TranscriptCreator - Web viewI hated it, so I ran away and came home. And so when I came home ... no,...

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITEDACN 110 028 825

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274)E: [email protected]: www.auscript.com.au

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N H-784703

THE HONOURABLE M. WHITE AO, CommissionerMR M. GOODA, Commissioner

IN THE MATTER OF A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION AND YOUTH DETENTION SYSTEMS OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

DARWIN

11.02 AM, WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2017

Continued from 20.6.17

DAY 46

MR P.J. CALLAGHAN SC appears with MR P. MORRISSEY SC, MR T. McAVOY SC, MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN, MS S. McGEE and MS R. RODGER as Counsel AssistingMS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR G. O’MAHONEY for the Northern Territory of AustraliaDR P. DWYER appears for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR J.B. LAWRENCE SC appears for Josephine CrawshawMR G. O’BRIEN-HARTCHER appears for DS

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4660©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Dighton.

MR DIGHTON: Commissioners, we continue this morning to hear the recorded personal stories of those who have had firsthand experience of the protection and welfare system in the Northern Territory. The stories we have heard so far in Alice Springs and Darwin have provided an insight into the experiences in families, former children in care, and communities. The personal story we are hearing today is that of DT. DT is a mother, a grandmother and a kinship carer. She tells her story as that of her nephew who she raised from childhood as her son as well as that of his partner. DT tells how her nephew and his partner had two children placed into care as infants.

Commissioners, DTs story reflects on the removal of those children on her, her nephew, and his partner. She recounts her efforts to have the children returned and the impact of the death of the children’s mother. If we can please play DTs story.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly. Thank you.

RECORDING PLAYED

MR DIGHTON: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Dighton.

MR DIGHTON: If the Commissioners are ready, I call the next witness. It is Dr Christine Fejo-King.

<CHRISTINE FEJO-KING, AFFIRMED [11.25 am]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Would you kindly be seated.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DIGHTON [11.26 am]

MR DIGHTON: Dr Fejo-King, can you please state your full name and profession?---My full name is Karen Christine King and I’m a social worker.

Thank you. You provided a statement to the Royal Commission dated 22 May 2017?---Yes.

And Commissioners, I tender that document.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4661 C. FEJO-KING XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR DIGHTON

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The statement is exhibit 538.

EXHIBIT #538 STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE FEJO-KING DATED 22/05/2017

MR DIGHTON: Thank you. Your résumé is set out as an annexure to that statement, but can I ask you please to briefly describe – sorry, please take a drink.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you prefer a cup?---I would.

Yes. It’s not something that is at all elegant, drinking out of a bottle?---Thank you.

MR DIGHTON: We will find one for you, but in the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: ..... find it.

MR DIGHTON: - - - meantime – thank you – the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought we had a stash of them. Thank you.

MR DIGHTON: You set out in your statement an annexure that sets out your résumé, but can I ask you please to briefly describe your background in the work of child protection?---Can I introduce myself culturally first?

Certainly?---I’m – my name – I told you my legal name but my clan name is Fejo, and I use that in all the things that I do. So I always introduce myself as Christine Fejo-King because I’m a Larrakia Warumungu woman. My father is – was a Larrakia man and my mother is a Warumungu woman from the Northern Territory, and I’ve had almost 50 years experience working in the child protection area, but my journey actually happened before that because I’m a third generation stolen generation person, and my children are the first from our family that were not taken away under that legislation. And so that’s what has driven my interest in child protection and the stolen generations, and all of those – those things and that’s my whole work life, my whole life has been based around, “How do we stop this happening, what can we do better?” And so that’s what I’ve – I’ve worked on. You want me to tell you a little bit about my work?

Yes. You’ve done that from both a practical perspective as a social worker and also from an academic position?---Yes. Okay. I began – I’ve done formal studies in social work over a period of time. In the 1970s, I went to the South Australian Institute of Technology and I got an associate diploma in social work and that was because of all of the – at that time the Aboriginal people were putting a lot of our efforts into preventing our children being taken away from our families, and we were looking at what can we develop that would help. And so, at that time, we were working with how do we develop something that will guide us? And that’s when the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Aboriginal Child Placement Principle was developed, and I sat around the table when we were having those discussions, and – and it was always to be fully based on the Aboriginal kinship system, not the linear western kinship system, because it’s – the Aboriginal kinship system is very broad and horizontal and rolls over. It’s very different to the western perspective of family, and so we also then worked to – developing the Aboriginal child care – the ACCAs. And so those were some of the things that I was involved in in the early days in those discussions and the development in trying to empower the community and that. And in 1997 as a social work student, because I could see that the associate diploma wasn’t enough, when we were working in child protection it was – the Aboriginal people that were the welfare officers were not – what we said wasn’t held at the same level as what social workers were saying, and so we were like the little Jackey Jackeys in the system. And so in – in the 1990s I went back to uni and here at – NTU, it was called then – and in 1997 I wrote a paper on the mental health of the stolen generations and worked on that. In 1999, I completed my Bachelor of Social Work at the – as I said, the NTU. And – and in 2011, I went back to university in Canberra and I completed a PhD on the Aboriginal kinship system of the Larrakia and Warumungu People, and all of that was around what I was seeing not happening with the child protection systems, that it was still failing our people. And so that’s why my whole focus of my education has been on that and my – and the work, and I was working for – when I finished my degree, I went down to Canberra and I worked with the Commonwealth Government and I worked in all areas of policy, working with legislation, policy, all of those kinds of things, and it wasn’t until the Northern Territory Intervention was rolled out, I decided I could not enforce those things on my own people and I left the Commonwealth Government. And I went to work for the ACT Government in the child protection area. So I’ve worked from the coalface as a case worker right to the senior executive level within child protection. So I’ve had, over the years this broad experience, and I think that’s what I bring to the Royal Commission.

And picking up on something you mentioned earlier on, and that is a key principle, and that’s the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle. Can I ask you please to get your view on the intent and the scope of the Child Placement Principle as you understand it?---Well, like I said, I was at the table when we were first developing this. So I sat there and while we were having the discussions around what would we, as Aboriginal people, want to be in that. And there were people from all over Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all talking about this, and so the scope was – it was different because they kept on using genograms, and genograms don’t work for Aboriginal people and I don’t know how long you can use a tool that doesn’t work, and whereas the evidence that it doesn’t work is in that we have so many children being taken away, because the Aboriginal kinship system is – it’s massive. It includes all different areas. It includes not just those people that you’re related to through blood or through marriage or any of that. It includes everyone with the same skin name, everyone that goes through ceremonies, it includes everyone with the same totem, and so you have this massive amount of people that you can be calling on. It includes even people that went to institutions, various institutions, or were in missions that formed their own kinship system based on the traditional kinship system. And you can call on these people to find


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

placements for children in the child protection system. But, because they keep coming back to this genogram rather than looking at kinship mapping, they can never find the people they say, and it’s too narrow. They’re working on a western concept; they should be using an Aboriginal concept. That was what we had talked about right at the beginning of the development of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, was it was to be based on Aboriginal knowledge and understanding, and – and our own law and culture, not on this little western narrow view of your family.

In very practical terms then, from a social work perspective, what do case workers need to be doing for the Aboriginal children for whom they have responsibility to ensure that the principle is being properly implemented as it was conceived back then?---Well, over the years it has really become a quick to conflict. They know they’re supposed to use it, but because of their caseloads – I was just talking to a friend of mine who worked in – here in the Territory as a – as a case worker in child protection. I just met her down at the shops, and she – and I said to her “Has anything changed?” And she said, “No, the caseloads are massive. No one really understands the kinship system.” And so when it comes to looking at doing the Aboriginal child placement principle, and really enacting it, no one understands. Because you have really inexperienced – usually the people that work in child protection are newly graduated. They don’t have the experience of working in the community. You have people who are, yes, social workers, but who have never met or worked with Aboriginal people. They – they don’t have that – that knowledge that they really need and you have then people from other countries, even other indigenous peoples, but you can’t – the Aboriginal kinship system is so unique. It’s not the same as the Maori, it’s not the same as the Canadian, it’s not the same as the American, it’s not the same as the African. And then you have the foreigners who have no – it’s just a big blank, because they’ve never worked with any indigenous group. So they need to be knowing about these things. They need to have – either have experience before they go into this field to work with our communities, because they’re taking our children away: they’re bringing such grief and sorrow and heartache, the same as what happened when I was young and involved in over nearly 50 years ago. We’re right back to that. And why aren’t they doing this? Because they’re using things that are not appropriate. You must have culturally congruent practices. You can develop all the theories that you want, but most of them are western based, and so if you’re going to work with Aboriginal people at least know the people that you’re working with. Know something about the culture. Know something about the kinship system. And when you say, “I can’t find anyone to take this child,” no. There are people with the same totems, there are people who went through ceremonies with these people, there are people who went in the same institutes that have an interest in this child. Broaden your view and – and use the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle as it was initially developed.

There are a few issues I will pick up through that. Firstly, though, is it fair to say then that the problem – understand the problem is twofold in that there is the issue of – the conceptual issue of understanding the system, but in any event the second issue that, even if you did, the caseload may be such that gathering the information would be impossible?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is that fair?---Yes, that’s absolutely right.

And then, descending to extremely practical levels, if you’re a case worker going into a community to try and attempt to gather information to properly understand and assess the potential for kinship care, what should you be doing, who should you be talking to, who’s involved?---That’s why I’ve always suggested kinship mapping. Every individual child should have a kinship map, and on that map – I mean, if you – if you know the Northern Territory you know that – that different people with different names come from different areas. People know the Fejos are Larrakia, right? They know the Tipungwutis are from Tiwi Island; they know the Swans are from Alice Springs; they know the Jacksons are from Tennant Creek. So you should know something about the groups of people, right? And that’s what comes on these – this mapping, which does not fit anywhere in a genogram, and so they should know. They should know something about the people, and these are the kinds of things that will help.

On a side issue, if it’s the case that you can gather that situation, have the map done, how important is it to formally document it and store it somewhere so that there is some permanency to the information?---It’s essential. Because children go into that system. Most often they don’t come out until they’re – they come to the end of the time that Child Protection can hold them. They’ve been placed with non-Aboriginal families. They know nothing about their law, they know nothing about their culture, they know nothing about the people they’re connected to, they’ve missed out on their ceremonies, they’ve missed out on all of those things, and it’s hard to reconnect. You know, for me, I grew up here on the communities. I’m Larrakia so growing up as a Larrakia person means growing up in Darwin, but the Larrakia are still here. And so I had my skin name, I know my family. I know all of these things. I went to Canberra, and we only supposed to be gone for five years. We were gone for 19 years. I hated it, so I ran away and came home. And so when I came home, I went to Alice Springs to work, and I – I went to ..... I said to the people, I’m Christine Fejo-King, I’m ..... and straightaway all these people were saying, “I’m your grandmother, I’m your aunty, I’m your sister, I’m your niece, I’m your – your child.” All of this, all of a sudden I just fit back into my community. These children that are taken away, they don’t have that. This is, like, you know, under the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child and under the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and under the legislation, which is the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle in every State and Territory in this country they are not doing their job when they don’t keep this information to give to these children. It has to be recorded. It has to be somewhere that those – they can come back, and it has to be individual, because each individual child will have different connections even in the same family. You have children with different fathers and mothers, and so it has to be an individual map. And I saw – when I looked at the transcript from Alice Springs that they were saying the same thing. They’re looking at kinship mapping, how it connects to land and stories and totems and kinship and all of that. And we’ve been saying in child protection that Aboriginal social workers – that the kinship mapping should occur for these children, because kinship mapping can be as big as a huge painting.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Dr Fejo-King, who do you think would be best placed to undertake the task for .....?---Always you have to go back to the community, and it tells you in the Northern Territory legislation that you’ve got to work with the community and so you must work to the legislation. The legislation has to be enacted in the practice principles, in the training, in the education of the case workers, but when it comes to the kinship mapping, they must be led by the community because they’re the ones that have the knowledge. They’re the ones that have the history. They’re the ones that can tell you who are the important people for each particular child. I don’t expect a case worker to know that, and I think it would be wrong of us to expect it, but the community has the knowledge.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And so there has to be a meaningful relationship between the community and Government?---Absolutely. Absolutely.

These things can be put out on the table. We can talk about the best interests of the child in a non-threatening way – because some of our mob do need help and some kids do need to be placed somewhere else?---There’s no doubt at all, and there never has been, that there are children who need to be removed from their families for their own safety, but in many instances what we see in the Northern Territory is absolute poverty, and there’s a difference between absolute poverty, which is often then equated to neglect, as opposed to actual life-threatening situations for that child as a result of their – the people that they’re living with in an unsafe place.

Maybe we should start with a principle of do no harm?---Absolutely.

Like, if we’re taking a child away, we’ve got to put it in a better place?---Yes. And child protection has changed in the Northern Territory. When I was working as a young social worker, after coming back from the South Australian Institute of Technology, the ideology that was driving the child protection then – because there were a lot of us that went to SAIT and then came back and worked in child protection, and the ideology was: “What do we need to do to keep these children safe and well cared for in the extended kinship system?” Now, it seems to be, “We’ve got to take the children away because we can’t find anything in this very narrow view of kinship.” And it’s almost as if they don’t trust us to take care of our own children and yet we are the oldest living culture in the world, and if you can’t – don’t take care of your children and ensure their safety how could we get to this point? That knowledge is there. That – skills are there.

Can I just go to a part – because I really believe the Child Placement Principle sits under another principle and that’s the best interests - - -?---Yes.

- - - of the child. Have you looked at the tools – decision-making tools that are used here in the Territory about making those judgments?---I looked at – at what they actually do.

Yes?---And that’s why I spoke to my friends, that’s what I – when I was in Alice Springs, I was talking to the community, and it’s always the tools that they use –


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

supposedly are the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle and, as you say correctly, it was developed around the principle of the best – you know, the best for the child.

Yes?---And that’s what the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle was developed from.

..... I’m thinking – I’ve struggled with this for a long thinking, well, you know, as you said there are some children that need to be removed or from a risk, or the risk removed from the child?---Yes.

And when we think about the best interests of the child I can – as you could, better than I could I suppose, say – you know, it’s always the best interests of the child to be kept with their family. There’s so much documentation around that?---Yes.

So I wonder how that tool judges those sort of interests as opposed to some physical danger, like, there’s no doubt kids have got to be removed from. That sort of stuff. But how do you – in that in between area, how do you make those judgments, the best interests of the child, lining up what we know about families and - - -?---How do you make those judgments? It really should be taken back to the family and the community, and that’s why where the mapping is so important, because you bring together the community and the Department and you are looking together for the best interest of that child. And a map – in that map you actually have who are the people that are best located to care for that children, what are the values and things that family wants. All of those things. How do you get to that care, is a conversation. It’s not a decision by someone outside who basically knows nothing about Aboriginal people and our culture and our beliefs and all of those.

And we had yesterday two groups, a panel from Lajamanu, Lajamanu talking about the Kurdiji process they have, the structure in Maningrida about the Burnawarra. Do you think those groups are the sort of groups that should be – like, they’re all based on culture?---Yes.

And all that should be involved maybe taking a lead in communities around this sort of work?---Yes. Absolutely. We did have the ACCAs, but the ACCAs were closed down.

Yes?---And since that time there’s this gap in our communities. There’s no bridge between the community and the child protection system, and it has – there has to be a gap – sorry, a bridge, because our people have the experiences, the lived experience of having your children away teaches you not to trust these people. And for generations – I’m a third generation stolen generations person, there are families with the same and there are families now who are experiencing generations of their children taken away. So why should they trust the system? But they can and should trust that there’s a place where we can meet with a group who will represent us, or to give us our own voice to talk. Listen to us, like the grandmother on the tape that we were hearing just a minute ago. Listen to what we’re saying. I had a relationship that was violent so many years ago, and I haven’t been in that. So listen to the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

people, hear what they have to say. That’s the only way we will make a difference: we have to change the way the practice is enacted on the ground. We have to – have to recognise that case workers, they don’t have the knowledge and experience, and you know what, with a caseload of 20 or 30 they don’t have the time. So recognise that and recognise the gaps in the knowledge in the system. Let’s bring the community, as our legislation says we should, and let’s put this bridge there and bring things together.

And this goes to your community connections. We’ve certainly heard evidence of there being a great appetite within the community to confront these problems. Do you think that would be a fair assessment?---Yes.

That our communities want the best for kids?---Absolutely.

I know that’s a motherhood statement, but they will actually do some work, wanting to be engaged in it?---They – they absolutely do. They absolutely – I mean, you heard the grandmother “I love my children – my grandchildren.” Yes, there are times when children have to be taken away, but there are people that love those children that have responsibilities of care for those children. You just need to look more broadly than what you’re looking at.

And I guess in that – I described it as a couple – like, the northern Central Land Councils we went to four meetings, and people with that appetite, willing to take responsibility, you know, people said, “We’ve got to look at ourselves as parents”?---Absolutely.

So there is a great appetite within this community in the Northern Territory to - - -?---Since I’ve been – yes.

..... responsibility?---Since I came home – I came home to the Territory six months ago – no, sorry, longer now, probably eight months ago. I went to work in Alice Springs first on my way home. I’ve heard them say in Alice Springs, I’ve heard them say in Tennant Creek, I’ve heard them say here, “We need to have this voice, we need to stop our children being taken away.” Yes, there are things we need to change and the laws – our laws might not change, but our culture is a living culture, living culture has to change to meet the needs of the people, and we’re willing to look at what we need to change. And so this is from all over the Territory that I’ve heard these discussions. So absolutely, they’re looking for the answers. They’re looking – they’re looking to be included. They want their voice to be heard. They want to be asked these things. So it’s a matter of the Department enacting their legislation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Dr Fejo-King, can I just step back to being very practical about the kinship mapping which, of course, is essential in order to achieve a better placement of children who may need to be out of the care of their birth parents, at least for a time. And you say well, the communities will do the mapping,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

of course, but in a practical sense how might you envisage that happening?---In the meetings. In the child protection - - -

Someone – it will be written down because - - -?---It will be recorded. It must be recorded.

Yes?---Because as the question earlier was, how important is it to record this information. It is essential. So it must be recorded. It must be mapped for every individual child, and it must be kept. And not just in the child protection files because, you know, with the great turnover of staff and things that happen, it needs to be kept in another repository.

We really need a register of births for each child with this map attached to that birth, from what you’re saying?---Yes. Because with every - - -

Held in a central location?---A central location that, when that child goes through that system, having been disconnected from who they are, from their family, their culture, everything, that there is a repository that they can come back to and say, “My name is so-and-so. I was put in – I was in the out-of-home system of child protection. I want to know – I want to access this information. And this, I’m told, is the right place to come.” And they can get that. They can get that map and it can guide them back to where they need to be.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: In the meantime, Dr Fejo-King – it’s not there now, but child protection workers going in have got to ask those questions, like Mr Dighton mentioned before: you’re going in, you’re seeing a child. That could be the beginning of doing that kinship mapping right there?---It has to be right at the very first, right at the – even when the complaint comes in, when they’re – when they first send out their social workers or their psychologists, whoever they’re employing to go and do the investigation they should be taking information that feeds into the map, rather than at those meetings, because they’re supposed to be holding family conferencing, which came directly from New Zealand and was overlaid against the existing kinship system of our people. So it should never have happened that way.

But, you know, the kinship system is so complex because - - -?---It’s so complex it must be recovered.

Even the evidence we had in Alice Springs said the different kinship systems even in the Northern Territory - - -?---Yes, absolutely.

- - - is something to be aware of?---The – Larrakia is different to the Warumungu. That’s why I did my PhD on both. The Warlpiri are right next door to the Warumungu, and they have different names, but the systems are there right there, right across.

Yes?---And they all interlock, and all those names can be connected to the other – others, and so that’s why there’s all these people that can support these children, that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they’re not even looking at because they have a narrow vision rather than understanding the kinship system.

