state authorities if we are to achieve the positive outcomes.

• Action needs to be taken to ensure that the Commonwealth guarantees to fund 200 additional ESL teachers over the next three years. This will ensure that there is an effective program that genuinely addresses student needs and achieves measurable learning outcomes. It will also provide continuity of quality teaching and learning to the New Arrivals Program.

• It should be noted that the current allocation of ESL teachers in both government and non‐government schools falls far short of what may be regarded as even vaguely adequate. Current statistics for both state and non‐government schools indicate that at least 35% of ESL students who require support do not receive it. More localised examples where African refugee students attend a school indicate that their extreme need often leads to a concentration of ESL support that is withdrawn from the general ESL students.

• There must be an immediate increase in New Arrivals ESL support for refugees – at least with an allocation that ensures 5 hours of specialist tuition per week. The current allocation is 2.3 hours per week, less than 30 minutes per day.

• In the case of our current refugee children the New Arrivals support should not be a one off allocation in the first year of settlement; but rather a 3 year allocation which will redress the current socio‐ cultural and educational disadvantage of these highly vulnerable and traumatised children.


• Department of Health and Ageing (particularly those sections dealing with mental health initiatives)

People from CLDB with disabilities

People from CLDB with disabilities open “fall through the gaps” and therefore experience a double disadvantage in being able to access services that effectively meet their needs. Poor access and equity to services occurs across government and non‐government agencies. The poor access and equity experienced is highlighted by the following statistic:

Where people have attempted to use mainstream services they have experienced many difficulties. For example:

.

A number of agencies appear reluctant to utilise interpreter services. This results in people often not having a good understanding of how to access essential services, or get help when they need it. For example:

One family we worked with did not have electricity for one week, and did not realise that there was someone that they could call to have this rectified


People from CLDB make up 14% of the population who have disabilities, however they only represent 2.5% of people with disabilities accessing services


One individual advocate accompanied a consumer to an appointment with Centrelink, where they waited four hours before they were attended to. The consumer did not have proficient English language skills, and without the advocate there, who constantly asked to be seen, it is likely that the waiting time would have been even longer.



Feedback from our questionnaire indicates that organisations that meet the needs of people from CLDB with disabilities best are those that specialise in service delivery to multicultural communities. Transcultural Mental Health Units were identified as demonstrating a high level of cultural competence. Likewise, people accessing Centrelink services with the assistance of Multicultural Service Officers (MSO’s) have reported better outcomes than people attempted to access Centrelink services through “mainstream” counter staff.

Young people from CLDB

Questionnaire respondents indicated that in general, local government agencies were not effective in providing services to newly arrived young people. Local councils were perceived as not communicating with newly arrived young migrants and refugees about their role beyond rubbish collection and road maintenance. As a result, opportunities were lost for consultation about how local councils might be able to help assist with settlement.

Newly arrived young people are missing out on a lot of already existing services because they don’t know about them. There needs to be a more effective method of communication to young people so that they don’t miss out on what is available to them. Generally, there is a lack of understanding about rights among newly arrived migrants.

Centrelink was identified as not explaining eligibility for payments for students, who were also working to support themselves. Examples cited included students being told at the conclusion of their courses (after 4 years) that they owed money to Centrelink due to overpayments. Some of

Possible solutions identified by questionnaire respondents included:

• Ensuring cultural competence of all staff within government agencies, particularly for staff who deal directly with consumers

• Effective oversight of expenditure by government departments (at both commonwealth, state and local government level) to ensure that funding is equitably distributed to address significant gaps in service delivery for people from CLDB with disability

• Tendering processes and funding need to continue to be inclusive of specialist ethnic advocacy agencies, particularly as the cultural competence of mainstream services is still not adequate to ensure full access and equitable outcomes for people from CLDB with disabilities


these students were sending large amounts of money overseas to their family and relatives and repayment was extremely difficult.

Newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants

Respondents agreed that government departments and agencies can deliver excellent service to all, including those people without functional English, when they have a well trained, culturally competent workforce – skilled in working proactively with newly arrived migrants. Training in how to work effectively with interpreters was seen as a key to facilitating good service provision and outcomes for newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants.

Specific service delivery areas identified as having barriers to full access and equity for people from CLDB

Family and domestic violence and family breakdown

Under recent changes to the Family Law Act, families experiencing breakdown and seeking an order from the Family Court will need to undertake mediation through Family Relationship Centres. Where families from CLDB are articulate and highly skilled in English, it is likely that this will make services more accessible. But for families where there is fear or mistrust of mediation or counselling services, particularly those that are mandatory; cultural and language barriers or lack of understanding about legal systems like the family law court and associated services, outcomes are likely to be worse for people from CLDB. This is particularly so as these services are predicated on a white, mainstream model of service delivery. Multicultural communities are concerned about access and equity implications as a result of changes to family law – particularly the level of training provided to mediators and other staff working in Family Relationship Centres, the models of service delivery that are utilised and how well they are able to respond when there are clear differences in family dynamics and ways of dealing with family breakdown due to cultural differences.