MR DIGHTON: Picking up on Commissioner Gooda’s point, and your answer, in an earlier answer, there are going to be child protection workers from Territory Families going into the communities, gathering information, making decisions. What is required, even as a bare minimum, for their training for them to be able to make those properly informed decisions, understand the sort of questions they should be asking?---Okay. As a social work educator, I can tell you that in the schools of social work the amount of time that’s spent on Aboriginal things – the same as my sister is, and my daughter are, medical practitioners, the same amount of time is very, very minimal: they don’t. It has not been embedded into the schools of social work around working with Aboriginal people. They don’t have to know about our kinship system, but then I guess they’ve never had to survive in a dominant foreign system. Aboriginal people have to know the dominant system to survive. They don’t have to know our system, so therefore there’s no imperative for them to include it, and yet they make these life changing decisions. So even the child protection workers, the education of the social workers, the schools of social work should be required to embed Aboriginal ways of living, the kinship system, the history, they should be embedded in the schools of social work, medicine, whatever, whoever has contact with our people. And that should be at a minimum. And then when you come to work and you apply to work in the child protection system, you should have to prove that you have worked in amongst Aboriginal people for so long, and that you understand certain things about working with Aboriginal people. But they’re not doing that. They’re asking just for a social work degree. They’re just asking for a psychology degree. They’re asking foreigners to come here who know nothing about our people. Is it any wonder that we have such a large number of children in the out-of-home care? Genograms – how long can you use something, this is me as a researcher talking now – how long can you use something, and it continually rolls out hundreds of children into an out-of-home situation, out of the kinship system, out of community, away from family. How long can you use that tool without coming to a point where you say, “Let’s stop using this tool, let’s review it. Let’s see how well, is it working or is it not working? What do we need to change?” And so it starts from the schools of social work. It starts from their – before they work with our people.

And on that point, dividing between the theoretical and the practical, let’s say a child protection practitioner starts work at Territory Families and assume that as soon as they start there’s a terrific cultural congruence course that theoretically is excellent, that goes for a week. Could that ever displace the need to have the experience of going into the community with an Aboriginal person, understanding the basis on the ground?---Absolutely not. And if you know of such a course I would like to know about it, because you cannot have congruent practice learned over a week, and when you run training – and I’ve been, as I said, I worked in the SES, you know, the senior executive level of child protection. You cannot have training and learn something as in-depth and as expansive and as intricate as the kinship system, and the Aboriginal ways of doing things, in the course of two weeks and be able to make life changing


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

decisions for these children. It is not acceptable behaviour; it is not acceptable practice; it is not acceptable theory. If you cannot make the connection between legislation, theory, your practice principles and what’s happening on the ground at the coalface, if you can’t connect all of that, then you have a problem and that’s exactly what’s happening.

And on the final point, and it’s aside to something you said earlier to clarify, you mentioned ACCAs, Aboriginal child care agencies, and the need for a bridge between Territory Families and communities. Is there – do you have a view on, and it may not be ACCAs, but cognate entities and other Aboriginal organisations, how they can best function in that capacity, what that would look like?---Well, absolutely. The input into the kinship mapping. In Central Australia, the Central Land Council has said they want to be involved in this, in Tennant Creek Anyinginyi Health service has an intensive family support service, and intensive family support services are funded by the Commonwealth Government, and they’re supposed to work with the families, so that can be the kinds of things that they’re contributing to this map. And this map should have as much information for the child, because it’s child centred practice. It’s all for the child’s best interests. And so we develop these.

So would you envisage a member of the – let’s say ACCA, but it could be another type - - -?---Sorry, could you repeat that.

Sorry. Can you – would you envisage then a member of the ACCA, or some other organisation, going into the community with the case worker, staying there for days, gathering the information?---Yes. Because often case workers don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t know the right questions to ask. If you don’t know, how can you ask the right questions? How can you know who the right people are? And I think it’s wrong to expect case workers to have that level of knowledge. I think you do a disservice to the child protection officers as well as to the community and the child.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So maybe one resource – we never talk about too much – the time it takes to build these relationships?---Absolutely. You know, anthropologists go out and they make relationships with people, they build them up over years. Child protection officers are expected to go in, get information, and come out. And then they have against them – anthropologists don’t necessarily have the same scores against them that child protection officers have, because of the history, so people are reticent – no, that’s not the right word – people are not going to come forward and offer the information. They need to have someone go with them. They need to spend the time, they need to – if you’re going to get it right in someone’s life, you need to give it the right time. You need to take the time. And, like I said, the kinship map can be built over time, but you do need to start right at the very beginning.

MR DIGHTON: Dr Fejo-King, thank you. Commissioners, those are my questions, unless you have any further, but there’s two parties to cross-examine.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Dr Dwyer.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [12.05 pm]

DR DWYER: Dr Fejo-King, my name is Peggy Dwyer and I appear for NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Can I ask you firstly, just picking up on your evidence in relation to training about cultural competency, the Commission has heard a lot of evidence of many Government workers from detention centres and Territory Families receiving the one-off training that you refer to. We heard evidence this week of a Territory Families worker who works in 12 different communities and had a two day cultural training program. You used the phrase, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” Can the two day training program I referred to lead to an overconfidence in – for non-Aboriginal people working in communities?---Yes, it can, and it has. And that’s why it has continued, because no one’s really stopped to ask the question that you asked. You – it’s impossible, absolutely impossible to – to even gain a base level of knowledge, let alone cultural competency.

And is it right - - -?--- - - - and cultural congruency in your practice.

Can you explain that a bit more, the cultural congruency that’s needed?---The cultural congruency – like, with cultural awareness training all you’re getting is a cognitive understanding, right, of what you should be looking for maybe, if you know. With culturally congruent practice it’s a fact of not just the cognitive, it’s the experiential learning, the experience on the ground, and making the connection between the theory, the practice, and the needs. So it’s a triangular thing. And you cannot make that if you don’t have two of those points.

And Dr Fejo-King, is it the case that kinship and culture are going to be different – even if they’re interrelated, are they going to be different in the different communities across the Northern Territory?---Absolutely – absolutely.

So is there a need for cultural training to are delivered by community members on community to workers?---Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I ask you this. It’s a slightly delicate question, but we were made aware on some of our visits to community that there are – they quite often don’t speak with one voice on many issues?---That’s not at all unusual, so - - -

So how is that managed?---Because you’re dealing with a particular child in your kinship mapping, you should be finding out who are the important people, who are the decision-makers for that child, and then you would develop your congruent practice around the needs of the child, rather than using toolboxes or ..... you will actually be – that’s where the legislation is so important in the practice. You – you

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4672 C. FEJO-KING XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

have to – the child – the child centred practice is about making those connections there that you’ve just said, and it always comes back to, yes, the best practice is to include the community because every – everything is different. Not even just in the communities, may I add, but for the child because as I said, the boys learn different things to girls. Their training is different, the expectations are different. The – the families, as I said, may have different parents. So the grandparents will be different. So the person or persons that are responsible for the decision-making or for grounding those kids or for bringing things across will be different people. And so that’s where the kinship map has it all over the genograms.

And Dr Fejo-King, Commissioner Gooda talked about the Burnawarra that we heard from yesterday, from Maningrida. That group of elders and leaders will be relevant to some children, but a different group of elders and leaders will be relevant to other children in that community?---Absolutely.

For Territory Families to be involved, or even to understand kinship mapping, they’re going to need to draw on the expertise, obviously, of those leaders; correct?---Absolutely.

Because of the history of mistrust with welfare and indigenous communities, do you agree that NT Families is going to need to work really hard to try and build trust with the different communities?---Absolutely.

Have you got any ideas about how that might be done? How that trust building might be done?---Well that’s where, by including the community in these decisions, by actually working together with them on the kinship mapping, you’re actually bringing the people together. You’re bringing the families and children, as well as the community, as well as the – the people who are particularly responsible for that. And – and don’t forget overarching in all of that is the TOs, because TOs are responsible for everyone on their country, and their wellbeing, and their safety. So all of those groups should be involved, because in everything you read they always talk about in the best interests of the child, but in fact it has actually been the opposite and what we need to do is change the practice.

And, Dr Fejo-King, do you see an Aboriginal child care agency as crucial in building trust between the communities and NT Families?---Absolutely.

In order to have – you know, of course, that NT did have an ACCA, and then funding was withdrawn from it. What are the basics to make sure that an ACCA, once it’s – if it’s re-established, isn’t set up to fail?---Yes. And I was involved with Karu in the community meetings that we had before – before Karu was built, was developed, and – and it really is about that. It’s about bringing the community together. The – I think one of the biggest – and Commissioner you mentioned this about the infighting in the communities - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I didn’t use that expression?--- - - - and the politics.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I was very delicate about it, Dr - - -?---You were, but I’m telling it straight, right. That the – you know, and you do have that because you have the different groups. You have the Croker Island mob, you have the Melville Island mob, the Tiwi Island mob, the group that was here at Retta Dixon, and everyone wanted to be the boss of it. But you know how you overcome all of that? You involve the traditional owners, the traditional owners are the responsible people for the people on their land. That’s who – that’s who are the responsible people.

DR DWYER: And is it the case that an ACCA, if it’s set up again, will need to be properly resourced and supported, so - - -?---Yes. It must be properly resourced and supported. And you just reminded me of something else. You know, in all the kinship care that our families engage in, in someone’s mind they thought that Aboriginal families should not be paid, and you have people in poverty who are saying, “We will take these children on top of our own children, we’ll feed, and clothe them, and help them,” but the government’s not giving them any money. They give everyone else money to help support them, when they take these children on, but because you’re related in some way to this child, you do it because of the goodness of your heart, and you take that loaf of bread and instead of feeding five children with it, you feed 10 children with one loaf of bread, and we’re not going to give you another cent to buy another loaf of bread. Where is the equity in that? That needs to change.

And, Dr Fejo-King, just in relation to the issue of poverty which you talk about in your statement, have you – are you concerned about the level of overcrowding in housing and the link between that and taking children away?---It depends. Every – every – every case is different. It depend on what’s happening in that home; it depends on who’s involved; it depends on how safe the children are in that situation. And if you look at our communities, there are not enough houses to house our people. So if they are not living in a house, they’re living out in the weather or whatever, so if that house is safe, if the children are safe in that home, if there are rules about grog and gunja, and all of that in the house not coming into the house, and the children are safe, then that should be the criteria that we’re looking at. Not that there are two bedrooms, three televisions, the kids get to go to sports practice for this, that, or the other. Let’s really look at what’s best for that child.

Where there are issues of poverty that are impacting on care, do you agree that we’ve really got to tackle those underlying causes of poverty?---Absolutely. If you don’t – if you don’t tackle the poverty, you’re always going to take our kids away, because that’s what you’re seeing in many, many instances. So the poverty must be addressed. People in housing commission houses – I don’t know what they call it now, up home, but you know, when the stove doesn’t work, when the fridge doesn’t work, when there’s – I was talking to a social worker from overseas, who said – just in my job in Alice Springs, going up to Tennant Creek who said the Aboriginal kids should be removed because the families have got these cockroaches in the house, and I said, “Have you – how long have you been in that country?” You know, I don’t know, I’m sorry Commissioners, make your house might be different. I don’t know any house in Australia - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t want to answer that question?--- - - - that doesn’t have cockroaches. And you’re taught how to control the cockroaches in your house. Someone tells you, you can do this. Someone tells you how to – go to the shop and buy a light bulb, but you don’t get the bayonet one, you get the screw in one. Someone tells you that. So if you’re going to make a decision to remove a child, look at the real issues, you know, and fix the things that can be fixed. NT housing is responsible for the fixtures in the houses. They’re responsible. But teach the families what they can do and help them to do it rather than just saying, “Take the kids away.” My sister is a general practitioner consultant, she worked out in our communities. They were taking kids away because of scabies. Scabies is a health problem. It should have been addressed through the health things that are in place. The education should have been in place. The children should not have been removed because of a health issue. Sorry. I’ve gone and - - -

DR DWYER: Not at all.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’ve taken all of Dr Dwyer’s 10 minutes.

DR DWYER: Might I ask just one last question and, Dr Fejo-King, it relates to the use of interpreters and overconfidence. We’ve heard some evidence that sometimes people in communities are speaking basic English, but English might be their second, third, fourth, fifth language. When you’re talking about the complexities of child protection is it important to use interpreters in those circumstances?---Absolutely – absolutely. You have foreign social workers who have ac cents I can’t even understand, so how are the people on the communities going to understand what’s actually being said to them? And Aboriginal English is different. Again, the meanings of words are different, and so how – how are our people supposed to understand the complexities of the English language when it – without it being translated so that they can understand exactly what they’re being asked or what’s being said to them?

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There is, however of course, a need for more interpreters and there are many, many languages?---Yes.

Complex languages?---Yes.

So there might be a place for perhaps – a sort of an intermediate level of interpreting rather than the formal qualifications that’s sometimes quite difficult to get. Could you envisage the communities, in fact, could have residents who could be available to do interpreting?---Yes. But I would also suggest that perhaps, if that were the case, that if there was a group of residents who wanted to interpret, that they actually have some training in child protection, and - - -

Yes. To use the right language?--- - - - the terminology, the legislation, and all of those things that would actually support them.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Quite.

DR DWYER: Thank you, Dr Fejo-King.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Dr Dwyer. Now, Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [12.19 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Dr Fejo-King, my name is Felicity Graham, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. The data presently suggests that there’s about 35 per cent compliance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle in the Northern Territory, and that means that there are a lot of children who are in out-of-home care with non-Indigenous carers. Could you speak about what the Department ought to be doing in terms of cultural congruence training for those non-Indigenous carers that are looking after Aboriginal children?---Yes. They should be going through the training, but in actual fact it needs to come back to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle. The legislation must be enacted, and they must be held accountable when they do not adhere to the legislation, or why have the legislation in the first place? And – and the kinship system must be enacted as it was meant to be under the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, and as the very last resort – which is what the legislation says – then the children are placed outside of our communities. And if that’s the case, then the people that are – are having access to our children, they must undertake and be able to prove that they are capable of caring for those children, according to their individual kinship mapping. They must know – and then they must be trained on what the community has said is essential for that child. I’ve written reports to get children out of the child protection system. I was approached by grandparents and Aboriginal Legal Aid in New South Wales to write reports, and it’s a matter of going through the whole case and seeing where the failures were. And if those failures are there, let’s address them. And kinship mapping actually does that. And those families, if they’re going to take Aboriginal children, let’s get real: taking a child to a NAIDOC activity is not a culturally congruent way of enabling that child’s culture is continued. If you want to talk about what the theme of the NAIDOC week – the NAIDOC is for that particular year, that would have much more impact than just taking them to an activity, letting them watch television with an Aboriginal program. Where is the interaction? Where is – I take the children for a walk and they see the land. So what? That’s nothing. If you take the child for a walk and you see a plant and you say, “That is a wild potato.” If you can tell because it has these purple flowers on it, and if you dig it up you can actually eat it because it’s a potato. If you go and you look at the beautiful water lilies and, yes, they’re beautiful, they’re native. But our people pull them up, dry the bulbs, mash them down, and they make a flour that feeds our family. You’re teaching them their culture. But this surface stuff just continues the dislocation of our children, and it really does come back to what is, in the long term not in the best interests? What is in the long term best interests of this child? And so, if you’re going to have an Aboriginal child, make sure you’re aware of what’s in their map. Make sure that the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4676 C. FEJO-KING XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

community is connected. That poor grandmother – my heart broke when I heard her say she hasn’t had any contact with her grandchildren, her daughter never had contact. You must be accountable to the legislation. And if you’re not, why aren’t you doing that? And the Department must be held accountable for not fulfilling the legislative responsibilities.

In terms of a child who has been removed from their family and their community and sent away to live, perhaps many hundreds of kilometres away from their family, how important is it for that child to remain connected to language?---It’s essential. The Larrakia haven’t got our language as much as the Warumungu. They speak it every day. Language connects you to land; language connects you to ancestors; language connects you to the rest of the kinship system. Because here we’ve been talking about the kinship system as only a connection of human connections. The kinship system is actually metaphysical. It actually connects the universe; it actually connects us to the universe; it actually connects us to – for example, as Larrakia people when I was growing up, we knew the best time to go hunting was at the full moon for crabs, because crabs are big and fat in the full moon, but in no moon or small moon they’ve got no meat on them. So the connection to the universe is part of the kinship system that connects you to your land and all those stories about the stars and how to navigate. All of that – all of that needs – it’s embedded in language. It’s embedded – and it’s hard sometimes to translate an Aboriginal word to an English word. Sometimes there’s no translation, and that’s why our people have used stories. And I’ve been one of the lucky ones to sit as – from the time I was born in our learning circles to be taught the stories, but in English. But a lot of our stories, and the language names and all that, they can’t be connected to English. So we’ve had to learn the language name for them. And luckily it has been continued, but there’s nothing that can replace language and unfortunately Aboriginal people are being told always that English must dominate.

When the Commission was sitting in Alice Springs they heard a personal story about grandparents whose grandchild had been removed and the grandparents telling they were not to speak other than on in English to their grandchild. What kind of harm can that do to the child and relationship to their family and community?---I don’t think you can even measure the damage that’s done. As a young child, I spoke Larrakia language. When I went to school, I – and Creole, and I still continue the Creole, but I had to wear ear phones to learn English, and the English was the dominant, and English loses – it forces you to be – a space between you and your ancestors and your land and all of that. There’s nothing that can replace language. And so you know, my daughter, she’s also a medical practitioner, but she’s doing – and I’ve got to say this, because I’m proud of her – because she’s doing psych registrar now, but she speaks Japanese, right, and she can speak Japanese like – like I’m talking now. She can speak Indonesian and Malaysian, she can speak those languages but Larrakia, our language is almost gone, so she speaks Creole because it links our language and our nations, and that’s the language that connects as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Graham. Mr Dighton, do you have any other questions for Dr Fejo-King?

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4677 C. FEJO-KING XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR DIGHTON: No. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Dr Fejo-King thanks for coming along and giving us the benefit of your vast experience right across the country. I, of course, am totally aware of the contribution you’ve made and it’s been a great contribution to helping us get to the point where we make life a little bit better for kids in the Northern Territory. So thank you for coming along?---Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Dr Fejo-King.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.29 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will take a brief five minute adjournment just to give a little rest, rather than a morning tea break, because we had a break between closed and open court and we will resume pretty well straightaway. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [12.29 pm]

RESUMED [12.37 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I call Josephine Crawshaw.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Crawshaw, if you would like to step into the witness space.

<JOSEPHINE CRAWSHAW, AFFIRMED [12.37 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY

MR MORRISSEY: Ms Crawshaw, would you just state your full name, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I note that Mr Lawrence is here for you. Yes.

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you, Commissioners.

THE WITNESS: Josephine Crawshaw.

MR MORRISSEY: And what is your occupation?---I’m actually retired.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4678 J. CRAWSHAW XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. And what was your occupation during the time of SAFT?---I was the CE, the chief executive officer of SAFT, the peak body and also overseeing the development of the ..... or what people know as ACCA.

As ACCA, yes. Thank you. So you prepared a number of statements, but the one we’re concerned with to tender today, did you prepare a statement of 96 paragraphs dated 17 June 2017 for the purposes of this Commission?---Yes.

Alright. Did you have a chance to have a look at that statement to see if it was true and correct?---Yes.

Are the contents of that true and connect?---Yes.

And were there a number of annexures that you annexed to that statement also?---I have appended a number of annexures, yes.

Thank you. Commissioners, I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 539.

EXHIBIT #539 STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE CRAWSHAW DATED 17/06/2017

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks, very much.