Treatment of violence has changed under changes to the family law act. FECCA understands that there is now a “higher test” of whether violence is occurring in a relationship and that fear of violence occurring is not enough under the new system. This will create barriers to women accessing services as they feel that they may not be listened to or believed. Of even more concern is our constituents understanding that if women do disclose violence and it is not proved that violence has occurred, then they may be disadvantaged in their ability to access equitable shared care arrangements for children. System changes will impact differentially on people from CLDB who do not have a good understanding of systems and processes for dealing with family breakdown, or whose first language is not English, or who have a different cultural understanding of family breakdown and how it should be


dealt with. Conversely, if a perpetrator denies violence and there is found that violence has occurred, there is no penalty. This raised serious equity concerns for FECCA.

The intent behind changes to the Family Law Act is promoting the best interests of the children, but contributors to our consultation are concerned that it will make it harder for people, particularly women from CLDB, to access the protection and support they may need at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.

•

Domestic violence and related services

Access to treatment and appropriate support was identified as a major access and equity issues. For example, some Perth general practitioners have refused to see victims of domestic violence. A number of doctors and GP clinics are displaying signs in their clinics stating, “Assault victims will not be seen. Please go to your local hospital”. People experiencing family violence must be able to access health services of their choice.

Amalgamation of services is also having a strong impact. In areas like WA, these services can cover a huge geographic area. Questionnaire respondents indicated that workers are being forced to prioritise cases based on geographic location rather than need, on a diminishing budget.

A national women’s safety plan would be one initiative that would provide full access and equity for all Australians, including people from CLDB. Recommendations from the roundtable on domestic violence held in Perth in March 2006 called for more resources for translating and interpreting services and for a national database to be set up to monitor men with histories of violence who are sponsoring women from overseas.

For women with disabilities from CLDB, the intersection of cultural attitudes to disability and attitude to male/female interactions can result in a particularly negative environment for a woman with disabilities. Many refuges are not accessible for women from CLDB with disabilities. Accessing information about community support services is also difficult, as is being able to access culturally and linguistically appropriate counselling services

Possible solutions that could be considered include:

• developing outreach programs that offer flexible and accessible services to people from CLDB in settings where they feel comfortable

• mandating for service delivery models that adequately meet changing community profiles and specific needs of people from CLDB


Health

Effective provision of a range of health services is of course, essential to all Australians. However, our consultation indicates that people from CLDB are still experiencing barriers to full access and equitable outcomes to high quality, responsive, effectively delivered health services. While on face value, the needs of new and emerging communities, and ageing multicultural communities could be seen as quite different, in reality a commitment to the principles of the Charter for Public Service in a culturally diverse society would ensure better outcomes for all communities, and indeed all Australians, not matter what their background.

Questionnaire respondents indicated that the needs of ageing established communities are not being adequately met in an integrated way. An example cited was the lack of information about Home and Community Care (HACC) Services. There seems to be particular gaps in knowledge where there are different sorts of services that are offered, for example, gaps in knowledge about differences between services designed to support independence, and residential care services.

The ability of government services to respond effectively to emerging needs is an issue. This demands an ability to forward plan based on an understanding of demographics and the ageing profile of people from CLDB. An area of emerging need is support for older people from refugee backgrounds. Government services need to be much more responsive to this need as it will have an ongoing effect on the range of services that will be needed. There is a real need for a coordinated strategy.



Needs of women from CLDB Women from CLDB face barriers to been able to access Australian health care systems. In the past, specific women’s health centres have facilitated flexible service delivery that was more able to be responsive to the needs of women from CLDB. In the past, stated based systemic advocacy, funded by DIMA, used to help migrant groups to engage mainstream services in the design and delivery of programs. However, with changes to funding and tendering processes, and a stronger push towards more project‐based work, and away from systemic advocacy and coordination strategies, many of the processes for ensuring equitable outcomes for women from CLDB have been lost.

In rural and remote areas, health workforce shortages can make it very difficult for women from CLDB to access women GPs. For many women, particularly those from specific cultural and faith communities, for example, the Muslim communities, positive health outcomes may be jeopardised by a lack of access to women GPs. This is particularly evident in screening and public health promotion and preventative programs such as pap smears and breast cancer screening.

Dementia Feedback from respondents to our questionnaire indicates that culturally appropriate dementia screening tools need to developed to enable earlier detection of dementia in people from CLDB. Current screening tools do not cater adequately for people from CLDB. This is an area where the Department of Health and Ageing could be playing a strong leadership role in ensuring that policies and programs are able to respond effectively to community need.

A recent report by Access Economics, commissioned by Alzheimer’s Australia found that more than 12% of Australians with dementia – approximately one

Possible solutions:

• The development of coordinated strategies to meet the needs of particular communities. This would need to focus broadly on consultation and research to better understand the needs of communities, the formation of community partnerships to ensure responsiveness and adequate allocation of resources

• Communication and awareness campaigns in a wide range of appropriate community languages, through appropriate media including partnerships with community organisations, explaining the variety of services available and how they can be accessed


in eight people, do not speak English at home. Alzheimer’s Australia’s National Cross Cultural Network has identified a number of factors that affect the uptake of mainstream services, including language, insensitivity to the needs of ethnic communities, family responsibilities, social isolation, access to transport and cost. 10

Diabetes

Diabetes is an emerging health issue that is impacting strongly on culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Managing a complex chronic condition such as diabetes is challenging even when one’s first language is English. For people whose first language is not English, the challenges and barriers to accessing effective support and advice are compounded.

A recent study Identification of priority needs of nutrition information materials to cater for Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities found that health professionals and health workers are struggling to meet even the basic nutrition/diabetes education needs of many CALD community clients, and CALD clients are unaware of diabetes services available for them. 11 We believe that this indicates that there are clear access and equity issues relating to the provision of diabetes support services for people from CLDB communities. We believe that the Department of Health and Ageing must take a stronger leadership role in examining and addressing this issue in a comprehensive way.

Services delivered through aged care settings

This is an area where NGOs are actively involved in delivering services on behalf of government, supported through government funding. FECCA is aware of ongoing difficulties experienced by residents of aged care institutions, from a variety of diverse cultural, linguistic and faith backgrounds due to a lack of cultural competence by staff working in these

10 Access Economics for Alzheimers Australia, Dementia prevalence and incidence among Australians who do not speak English at home, 24 November 2006 11 Dietitians Association of Australia, Australian Diabetes Educators Association. Identification of Priority Needs for Nutrition Information Materials to cater for Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Diabetes Australia, 2005.

Suggested solution:

Funding to support multicultural liaison officers in stage and territory Alzheimers Australia officers could help to facilitate better access and equity and build the understanding of the aged care and general health care workforce about issues for people from CLDB with dementia.


settings. A lack of cultural sensitivity and cultural understanding in nursing home contexts illustrates a lack of consultation with clients or relevant community connected groups. A clear example of such a lack of consultation or understanding is when culturally and religiously inappropriate meals are provided on special occasions such as Christmas Eve.

Specific issues regarding aged care in regional and rural areas of Australia

In many areas of Australia away from major cities there are real issues about access and equity to health care services across a variety of settings and for a number of communities. For older people from CLDB who require supported aged care accommodation, it can be impossible for them to access high quality, sensitively delivered care that meets people’s needs as they age. Even for communities that are well established and have accessed mainstream services throughout their lifetime, there are particular issues that emerge as people age.

In communities such as Tasmania, communities are small and characterised by geographic dispersion. 12 In this context, older people from CLDB are more likely to be disadvantaged, particularly if they are from a Non English speaking background. In these settings, staff are often overworked, are often dealing with workforce shortages, and time pressures are paramount. This overarching issue of language has been highlighted again and again in the research and literature ….Unfortunately very little has been done to adequately address the problem. 13

12 Multicultural Council of Tasmania Inc. Power and Powerlessness. A project investigating matters affecting residents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in aged care facilities. Report. September 2006. 13 ibid

The first is English language loss and language reversal among older migrants….Almost all mainstream services are at a loss when dealing with clients reverting to a language other than English, especially when it is a little known language …People wanted the choice of communicating in either (their language of origin) or English. They wanted traditional meals….They wanted to share their last years reminiscing with others that understood the trauma of the wars….and the migration experience.

DutchCare Ltd http://www.dutchcare.com.au/history.htm


As part of the Power and Powerlessness consultation process, community members suggested solutions to barriers to receiving equitable outcomes in aged care settings.

Approaches such as this are consistent with the principles of the Charter for Public Service in a culturally diverse society and could be included as part of training and accreditation processes for residential aged care providers.

Lack of cultural awareness of staff working in aged care settings is a clear problem. Combined with limited or no funding to support access to accredited translating and interpreting services, and training to support workers to work with translators, this is having a negative effect on older people from CLDB.