So you’ve spoken about many topics and given a good history of how SAFT was conceived and how it proceeded through history. One of the matters that you referred to in it was the notion and the thesis of Circles of Care. Now, I wonder if you could just explain to the Commissioners what is the connotation of the term Circles of Care and how did you hope who to use it? Perhaps what we can do is bring – so that you can have on the screen as we do – annexure 6 to the witness’ statement, and page 5 in particular. Have that on the screen, but you’re not to be dictated to – if you start from the beginning, explain to the Commissioners what it is, and refer to the graphics as you need to?---Well, starting at – as the CE, I was basically put into an office at AMSANT and told to go ahead and think about what sort of service that could happen in Darwin and Alice Springs as well as establish a peak organisation and the role that the peak might do. My own experience as – coming from being a ward of the state in my earlier life as a young child, and then as a foster carer to my grandchildren, gave me a real good insight into that – the current NT system, and I would actually believe it’s the – even the Australian child protection system is quite broken, and that it – need to have a new approach, and new thinking, about what did child protection mean, you know, what does – what does it mean to have – to be safe? What does it mean for children to not be lost in a system, and how do we ensure that they don’t get lost in a system, and we just continue to remove them? And the evidence shows that children that go into the system often


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

don’t come out. A great percentage will stay through the term of their life with many, many placements, and often will enter into the juvenile justice system, and then into the big – you know, big house of the jail, and that has been the history. Also the history of my own mother, being stolen generation, so we’ve sort of almost had a huge background of what the child protection system can do and alienate Aboriginal families. It’s part of the breaking down of the society, so we had to really think outside the box and have a – have a think about what would we do, and how can we do this better. So when I talk about the Circles of Care, it came from a woman called Dr Pauline Meemeduma, and she was on the expert panel that SAFT was – inherited and those experts came from all around Australia. I think there was only possibly one Darwin based or Territory based expert. And as she listened to everybody in the two days that we had them up to say give us guidance, what would you do, what – if you were given this chance to start something new what would you do? And she was quite – made such a profound effect on us because she said, “Well, what do you want to do? Do you want to tinker with the broken system or do you want to build a new house.” And, of course, there was – you know, there was only one choice to go. And so Circles of Care was what we named it. It wasn’t her name, but it is – its foundation is about having a real child centred approach to every part of the continuum of the service, that you never lose sight of that child and that child is never left languishing in the system. And if, for example, you did get to that point where the child would not be coming out of – out-of-home care system, that at least they were still connected to community and with – with culture intact, and that we would then wrap around all the – what we call the care needs, and the support, and services around that – that – that foster care, which we identified as the morally committed person. But if you can have a look at it, these are universal care needs of each – any child to grow up, and meet their full potential, and to develop at the right stages that they should be developing. You have to have a lens on what are those needs, and it has to be within a cultural context, and if you’re thinking about the Northern Territory and if we look at these needs and how the current system – and particularly the big one that a lot of children are being removed in – is under neglect. And so with a cultural lens on there, and when you’re assessing, you wouldn’t be removing a child based on that they just didn’t go to school or – or they were missing days at school, or the overcrowding of housing. So we – we saw this model, that this is the foundational aspect of what a child needs to have, whether they’re developing right through. So all of their cognitive care, their social care, their emotional care. So it – in that, the child has to have those care needs. So you have to look at that. And then at the same time we’re looking for the morally committed adult in that child’s life, and it could be the parent, and the parent might be morally committed for 60 per cent of the time and off the rails the other 40 per cent. However, that should not allow for that child to be removed and taken. So you look at those examples and incidents where they are failing in that 40 per cent of the time, and I guess a really good example would be if you think about – and I don’t need to – if a barge comes into a community, they have – allowed to have some drinking going on, in those two days, if that’s where the child is sort of neglected, that’s where you wrap around that time. Where do you find the morally committed person that takes them for that time? Just like how we all grew up, when there could have been a fight between your mother and father, you might have went to your nana’s place or your auntie’s


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

place, and when things settled you went home and everything was right again. And so it’s looking at those sorts of situations, where we can keep the child safe in what you would call an unsafe environment, for periods of time where the person mightn’t be fully up to the – up to the plate.

May I just interrupt with one question and then proceed?---Yes.

Because I’ve stopped you at a certain point. Just if you can clarify one thing there. You’ve mentioned that it might be – that the graphic there, that depicts the various types of care that are needed to be focused is something that can be applied to a parent, but you weren’t limiting it to a parent either, were you? There are other persons who can be empowered by that approach; is that right?---Yes. I think our point of difference with our model was that it was a framework and a service model that went across the continuum of service. So anyone that came into the frame of that child got the same sort of training around what was needed and the support and stuff. So if it meant that – if you know, in Aboriginal child rearing practices, one of the – a key practice is shared parenting in Aboriginal society. And we would be looking at those morally committed people in that, and so there could be a nana or an aunty or – or if they were not kin, it could be an Aboriginal person still in that community, but they’re all connected through the kinship system. There’s obligations that are dictated through the kinship system about how you see, you know, your aunties and your sisters and that through your skin names, and you have obligations. So you’re also looking there. In the event that they – you don’t find anyone in that situation, and it could be a non-Aboriginal foster carer, that’s – that’s the critical point of – well, any of them that are going to take up those care needs, if they slip over and into out-of-home care, they have to step up to plate and be that parent that provides all of that stuff, and they have to know that that’s their role. If they’re going to be a foster carer, that’s what we want you to be committed to and sign to, because you have to pick up that that child is going to be loved, that they know where they are and where they fit in the identity. Even if you’re sitting with a non-Aboriginal person, it is important that they are socialised and they’re connected to their culture and their people, and their family. One of the – yeah, so – sorry, I will just leave it at that.

Yes?---Yes.

Could I ask you perhaps to expand a little bit. So you’ve spoken about – that’s the range of people who can benefit, but you also spoke of the adaptability of this model to various stages, and in fact to the entirety of the continuum of care. So I take it from that that persons trained in and familiar with this model are able to assist both the child and the responsible adults around that child at various points in the continuum. Now, you pointed to an early phase when somebody’s in community and issues arise, that if mishandled might result in a collision with the authorities, but properly trained that can be avoided, but does it remain relevant once a person is taken into care, or is on the verges of doing that, and at various stops in that journey?---Absolutely. If you – you know, if you accept that these are care – you know, key principles for any human being to grow up and to be able to contribute to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the society, and the community that they live in, this has to be across ..... so even all the case managers, the case managers, all of our staff, our organisational practice staff had to know this back to front, and were trained in these key aspects. So once that model was developed it can be for any case manager in any service that could have been offered through the peak to do that, because it’s fundamental, and it has to be on the continuum service, because one of the huge breakdowns in – in, I think, statutory child protection systems is that that has been there – that’s their baby. Once the kid’s removed, that’s us. They may – in other states, like VACA, they’re outsourced and they’ve got agreements and partnerships where someone like the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, they do the whole lot and they’ve got the same sort of powers as what the Minister would have had or the CEO of the department, but they’ve been around, you know, about 40 years and they’ve got to that point and they’re – they’ve done that because the statutory system is just not – they’re just not good parents.

Yes?---They cannot parent. They are hostile, in fact, towards – towards parents. They are overwhelmed and even your best efforts, even with all of this working really, really well, some of the – the problems and the issues, you still can’t save that child from being removed. So you must at least try to do the same with whoever those morally committed people are, whether they’re Aboriginal foster carers, kin, non-kin, they must have the same approach and committed to picking up that parenting role.

But the training that you administered allowed that to happen - - -?---Absolutely.

That was the – that was the idea of it?---Yes, critical.

Could I just ask you this, just in developing this model. It’s apparent from your statement that you travelled widely, consulted widely, and that Dr Meemeduma’s proposal – not that she come up with the name was not simply an inspiration that she had, but it arose on the back of many months of consultation across Australia?---Yep. So look, I come – as the CE, I did not – I was to head up the organisation, set the direction, make sure that whatever services that we were going to do, that all the governance and the programs and the models were run, so I don’t come from a child protection background where I’ve got qualifications in that. I guess I have qualifications in that I’ve been a foster carer, and I’ve been a ward of the state so I think I have – I know what – what I think needs to happen. In terms of the – one of the great things that was put in, the first service level agreement from 2011 to June 2012 was that they understood that they wanted something different here, and they said one of the KPIs was we were to look at all other jurisdictions, and I – you know, I ask the team that’s helping the Commissioners to really look at those reports. They are a wealth of knowledge, because we spoke to 40 – at least 40 organisations around the country, and they were academics, they were people like the Australian Institute of Welfare and family and welfare, so they pull out all the state reports on child protection in this country, but they also look at and try to define neglect. So they do a lot of research. So there were agencies like that that gave us a wealth of knowledge of – of how child protection should work in this country. And - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Could I ask you to refine something. I’m going to take you in a minute just to the way in which SAFT was designed, and the peak body, and the service delivery components were to be structured. But because you’ve raised the issue of neglect, the Commission here has heard a great deal with notifications and a fairly radical increase in notifications that has occurred between 2008 and subsequently in 2012/13. You had a real rise in those. But a great deal of that rise has been a rise in notifications concerning neglect, and it’s relevant to the way in which your model might work to ask whether you have questions that you would like to see posed in terms of the definition of neglect and the response that child protection agencies might properly take to that notion of neglect?---Yeah. Well, if you think about today, I think it’s the 21 June 2017. 10 years ago today the Northern Territory Emergency Response was announced, all under the disguise that it was to save the children because of the organised – community organised paedophile rings and abuse. Out of that policy and out of those – the practices that then hit the ground, looked at and saw wider than that, not only sexual abuse, but neglect. And this is our dilemma for Aboriginal people: we live – this is our country, we are the first peoples. Guess what? We’ve lasted 60,000 years, but no one thinks that we have anything to offer about any solution to do with us ..... 60,000 years. Okay. Lot of knowledge. We’ve lived through ice ages, the whole lot. And yet, where child protection – not only child protection, it’s in every area, you get a situation where everybody that’s designing and developing, implementing and delivering are mainly non-Aboriginal. All the big NGOs, what I call the bingos, small NGOs, the statutory authority, everybody that writes a policy on – and the legislation on the Intervention and what should happen, not one ounce of cultural competency or bicultural competency is there. They’re allowed to write these policies without taking any – they have to know nothing about the history, they have to know nothing about the impact of those policies and practices that have left us as the most impoverished, disenfranchised occupied people. We’re talking 10 years ago today, we had martial law in this country on civilians. Incredible. What that has done has meant that we have seen this huge increase now, whether you think there was good intentions, and there – elements that clearly are – but there’s no thinking through what the impact of that was. And guess who suffers and who’s – it’s the Aboriginal children, and they are the victim and pay the biggest costs. And they’re taken into a broken system, like the NT child protection system, who was broken and then given 147 recommendations. I mean, they were struggling. They were doing their best to try and get all these recommendations out. So neglect is just – I think you heard the last speaker, and Christine – one of the big things, they had such a backlog of notifications, they brought out a heap of people, not only from New Zealand, they brought them all from England, you know, and they would just sit in the communities. And there was one woman – it was just like going back to when I was a kid, because I’m born in the 50s, I’m a lot older than all of you lot here.

Careful?---She used to clap us, tell us to “Get here.”

Yes?---And talk to the community, “Get over here, the meeting has started.” And she was the - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you think the concept of – sorry, go on. No, you go on?---Yah. So she’s the – she’s the Department’s person to get all of the people in the community to come and talk and hear about SAFT and child protection issues and anyone that’s got concerns. So you know, we’ve got – yeah ..... situation.

Taking the Circle of Care approach, I guess the issue could be refined a little bit. Would you say there’s room for a much more nuanced approach to what constitutes neglect just as a general concept and also as a notifiable concept?---Yes. That was the biggest challenge for us and probably where a lot of our discussions were with the Department and the Children’s Commissioner, where we went on that. And I – we – you know, we had situations where the – where they took children on neglect for – you know, if you want to apply, you would have to take nearly every Aboriginal child out of a remote community. You know, if Centrelink did their job and the office and the police did their job, the way it’s defined and the criteria, it – they would be removing nearly every child. So we had to get around, in Circles of Care and the advocacy of a peak body – this is where it comes in and joins in and then also those services will get that same advocacy idea, is that we needed to push back on the removal of children under neglect.

Yes?---There are extreme cases – and if you take physical care, you know, you can live in a broken down busted car with your Mum or your Dad but you know, even if you’re a single parent, whichever it might be, but if you know they’ve got your back, you’re safe. You’re going to get a feed, your emotional needs are met. Your circumstances have just been that you’re on the streets and you’re homeless.

Now, can I just, just because of time reasons, I’m very keen to get you to speak about an application of this through the ACCAs that were to be set up. As a lead-in to that, can I ask you this: you’re – as you’ve set out in your statement, you had in a sense a dual role. You had the peak body role which had a capacity building, advocacy component to it, and you also had the intention to set up and operate the two ACCAs mooted for Darwin and also ultimately, as it was planned in January 2013, the Alice Springs ACCA. Can you indicate how – and take the Darwin one, because it got very close, how that was going to deliver services in accordance with the Circles of Care? What was the hope? What was the plan? What was the training that went into it? How it was supposed to work?---So I haven’t been able to provide a lot of that, because I’m – I’ve been gone since April, so I didn’t have - - -

It’s really your recollection that we would love to hear. That’s – don’t worry about the .....?---Yeah – yeah. However, all of the – the training modules were being rolled out at different stages. The actual staff, we – I think we – we put out the applications and we recruited them. Pauline actually wrote all the competencies up for those different positions, and what would be needed to be able to run that – and the skillset you would need, and she ran the actual interviewing process with us.

And what – can I just intervene there. What was the Darwin ACCA going to look like in terms of staff numbers and the structure?---Okay.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And then I’ll take you to – and who was it going to reach, which families, which .....?---Yeah. It was set up for, we were to – it was – they were going to run it as a – can we have it as a pilot? Given that we had never been in this space, it was a different model and framework, and it was a continuum that we would have them even – they would be our clients even if they were removed.

But the idea was to reach a particular number of families?---Yeah. North – children from birth to four years of age, it was up – up the – in the primary area of the child protection system. So its intervention prevention, working with the family, capacity building. They’ve had notifications, there has been maybe one notification that’s into the Department. So it’s wrapping around all of the support and the services, and capacity building that family. So you’re looking at and assessing with your care – care lens on for those case workers, these care needs. And then you’ve got a risk lot, looking at what are the risks to do with that, and they’re looking at their vulnerability, and also their resilience as parents. They’re trying to identify that and wrap the support and the services around that.

Could I just ask you, although you hadn’t had the referrals were due to come in October, that was the plan?---Yeah, end of October on the – on the service. Yep.

Of 2012?---Of 2012.

It sounds like a rather exciting time though, in a sense, that you were set up here with a trained team, putting in place a genuinely home grown thesis, and applying that to groups of families. And could I just ask you, although you hadn’t got any referrals, you had a fair idea of some of the families and the communities that you would be seeking to help. Is that a fair comment?---Well, I think all of the – all of – and I think, except for one officer, came from Western Australia, but all of the other staff were Aboriginal people and mainly from here with connections to the other communities and stuff. So in Aboriginal ..... we know most of the families and we know most of the situations, because we’ve got connections. We’re either married into them or whatever. So – and then there are families that have had intergenerational sort of removal stuff happening. You’ve got links into the schools that you’re already knowing which families are at risk. So yes, we – we had a really good sense of probably the type of people we would get and the likelihood that we would – one of us would know them, and so the trust – and we wanted to just do that old-fashioned social work. A lot of the – a lot of the things is – they fall down by, you know, it might be a domestic violence situation, but I just know from my own personal experience with my own girls that they’re still trying to work, but they’re too frightened to, you know, report, or go and get counselling and services in fear, because there’s mandatory reporting that exists, that they’re going to be removed. So yes, we do know those families.

Could I just zoom out for a second here. This is a – I mean, it’s a very interesting tale that you’re able to tell the Commission, because you’re embedded, and your role arose from the Board of Inquiry, SAFT was set up pursuant to the Board of Inquiry, and is very much a part of the Board of Inquiry at a very high level. But here you


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

were, in 2012, able to bring quite high level insights and a very high level model into practice, and you were about to commence with that practice. So in a sense we were two years in, after a long period of development and painstaking professional work, accountably put into shape, training of staff, Aboriginal staff on the ground and predominantly Aboriginal staff working for you. In 2012 you were about to put this into practice, and the view was you’re going to have a number of families, perhaps up to 20 in the first period of time?---Yes – yep.

Receiving that wrap around ongoing care, hopefully keep a lots of the kids out of the system. If they go in, to maintain continuity to help them back; is that right?---Yes.

And therefore the system is relevant, as you’ve indicated, not just at the early intervention phase in the sense of stepping in after a notification but not a removal, but also at the reunification case where you have - - -?---Absolutely. So three stages.

Yes?---Yeah. Pre, in and out-of-home care, post. So you had to also still work – once they were reunified, you still needed to be able to work with that family so that they didn’t fall off again.

Yes, and just - - -?---At least a period of six months.

Just one other final thing I wanted to ask about that. IT’s – you often have families that – I mean, naturally you will have families which have more than one child?---Yes.

And it may be a situation for you, and looking at what the Darwin ACCA was about to do, to intervene in an early intervention mode with one kid, say perhaps a young kid, one or two years old, but you might find in exactly the same family an older kid going through reunification. So although it looks like an early intervention, it’s also got a tertiary component to it?---Absolutely. And that’s been my personal experience as a foster carer. I had one out and two still living at home. Intervention happens and the other two get removed. So I know that’s exactly the situation we have, the complexities of that, and that’s why that continuum of service and care across that was vital.

So that’s – it’s very helpful and you’ve described that model and just, it’s clear that that model remains relevant if someone would like to pick it up and the training modules still exist if someone would like to pick it up or refer to it in their projects in the future?---Yes. I think it – the training modules I know that – I think Pauline Meemeduma might have had to hand in as evidence of everything that she had developed. I know she copyrighted stuff, but they are in receipt of the Department. They have got most of that material. I think she sent 40 separate documents of that whole process.

Now, look, I’ve got to turn to a harder topic in a sense. What happened? What was the effect of the cancellation, first of all, of the Alice Springs ACCA and the cutting and limiting and change of directions imposed on the Darwin ACCA? Could you


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

just explain to the Commissioners what happened?---Okay. So we were very hopeful – we had a three year service level plan. There was obviously a commitment of the Labor Government to all of the – and bipartisan approach for the whole of the Board of Inquiry’s recommendations. So there was hope everywhere, in all of the NGOs and probably even in – in the Department that we were going to see some change. If you look at our service level agreement it’s signed on the 22 August for – for the opening of the ACCA. And on 25 August there’s an election, and the Labor Party is defeated, which was their – their initiative, and we get a CLP Government in. In the evidence that I listened to yesterday, you could clearly see that that Government came in with very limited experience of even being in Government, and the first hint we got – we immediately wrote to our – the new Minister, which was Robyn Lambley, to see if we could share with her and give her a presentation right through of how this works, and give a really good sense of why – why it was going to make a real difference, probably not only in the Northern Territory, but I think if the model was evaluated and tweaked and everything, could have been a really good model for even anywhere in Australia, because people are doing it – but elements of it – and doing it very well. However - - -

What happened?---I then – what happened was I got a call – I think it was around the – it was 15 October and that call was from a CE, which was Clare Gardiner-Barnes, to say that the Minister would like to meet with me but that she also wanted to pass on the message that I had to cease all expenditure within SAFT.

Just let me pause there for a moment. You’ve set out in your statement the twists and turns that happened, the way in which communications occurred and so on. Did you ever have confirmation that the Minister understood what was the effect of proposed cuts to the ACCA in Darwin and the complete cessation of the ACCA in Alice Springs?---No, I didn’t think she had – she would have even – she didn’t even know what we were doing, and I do not – I don’t believe that she was given any sense of what that presentation was. I’m only – so when – at the time, we weren’t – we didn’t have access to information, but since I’ve been doing this work I’ve seen where there is a – a ministerial brief prepared by the Department, that was sort of embargoed and kept confidential, only to the executive of the – of the Department that there were going to be cuts and some totally – totally slashed.