Some of these solutions included:

• Providing interpreters wherever needed and training staff to use them effectively – it is less costly to hire an interpreter than have stressed and frustrated staff and an unhappy resident

• Facilitate informed choice and decision making by providing information in the resident’s own languages

• Provide access to programs, news, films and music in the resident’s own language wherever possible

• Prepare language tools with the help of community groups – for instance putting basic phases in large letters on wall charts that can be pointed to, to facilitate communication with residents who have lost English language skills

• Reviewing accreditation standards for food and nutrition to consider CLDB residents – this means including foods that are nutritious as well as palatable and take into account the dietary requirements of people from a variety of faith and cultural communities

• Involving culturally diverse consumers in standards and policy development

• Ensure that cultural competency training is a requirement for accreditation for residential aged care facilities

• Increase the quality and resourcing of professional development as a key strategy for achieving culturally competent practice

• Examine the current standards for determining appropriate ratios of staff to residents where clients have specific needs due to cultural or linguistic issues as a way of countering isolation currently being experienced by some residents from CLDB

• Effectively address cultural diversity needs across all accreditation standards, as all are relevant in meeting the full range of individual care and health needs of all CLDB residents.


Visas and immigration information

Our consultation indicated that there is a need to provide better information to people from CLDB about visas for relatives and family reunification. There is a clear lack of information available in a wide range of community languages about long term visas to allow family members to enter Australia to care for relatives, particularly for relatives with disabilities, or for ageing relatives.

DIMA was identified as needing to develop an increased sensitivity to providing services to families trying to reunite with immediate family members. Interactions were described as being confusing for applicants, and questionnaire respondents reported that applicants and sponsors were asked to provide information or documentation which is either irrelevant, or impossible to obtain due to cultural differences in the way that paper documentation is regarded.

Questionnaire respondents also questioned the equity of a 10 year waiting period for a disability support pension before new migrants with disabilities are able to apply for disability support pension. Eligibility for disability support pension is a pre‐requisite for access to some services and migrants with disabilities are being differentially disadvantaged by this waiting period requirement.

Respondents also reported long delays for people wishing to apply for a carer visa, which would enable a family member of a person with a disability to move to Australia and provide for their care. Our feedback is that it can take up to 10 years for people to be able to access a carer visa, again clearly creating differential disadvantage for migrants with disabilities and their families.

Temporary protection visas

FECCA stakeholders argued in consultations that all asylum seekers who are granted Temporary Protection Visas must be provided with equal treatment and full access to settlement assistance including health services, legal aid, Centrelink services, trauma counselling and English language training. Mode of entry should not be used to penalise asylum seekers by denial of services, permanent residency or access to family reunion.

English language tuition

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does acknowledge special difficulties faced by certain groups and individuals. Extra flexibility of learning options has been offered. However there are major difficulties with access to English language programmes and the flexibility intended is not yet translating into outcomes. For example, the take up of the additional up to 400 hours in preparatory learning before beginning the standard AMEP program available to those who need it appears to be


startlingly low. (0.8%. Senate Estimates October 2006). This indicates that the principle of effective communication to service users and potential service users does not appear to being effectively met.

Questionnaire respondents also indicated a need for better coordination of language services provided by state and federal government departments. Provision of language services can be quite complex, with some state governments providing large‐scale users of language services with a direct allocation to coordinate their own language services provision across program areas. There are also complex criteria for provision of translation and interpreting services provided by DIMA.

The complexity of funding and eligibility criteria for language services can be confusing for both service providers and customers, and has the potential to have a negative impact on access and equity outcomes for people with poor functional English language skills.

Organisations identified as needing to do more to facilitate access and equity for people from CLDB

The Department of Health and Ageing – particularly those program areas focusing on health.

Fee free interpreting is generally only provided in relation to services delivered to non‐English speaking migrants and refugees who are Australian citizens or permanent residents.

You may be asked to pay for the interpreting service if you are contacting an organisation or individual that will not accept the TIS interpreting charges. In cases where an organisation or individual refuses to accept the TIS charge, you can elect to pay for the service and be connected with the agency or advise TIS National that you do not wish to proceed.

DIMA website

Clients do not make the distinction between state and federal funding for language services. They just know that they need to access the service.

Direct feedback to FECCA


People who contributed to our consultation perceive that Health and Ageing do not have an integrated strategy to ensure good service provision for people from CLDB. It was also commented that having hearing checks as a Medicare refundable item would be of great value to people from CLDB, particularly as demographics change with the ageing profile of people from CLDB.

Department of Human Services

While some sections of the Department of Human Services are seen as leaders, eg. Medicare Australia and Centrelink, it was perceived that there is a patchiness in delivery of accessible and equitable services across the whole department.

Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Questionnaire respondents were concerned that there was no integrated, comprehensive strategy for how departments in this portfolio will meet their responsibility to people from CLDB.

AusIndustry (Dept of Industry, Tourism & Resources)

Respondents articulated that information on the AusIndustry website regarding grant programs is available only in English and that the AusIndustry personnel are not trained or have the facilities to take inquiries from persons from CLDB

DEST The Department of Education, Science and Training was perceived to have shown little regard for the special learning needs of CLDB clients. English as a Second Language (ESL) is perceived as being hidden in a wider bucket of literacy and numeracy, which caters for “mainstream” students as well. This minimises ESL despite the high intensity of the need and the vulnerability of students missing out on much needed ESL resources.

One of our customers, who is learning to speak English, but whose mother tongue is Spanish, called the AusIndustry hotline to find out more about one of AusIndustry’s programs. The AusIndustry hotline after struggling to ascertain her needs, passed on the inquiry to a Department officer who told her that there were no facilities available for information to be supplied in languages other than English and told the customer that ‘in Australia we all speak English and that’s why our websites are in English’. Is this good practice for a Government agency when taking an inquiry from someone who might become an Ausindustry customer?



State government services

State government

Questionnaire respondents highlighted that “little things” can make a big difference to whether people are able to receive services that respond to their needs. An example cited was that Service Tasmania offers learn to drive handbooks only in English. Community organisations supporting people learning to drive therefore need to purchase books from other states for people whose English language skills would prohibit them from being able to pass the test. While Service Tasmania does offer students the opportunity to sit the test with an interpreter, this is not much use if the resource they need to use to pass the written test is only available in English.

SERVICES PROVIDED BY NON‐GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT

General issues

Inadequate funding to support good service delivery was identified as a major issue. Prescriptive funding contracts limit the ability of organisations to deliver services in a flexible way that is able to meet a widely different series of individual needs.

There was also quite a deal of concern about “for profit” organisations being funded to conduct work that in the past has been delivered by community based organisations.

NGOs may be the most “cost effective” way for service delivery but attention needs to be given to whether they are “for profit” or “community based”. “For profit” organisations, while having formal management structures, inevitably work for maximising profit for shareholders and therefore for achieving the most cost effective/ minimum standard to achieved.


Possible solutions:

ESL needs to be better targeted to the needs of students. Funding needs to reflect the level of need, and must be a distinctive and accountable line item, not an adjunct to a broad literacy and numeracy program to ensure proper monitoring and accountability and to provide equitable outcomes.


Models for funding of non‐government agencies were seen as problematic, with an uneven playing field in competing for funds in a competitive tendering situation. It was also perceived that funding bodies, including DIMA were employing staff to oversee programs which they had funded, who do not have a good understanding of issues for communities, or experience in working directly with community members.

There is a perception that there is limited monitoring by government of how well NGOs are delivering services on their behalf and whether they actually meet the needs of people from CLDB. It was perceived that lack of effective monitoring is particularly prevalent where mainstream providers are providing an ethno‐specific service.

Questionnaire respondents indicated that there are sometimes problems with written communication from non government organisations with little expertise in working with CLDB communities who are delivering services on behalf of government. Examples cited were incorrect spelling/difficulties with written form of names, which leads to letters not reaching clients, which in turn can lead to refusal of services as people have unwittingly not met their obligations.

Settlement services

It is perceived that there is a lack of understanding of the enormity of the settlement process, and how many of the things that we take for granted are completely new to new migrants, and particularly humanitarian entrants. Some humanitarian entrants may have been in refugee camps for up to 30 years and have no knowledge of how to use power, cook on stoves, use heaters, telephones, televisions etc. The learning curve that people are experiencing is enormous. This means that accessing essential services through government agencies such as Centrelink and Medicare become problematic because of stress and “overload”. It can take many months for barriers to access to break down, and for people to feel that they are comfortable in engaging with government service providers.

Questionnaire respondents indicated that lack of flexibility resulting from contractual restrictions was having an impact on access and equity for people from CLDB, particularly for newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants. It was argued by some respondents that sometimes conditions placed on non‐government services are inappropriate or overly restrictive, for example:


The move towards funding “for profit” organisations at the expense of community organisations has the potential to have a clear impact on service delivery outcomes for new migrants and humanitarian entrants. Some questionnaire respondents were concerned that this shift could minimise DIMA’s responsibility (as the funding agency) for quality control, with a corresponding reduction in the quality and community participation essential for effective and efficient settlement services.

Questionnaire respondents were concerned that community responsibility is an effective ingredient for community engagement and effective integration. It provides an opportunity for developing active communication between new arrivals and the wider community. There was a strong perception that the volunteer effort that used to be derived from community organisations has been diminished with an increase in “for profit” organisations securing contracts for the provision of settlement services.

Private enterprise

Housing

People from refugee and migrant backgrounds particularly experience discrimination when trying to access housing through the private rental market. It was suggested by people involved in our consultation that governments (whether at the local, state or commonwealth level) could take a leadership role in working with real estate agents through their industry or professional organisations to enhance cultural competency and reduce discrimination and barriers for people from CLDB, particularly from NESB, to affordable and accessible housing.