Yes. Could I just ask you a question about that. We’ve heard – and you’ve heard what the former Minister Lambley said about why she made the decision she did, what sort of time she was able to dedicate to the decision-making process and what sort of things she took into account. Do you feel that the Government was – by which I mean Ms Gardiner-Barnes as well as the Minister in particular, that they showed an appreciation of what sort of opportunity was being missed here? So (a) the lost opportunity and (b) the negative consequences of the cuts by way of staff morale, staff loss, and loss of expertise and loss of morale. So if you could deal with each of those. Did they understand what they were missing out on, and did they understand the damage they were going to do?---I would have like to have thought that the CE might have understood some of that. However, it wasn’t a – you know, an easy relationship, because we were pushing and having to explain why we’re


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

going there on some of these areas, and especially around neglect and why they were removing kids. So I – just knowing and listening yesterday, Minister Lambley at the time had absolutely no idea and I – I reckon zero interest. Absolutely zero interest. Did not take into account, wasn’t interested in finding out, what the costs would be. And this is my concern, and it’s one of my recommendations: in the Northern Territory – and we’ve currently got it, in Opposition we only have two people. We cannot be at the whim of continue – you know, the cycle of governments coming in, having no – no experience or background or even understanding. They’ve just got, “Well, these are the little initiatives we want up.” And closing down services and not understanding the absolute impact of that, and the devastation that they caused to the – to the lives of their – you know, the people that they’re supposed to represent. And there is – you know, it’s clear to me, every Aboriginal person that has ever worked in any organisation, the history in the Northern Territory, the change of Governments, and all the way through, and even from John Howard, the first thing they do is cut Aboriginal programs. Where there’s service, that’s where they look for cuts. It’s always done in that area. Every organisation, whether you work for a legal service, health, you work on a bloody shoestring. You know, there is nothing, there is no fat in the budget. There was no appreciation of the fact that they – they didn’t even care that Aboriginal people didn’t even exist in this whole sector.

Just excuse me one moment. Commissioners, I’m just noting the time and I’m grateful to all, including the court staff, who have continued to work. I believe I have another 10 minutes only to go. I also believe there’s about 10 to 12 minutes of cross-examination. I’m in the Commission’s hands whether we pause for lunch now and have a short lunch if the Commissioners are willing to.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Having a short lunch whatever we do, Mr Morrissey, but it might be a good idea to – I think it sitting a little long without the blood sugar being replenished.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sometimes people can do better work when they’ve had a sandwich. Why don’t we take the break now.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 2 o’clock.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you.

ADJOURNED [1.19 pm]

RESUMED [2.08 pm]


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, the time spent over lunch is always valuable. I have no further questions.

MS GRAHAM: I have no questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Graham.

MR LAWRENCE: If I may.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Mr Lawrence.

<EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE [2.08 pm]

MR LAWRENCE: Post valuable lunch. I’ve actually got a few questions.

Yesterday I questioned Ms Lambley who, of course, was the Minister for six months, when you were the acting ..... officer, and she told us that she had during that period two telephone conversations with you. Do you agree with that?---Yes.

And you set them out in your statement - - -?---Yes.

- - - as best you can recall?---Yes.

And she also said that she actually met with you once?---Yes, but not in a – a capacity to do with SAFT. Just we were at a national child – a National Children’s day breakfast.

Right?---We’re just at the same table.

Is that the only time you met the Minister?---Yes.

And I gather from your evidence today, and also your statement, that you were very keen to actually get in the room with the Minister in order for you to explain what you were proposing with SAFT?---Yes. Because once we had got the phone call to cease funding we didn’t know what that meant, and so it was really important that I wanted to show her the model that we had developed and thought she would be pretty supportive if she heard what that was. But I was never afforded that meeting. One – two were planned and both were cancelled.

Okay?---With no explanation.

Can I just go to the recommendations that you’ve touched on. One of them you mentioned was that you were – SAFT experienced the classic instance of having support from initially the Board of Inquiry and its 147 recommendations, two of which said that SAFT or like should be created. (2) the Department’s response to the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4689 J. CRAWSHAW XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

same. (3) the Labor Government implemented all of those recommendations, including establishing SAFT and funding it, and then within weeks I think of you receiving that funding we have an election and we have a change of Government and then no more. You learn quickly that there’s a question mark over funding and then, of course, it’s eventually sheeted home to you that, in fact, the funding is halved; is that correct?---Yes. We only realised that we got the funding – what the implications of that funding cut would be – we thought we were actually being closed down completely but on 4 December, after the minibudget came down we were given a – like a 50 per cent cut. But you’re right, up till then we were pretty – pretty excited. It was the first time in history that an NT Government had actually, for about 30 years, had actually established an Aboriginal organisation. So I was keen to make sure that that – that opportunity was not lost to the Aboriginal community, but indeed the broader community. However, yeah, I just did not understand – well, I do understand the politics that – I guess this Government came in, the Mills Government, and we were just in the firing line, without any understanding of what we were doing. Like, weren’t interested, I don’t think.

Forgive me, but – this may be self-evident – but what you were tasked to do in July two thousand and - - -?---’11.

Was from the ground up, wasn’t it? It wasn’t as if you were picking up something that was semi-there, whatever?---Yeah, no infrastructure, no documents, no – yeah, no nothing.

And unlike other jurisdictions – we’ve heard evidence from Ms Bamblett, from Victoria, they’ve had a service akin which has been going for about 30 years?---Yeah, probably about 38 now.

And these are the types of organisations that you inquired into and learnt from - - -?---Yeah.

Before you came up with this model?---Mmm.

And your recommendations is from your chair, from your experience, personal as a child and as a grandmother, and as the CEO of SAFT, is that the SAFT model can work and it should be developed in the way it was supposed to be developed, namely through time, appropriate resources and qualified Aboriginal people doing it?---Yes. We weren’t sure whether we would get all of the practice people qualified that were Aboriginal. We were lucky that we did, there were people with those qualifications. But it was important that the board, right from the beginning, understood this whole child protection space and – and the impacts it has had on our community. So right from our very first board meeting we were always informing and capacity building, even our board, of understanding what was happening in the child protection space, and the fact that we probably represented – 90 per cent of the children in care were Aboriginal, and it was spiralling out of control, and it would – it was already having an effect that there were going to be more children moved in this very short period than ever in the decades that the stolen generation policy existed.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. And some of your board were Aboriginal members from the community, weren’t they. I think your chairperson - - -?---All of the board members were Aboriginal, 14 board members and I didn’t – I had no say over that membership. That was – they were already interviewed and had applied for it, and I think the Department and AMSANT actually went through that selection process, so I didn’t have any input into - - -

No?--- - - - who the board membership, but they did come from the five regions of the Northern Territory.

Yes. Now finally, Ms Fejo-King touched on this, and you talk about it in your statement and also in your personal statement from your own experience, where a family member was taken, and that is the difference in the monetary component given to kin carers compared with normal foster care parents. This is an issue, isn’t it?---Yes. It was an issue for the Board of Inquiry, because in the Northern Territory under the Act there was no provision to pay kinship carers, and that was one of the recommendations that they would look at paying kinship carers similar to the foster carers. I know that they did a trial on that. I – I can’t tell you whether that’s actually a formal process now, but what I can tell you from my own experience, and then all the time that I was at SAFT - - -

Right?--- - - - that Aboriginal kin care foster carers were not given the same financial support and resource support that was given to other NGOs and the Foster Care Association. For example, if you were – if they wanted you to – if you put your hand up to be a foster carer, if you had a family where you couldn’t put – there was not enough space in your car, they would upgrade your car. I just know even, with the NT Emergency and respite model that they put to us at the end, that was a really extreme process of us saying, “Who pays for cots? Who pays for beds? Who pays for the nappies? Who pays for their care needs of any sort? Their fees, if they’re at preschool or in a crèche, who picks that up?” They were – there’s something that you just have to pull out where that seems to just flow to – that’s just a standard practice for other NGOs and the foster carers under the Foster Carers Association.

Now finally – and I mean finally – you’ve said about the problem of changing Government locally, NT, SAFT is a classic. In that regard then what would you wish this Royal Commission to recommend to the Federal Parliament to ensure that the kind of thing that occurred to SAFT can’t occur in the future this jurisdiction?---I guess one of my recommendations is that you can see the history of the Northern Territory in terms of elections and how they absolutely impact – without any analysis, very quick decisions are made. They don’t understand the impact that it’s even going to cost them, and that I think that the Federal Government should legislate in this particular – I think it’s at such a crisis point that we need a higher level of protection and legislation that actually probably would be better coming from the Federal Government. I just think – even the Labor Government that we’ve got in now are very new. Most of them have never been in politics before. So we’re dealing with – we’re dealing with Governments, the Territory Governments – doesn’t matter which political persuasion that have – have no background or


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

understanding and knowledge about many of the programs and services and the legislation that should be in place, and so I would like to see a higher level of protection given to stop what they’ve just done with us, that one day it’s everything – sees that this is absolutely a critical gap and need and a Government comes in and within five weeks make a decision, they’re new, they’ve never been in before. What – you have to ask them, how do they get to that? Where does that advice come? Where’s the analysis there? This has to stop, because it’s our children that pay the ultimate price of – they’re already being failed by most adults in their life and the Government’s the last one that, you know, puts the nail in the coffin for them.

Well, let me put it this way: the Prime Minister of this country called the Royal Commission, do you want him to implement the recommendations that we will receive from this Royal Commission?---Yes.

Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: I have no more questions arising from that, but it certainly falls to us to thank the witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Crawshaw, for coming to give us the benefit of your long experience in this field. It will be most useful to us - - -?---Thank you.

- - - in our considerations. So you are released from your summons. Thank you?---Thank you.


MR MORRISSEY: Thank you very much, Ms Crawshaw, and thank you Commissioners. I call Clare Gardiner-Barnes.

<CLARE MARY GARDINER-BARNES, SWORN [2.21 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Kindly be seated.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY [2.21 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks, Ms Gardiner-Barnes. Would you state your full name, please?---Clare Mary Gardiner-Barnes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4692 C.M. GARDINER-BARNES XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What is your occupation?---I am the Deputy Secretary for Transport for New South Wales.

And have you set your previous – the history of your previous occupation with the Northern Territory Government in your – in the statement?---I have.

Thank you. Now, for the purpose of these proceedings, did you indeed prepare a statement dated 4 June 2017?---Yes, I did.

And did you annexe certain documents to that statement?---Yes, that’s correct.

And have you had a chance to read that statement to see if it’s true and correct for the purposes of this proceeding?---Yes, I have.

And, with the exception of one correction, is it true and correct?---That is correct.

And what’s the correction that you wanted to make?---The correction is in relation to paragraph 53 where I’m requesting a change of word from the word “completed” to the word “commenced”.

Yes?---Thank you.

Thank you. Very well. So - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you going to tender that, Mr - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, I do tender that document and its annexures.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: As amended by Ms Gardiner-Barnes. Exhibit 540.

EXHIBIT #540 AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLARE GARDINER-BARNES DATED 4/06/2017

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you, your Honour. Thanks.

Now, Ms Gardiner-Barnes, I just wanted to take you to the commencement of the process that you’re here to talk about. That was the Board of Inquiry and its implementation. At the time the Board of Inquiry of initiated what was your position?---At the time the Board of Inquiry was initiated I was the acting executive director for Children and Families, that was part of the Department of Health and families.

As it was in those days. Now the Board of Inquiry - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask you this: as far as you know had the children and families – just as a generic description – been in health for a very long time?---Yes, that’s correct.

Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: And that Board of Inquiry arose out of some specific circumstances that you were aware of. There was a rise in notifications and a rise in demand, but there were also two significant deaths that occurred which gave rise to the calling of the Board of Inquiry; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

And you recall there was a level of public concern that was very much in the mind of all those who cooperated with the convening of and the investigation of the Board of Inquiry?---That’s correct.

So it was – it seems to be, and you tell me – these are my terms, but it’s really your terms that we’re most interested in, but it did appear that there was a real crisis in child protection at that time in 2009: intake had been the subject of many reviews, there had been concern about its suitability as a tool for the Department, and there was a wide variety of structural and acute concerns that needed to be addressed; is that a fair way to put it?---There was no doubt that that is the – was the case.

Yes. Very well. Just to anticipate where I’m going to go with these questions, you were very much involved in making submissions to the Board of Inquiry and subsequently in implementation of it?---Yes. That was my key role when I commenced in the agency and throughout my time employed.

And it looks as though – and this is just a comment of mine, but tell us, it looks as though this was something that you personally were very committed to and very involved in?---That is correct. I felt very personally committed to the agenda of child protection, having a background in education and within that department a role specifically related to child safety, and I was very keen to see the reforms occur within the Northern Territory, having worked in the Department of Children and Families in Queensland following their inquiry.

Yes. Did you have the chance to see the evidence of former Minister Lambley that was given in this Commission yesterday?---Yes, I have.

Yes. So you will recall that in effect she – the effect of her evidence about that was that in those early days there was effectively very strong bipartisan support for the thrust of the Board of Inquiry?---That’s certainly my understanding that both sides of politics throughout the Board of Inquiry developments – were supported by all parties in the House at the time.

Alright. Now I just need to take you to some, what might say, structural – or structural issues that arise from the Board of Inquiry here. Your – you were involved in the – in drafting – you were instrumental in the drafting of the submission that is


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

annexed to your statement at annexure number 4. That’s the departmental submission that’s on the screen in front of you?---Yes, that’s correct.

And it might not have been solely your work, but it’s very much – you were very much a driver and leader of that submission?---Yes. Correct.

Now, I just wanted to take you to a couple of parts of it. Sorry, just excuse me. Can we just go to page 3 of that document. So here I just wanted to take you to a couple of the – couple of the comments that are made there if we could?---Yep.

Because what this does – and I will take you to the passages, not reading the whole thing into the transcript – but what this does is to make it clear that the Department was concerned – sorry, I’ll take you to a couple of passages and ask you for a comment:

The Department does not currently have the capacity to sustain an adequate response to the growing demand in intake, child protection investigations, and out-of-home care. Early and targeted ongoing support of families will help create diversion from long-term contact with the statutory system. The current policy and service system response is clearly not sustainable into the future.

Now, just pausing there, you went on to make ..... that was your view at the time?---Yes, my view.

And the view of the Department?---Yes. Correct.

And that issue of sustainable really recognised that a simple focus on tertiary responses was never going to suffice, because there was an increasing demand on those tertiary responses?---Yes, that’s right. There was, during that period, a high increase in the number of children taken into care, in the number of notifications made to the Department, and it was very important that we develop a sustainable long-term system.

Yes. And just going down the page, in the next paragraph there, you’ve got, it says that:

To address significant growth in child protection notifications and other trends outlined above, and systematically address the issues that have been widely reported in recent coronials, a new whole of Government strategic commitment to resign in the current system is required.

And, sorry, I should have pointed out that’s at page 4, and I apologise?---That’s alright.

But that is – that has been brought up. So just the things I wanted to stress there, is that what you were looking at was a systemic reform?---Correct. I was of the very strong view that the Department of Children and Families was not able to respond to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the level of need on its own and it really needed to make sure that other key departments that were much better resourced played very important partnership roles like the Department of Education particularly in the early years, Department of Health, Department of Housing, that we needed to work collaboratively together as real partners and with the non-government sector if we were going to achieve the positive outcomes that were required.

Now, the reference to strategic commitment encapsulates the notion that there needed to be some long-term thinking put in place in order to ensure that the many components of the new system were brought in a coherent, cohesive manner; is that correct?---Yes. Given the shortage of funds across the Northern Territory, it was important that there wasn’t duplication across departments, that we were all mindful of the best referral processes, and ensure that the funding that was available was targeted in the best possible way.

Yes. And clearly it was the case that this was a long-term investment that was proposed?---That’s correct. The issues that we were dealing with on a daily basis were not going to be fixed overnight. They required the cooperation of many, and for the non-government sector to play a critical role in that reform. That was going to take many, many years to build the capability and the capacity of that system, and it would be requiring other government agencies to have a big shift in their thinking to take a stronger ownership role for child protection issues.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And presumably share in the funding - - -?---Yes.

- - - as well, because other departments don’t like giving up their budgetary allocation?---No, they don’t.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Just to close off that section there, it appears that the – the process of the Board of Inquiry was a very thorough one, involving consultation across Australia, with a wide variety of professionals; is that correct?---Yes. That’s most definitely correct.

And you were in a position to be very confident that what was ultimately proposed was centrally within approved best practice models across Australia?---There was enormous commitment from the board members to ensure that the recommendations and the report was highlighting best practice and would really help provide a clear direction for the provision of Child Protection Services in the future that would be successful.

It also appears that you were in a position to take to your Minister a package that – that had been the subject of wide consultation, not just with the academic and intellectual commentators that I refer to, but also with the community groups likely to be affected by the reforms. Is that an accurate statement?---Can you clarify what you mean by me taking a package.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Sorry. Yes. So – well, what I mean is that in making the submission that you made, you needed to ensure that the Minister was behind that submission?---Yes.

So I mean getting approval for the submission that you made from the Minister. Sorry, that was put in a clunky way?---When I started in the Department and had a conversation with Minister Vatskalis about the statement that we would provide, he reassured me that he wanted the Department’s submission to be warts and all. He didn’t want it to be in any way lensed through a positive view of the world. This was our opportunity to make sure that we made it really clear, the extent of the issues that were in the child protection system and that we were very clear about that.

One of the issues – I just wonder if you – do you have your statement in front of you there?---Yes, I do.

If you can just turn to paragraph 19 of your statement. I just wanted to take you here to, if you like, the – it also seems like the role of a shepherd with respect to the implementation of the Board of Inquiry’s report, some of which we will come to in a minute but am I right in thinking where it says the Department – to minimise the impact of the challenges, which are set out at 18, the department undertook significant additional measures. And you set out a number of those measures. Now, that’s – I’ve described that as a shepherding sort of role, but this was really your role as a Department, overseeing the implementation in a nuanced and flexible manner; is that correct?---Yes. Because the recommendations were so vast and so all-encompassing, it was important not only for us to be focused on those but to ensure that we had appropriate processes in place to support those, and these are some of the examples - - -

Yes?--- - - - That were put in place to ensure best success of the recommendations.

Yes. And I think they mostly speak for themselves, but picking up on an observation by Commissioner White, if you look at 19.8 it appears that one of those roles was advocating for additional funding from Treasury to cover the increasing costs of out-of-home care, child protection, and to support the increased focus on prevention and early intervention services.

Now, could I just ask you about that. That one seems – but tell me if I’m overstating or wrong, but it seems there that there were two advocacy functions built into that proposal. One of them is recognising that out-of-home care and child protection were just increasingly costly, because of the increased demand; is that correct?---Yes, and – and for treasury to understand the impact of that increasing cost on our capacity to absorb those costs within our existing budget.

Yes. When we come later on to the 25 million or so, 24, $25 million shortfall that Minister Lambley identified, I will get you to explain how that comes about. How such a shortfall develops in the course of the running of a Department, which you will be able to speak to. But the second component of that there is that the advocacy was to support increased focus on prevention and early intervention services, and I


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

take it the need for that was that there was a concern that treasury might not always get why early intervention programs, which are costly, may not show any fruits for one year or perhaps for a second year or perhaps for a period of time. Is that an accurate way to look at it? That you needed to protect the tender green shoots that were growing from an impatient treasury?---Yes. I think one of the key issues around prevention and early intervention is that it’s not as easy to measure the outcomes, because the results of a positive outcome is that a child does not enter the child protection system, and so that in many ways is not easy to measure in comparison to the measures that we might have internally about the increase in notifications, the increase in number of children taken in care.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But couldn’t – just slowing down the increase is actually an indication of success of those early interventions?---Yes.

So there are things that could be measured?---Yes, there are things that could be measured, but that type of measure would take some time to be illustrated because of the capability - - -

That’s the whole theory of early intervention?---Yes. That’s right. And so ensuring that Treasury officials understood the importance of that investment and how long it would take to demonstrate the success of that intervention over some time with an evidence base that was drawing on the evidence from other jurisdictions, that was an important argument to put forward.

What about the argument if you do nothing it’s just going to - - -?---Yes, of course.

- - - front line costs are just going to skyrocket?---Exactly.