Access to banking services

Banking was perceived as particularly problematic for people who are older, and who come from refugee backgrounds where they have not been able to access banking services in their country of origin. Bewilderment and barriers to access of ATMs was described as well as confusion when people were trying to access counter based services. Respondents suggested a legislative

One criteria for receiving services might be that a person has been in Australia for less than 5 years. What happens when someone has been here for longer, and is experiencing an extended period of settlement? They need the services, but cannot access them because of time restrictions.



or policy framework that would support better provision of services in the private sector, similar to the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society.

GOOD PRACTICE

GOOD PRACTICE MODELS EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT

General issues Respondents to our questionnaire did point to good practice, and particular leaders. However, we did receive comments that while one section of a department may be doing well, it was not always the case that good service was being delivered across a whole department.

Respondents commented that “best practice” implied a range of other good practice examples – with a “best practice” agency being “the best of a field of good performers”. In reality, it is perceived that there are some clear leaders, with other agencies a long way behind.

People with whom we consulted defined best practice as:

• cultural competency training of staff at all levels, from counter staff to personnel in Executive positions,

• a focus on equitable outcomes for people from CLDB and not just on improved access to services and information,

• embedding the principles of the Charter for Public Service in a culturally diverse society into policies, protocols and procedures, and effective monitoring to ensure that these result in improved services for people from CLDB,

• a commitment to effective data collection to ensure that services understand the communities that they serve,

• a commitment to recognising the clients and their communities are “the experts” and understand what services will effectively meet their needs,

• establishment of real consultation processes with people who have strong connections to their communities,

• effective training for staff to ensure that their skills in working with CLDB communities are able to develop and be valued by the services that employ them,

• flexibility in relation to addressing issues for multicultural communities and a willingness to abandon a “one size fits all” approach to service delivery,

• planning and programs that are strategic and not purely project based within an annual timeline,

• targeted funding to ensure that communities with high needs are not disadvantaged, for example, ensuring that the needs of ageing older


communities are still being met in areas where there are large numbers of people from new and emerging communities,

• effective monitoring of multicultural service delivery, including monitoring of service delivery of groups claiming to provide CLDB community services as part of their funding agreements with government agencies,

• ensuring that information on websites, designed to reach multicultural communities and in a range of community languages, is searchable, accessible and fully integrated with website navigational systems ,

• a willingness to evaluate the services that you are provided in an objective way and act on identified gaps in access and equity outcomes for people from CLDB,

• clearly written or presented information, • the ability to access help with unusual concepts, or written

information that people are finding difficult to understand, and • the ability of clients to access translator and interpreter services

when needed.

Policy frameworks around human rights, multicultural and citizenship policy were all seen as contributing to facilitating access and equitable outcomes for people from CLDB. This was even more pronounced where people had specific needs, for example in the case of people from CLDB with disabilities.

Best practice in relation to orientation and settlement was defined by one questionnaire respondent who was newly arrived as the ability to access practical English language course and other assistance to learn English, as well as a practical orientation to the laws and customs of Australia.

Organisations identified as providing leadership in access and equity outcomes for people from CLDB

Medicare Australia

For: • consistent promotion of the Translating and Interpreting Service

(TIS), • providing brochures in a range of community languages, • a willingness to engage with consumers through processes such as

Consumer Consultative Group that brings together a range of consumer stakeholders including FECCA, and

• a willingness to support community initiatives, such as having bilingual Medimate brochures available in Medicare offices which have a high number of people living in that locality, from specific multicultural communities.


Family Court of Australia

For: • Outreach and building links with community organisations and new

arrivals through their Family Court of Australia Living in Harmony Project

Centrelink

Centrelink was consistently highlighted as a leader in providing services to people from CLDB. Their focus on improving service outcomes for people from CLDB was nominated as good practice. Other examples of good practice highlighted by respondents include:

• Provision of language appropriate services for people whose first language is not English through their multicultural phone lines, multicultural liaison officers and Seniors News in a number of languages,

• Good consultation processes that influence development of policy and services on the ground and foster engagement with people who have strong connections to their communities, and not just “foreign names”. The Centrelink National Multicultural Reference Group was highlighted as an important and effective group for facilitating better access and equity outcomes for people from CLDB,

• The development of outcomes based strategies to ensure that issues specific to particular CLDB communities are being effectively met

• Employment of bilingual workers who are able to speak with people in their first language,

• Monitoring the impact of Centrelink payments and services on CLDB communities, and communicating this to other related agencies,

• The appointment of Rural Multicultural Support Officers to ensure access and equity outcomes for people living in rural, regional and remote areas,

• Establishment of specific units, such as the African Liaison Unit, that enable Centrelink to engage effectively with specific communities, understand their needs better, and be able to be more effectively meet people’s needs, and

• The Multicultural Services section of Centrelink has been identified as facilitating access and equity outcomes for people from CLDB with disabilities

Australian Government’s Partnerships against Domestic Violence – violence in the family and a guide for families, friends and neighbours

This was seen as a valuable resource that would help new arrivals and people from Non English Speaking Backgrounds. The resource is available in


English and 18 other languages, including languages spoken by New and Emerging Communities. Questionnaire respondents commented that a third of the women accessing the Multicultural Women’s Advocacy Service in WA required interpreters, and that these women came from 78 different countries. Resources such as this were seen as being really important to enhancing access and equity in this context.