But treasury sort of, I think, would understand those arguments?---Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: But in a sense this is part – there’s always a battle within Government with those who are expending funds and treasuries who are wanting to rein that in. But could I ask you whether you gave any thought to arming this process with some financial support? In other words, projecting the sort of savings that there might be in early intervention programs. Now, just to illustrate that – one might call it a cost benefit analysis, but there are sometimes tools such as social return on investment calculations. Did you give any thought to getting someone like Pricewaterhouse or a similar firm to perform a social return on investment analysis to take to treasury to say, “Just in case you think these it early intervention programs aren’t producing an immediate return. this is the sort of benefit we’re talking about”?---That piece of work, from my memory did not occur, partly because of the timeframe that we were working under in order to get a submission together. However, that’s not to discount that we couldn’t have continued that work after the report was handed down, and ensure that the Government had an evidence base, particularly one that was based on an external independent expert. So there wasn’t ever a cost benefit analysis undertaken in child protection in relation to that matter.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you recall whether that was discussed, whether you foresaw it as a problem? “What if a hungry treasury comes knocking on our door in a couple of years time?” The matter was discussed with treasury around the evidence base that would support the budget, and we did need to justify why we were allocating funds, particularly to areas that were not based on statutory intervention, which treasury saw as our core business, and what was the role of the Territory Government providing prevention and early intervention services, as opposed to other levels of Government, like the Commonwealth?

Can I ask, how did you satisfy treasury of that benefit.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps you didn’t?---Well - - -

MR MORRISSEY: I can’t properly phrase a question, “How did you shut treasury up,” so I would like to phrase it in the way that I did?---Well, the members of the Board of Inquiry assisted enormously through that because they provided such a well evidence based report with clear recommendations to that end, and so the evidence from my perspective was very much drawn from their expertise.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I go back. You’ve made a comment about funding from the Commonwealth. In what way were you thinking about that? We know about how Commonwealth Grants Commission works and, you know, Northern Territory is the most subsidised jurisdiction in Australia. Are you talking about programs outside that that the Commonwealth should fund in child protection, or is it in the general allocation of money from the Commonwealth?---No, I’m referring specifically to child protection and child wellbeing programs based on precedents that they set. So, for example, they funded Department of Education for parenting programs. They provided funding to Department of Education for housing in remote communities for teachers. We would have liked a similar program for child protection workers for non-government service workers so that we could provide services in those locations.

So where do you think the line stops between what the Northern Territory’s responsible for and what the Commonwealth should – like, there has got to be a line somewhere?---Yes.

Because Commonwealth always, in some ways, disavows. You know, “We’re not responsible for the justice system or the child protection systems, the States and Territories are responsible for that”?---To build a bridge with the Commonwealth Government, because we had ongoing discussions with them about budget matters throughout the Board of Inquiry development and then post-Board of Inquiry report being handed down, we had a seconded officer from FaHCSIA, which was the Commonwealth Government department at the time, in the board – in our implementation team and helping us to prepare our submission. We were completely transparent and open with that officer, so they could see directly the sorts of issues that we were dealing with, and encourage them to report all of that information up the line so that their senior managers could see the level of funding that was available


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

to us and the huge level of reform that was required. And we had ongoing discussions through national partnership agreements to try and engage the Commonwealth to provide additional funding.

But – sorry for interrupting – but in the breakup of money that comes from the Commonwealth, we know it’s around $600 million, because of the level of the indigenous population, because there’s already a recognition of the extra services indigenous people need. So last time I looked, it was to the tune of about 600 million comes to the Territory but the problem is, of course, there’s no compulsion to spend that money on indigenous people. So what I’m trying to get to is what is really the responsibility of a State or Territory, in this case the Northern Territory jurisdiction, what’s the responsibility of the Commonwealth?---The Commonwealth made it very clear through those discussions that they were not in the business of providing assistance for statutory care.

I say that because - - -?---Yes.

I ask the question because Aboriginal people also members of the Northern Territory population, you know - - -?---Yes.

- - - they’re citizens?---Yes.

And they have rights as citizens. It shouldn’t just be subsidised by the Commonwealth?---Yes. I agree with that. The – my view is, with such a small population base and with limited opportunities to raise revenue in this jurisdiction compared to other jurisdictions, that additional support is required from the Commonwealth.

But that is?---Yeah.

- - - already provided in the formulas they use, like the Commonwealth Grants Commission uses. Like I said before, there’s no argument that the Northern Territory is the most subsidised jurisdiction in the country?---No, that’s correct.

They’re already subsidised?---So what I would like to see, Commissioner, is some targeted funding specifically for early intervention and prevention from the Commonwealth, so that there was a segregated fund specifically for that purpose.

MR MORRISSEY: Can I just ask – I’m jumping forward to something else, but is the comment that you’ve just made there borne in part out of the experience of what happened to the early intervention programs in 2012?---I believe there’s an opportunity for some shared funding, even if it’s fifty-fifty funding which is often what’s provided to other government departments for infrastructure developments, often that the Northern Territory is not able to access, and I think there’s an opportunity here for the Northern Territory Government to argue additional funding is required for the social infrastructure that’s necessary, given the special


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

circumstances of much of the population in the Northern Territory being so remote and needing capacity building that hasn’t been there as it is in other jurisdictions.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I would probably argue that has already happened. Let it go.

MR MORRISSEY: The issue may re-arise subsequently in the questioning. So can I just take you now to a couple of component. Sorry, just – and so tie off on something you said earlier on. The board of – really, in order to persuade treasury that it was appropriate to fund the early intervention components, I take it what you’re saying is that the good quality of the Board of Inquiry report itself was the main weapon that you had to persuade treasury?---Yes. I think, because it was developed independently from the Department, and there was an enormous amount of consultation undertaken by the board members with Aboriginal people, with clients, with key stakeholders, then I think the report standing on its own providing a strong evidence base, not only for treasury but for the whole of Government, was critical.

Just a quick question about treasury and perhaps one might say the attitude of treasury to these – to early intervention. You had to deal with, and you did deal with the treasury questioning as to whether that was appropriate business to be funding for the Northern Territory in 2010. In 2012, after the change of Government, when treasury were involved – as they plainly were, in the selection of – sorry, in the – in the requirement that there be some – some cuts or some redirections at least of funding, did that stand re-emerge? In other words, did treasury express to your knowledge in 2012 the same view, in short, “You’re not in your core business when you’re dealing with early intervention, you should be dealing with statutory intervention”?---The core shift in direction in relation to the need for the Department to focus on statutory care and front-line services was driven by a broader edict from the Renewal Management Board. So there was a board of expert and previous Treasurers who provided guidance to all Government departments at the time around their expectations in relation to savings targets that departments were meant to deliver on. and opportunities for all departments to cut expenditure where we could, without impacting on front-line services, and it was through that process and many discussions I had with that Renewal Management Board that I was given a clear message that I was to focus on those services that related specifically to statutory care in an effort to provide the savings to manage the enormous growth in demand that the Department was experiencing at the time.

Was the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Renewal Management Board, the membership though you said came from former under-treasurers and people of that kind. Were they all actually outsiders or were they on the payroll of the Northern Territory Government? I’m just not clear about the composition. Were they an external body that was advising the Government?---Yes. They were an external body advising the Government.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Where were they based? Was there a secretariat in the treasury?---I met with them in Parliament House, if I remember correctly.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: They’re at ad hoc body?---Correct.

Yes. So had a limited life, what, of six months or something?---Yes, something like that that they were put together.

MR MORRISSEY: Two questions about that. I think you’ve indicated most of them had a background in treasury?---Yes, that’s correct.

Any Aboriginal people among them?---No.

Could I just proceed on now to – but anyway, thank you. You’ve answered that question. Now, I just want to come to some of the component parts of the integrated whole. The 147 recommendations had differential implementation times which was rather carefully graduated, as is clear. But I just wanted to take you to a couple of those. Recommendation 3 concerned the establishment of Aboriginal child care agencies or ACCAs which is an example of a body known interstate but not yet known or wasn’t yet in existence in the Northern Territory; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

And that body or such bodies were – perhaps not limited to it, but directly relevant to the early intervention project?---Yes, that’s right.

Likewise, the peak body at recommendation 5 here, there was a recommendation for a peak body to be brought in, and that had a number of focuses including development of capacity in NGOs that either didn’t exist yet or were only just starting out; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

You made a reference to developing capacity earlier on and that’s quite a nuanced question, isn’t it? It represents to new organisations that may spring up, or it may relate to other organisations that deal in another area such as health, which may be tempted or persuaded to come over and intervene and develop capacity in the child protection space; is that accurate?---Yes, it is, but it also refers to existing organisations that, because of the high turnover of staff in the Northern Territory, it’s important to continuously focus on building capability of staff in non-government services.

Yes. And so the role of the peak body is to nurture that by providing training and guidance and opportunities. But also – and perhaps you can comment on this – it’s also there to provide leadership and to increase morale and motivation. Is that a fair way to put it?---Yes. And provide practice frameworks to guide how workers would engage and ensure that there was a shared understanding of what best practice constituted.

Yes?---Particularly for working with Aboriginal children - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And I was focusing?--- - - - and families.

I was focusing somewhat on the morale and motivation side of it, because it’s just a working reality in this space that you face, in the communities most affected by child protection, significant fear, mistrust and alienation – perhaps varying region to region, but nevertheless a very serious problem to face?---Yes. That was why it was so important that the non-government sector played a key role in the child protection system, so there were positive relationships developed with families at arm’s length from the agency.

And once again it’s a comment of mine, but it’s apparent throughout your statement that you were very concerned to foster such relationships and to develop that capacity?---Absolutely.

Could we just go to recommendation 9, required that the NTG explore with the Commonwealth the trial development or expansion of existing infrastructure – in remote areas in particular – that’s under the heading remote therapeutic services. That likewise falls within the category that we’re speaking about, not limited to but very much central to early intervention strategies and developments?---Yes, that’s right.

That one had an urgency of being implemented within the two to three year period, recognising that this would take a while to grow?---Yes, that’s right.

And 10 – I’ve got two more of these to go to and then we’ll go from there. Early intervention under recommendation 10 suggested:

The Northern Territory Government make significant and sustained investment in the development and expansion of a suite of secondary prevention – tertiary prevention therapeutic and reunification services for vulnerable and at risk families and communities, to be provided by the NGO sector and the expenditure should involve new rather than redirected funds.

And that had somewhat more urgency of being an 18 month ..... now, that fits into the same category, does it not?---Yes, it does.

One more to go to, and I appreciate this is not the full extent of all of those measures?---Yep.

But there was a resolution, at recommendation 117, that:

The Northern Territory Government immediately move to implement the major reforms outlined in the body of this report around delivery of child safety and wellbeing services and interagency collaboration and these include –

and among the matters to be included were, firstly, a dual pathway process for the referral and assessment of vulnerable children and, secondly, the creation of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

community child safety and wellbeing teams for the 20 Growth Towns and elsewhere. Further, expansion of the scope of current and planned children and family centres to involve targeted indicated services for at risk children and families, and a variety of other similar measures with an urgency of six months.

Now, once again, that’s a lengthy proposition I put to you there, but in general terms that also fits within the category that we’re discussing, the not limited to but central to early intervention processes?---Yes. That’s correct.

Yes. Thanks very much. Okay. Thanks. Now, I just want to be clear about this: so the process, once the 147 recommendations were tabled in October of 2010, implementation did follow as a matter of urgency for the next two years; is that correct?---Yes, that’s right.

And, without going into the details here, a great deal was accomplished. The backlog was dealt with by an acute response of recruiting New Zealand social workers, and the peak body was established; is that correct?---Yes, that’s right.

Indeed there was an external monitoring body also established to provide some outside views?---Yep.

Professor – the external monitoring body – I’m not asking you here to perform a critical analysis of it, you’ve made a comment in your statement to the effect that you found their work to be valuable - - -?---Yes.

- - - whilst you were administering and that is the case, is it not?---It is the case, yes.

Now, it’s a little bit out of time, out of the time step to do this, but this is the letter of Mr Vimbani to the Minister on 6 September 2012. Now, it’s looking backwards, and I’m really using this, Commissioners, as a platform to put some matters. So this is a letter from Mr Vimbani to the Minister. This is after the election of 2012, but it reflects backwards on some of what has been achieved, and just I wanted to put that to you and then ask you if it accorded with what you had to say. Can we go to the second page of that document, please. So in the second paragraph here, could I – sorry, the third paragraph. Could I just direct you to this here:

The committee has noted strong leadership being provided by senior staff in DCF.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Maybe Ms Gardiner-Barnes could just read it for herself. We’ve all got it on our screen.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Could I indicate to the Commissioners that this was provided to the witness earlier.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And we had the opportunity to have a look at it yesterday, too.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. So it’s really just a question of – I’m going to ask you to endorse or not endorse, as you see fit, a couple of the comments that are made there. You see that there’s a comment here that:

The committee noted a growing sense of enthusiasm and motivation not previously evident at the grassroots level. The evidence of initiatives proposed is now tangible, with an increased recognition and facilitation of locally driven approaches.

Now, even though this is said after the election, it’s obviously looking backwards towards the work that had been done. Would you agree with that assessment of what they were finding?---Yes, I would agree with that assessment. When the external monitoring committee was first established I accompanied them on a number of occasions as they visited different locations across the Northern Territory, and – and also in sessions where they met directly with staff, and during those sessions I encouraged staff to speak quite openly and directly with the monitoring committee about their experiences and their concerns with the agency, and I have to say I found some of those stories very difficult to hear, when I learned of some of the practices that were going on. And it was really important to me to hear those directly and to demonstrate that I was committed to follow up on those issues raised and report back to staff how we were doing that. And I believe that over time there was a sense of increasing trust developing by staff with the central part of the Department in its commitment to follow through on actions and listen to their voice in implementing the changes.

Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you, as a very experienced and senior bureaucrat, think that it’s important for those who are driving the policy to get down on the floor, or the ground, with those who are actually carrying it out from time to time?---If they’re not doing that, they are not doing their job. That is my view. They’re only employed to ensure that the service delivery is provided in a better way than it was previously. They’re not employed to make up policy in isolation, and so it’s critical that they understand the context in which the staff are working.

MR MORRISSEY: Could I just move to the end of this passage here. It’s apparent that the Board of Inquiry and its implementation presented a genuine opportunity to improve the delivery of services, their relevance, and the way in which those affected by them trusted in the system and responded to those services. Is that a fair way to put it?---Yes.

And that’s reflected. And just finally, I just ask you to comment on whether you associate yourself or agree with these comments made by Mr Vimbani:

The level of time and effort required for the establishment and maintenance of productive relationships between the Department and local communities is substantial and is an investment required over the long haul. The energy


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

required for this relationship building enterprise is easy to underestimate. We are pleased to see the increased efforts being devoted to improve communication with various stakeholder groups and the dividends it’s producing them.

I take you agree with that statement?---Yes.

At the bottom of that paragraph:

Now that change is starting to be noticed, it’s vital that the new Government lends this process its full support. To do otherwise will again betray the hope that is –

sorry, I can’t read that word –

that this time something had change. The process of engaging with and empowering communities given the legacy of the last 200 years will take time and thus needs bipartisan support.

Do you agree with that statement?---Yes. I agree with that statement.

And at the bottom of the page finally, there’s the – well, I think that suffices. Very well. Well, we now come to a moment when things changed. Obviously, you’re aware of this issue. There was a change of Government, and it fell to you as the CE to deal with the new Minister in that Government, and in that context it fell to you – now, she was a Minister who you knew had been the Opposition spokesman?---Yes.

You knew that she had some background by way of a social work background; correct?---Correct.

You knew also – I think you heard her give evidence yesterday she knew nothing about early – or not nothing. She knew little about early intervention in the sense that she never worked in that area?---Yes, particularly in a child protection context, but was aware from her experience in Alice Springs Hospital of some of the services that were needed, yes.

Yes. And understood in broad terms the concept of early intervention?---Yeah.

But was not perhaps as engaged as you were going to – as you hoped you might bring her up to speed to be in the future. So just on that topic here, can you just explain to the Commissioners what happened with the – she identified that there was an undetected or unknown $25 million overspend. Now that actually is quite a nuanced issue. Can you explain to the Commissioners how that comes about?---Yes. So when Minister Lambley became the Minister, a number of incoming Government briefs were prepared and, as part of those briefs, we alerted her to the growing increase in demand, particularly in out-of-home care, and the budgetary pressures that that was putting on the Department, and also in child protection. Can I say that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

that information was also provided to the previous Government prior to the election, so they were also aware of the increasing demand and issues being faced by the agency in managing the budget within that increased demand.

Now, was that – was the – was that increase, that unfunded increase, was that a shock or was that a somewhat predictable outcome of the increasing demand which had been occurring over several years?---It wasn’t a shock for me.

No?---Because I had been watching very carefully and monitoring the budget, and the numbers of children being taken into care, the number of notifications coming in, and the impact that that was having on a number of offices. When I went and talked to staff on the front line they would talk to me about the impact that that was having, and so the importance of the overseas recruitment became heightened, because we had a constant recruitment process going on throughout Australia at all times, and while we were able to recruit some staff from throughout Australia we were not able to meet demand. So it was important that we looked to other places, and Canada and the UK were the two places we identified to help meet that demand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Usually – if I can just interrupt, usually you can account for change in the future when you’re doing your forward planning for budgets. Was this unexpected when that budget round was being looked at, that there would be this exponential increase in out-of-home care placements?---We did have some predictions. However at the time, because we had been allocated a huge increase in budget through the Board of Inquiry and because historically the Department had never been able to expend its full salaries allocation, because we hadn’t been able to fill front-line positions, it was difficult for us to argue that additional funding would be required because we were able to balance our budget through underspends in other areas.

And you were allowed to move your funding internally?---Well - - -

You did?---We did.

Yes?---And in negotiation and – as long as the bottom line remained within the total appropriation, but we did account for, through our budget expenditure, show where the increases were occurring.

So that I take it, nonetheless, with the drive to recruit more, because you had more out-of-home care places, you weren’t able to deploy those funds where you might otherwise have been able to use them?---Yes. So as we increased our staffing it became more of an issue, but even in the year – the financial year just before the new Government came in, we still hadn’t expended the full allocation of our salaries budget. So we had still underspent at that point, because we couldn’t fill every position. So it was difficult to argue with treasury that we needed additional funds, but we did put forward that the increased demands were in front-line child protection and growing, and with out-of-home care.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You will probably pursue it. I still haven’t quite got on top of where the 24 million black hole, as it really was being described, comes from. It’s a very large figure for an incoming Government to say was there?---Yes.

If the financial year before you actually hadn’t filled your – exhausted your full allocation. So I’m still not quite sure where that figure comes from?---Yes. So in the main that figure comings from a projection of the Department being able to fill front-line positions through their overseas recruitment, and also because of the growing demand out-of-home care services that continued to increase.

MR MORRISSEY: So what – can you – broadly what was the percentage that – that consisted of that projection? How much of the 24, 25 million?---That was the – that was the lot, really.

Yes?---Yes.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So some component of it is for - - -?---Out-of-home care.

I was going to say the already, the recruitment processes that had been undertaken and completed, so that was those extra salaries, and then the balance was for out-of-home care predicted need?---Correct. That’s right.

MR MORRISSEY: A quick question about the cost of out-of-home care. At the level you were – I’m not sure what visibility you had of how that was broken up, but it seems to have been a large and radically increasing component of the budget. Breaking it down into the components of kinship care, foster care on the one hand, purchased care and residential care on the other hand, we’ve seen over time that there was a burgeoning of purchased care in that time. Did you have visibility of that trend?---Yes, I did. So during the Board of Inquiry the number of children in out-of-home care increased by 50 per cent. In December 2011 there were 400 children in foster care or kinship care, 55 in residential care and 175 in private placements, and it was the private placements area that grew very strongly in the main, because we did not have sufficient recruitment of foster carers and kinship carers.

And one of the benefits of the early intervention regime that the Board of Inquiry had recommended was going to be, or at least was hoped to be, to address that issue. To address the increasing – the number of kinship carers who would be – make themselves available and the number of foster caressers who make themselves available?---Yes, that’s correct.

That was one of the hopes. So in a sense – yes, alright. Thank you for that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just – the costings seem to be interesting that the private placements, from figures that we’ve seen, suggest it’s much, much more


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

expensive to place a child in out-of-home care than it is in foster care or kinship care. Is that a right perception?---That is absolutely correct.