DIMA Language services The Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) was recognised as being a very good service that improved access and equitable outcomes for people from CLDB. There was however, some concern that this service was not widely promoted and that people were unable to access information about TIS in a useful format, for example, fridge magnets with TIS number on it.

Despite this being highlighted as a great service, the limited range of services that are eligible to access free TIS services is of concern and was mentioned in many of the completed questionnaires that we received.

Services for people living in rural, regional and remote areas DIMA was commended for organising outreach visits, using the facilities of Migrant Resource Centres in areas outside metropolitan centres, as a way of meeting the needs of people living in these areas.

Australian Quarantine Service

Highlighted for understanding and good communication and a helpful approach when members of the Buddhist community wished to bring saplings of a tree of religious significance. Communication ensured that quarantine requirements were met and no problems were experienced.

Good practice processes for ensuring access and equity outcomes

Complaints mechanisms Client and customer service charters are viewed very positively as a good model for guiding interactions between service providers and clients/customers and embedding access and equity principles.

However, often complaints are not lodged because of language or cultural barriers, a lack of understanding of processes and a general reluctance/fear to engage with government agencies. This reinforces the need for maintaining a strong and unbiased advocacy role in the community through organisations such as Ethnic Communities Councils.



STATE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY – GOOD PRACTICE

Whole of government approaches

The Cultural diversity and civic participation in Queensland report 14

identified that major barriers to people from CLDB being able to effectively engage with government were:

• Communication barriers – including cross cultural language barriers and jargon used by government and government departments,

• Lack of information about the processes and procedures of government departments, complexity of systems, attitudes of the public service officials that people needed to engage with, lack of resources for best practice interactions, lack of real access to services, and technological barriers (for example, lack of access to the internet),

• Fear of authority, lack of relationship building between government departments/services and community members, disillusionment based on past experience, and

• Lack of information, including bi‐lingual material, problems with dissemination, cultural issues in the way material is provided.

Key solutions were identified as: improved language services, designing culturally sensitive service delivery, achieving inclusive processes for engagement, training public service officials to understand and work positively with cultural difference, and developing relationships and partnerships with multicultural agencies.

Questionnaire respondents valued research of this sort conducted by state governments and commented on the importance of whole of government approaches to embedding the principles of the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally and Linguistically diverse society.

Questionnaire respondents valued legislative frameworks such as the Victorian Multicultural Act which facilitates a whole of government approach, ensuring that all new government initiatives are able to effectively recognise and meet the needs the diversity of the Victorian community.

14 Gopalkrishnan, N. Cultural diversity and civic participation in Queensland. Centre for Multicultural and Community Development, University of the Sunshine Coast and Queensland Government http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/About_the_department/publications/multicultural/


The Office of Multicultural Interests (OMI) in Western Australia was also nominated as facilitating good access and equity outcomes for people from CLDB. A partnership between the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Equal Opportunity Commission in Western Australia and OMI lead to the development of a policy framework for substantive equality.

This framework was nominated as facilitating more equitable outcomes for people from CLDB and was recommended as a model from which other organisations could learn.

Government Anti‐Discrimination Bodies such as the Community Relations Commission of NSW are seen as playing an important role in monitoring and providing recourse for people experiencing discrimination or poor outcomes in relation to access and equity.

Services provided by state governments

Hospitals and health care settings

Questionnaire respondents nominated several local initiatives that facilitated better access and equity. An example provided was Royal Hobart Hospital, which employs bi‐cultural workers. This initiative was seen as assisting many patients and families, particularly in the Emergency Department, but is also enhancing good communication between families and medical staff when families are visiting relatives in hospital.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY – GOOD PRACTICE

Questionnaire respondents commented that where local governments identified areas of potential conflict and responded proactively, then this was very powerful. For example, the planning unit at Gosford City Council were identified as being very understanding and sympathetic to building requirements for a Buddhist Monastery. Buildings of religious significance such as a Stupa or shrine were readily approved once they complied to standards and building requirements. The unit provided clear guidelines on what documents and information was needed to satisfy the building application. Communication was clear and language was not a barrier to being able to access efficient service.

If you want to treat me equally, you may have to be prepared to treat me differently

Policy framework for substantive equality


In Victoria, the Darebin City Council’s interfaith projects were highlighted as good practice models that facilitated good access and equity, particularly in relation to communities being able to have their needs better understood by the wider community, as well as by the local government itself. The project was seen as being effective in building community cohesiveness.

GOOD PRACTICE BY NON GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS

Good practice in relation to services for new migrants and newly arrived refugees who do not have functional English language skills

Questionnaire respondents indicated that TAFE and Adult Multicultural Education Services provide excellent service. It was commented that refugees are accepted quickly and feel that the environment is welcoming and safe.

Job Network agencies in Tasmania, particularly STEPS and Employment Plus enhance access and equity by employing refugees themselves – which allows staff involved in direct service provision to have a good understanding of the community and of individuals experiences.

BARRIERS TO GOOD ACCESS AND EQUITY POLICIES BEING IMPLEMENTED

One of the questions asked by FECCA was about the gap between policy and practice. This recognised that some organisations had excellent policies to facilitate access and equity, but that this did not always result in good service provision that effectively met people’s needs.

The main barriers to implementation of good access and equity policies being implemented were described as:

• Lack of funding, lack of cultural awareness training and lack of language specific and/or interpreter services

• “getting real” about funding and the need to make service providers accountable based on clear qualitatively and quantitatively measurable outcomes, and

• no processes for consultation with communities to monitor and inform departments about the level of community satisfaction with their service

Comments in this section included:


Other gaps in policy and programs highlighted by respondents included:

• a lack of understanding of the demographics of communities, leading to circumstances where funds for Italian, Greek and Polish Aged Care Services in Victoria were cut, without consultation or regard for the increasing numbers of clients who are aged and requiring support,

• 37% of CLDB students in NSW requiring ESL support are not receiving it, despite commitments that all students requiring English language support should be afforded it,

• lack of vocational advice and school pathway advice, and flexible courses to direct new arrivals towards achievable employment goals in rural and regional areas, and

• a perception that some communities (including long established communities such as the Polish community) are afforded greater scrutiny than others when applying for visas.

FECCA is hopeful that the issues we raised in this report will offer some important insights in community perceptions of access and equity, including examples of both poor and good practice. As we refine data collection methods, we aim to be able to add value to access and equity reporting conducted by DIMA, in an ongoing way.

We would be happy to discuss any of the issues raised in this report, and ask that you do not hesitate to contact the FECCA Secretariat on (02)6282 5755 or either [email protected] or [email protected] should you wish to do so.

Organisations working with newly arrived migrants want to know the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things, they seem to want a “manual” for the community they will be working with, rather than being prepared, or having the skills to listen to what’s people’s needs are and being able to respond appropriately.


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix 1

FECCA access and equity consultation 2006

Questions

1. Looking at the principles from the Charter, including access and equity, – which government agencies that you have encountered or dealt with, do you think exhibit best practice in meeting the needs of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?

2. What specific things do they do that allows them to provide good access and equity for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDB)?

3. Could you outline what you regard as best practice in relation to delivery of government services to people from CLDB?

4. Which agencies, in your opinion have a poor track record in providing services to people from CLDB and what leads you think this way?

5. Have you ever experienced poor service that you believe indicates a lack of sensitivity to your religion? Could you explain what happened?


6. What agencies are particularly good at delivering excellent service to all people including those who are very recent migrants or newly arrived refugees and do not have functional English language skills and what leads you to think this way?

7. Which agencies do not provide good service to very recent migrants or newly arrived refugees and in your opinion, what are the issues that lead to poor service?

8. Thinking now about services that are delivered by non government organisations on behalf of government – what are the key issues that affect service delivery to people from CLDB in these circumstances? This might include things like lobbying and advocacy organisations, aged care, health services, education or employment services.

9. In your opinion, are any groups experiencing poorer access and equity to services than others and what is your feeling about why this might be happening? ‐ are you able to provide any case studies that might be illustrative or helpful?

10. We are interested in the gap between policy frameworks that talk about promoting best practice in relation to access and equity and people’s experience “at the counter” – what do you think are the main barriers to good policies being implemented? ‐ what are some possible solutions?


11. Could you provide any case studies that illustrate a gap between policy and practice?

12. Do you have any experience about whether agencies have adequate facilities to lodge complaints, seek info, give feedback, seek redress etc with regard to CLDB communities – any examples and personal experiences?

13. Any experiences of access that are based on living in rural or remote regions?

14. Any other thoughts or experiences you care to share with us about government provision of service?

Your input is important and we value your time and energy in assisting us with this consultation. Thank you.

fecca access and equity report 2006 ‐ 1 · pdf fileclothing like a hijab. questionnaire...

Documents