By a huge - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Huge.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - multiplier?---Huge, yes. And part of that issue was the negotiation that happened on the ground for those placements, and the need to escalate the authority for who approved those amounts and that’s something that the Department identified and needed to ensure was put in place. I’m very conscious that staff were desperate to find places for these children, and often signed off on placements that were not as financially sound as one might expect, but we also need to think through that some of these children had very complex needs that were placed in private placements, and we were looking for carers with a particular skill set, so in some instances they were justifiable because of the type of care that was required.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But a lot of – the money – the distribution we looked at, like purchased home based care, $27 million in the last year, that’s a massive amount for people who provide day care – not care for high needs kids?---Yes.

That’s a high – compare that to what foster carers got. Really was minuscule?---Yes, that’s correct.

So would – would – in your view would the purchased home based care provide the care for high needs kids or is it just ordinary emergency accommodation?---It was a mixture of both.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There was no - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I ask this question – sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, no.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: That – did those home purchased, home based care places go through a special accreditation, or did they need an additional certificate of competency, if you like, to be able to provide that high needs care? Because what I was told – what we were told in Alice Springs because they were just registered as home based day care centres, they were just okay?---Yes. So I’m not aware of any special accreditation that was provided.

So they could be just home based day care centres providing high need accommodation to kids with high needs?---Yes.

Without any checking of whether they could do that?---Well, there would have been some checking and assessment done as part of the normal process undertaken for a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

placement of a child, but certainly not, as far as I’m aware, a special accreditation process or additional skill sets that were required during this period.

It seems amazing that you can get accredited to provide day care and then, all of a sudden, you’re providing accommodation overnight or however how long for, and to the tune of 27 million in the last year?---Yes. Hence the need for reform.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Looks like ..... came to that?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, when you were talking about – of course, the need to negotiate a fee with them, that would be on the argument of providers that were being asked to look after high needs children, therefore they could charge a great deal more, but not necessarily provide the carers who did have the skills to manage them. It does look as though they were desperate for - - -?---Yes.

- - - places?---Indeed.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’m looking at – if I can just say – give you the figures, going back to 2014/15, foster care 10 million, purchased home based care 21 million, and residential care 27 million. So foster care is 10 million and the others are nearly 50 million. It’s a massive amount of money?---It is a huge amount of money, and if we were very effective in kinship care recruitment and support, and foster care recruitment and support, we could do something quite significantly different with that money.

We saw yesterday evidence about, you know, a place – a facility for four children costing 77,000 a month?---Yes.

Can we really justify that to the taxpayer? 77,000 a month for four children?---That’s a very good question, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: Just on - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: One of those housing managers said, “Well, $100 a week per child for groceries might be max.” It was very difficult to come up - - -?---Yes.

- - - with any responsive answer that doesn’t say there is a lot of profiteering in this field?---Yes.

And I’m sorry to have to use that expression, but that’s what these figures suggest to us?---So, not long after I joined the Department, I undertook an audit of out-of-home care because I became aware of some of these costs, and I provided a copy of that report to the Board of Inquiry because I was very concerned about this being an issue that needed to be addressed. So it’s – clearly needs – still needs - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It does?---Further reform.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So just taking a person out on the street, when we hear there’s financial difficulties, yet an organisation gets paid 77,000 a month for four children. Can you understand why people - - -?---Yes.

- - - get cynical?---I can completely understand that.

MR MORRISSEY: Can I focus this debate on the issues that you faced when the call for cuts was made, following the election of the new Government. At that time you were required to advise a very busy Minister; is that correct?---Yes, that’s right.

She has indicated that she gave about 20 per cent of her final to this portfolio. Does that accord with your recollection?---I – I don’t recall how much time, because I was not in her office, but I certainly had opportunities to meet with her and talk through these issues, as did my senior staff.

I won’t take you to the documents, unless you need me to, but the Commission has seen a couple of ministerial briefings from 3 October and then a subsequent one in November. And what was ultimately cut were the bodies that you probably noted I took you to earlier on as being significant parts of the reform package in the Board of Inquiry. Namely, the peak body, the ACCAs, the dual pathways, NTCOSS and NAPCAN, certain early intervention programs that were being investigated or were in their early stages, the on-community therapeutic services, and the child safety and wellbeing teams, which were capped. You will recall there was supposed to be 20. I think it was capped at nine from recollection?---Yes.

Those were areas that were identified and the common theme among them seemed to be that one might say treasury-driven selection criteria of early intervention rather than tertiary services. Is that an accurate statement?---The Renewal Management Board made it very clear to all agencies that we were required to examine every opportunity for savings. To that end, I was required to go through every line item in the Department’s budget and look for opportunities for savings, and I was given guidance by that committee on where I should be looking.

Yes?---And that included services that had not yet commenced, services that had commenced but where contracts could be ended, that included cutbacks in staff within the department that were not front-line staff, cut backs in the senior executive, cutbacks in accommodation bills, a ending to the overseas recruitment process, and cutbacks in Board of Inquiry implementation where those functions could be absorbed within the Department’s budget or delayed.

The specifics that you’ve listed there go outside the category – the broad category that I put to you. We certainly accept that you were – that guidance was given. Do you agree though that there was – and, in fact, it’s stated clearly in the 3 October memo, that there was to be a shift in focus to tertiary services at the expense of the early intervention type of projects?---Yes. So in looking at where I needed to reduce


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the allocation of funding, as the chief executive of the department that was responsible for the care and protection of children in care, for me the paramount consideration was – and at that time I think about 770 children, that I was the responsible caregiver for, and so in making the recommendations to Government I was very conscious of my obligations to care for those children, their health, wellbeing and safety, and as a paramount consideration for considering where budget cuts might need to be made.

Now, you heard Minister Lambley, or former Minister Lambley yesterday, describing the – let’s be frank about it, the horrific choice that she felt she faced between cutting early intervention type programs of which she thoroughly approved on the one hand, or failing at the tertiary level on the other hand. I’m not doing her justice in that, but you understand that’s the choice that she says she faced. Do you – you’re describing something similar for yourself?---It was – very traumatic time for myself, for others in the Department, for the non-government sector, as these issues were worked through and decided.

Can you take it that the following questions are not designed to raise any particular issue of personal blame or guilt, and I think - - -?---Yes.

- - - it’s going to be assumed in all the questions that you did what you had to do in good faith with a variety of competing issues, but I still must confront you with certain issues - - -?---Yes.

- - - and ask for your comment on those. You did appreciate the value – and you’ve made it clear you appreciated the value of the early intervention services, and you also appreciated not just that they were good in themselves but that they constituted the best hope you had of reducing the pressure on the tertiary services which were so costly and also so problematic for the people who went into them?---Correct.

You wanted to reduce the extreme expenditure on out-of-home care, and particularly the expenditure on purchased out-of-home care?---Yes, that’s right.

And you wanted to encourage local capacity, you wanted to encourage the ACCAs, and you wanted to encourage the peak body?---Yes.

And just like Minister Lambley said you, in a position of great personal commitment over the years, wanted those things to survive; is that correct?---Yes. It would have been ideal if we could have continued with the spirit of the Board of Inquiry recommendations and implement them and have enough funding to continue to implement in their fullest means.

Now, in terms of advocating for priority to be given to those services which – I will call them the cut services, and I appreciate that not all of them were cut completely. I’m using that as a category, the cut services. Was there anyone in Government who advocated for the preservation of those services, and some other way being found to deal with the 24 to $25 million shortfall?---In many ways, we all advocated for the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

continued funding of those services. We wanted those services to continue. We were given some very clear writing instructions that – well, initially I was advised by the Renewal Management Board that no additional funding would be provided to the agency at all. Following several meetings with that board, and with the approval of Cabinet, there was an agreement that $10 million would be provided as long as the agency was able to implement a whole range of other additional cutbacks. And, wherever possible, we tried to protect some of the critical services that were already in existence. But, for those services that had not yet commenced, it was difficult to justify at the time to commence negotiations and introduce new contracts for services when we were under such tight budget constraints.

Can I just ask you how you dealt with the renewal board in that respect. Did you bring it to the renewal board’s attention, the cost of cutting what was cut, in several ways. Firstly, the lost opportunity. Secondly, such services as they were already delivering. And thirdly, the despair and disaffection that the cuts were likely to generate, and appears did generate, in the sector?---I did raise all of those issues with the Renewal Management Board.

As a general – I ask you to step outside now and to look back – we’re now here in 2017. Can I put it in a colloquial way. It would have been a good idea to find that 24 million, wouldn’t it?---It would have been great if we could have found the 24 million across the Government.

Now that may be naïvely framed, and it’s put colloquially. Can I ask you whether any specific representations were made to anybody, firstly within the Commonwealth Government structure, to find – either by way of grant, loan or other assistance, a way through the difficulties posed by the 24 to 25 million shortfall?---There wasn’t a specific negotiation around a grant or a loan. However, as indicated earlier, we had been negotiating with the Commonwealth for some time, some assistance. I think it’s important to keep in mind that while that $24 million was a budget pressure for that financial year, the projections were that that was going to continue to increase over time and so finding the $24 million for that year was not going to be sufficient for the out years.

No. So just to pursue that, you said there was no specific negotiation. With whom might such a negotiation have been conducted if you got approval to do it?---It would have occurred at the secretary level of FaHCSIA and myself through Ministers’ offices, with the involvement of treasury officials, I would have thought.

Do you recall whether the Minister, and that’s your Minister Lambley, was advised to try that expedient?---I don’t remember a conversation of that nature.

Very well?---But she would have been advised that we had been negotiating with the Commonwealth Government around our preferred additional funding to come from them around – for prevention and early intervention.

Back in 2010, you - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just interrupt.

MR MORRISSEY: Sorry. Of course.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Rather than funding what were clearly front-line services, which I think you said earlier the Commonwealth had made plain they were not prepared to do that statutory protection funding, it would have had to be a package just for early intervention which fitted within the programs that the Commonwealth was generally funding - - -?---Yes.

- - - into what we would normally say is a state/territory responsibility. Would that be the case?---They were already funding a number of services like domestic and family support services in remote communities, safe houses. They provided funding to education for the child wellbeing centres, so there were numerous examples through the national partnership agreements for the Commonwealth Government to provide services of that nature.

So, in fact, it could have occurred?---Yes, I believe so. If the Commonwealth were able to find the money.

MR MORRISSEY: Pursuant - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Taxing power is very large.

MR MORRISSEY: Pursuant to some questions asked by the Commissioners earlier, appreciating your answer earlier was that merely resolving that particular 24 million shortfall was not going to end the ongoing problems, was the Minister advised that it was time to have a review of the cost of the purchased home-based care, given that there was a distinct and ongoing increase in that cost and given that the – there is at least the rational possibility that very substantial profit margins were being garnered?---When the Government came to power there was already a process in place to reform the out-of-home care sector, which included looking at that particular issue, and I believe from the incoming Government briefs Minister Lambley would have been made aware of those issues, and from her comments yesterday I believe would have had a mind to address that as a sense of urgency, and all of the statements throughout the next six months I think reinforced the support for reform of the out-of-home care sector, including private placements.

Just because the – it may not be a logical comparison to make, but it’s – and it may be a merely emotional one, but it’s right there out loud and proud, the cuts to early intervention programs that were fundamental to the health of the Board of Inquiry reforms contrast with the massive spending upon out-of-home care, particularly to private providers who are enjoying a substantial profit margin. Was that contrast one that struck you at the time and was it drawn to the Minister’s attention?---Yes, it was, and hence the identification that we still needed to ensure there were programs in place, despite the budget cuts, to focus on kinship care recruitment and development.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. Commissioners, there are a number of questions to be asked by our learned friends. Perhaps if Dr Dwyer might like to commence.


DR DWYER: My name is Peggy Dwyer, and I appear for NAAJA. Just to start with that, the body that was reviewing the Northern Territory finances, you mentioned to the Commissioners that no Aboriginal person was on that body?---Correct.

That particular body was – consisted of individual non-Aboriginal people, paid a substantial salary as consultants for their work; is that right?---I’m not aware of their – what they were paid, but they were certainly previous senior bureaucrats and were consultants, I believe.

The ABC News reported that the chairman of the board set up to review the Territory’s finances was paid $220,000 for six months work. You’re not familiar with that?

MR O’MAHONEY: I object. The question has been asked and answered. She said she isn’t aware of the financial terms on which they were retained.

DR DWYER: I press the question .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I think it’s – I think there is a sort of a second bite here allowable, because this is – may not be aware as a public servant, but she may know about it as a member of the public.

DR DWYER: Thank you, Commissioner.

I’ve just read from an ABC report that I Googled about the payment of those people on the review board. Were you familiar with the fact of the controversy that those people looking into substantial cuts being made by the NT Government to the Department of Children and Families were themselves paid substantial salaries as consultants, $220,000 for one of them, for six months work?---I do recall something of that nature being in the media.

You mentioned earlier the idea of the – what the treasury saw as their core business, that they saw the core business for you and your Department as statutory intervention; correct?---That was the priority for treasury. However, they did recognise that early intervention and prevention was also a part of the Department’s business. The comment made was in response to how we looked at budget cuts and, based on the priorities, the importance of focussing on those children who were already in the care of the Department.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4715 C.M. GARDINER-BARNES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You understand though, don’t you, as the senior bureaucrat working for the Department, that the Department’s core business is the wellbeing of children, including – and that includes protecting them from harm and maximising their opportunity to reach their full potential?---Yes.

That’s the Department’s core business, isn’t it?---That is correct.

And you appreciate that the wellbeing of an Aboriginal child, and an Aboriginal child maximising their full potential, relies on continuing connection to country and kinship; you agree?---I certainly agree with that.

At paragraph 17 of your statement, you refer to the time when there’s a reprioritisation or an emphasis on cutting certain services and you note that the emphasis was on – you note at 17.4, “Included more funding for front-line services.” But can I take you now to recommendation 9 that was up on the screen earlier, and what was done in response to recommendation 9. I will just read it to you while it’s coming up on the screen. Thank you. That recommendation is that:

The NT Government explores with the Commonwealth the trial development or expansion of existing infrastructure in remote communities and that includes women’s safe houses, day care centres, health clinics to promote on-community therapeutic residential options for mothers and children – and small children –

etcetera. Do you agree with me that what is being proposed there is funding for front-line services that assist Aboriginal families to keep their children on country?---Yes.

Do you know – I withdraw that. And yet that was one of the recommendations that was abandoned. Do you agree with that?---That’s correct.

That would have been, can I say, devastating to you personally that that was abandoned; is that right?---Yes.

Do you know what efforts, if any, were made to explore that recommendation with the Commonwealth Government?---Extensive efforts were made to explore that with the Commonwealth Government, because they already funded safe houses, they were often the funder of the construction of day care centres and health clinics in remote communities, and so we saw them as a key provider of those services in remote communities, at least initially, to ensure that we had the infrastructure in place to provide those services.

And did you see that as a strategy to improve kinship care and to reduce the number of children who were taken into out-of-home care?---Yes. On those remote communities and the visits that I made, particularly to the safe houses, it was evident to me from the Aboriginal staff that were employed in those safe houses that they had very strong connections to vulnerable families and children, and – and also assisted in providing appropriate longer term support through a wider network of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

community members for those women. I’m also conscious that there was a really clear need to ensure that those safe houses and the business of those safe houses was not compromised by any child protection staff who played a statutory role being involved in those safe houses.

And yet not only were no – new facilities not opened, but existing facilities where contracts could be cancelled, for example, the Tennant Creek Women’s Refuge, lost their ability to provide those front-line services in communities; correct?---Yes.

Do you say that you liaised with representatives of the Commonwealth and told them about the implications of not funding or increase – or continuing funding for those services?---No, I’m not saying that, because the notion of not funding those services following the change in Government was not discussed outside the Department and the Ministers and the Renewal Management Board. What negotiations occurred with the Commonwealth was prior to that, where we were working with them around where the priority might be for expanding programs.

How can the Commissioners understand what efforts were made in relation to, for example recommendation 9, to explain to the Commonwealth what the issues were, what the projections were, unless those front-line services received better funding and what the response of the Commonwealth was?---I don’t have any documentation in front of me that will provide that information to the Commissioners, but it could potentially be sourced from the Department.

Who was – who would have been responsible for liaising with the Commonwealth in relation to recommendation 9?---So the key person that we worked through was the seconded officer who was in – placed in the Department during the Board of Inquiry. And there were also conversations had between the program managers who looked after the women’s safe houses and the domestic and family violence programs. So those people would have records of those conversations.

But there was an officer from the Commonwealth Government seconded to the NT Government; is that correct?---Correct.

Who was that person?---I don’t recall their name.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you recall whether that was from FaHCSIA?---Yes.

Do you recall whether it remained constant or whether there was some changeover, sometimes a different officer would be there?---From memory, it was the same officer. She spent most of the time in the Northern Territory during that time, but also went back to Canberra for part of that time to report back.

Somebody, I’m sure, will be able to find it - - -?---Yes.

- - - if we need to follow it up. Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR DWYER: Can I ask you to look at paragraph 147 of your statement, where you set out what you believe to be significant achievements during the time after the implementation of reforms. Please understand that the questions I’m about to ask you are not a personal criticism?---Thank you.

And I’m not suggesting there were no improvements but have you kept abreast, since you left the Department, of what the figures are now in relation to Aboriginal children out-of-home care and what the ongoing problems are that plagued the Department?---No, I have not kept intensely involved or across the figures.

Can I just tell you two pieces of evidence that the Commissioners heard this week and then ask you a question. A Ms Simpson, who’s the manager of the Greater Darwin Investigation and Assessment Unit said that in her department, her unit alone, there are 510 cases where there is an incomplete child protection investigation and the Commissioner heard from Professor Silburn, who provided statistics about the increasing numbers of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. So that includes a steady increase from 147 children in 2000, 452 children in 2007, and then 1067 children in 2015, so more than doubled from 2007 to 2015. Isn’t the message from those statistics that, unless there is investment in early intervention and support for Aboriginal families to keep their children, the system is doomed to continue to fail?---Based on those figures, I think you are right.

Nothing further, your Honour.


MS GRAHAM: Ms Gardiner-Barnes, my name is Felicity Graham, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. You mention, at paragraph 16.11 of your statement, that in the four months at the end of 2011 one of the key activities of the Department was to reunify 52 children from Alice Springs with their families, which meant 27 families were reunified during that period of time. Do you know how many of those families were Aboriginal families, or a proportion?---No. I do not know what proportion, but I am aware that the number of children in care in Alice Springs, the proportion was, like, in the 90s and - - -

Approximately 95 per cent - - -?---Yes.

- - - we’re talking?---Yes, and so I can only assume from that group that there would be a significant proportion in that group that were Aboriginal.

And do you know, of the children that were reunified with their families, what proportion of children were on short term or long term orders with the Department?---No, I’m not aware of that.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4718 C.M. GARDINER-BARNES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Was that reunification effort a special campaign to focus on children in out-of-home care in Alice Springs and prioritise their reunification with families?---Yes, it was. And, from memory, there were – there was a team specifically focused on that for a period of time, and working very closely with the team that was doing the work with families around trying to connect with kinship carers and broader support for families that might provide some of the external support that’s required outside the family unit to make that reunification a success.

And so that involved more staffing resources being applied to achieve that result; is that right?---Yes, that’s right.

Greater engagement throughout Aboriginal communities to promote the use of kinship and arrange kinship reunification; is that right?---That’s right.

Was there greater involvement with NGOs and Aboriginal community controlled organisations like CAALAS and Congress?---I’m not aware of the details, but I have no doubt that their involvement would have helped significantly in identifying carers that would be more appropriate than their arrangements prior.

And did you see that this activity – as you described it, this key activity of the Department was a real success story of the Department?---Yes. Hence me putting it in my statement, because it’s one – like, because of the proportion of children in care in Alice Springs and the need to do something significantly different if we were going to make a decent change to those figures, then for me this was a fantastic example of what could happen when staff were working in that way, supported by family group conferencing.

What would need to be done to roll out that kind of success story again?---I don’t remember the number of staff that were involved in that team, but I believe that something of that nature, if it was implemented today, could play a key role.

You mention in your statement that Aboriginal staff are the backbone of the Department, in your view. What proportion of the staff during your time were Aboriginal?---About 14 per cent.

And you mention that, during your time, there was no social worker position that was filled by an Aboriginal person; is that right?---Not in the front line.

And you implemented a certificate VII process whereby Aboriginal staff could be identified to participate in a graduate certificate level or be recognised as achieving a graduate certificate level in child wellbeing and protection; is that right?---That’s right.

What take up did you get on that program?---We – we got a small take up initially of, if I remember correctly, about eight staff. I was there when the program was completed, and initiated, but wasn’t there much longer after it had run. So I can’t verify how long it lasted, if it’s still going, or the number of staff that are continuing


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

to access that program. But for me, it was a really important program to ensure that those staff who had been in the Department for a long time saw that they had a career path that recognised the skills and capabilities that they brought to the Department.

And to allow them to be promoted to positions of leadership within the Department?---Absolutely.

And that’s critical, isn’t it to - - -?---It is absolutely critical.

The external monitoring committee played an important role in exposing issues, particularly in remote communities, do you agree with that?---Yes.

And it was also an important part of the Department being able to engage in a reflective practice so that issues were brought to the Department’s attention and then, as you’ve explained, you could hear what was happening on the ground and then respond to that?---Yes. It was really important through the cultural change that staff were accepting of the notion of openness and transparency, of being open to peer review of their decisions, the notion of establishing a team within the central office area of doing practice reviews and practice audits was really focused on making sure that staff didn’t feel like they were being targeted, but were open to critique of their work. Prior to that, the critique happened externally by the Ombudsman or through the Children’s Commissioner, but we weren’t systemically looking at our own practices internally, and for me that cultural change as professionals was really important.

One of the regions that was visited by the external monitoring committee was Tennant Creek in the broader Barkly region and there were substantial needs identified in those communities, particularly in relation to children and young people of all ages being out at night, underage pregnancies, a lack of programs and activities for young people, particularly after school, fragmentation of youth services. If I can take you particularly to your annexure 33, on page 3, you will see these issues were raised during the process of the external monitoring committee visiting the communities in Tennant Creek and surrounds. That area was identified then for a particular funding allocation that was desperately needed, and if we go to page 4 at the top we will see that $866,000 was allocated by DCF for the year 2011/12 to strengthen the child and family support service system in Tennant Creek. And that was funding that went to the Tennant Creek Women’s Refuge, the Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, the health Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation and the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation; that’s right?---Yes, that’s right.

And you will see, below the bullet points, that at that time which is I think around February and March 2012, DCF was currently negotiating directly with a number of service providers to Tennant Creek to provide the services on a recurrent basis?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

In other words it was always intended that those services would continue to receive funding from the Northern Territory Government to be able to continue to do the work in strengthening children and family support services; is that right?---That’s the – that was the intent at the time.

Those services, however, and that money was not renewed after that 2011/12 year; that’s right?---I understand that – if I remember correctly, there was a decision taken by Government to, yeah, no longer continue that funding.

And when funding is allocated to much needed services in particularly remote Aboriginal communities, and then not continued, that’s really crippling for those communities, isn’t it?---It can be, yes. I do recall that there was an election commitment by the Government to look at services in that community, and I don’t – I’m not aware of how that funding or whether that service got up. But yes, I agree with you, that once services are funded and then defunded, that has a huge impact.

And one of the impacts in particular is it’s another cause of distrust in Government when funding is negotiated and then discontinued; is that right?---Yep.

You mentioned in your evidence just earlier, in answer to questions from Dr Dwyer, that the funding cuts to a range of services, but including these in Tennant Creek, were not discussed outside the Department and the Minister’s office and the group set up to - - -?---Yeah. The Renewal Management Board.

So there was no consultation with the community in relation to the cutting of the funding?---No. And you can imagine what they would say if they were consulted.

Thank you, Commissioners. Those are my questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Dr Dwyer.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE [3.55 pm]

MR LAWRENCE: My name’s Lawrence, I appear for Ms Crawshaw from SAFT. Ms Gardiner-Barnes, you worked in Department of Children and Family, basically from January 2010 up until let’s say the election in 2012?---Yeah. I think it was February 2013 when I finished.

When you finished, yes. But you were working in that space right up until the election?---Correct.

And you’ve said that you’re personally committed to child care protection?---Yes, that’s right.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4721 C.M. GARDINER-BARNES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you supported the recommendations from the Board of Inquiry?---Yes, very much so.

And you say that you considered it a horrific choice to make the cuts to ACCA, or the SAFT program?---Yes. I think at the time it was difficult, and very hard for all the areas that we impacted, by the reduction or the funding cuts that were made at the time to the non-government sector and through government services as well.

Alright. Because, prior to the election on the 25th of August, the previous Government had in fact, funded SAFT to the tune of, I think, $2 million to set up the centres in both Alice Springs and Darwin?---Yes.

So that was set up prior to the 25 August?---The funding had been allocated for a contract to be established, yes.

And you – on 3 October we have had ministerial briefing which recommends, basically, cutting some funding; correct?---Correct.

Did you write that ministerial briefing?---I signed the ministerial briefing. It would have been prepared by my staff.

Right. And that slices the budget or the funding for the Alice Springs component of SAFT?---Yes.

So you knew that was going to happen round about then?---Correct.

And you had dealings with Ms Crawshaw subsequent to then?---Yes. So whilst they were recommendations that were put, or advice provided to Government, around how the funding savings could be found, until there was a formal decision by Cabinet, that advice had not been verified.

Alright. Now, did you inform her that you were of the view that that was going to happen at any stage?---I think there has already been evidence put before this Commission that a phone call was had between Josie and myself alerting her to the need to cease any further commitment to funding, and that the Government was looking at funding cuts through the process of the Renewal Management Board and that she would be advised the outcome of that when it was known.

Was it your view that this proposed cut was not cost effective?---Sorry. Can you just make clear what you’re saying there.

Well, you talk about tertiary - - -?---Yes.

- - - services, which cost lots and we talk about early intervention, stuff like this, which costs less, and I think Ms Lambley says that she undoubtedly was of the view that ultimately going in, as SAFT goes, is cheaper and better ultimately. Aren’t you of that view?---The difficulty in providing advice to Government around what


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

funding cuts were to be made was that we were given very clear instructions around services that hadn’t yet commenced and also the need to ensure that the obligations of the Department to look after the welfare of children in care and their safety and wellbeing was to be paramount, and that was because we were required to clothe and feed and ensure care was provided to those children, and for that reason it was the number 1 consideration.

The difficulty was this $25 million blowout, if that’s the right term; correct?---Yes.

Now, was that mentioned in the ministerial document of 3 October anywhere?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have the document?

MR LAWRENCE: Sorry, I don’t know what the reference is, forgive me.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, if it’s mentioned just indicate that it’s mentioned.

MR LAWRENCE: Well, I suggest it’s not.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We don’t have time to be guessing.

MR LAWRENCE: I suggest it’s not?---So it may not be in that document, but it certainly was in other briefings to the Minister, and also to the previous Minister.

You see, the reason why you’ve made these recommendations to the Cabinet in this document is you say because of the $25 million blowout; right?---The reasons that the recommendations were made in relation to the savings is because all Government departments at the time were asked to provide savings to the new Government to ensure that the programs implemented by departments reflected their priorities and their vision for the Northern Territory.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That was across the board cuts?---Yes.

There was a percentage put on it - - -?---Yes.

- - - wasn’t there, that each department had to find. I’ve forgotten what the figure was now. Was it something like 3 per cent?---It might have been higher, I think.

Yes. All departments?---Yes.

MR LAWRENCE: Now, is any consideration given in this document to seeking funding from the Commonwealth to avoid the cutting to SAFT?

MR O’MAHONEY: I object.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought that question had already been asked, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: Well, I was putting in the document - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: But again the problem is, Commissioner, as just raised by yourself, it’s not a memory test and if my friend wants to take the witness .....

MR LAWRENCE: .....

MR O’MAHONEY: ..... a document, he’s welcome to do that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I understand that. If it’s not raised in the document, why don’t you ask, was it raised anywhere else? It’s not in the document.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. I will ask.

Was it raised anywhere else during this period when cuts were on the menu?---Can you just clarify exactly what you’re asking was raised.

That you could pursue the Commonwealth to fill this shortfall, thus avoiding the need to cut a service which you’ve told me – told us you agreed with, and I would suggest is cost effective ultimately?---There were conversations with the Commonwealth Government around opportunities to support prevention and early intervention and, in briefing the incoming Minister, we would have discussed those opportunities and the results that we got to date around the level of funding commitment that they were prepared to offer.

Right. Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: I don’t have any follow-up questions. If anybody else does.

MR O’MAHONEY: No questions, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: Falls to us to thank Ms Gardiner-Barnes for her evidence.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you very much indeed - - -?---Thank you, it’s a pleasure.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - Ms Gardiner-Barnes. We’re most appreciative of you coming to Darwin to assist us with our work, and we’ve certainly gained a lot from your evidence?---Thank you. It’s lovely to be back up here.


.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4724 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’re going to take a break now.

MR MORRISSEY: May I seek, Commissioners that we take a short 10 minute break to determine the next - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We will do that. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [4.03 pm]

RESUMED [5.42 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Rodger.

MS RODGER: Commissioners, I call Mr Peter Fletcher.

<PETER BARRIE FLETCHER, SWORN [5.42 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODGER

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Fletcher, Would you kindly be seated. Ms Rodger.

MS RODGER: Would you please state your full name, Mr Fletcher?---It’s Peter Barrie Fletcher.

You’ve made a statement to the Royal Commission dated 11 May 2017?---That’s correct.

If you just look at the screen, that injure signature?---Correct.

Are the contents of that statement true and correct?---Yes, it is.

I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Rodger. Exhibit 541.

EXHIBIT #541 STATEMENT OF PETER FLETCHER DATED 11/05/2017

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4725 P.B. FLETCHER XN©Commonwealth of Australia MS RODGER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS RODGER: My friend is raising with me that there’s apparently an editorial change to the statement of 11 May.

Is there an error in that statement?---It’s in the statement of 16 June.

Very well. We will move to that one now. You made a statement on 16 June 2017. Is that your signature, if you look on the screen?---That’s correct.

And the contents of that is true and correct?---Except for one.

Except for one - - -?--- - - - change.

And which is that?---Paragraph 31, where it says:

A decline in investigations commenced, but not finalised, within 120 days.

That needs to be changed to “older than 120 days.” And, likewise with the title of table 1, older than 120 days.

I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 542. Now, could I just apologise that we’ve – and thank you at the same time, Mr Fletcher, for agreeing to give way to all those lawyers?---Not a problem.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Remind them of it if you need somebody. Thank you.

MS RODGER: And I’ll apologise in advance for seeming to rush through the questions. You can understand with the time limitations. When did you start working at DCF or Territory Families in Katherine?---In 2011.

And - - -?---Sorry, 2012, October 2012.

Your current position, I understand it, is team leader at youth outreach and re-engagement at Territory Families Katherine?---That’s correct.

And previously you were the team leader at substitute care at Katherine?---That’s correct.

And in that role you coordinated and managed placements of all children who come into care, whether emergency placements or long-term orders, until 18 years?---Correct. The coordination aspect is in partnership with the placement unit but yes, that’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And what is the name of the placement unit?---It’s the Placement Unit.

Okay. The reason I ask that is because you set out in your statement that there are four teams at the Katherine office?---Yes, so that’s correct.

And the placement unit is not named in those four teams?---Because they’re in Darwin.

Okay. Thank you. Now, in relation to the staffing that is in Katherine, the first team you refer to is the investigation and assessment team and it’s – your statement of 16 June at paragraph 39 and I’ll paraphrase here, so correct me if you don’t agree with my assessment, but there’s six staff members allocated to that team, but that’s an official compliment on paper, for want of a better word, because your statement makes clear that you’ve never had all of those six positions filled?---That’s correct. During my time, that’s correct.

So since 2012?---Yes.

And the usual maximum is three to four staff?---Three to four practitioners, yes.

And that’s for a 325,000 square kilometre area?---That’s correct.

And you indicate, in that same paragraph, there are 100 cases per case worker, at least half of which are active?---That’s correct.

Now, given the number of cases you’re talking about, even if you had the full complement of six staff members, would that be enough to meet current demand?---It is difficult to say, having – having never seen it, if that makes sense.

Yes. That’s a fair comment?---I think – yeah, I would have to see a full complement of staff to see if we actually needed more full time positions allocated.

Yes?---I think just recruiting that many is the first task.

Fair enough. And do you have an idea of what the projected demand is in Katherine, say, in two years time?---In terms of notifications and things like that?

Yes. Demand that would be placed on investigation and assessment?---The data in my understanding at this stage is gradually inclining.

The Department commissioned a review in January 2014 that determined that the ideal case file load for investigation and assessment team was 10 to 12 case files per case worker. Are you aware of that?---No, I’m not.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: They probably kept it from you.

MS RODGER: And - - -?---I’m aware of similar studies.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Would you agree that sound like an appropriate case load per case worker?---Certainly. Yes.

And the current case load seems to be about five times that?---Approximately, yes.

The consequences of that caseload can be delayed investigation and failure to achieve best practice in child protection, can’t it?---Yes, it can.

Now, I ask you not to name any individuals involved in the next series of questions, but the Children’s Commissioner investigated a case in which adverse findings were made about the use of a work management tool in the Katherine office in 2014. You’re aware of that case?---Yes, I am.

The use of the tool was, in fact, approved by the CEO of DCF at that time, wasn’t it?---No, it wasn’t.

Well, if the witness might be shown tab 233 of the tender bundle. I can give the CCM reference if that assists, CCM.5 – here we go. If you could take that document off the screen, please. Yes, thank you. Now, if you can see in the first paragraph there that the letter from Department - - -?---Yes.

DCF or Territory Families is indicating that the workload management strategy for Katherine and the northern region had been approved?---Yeah. That strategy had been approved; that’s correct.

And that’s the strategy that was considered by the Children’s Commissioner in that complaint?---There was two parts to that complaint, is my understanding.

Yes. I’m only talking about the management tool part .....?---Well, there was two referenced. If I might explain the – the point of concern for the Children’s Commissioner was that that particular case wasn’t allocated, and that was due to a workload management tool that hadn’t been approved by the CEO, but was approved at a regional executive director level. The one that was subsequently approved didn’t involve not allocating cases. It was a different mechanism.

Well, it may be that you haven’t been privy to this letter, and that the case is that this is a response to the Children’s Commissioner from the Department - - -?---Yes.

- - - about why the management tool was used in relation to that particular case.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you seen that correspondence?---I don’t believe so.

You weren’t provided with it relating to the Katherine office?---I don’t believe so - - -

No?--- - - - Commissioner.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I’m not suggesting that you were or you weren’t, but - - -

MS RODGER: If it might assist perhaps if we can turn to page 3 of this letter, which includes an attachment. Now, just take some time to have a look at that. That’s the workplace management tool that was being used in the Katherine office that was subject to the Commissioner’s decision, isn’t it?---That’s correct.

And are you willing to accept then that the letter attaching that annexure is the Department indicating that the CEO had approved that management tool?---Yes. Yes, I do accept that.

Now, that attachment sets out that the tool acknowledges that cases would be finalised without meeting policy requirements, doesn’t it?---That’s correct.

And that cases of children under five would be completed in a full policy compliant manner?---That’s correct.

But that, for children over five, policy requirements would not be met?---That’s how that reads, yes.

I tender that document.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’ve forgotten what number we’ve given to the supplementary - - -

MS RODGER: Tab 233.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I know it’s tab 233. I think that’s exhibit 515, the supplementary tender bundle. If I’ve got that wrong we’ll fix that up, anyway. Exhibit 515.233.

EXHIBIT #515.233 LETTER TO CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER

MS RODGER: Did you raise any concerns to management about the risk to children over five by the use of this tool?---No.

The Children’s Commissioner said, in relation to the use of this tool, and I’m quoting here:

I am significantly concerned that the DCF Katherine office is utilising workload management techniques that contradict child protection best practice.

Are you aware of that decision of the Commissioner?---Yes, I am.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that there was no investigation of a complaint, in that case, in excess of three months after the notification?---That’s correct, yes.

And that was an allegation of physical abuse?---That’s correct.

This tool left children at risk, didn’t it, of physical abuse, of sexual abuse, or worse?---The tool that she’s referring to, again, is different to the one that’s on the screen. It was a – it was more regional, and it wasn’t approved by the CEO, but it was at a regional executive director level and the one that she’s referring to that she made a particular point about in that complaint was the not allocating priority 4 response notifications.

So are you suggesting that when Territory Families was asked to explain the management tool used in the Katherine office in response to this complaint they provided the wrong information in that letter?---It’s in – I’ve seen – I’ve seen this complaint before. It’s – what I’m talking about is referenced in that complaint. It’s in the Commissioner’s writing, it’s in DCFs response. What they’re saying is that, subsequent to that – this was the CEO approved version of the management tool.

It’s clear from your second statement that caseload problems that this management tool sought to address are still a live issue now, aren’t they?---Yes.

Inadequate staffing and current caseloads in Katherine means that children are currently at risk?---Yes, it does.

At paragraph 38 of your statement of 16 June you say that there was no real way to prevent further increases in the number of overdue investigations without more staff?---That’s correct.

Have you raised this concern with management higher up in Territory Families?---Yes.

What has been said to you?---That – basically, that we have almost nonstop ongoing recruitment. The issue isn’t – is not so much advertising to recruit to those positions, it’s attracting people to them and retaining them in them.

And attracting people with appropriate qualifications?---Correct.

And experience?---Attracting the right type of staff.

You suggest, at paragraph 38 of the statement of 16 June, that the only alternative to more staff is to look at alternatives to consider the number of investigations screened by the Katherine office and alternatives to statutory intervention for those investigations. Can you expand on that?---For those investigations that pose less risk to children.

Yes?---Absolutely.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But can you explain what you mean by that? What statutory interventions?---That would be having Territory Families investigate a concern, whereas what I’m – what I’m saying there is with the central intake team system as it is now, due to their policies and procedures and things like that, there’s a lot of investigations that get screened through at that priority 3 or 4 level that perhaps could have been addressed with an alternative intervention.

Like what?---For example, in the past we’ve had things like targeted family support, which means that either the central intake team or, speaking from my own experience in Katherine, the team leader of investigation and assessment when I first came on board had the ability to refer cases to a targeted family support team, which was run by ..... Aboriginal health service.

Are you saying that doesn’t exist anymore?---No. That stopped shortly after I came on board.

So there was previously a good – quite good intervention available, in your opinion?---Correct. Yes.

And that was defunded? Or why did that stop?---As I understand it – and I don’t know exactly what happened to that program – but it’s no longer in existence.

Since 2012?---Around about then.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That was effectively outsourcing some of the work to another accredited organisation?---That’s correct. So concerns that weren’t, you know, really significant child abuse allegations, that looked at bit more like maybe the family just needed support, or some early intervention, that they could go to teams like the targeted family support team and to some of our NGO providers who do family support work, and if they didn’t – if they weren’t able to mitigate the risk, they still had the opportunity to make another investigation.

So central intake really ought to be making some strategic decisions about what they send to the Katherine office, knowing how overloaded it is?---Well, I mean, to all offices. Yes.

Well, yes. Well, yours is the one we’re focussing on at the moment. So do – does the central intake office have an option of sending blocks of work to sort of a mobile workforce that can go where it’s needed?---Not as I understand it, Commissioner, to my knowledge.

MS RODGER: Your - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks.

MS RODGER: Sorry.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The organisation you were talking about before, that previously you could send people to for early intervention, was that an Aboriginal run organisation?---That’s correct.

Now, the second team in the Katherine office that you talk about in your first statement is the strengthening families team, and they take on families assessed by I and A, as higher risk of entering the system?---That’s correct.

Now I and A complete a risk assessment tool prior to referring to strengthening families; is that right?---That’s correct.

So would it be fair to say that the backlog that affects the investigation and assessment team therefore impacts on referrals to the strengthening families team?---Not – not so much, because as is set out a little bit in my statement, the cases that are often left, not written up, for example, are those that don’t require immediate intervention. That is that the investigation and assessment team have conducted an initial safety assessment, they might have ascertained that the child is safe, or safe with plan – with a plan to stay at home with their parents and then - - -

Sorry. Is that initial assessment at that time when a decision is made about whether to refer them to strengthening families?---No. So that – that – so what happens is, after the final risk assessment is completed and those cases that have an outcome of high or very high risk, they automatically get referred to the strengthening family team – families team. There isn’t an option to close them due to what our tools are telling us about them. So the risk assessment predicts risk to the child in the next 12 to 18 months.

That final risk assessment is done a bit further done down the track, isn’t it?---It’s – as per the policy, within the 28 day period.

That means if you have a family that needs that early intervention type assistance that strengthening families could assist with, they’re not going to get it until at least 28 days after that initial assessment?---That’s not correct. So you can – you have 28 days to complete an investigation. If you’re quite clear in the direction you want to case to go, and that is, for example, to the strengthening families team, you could complete the safety and risk assessment as soon as you have adequate information to do so.

Well - - -?---And there’s no timeframe on that.

Give me an idea of how often they are done, for the purpose of referring to strengthening families, less than 28 days?---I’d say fairly often, is currently.

Currently? So what does that mean? That hasn’t been the case in the past?---Not always. But, I mean, it depends on what exactly you’re talking about. The strengthening families team is also a relatively new initiative, so there wasn’t always that strengthening families additional ongoing intervention style case.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

When did it start?---Look, I’m not sure. A couple of years ago, approximately.

But haven’t you been at that office since 2012?---That’s correct.

So when did it commence at that office?---It commenced across the Department at the same time. I’m just not sure of the exact dates, is what I’m saying.

I’m not asking for exact dates, but a year that it commenced?---I would say two years ago, approximately.

And prior to that the only resource was that targeted family support you were talking about before for early intervention?---Early intervention, yes.

Yes. So there are six workers on paper for the strengthening family team also. Does it suffer from the same issues of underemployed – underemployment - - -?---Yes.

- - - as I and A. So is that three to four workers usually as well?---Yes.

And you say in your statement of – the May statement at paragraph 22 that the caseload was 50 files per case worker in that unit?---Approximately, yes.

You would agree that the focus on early intervention requires pretty intensive face-to-face management – case management?---Yes.

And do you know how many hours face to face is currently being given to those 50 case files per case worker?---No. It would differ from case to case.

What’s the minimum do you think is required to ensure early intervention was effective?---The minimum what, exactly?

Face to face with the - - -?---With the child, with the parents?

With the family?---With the family.

It’s a strengthening families – that’s the purpose, isn’t it? The early intervention is to assist the parents; is that right?---That’s correct. The idea is to assist the parents to mitigate the risks that were - - -

So how many hours a week would be spent with a family that was currently case managed by strengthening families?---I mean, I would – I would think about maybe 10 to 15 hours a week or something like that.

So 10 to 15 hours a week, but there’s 50 cases per case worker?---Correct.

So I’m just trying to do some math on that. How does that work?---It’s - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: I think they’re at cross-purposes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR O’MAHONEY: In fairness to the witness, the question was asked firstly how many would you like to see, how many hours a week of face time and then it morphed into how many hours a week, and I think what has happened is he has answered the first question, and perhaps that could be clarified.

MS RODGER: I can clarify.

So was your answer, that 10 to 15 hours, is that would be the ideal?---That’s correct.

I’m sorry. I was asking you what actually occurs now, but presumably it’s a lot less?---I – I can’t speak to that, because I’m not the team leader there, and I haven’t worked in that team for a long time.

So, with 50 files per case worker, you can’t give any idea of how many hours a week?---No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that might vary from what the issue is in each case, of course. You may be able to deal with it for one in an hour or so and others you might need to spend a bit more time. I can see how that’s difficult?---It does vary from case to case, absolutely.

But the plain fact of the matter is there’s only a limited time in a day, in a week, and these are just insupportable caseloads, aren’t they?---That’s correct.

MS RODGER: Still on the topic of early intervention. What programs are actually available for parents that are requiring early intervention in Katherine?---So the way that the Department is currently funding in that area, and I don’t know the exact details of this, but there is the Intensive Family Preservation service – is the current naming of that, so that’s – that provides – there’s NGOs that provide intensive family support for families in that strengthening families space, where there’s a higher risk that their child may be brought into care.

So in Katherine is there gambling counselling available?---I believe there is, yes.

Through who?---I think it’s Somerville.

And is there drug and alcohol counselling available?---Yes.

Through who?---Through NT Government AOD as well as .....

Do you have any idea about the places available, the capacity for those?---No.

What about in Borroloola, is there any gambling counselling available locally in Borroloola?---I don’t know.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is that that you don’t know anything about what’s available in Borroloola?---No. I know what’s available in Borroloola. I don’t know if gambling counselling is available in Borroloola.

Is there any drug and counselling available in Borroloola?---There’s an in-service alcohol and drug worker that works for the health department.

There’s one worker there?---Correct.

What about Lajamanu? Any gambling counselling?---I don’t know about gambling counselling.

Drug and alcohol?---I believe it’s the same set-up.

One worker?---Yeah, one – I mean, I don’t know that, because it’s not might department but there’s an in-service model.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it your impression that gambling is a problem amongst the families that come to the attention of Territory Families in Katherine?---It’s – it is. It comes – it’s often a contributing factor in our cases. I wouldn’t say it’s one of the major concerns that we have.

Which would that be? Which would be your major concern?---Domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse would be the two major concerns, and neglect, which is quite all encompassing.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: They’re all related?---Yeah, that’s right.

MS RODGER: In relation to early intervention Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes, the former chief executive of DCF gave evidence today, and she accepted a proposition put to her that unless a focus shifts to prioritise early intervention the system essentially is doomed to fail. Would you agree with that assessment?---Yeah, I think that’s fair.

The last two teams that are in the Katherine office are two substitute care teams; is that right?---That’s correct.

And in reality the similar question: do they have the full complement of six workers that you’ve said is the ideal or the maximum allocated?---There’s five practitioner positions in strengthening families in the two substitute care teams, it’s only I and A that has six practitioners, but each team has a case support worker and an Aboriginal community worker as well. In the substitute care teams, that’s probably the teams I’ve seen get closest to full staffing, and I believe that might even be the case at the moment for the Katherine office.

When you say there’s five practitioners, is that over the two teams?---No, there’s five in each team.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Each. Okay. Thank you. Now, their role is to manage children and care on long term and reunification orders?---Correct.

And your statement indicates that one case worker has 15 to 20 cases?---On average, that’s correct.

At paragraph 27 of your first statement you set out the duties of a substitute care caseworker as follows: care planning, relationship building, observation, management of day-to-day needs for school, sport, attend medical appointments, specialist appointments and counselling. What proportion of case workers’ time each week is spent on these activities? Is that 100 percent of what they do or is there other things like writing up files, administrative?---No, it’s – look, it would be a bit of an estimate, but it would probably be about 50 per cent of their time.

Okay. So again, I’m attempting to break down what face-to-face hours that means. If there is a child – if there are 15 cases per case worker, let’s bring it down from the 20, my estimate is that even if there are 100 per cent allocated to those duties, as you’ve set out, they would get a bit over half a day each fortnight with the child. That sound right?---Can you just repeat that, sorry.

Yes. I will try. Sorry, I’m losing my voice. Given the estimate that there’s about one case worker has about 15 files, my estimate that is that even if they spent 100 percent of the time on the activities that you’ve set out there, which you’ve said they don’t, they spent 50 per cent of their time, they would have a bit over half a day each fortnight with each child. Does that sound right?---That’s – that’s about right. The requirement is to have face-to-face contact with children in care once a month, every month.

Only once a month?---That’s the minimum requirement.

How much of their time each week would be spent on discussing reunification with that child?---It depends on what type of order they’re on. If they’re on a reunification order.

That’s all I’m asking you about?---Then, with the child, probably not a lot. We would focus more on stabilising them in their placement, trying to get them engaged in school and things like that, prosocial activities. But, with the parents, a significant amount of time. In fact, every interaction would be based on reunification.

And what – given you’ve indicated that there’s a minimum requirement of once a month to interact with the child, is there a minimum requirement to interact with the parent for reunification purposes?---I don’t believe so.

What do you think the average time each week is spent with the parents about reunification?---Again, it varies. It varies significantly based on whether the family are urban or remote, those kind of things, but a significant – there would be more


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

time on the reunification cases spent with parents trying to get them the support they need to address the concerns that led to the protection order in the first place.

Now, the Commission heard evidence from Tracy Hancock at Safe Pathways and I’m just going to read out portions of that and then ask you to comment at the end. She said it was rare for case workers to attend to see young people staying at her residence, that’s whether she was at Safe Pathways or Anglicare. That, if they did attend, the child did not know them; that it was rare for young people in her residence to have any care plans; that young people were dropped off at the placement when Territory Families had been advised that they were full. Would you agree that optimal case management is not achievable with the staff to case file ratios you currently have in Katherine?---The – like I said, I think if the positions were all full it might look very different.

I’m just talking about what you currently have?---No, it’s not.

And the stated policy aim of reunification is not going to be achieved when there’s inadequate staff to implement?---It still does, but perhaps not as much as we would like it to.

Are you saying it’s delayed in its implementation because of staff available?---No. I’m not saying that.

Well, how many cases of reunification have you had finalised, with children having been reunified with their family, in 2017?---Probably one family.

Would you be able to say for 2016?---No. I’ve only – only because I’ve recently come over into substitute care.

Moving to kinship care. It’s not ideal, I would have thought you would agree, to have children removed from families in Katherine and taken to Darwin foster homes, is it?---Definitely not.

And the number of locally run foster homes in Katherine is inadequate to meet demand?---That’s correct.

Tracy Hancock gave evidence that the current capacity, as you would know, is 16 beds. But she estimated the demand, just for Katherine alone, not remote communities, being 60 beds. Would you agree with that?---I – I think that’s a little bit high.

What would you say it is?---However, I think it still would be around – I think the numbers for Katherine are probably around 40.

Now, the issue of moving children to the Darwin foster homes has two impacts: the loss of contact with family in the immediate, but it also impacts on the reality of the reunification doesn’t it?---It’s – not necessarily, no, but it does have a huge impact


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

on the children’s ability to remain connected with their families as often as we would like.

And that can cause difficulties with reunifying children with their families, can’t it?---Well, in my opinion, the task for the parents remains the same. To, you know, to address the risk that led to the protection order in the first place.

If the child doesn’t see the parents very often, because they’re so far away, it’s not possible, that would impact on the relationship between the child and the parent, wouldn’t it?---It would have an impact.

Now, it’s the case that when a child is transferred to Darwin for a placement, the case worker sometimes remains the Katherine office case worker?---That’s correct.

And, in that circumstance, the case manager doesn’t see the child frequently in person do they?---A minimum of once a month.

And, similarly, if you move from a remote community to a placement in Katherine, that can have a similar impact of loss of contact with families. We’re talking about Borroloola or Lajamanu?---Yes.

Tracy Hancock gave evidence that, ideally, residential placements would be available in remote communities and Aboriginal run. Would you support that?---Residential placements, probably not, no.

Wouldn’t that allow children to stay in their community and not be detached from their community while the department decides where it’s appropriate for them to be placed?---I think it would be much better to have more suitable kinship placements in community, rather than trying to establish residential facilities in communities.

But isn’t the issue that the assessment of kinship can take some time?---Correct.

And in the meantime a child’s up in Darwin - - -?---Yes.

- - - detached from their community.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it was just anticipated that there might be some – some house available, where a local person would be like the house mother, and it would be available more on an emergency basis, instead of whisking the child out – there is no obvious relation to take the child, might be – the idea was that it might be relatively short term, but it might be one way of resolving some of these problems that can be managed more readily and be, in the end, more cost effective?---Sure.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I ask – you mentioned in a previous question, in response to Ms Rodger, about the minimum of contact once a month. Is there any – is there any just general contact with families, say kids in foster care? Is that a general rule, like, I’ve spoken to foster carers who said, “We got into trouble because


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

families were coming into a town, they were seeing them fairly regularly.” How does that work, you know, just family contact?---It is case by case. It does depend on the risk. Some of our carers have really good relationships with the children’s parents, and they’re able to facilitate it really safely, and therefore it’s not too much of a concern.

But others would be more regulated?---Yeah. Others - - -

Like, if it is - - -?---Where there’s – you know, if there has been a lot of violence or, you know, threats or intimidation and things likes like that, obviously we try and keep the carer’s address quite confidential, and then we facilitate all access between the parents and the child, and that’s in our own offices or somewhere else.

Not just out on a street somewhere?---It’s wherever is agreeable.

No. I mean, like the parents - - -?---No.

- - - just coming up?---Well, within our ability to control that we try.

Be hard in little - - -?---It is.

- - - places, wouldn’t it?---It is.

Yes?---Often there’s situations where, you know, the carers might just be at Woolies in Katherine, which is the only supermarket, and they run into family members, or the parents, or - - -

Okay.

MS RODGER: Just in relation to kinship care placements, how many were formalised by your office in 2017?---We don’t formalise kinship care placements. That’s the – the out-of-home care department.

Are you aware of how many?---No.

And you’re aware of the fact that young people in Katherine frequently leave residential care and self-place with their family?---Yes.

Tracy Hancock gave evidence that this is happening and she’s informing the Katherine office and Territory Families are saying we’re going to allow them to stay there despite there being an order in place?---No.

You say that has never occurred?---It’s not that we’re allowing it to happen. Sometimes, despite our best efforts children remain with their parents, that’s why it’s called self-placing and we are aware of it, but we’re not endorsing the situation.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But can’t you go and get the child with police assistance or otherwise and remove them from the premises?---Yes, we can, and we do.

What Ms Hancock was saying was different. She was saying you’re advised that it’s occurring and that you’re not intervening?---Well, that’s not occurring, in my opinion. We would – I can think of a situation off the top of my head. We returned a child in care, a 13-year-old girl with police assistance probably five or six times in a row across three or four days to their – to her placement, and she damaged property and went back to her mother’s place. So there comes a time where it’s not – from a harm reduction perspective, it’s not – it’s not a viable option to continue to go and collect a girl, kicking and screaming with the police, to take her back to a placement that doesn’t have the facility to keep her there.

So are you saying you have left that girl at the home with the parent in some circumstances?---We’re aware that that’s where she is, yes.

Wouldn’t it be better to either determine that the order should be rescinded and allow her to stay in the premises?---No.

Or find a residential placement that is suitable for her?---Yes. And that’s – and that’s what we - - -

And how long - - -?---Are doing.

How long did that take in that case?---I don’t know if it has been achieved, yet to be honest.

How many months ago are we talking about the repeated removal with the police?---Probably March of this year.

Now, finally, I just want to ask you some questions about absconding. It’s a huge problem with children absconding from residential care facilities more generally in Katherine, not necessarily self-placing. Tracy Hancock gave evidence that there was, at both Anglicare and Safe Pathways, a 90 per cent absconding rate. Would you agree with that?---I agree that it’s very high. It’s a very high occurrence.

What figure would you put it on, if 90 per cent is not correct?---90 per cent of the children in Anglicare and Safe Pathways, that’s probably accurate.

She also gave evidence of waiting days of Territory Families to respond to all her repeated calls and emails about a child having absconded. Is that due to the high caseloads in your office?---Certainly.

Would you would accept that once a child absconds from the placement they may end up roaming the streets in Katherine?---Yes.

They’re at risk of sexual abuse?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Exposure to drugs?---Yes.

They’re at risk of violence?---Yes.

Accepting the huge case load, and the inadequate staffing of the Katherine office, can I ask you this: with a 90 per cent absconding rate, how is Territory Families providing a stable, safe, or more desirable environment for the children in residential care than from the families from which they were removed?---Because despite what – what concerns, and I will speak generally here, every case is different, but the children that have been removed in those situations, they don’t get removed lightly for starters. We take that decision very, very seriously. And some of the situations they have had to come out of are absolutely horrific. On a harm reduction approach again, it’s much worse where they’ve come from, from where they are.

No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There are a couple of cross-examinations.

MS RODGER: There are. Ms Dwyer is to go first.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Dr Dwyer

DR DWYER: Thank you, Commissioners, I’ve only got five minutes, so I will go as quickly as I’ll - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You wouldn’t want any more.


DR DWYER: No, Commissioners.

So your – my name is Peggy Dwyer and I’m appearing for NAAJA. The Katherine office is responsible for, as you’ve noted, a number of communities in surrounding areas. You’ve named Lajamanu and Borroloola. When a child is removed from families in remote communities in the Northern Territory, they might be sent to foster care or residential care in Katherine or Darwin; is that right?---Yes.

That makes it very difficult for NT Families to facilitate access visits for the children and parents; is that correct?---It’s – it’s not very difficult. We do still facilitate access regardless of where the child has come from if the parents are willing. We will pay for their air fares and accommodation to have access every week.

Every week, is that right? Well, Tracy Hancock gave evidence that in Katherine she had a child who didn’t see their family for months because it was the wet season and they were taken into residential care. You can understand how that could happen in

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4741 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

circumstances where case workers in Katherine are so overloaded, couldn’t you?---I think there’s more context to that situation. Often parents don’t want to have access weekly due to the travel burden and things like that, which is understandable for some families coming, you know, 800 kilometres from Borroloola for example. If a family wanted to have access, we would pay for them to have access.

I anticipate – I withdraw that. You can accept how difficult it is, with a case worker who is overloaded in the way that you have described, to properly explain, with the use of an interpreter where appropriate, to families what their rights and responsibilities are in terms of appropriate access to children. Do you accept that?---No. I mean, I accept that it’s difficult, but we – we ensure that all of – all of the families who have had children brought into care, they know their rights to access, what the next steps are going to be, how to keep in contact with their children in every case.

I anticipate that the Royal Commission will hear from a number of different lawyers who are working on the ground with families that they do not see their children on a weekly basis, sometimes not even monthly, once they’re taken from remote communities. Does that surprise you?---It doesn’t surprise me. However, again, often the families don’t want access, or that we organise their transport and they don’t make it.

Are you saying that in every circumstance where a family wants access with their child, when they’re in a remote community, your Department will pay for and facilitate a visit on a weekly basis?---Yes.

We can quote you on that going forward?---Yes, you can.

Final question in relation to targeted family support: the service cut in 2012 that you described is very valuable; correct?---Yes, it was. For those lower risk cases it was really valuable.

Have you ever raised with management the value of reintroducing a service of that nature?---Yes, I have.

Who have you raised that with? Don’t need names, but just in terms of their positions?---So when we’ve been discussing the current support set-up with the Intensive Family Preservation service there was a meeting that involved lots of Department directors, for example, grants management, policy and procedure, things like that, where I spoke about targeted family support and how valuable that was.

Have you ever put that in writing?---No.

What response did you receive back when you raised how valuable it was in the meeting you’ve told us about?---I think other people looked fondly on it as well except – so the direction currently is also into a really valuable area working –

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4742 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they’ve decided to obviously to work in that high risk area, where children are very much at risk of coming into care, instead of the early intervention.

So there has been no commitment, that you’re aware of, to funding early intervention support such as was in existence in 2012?---Not in the same set-up, no.

Nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Dwyer.


MS GRAHAM: Mr Fletcher, my name is Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Can we have up on the screen, please, exhibit 518 at page ending .5364, please. Whilst that’s coming up, Mr Fletcher, you’ve just given evidence moments ago that you always ensure that parents know their rights to access and how to go forward in terms of their involvement with their children and reunification; is that right?---That’s correct.

And critical to that is having a comprehensive care plan that the parents contribute to and know the terms of; is that right?---It certainly helps.

And the Katherine office and its surrounds is in Territory Families known as the big rivers area; is that right?---That’s correct.

We have on the screen here the April 2017 monthly performance report for the southern region. You can see there Big Rivers is the second unit in the columns. As at April 2017 you were the team leader for the substitute care team in Katherine; is that right?---Yeah, I transferred out ......

You transferred in May 2017?---April. I started my new role on 24 April.

I see. Do you see there that the total number of children in out-of-home care in big rivers as at April 2017 was 159 children, of which 155 were Aboriginal?---Yes.

And if we go down to the section in relation to case management you will see there that in the big rivers area in April 2017, 57.4 children had no current care plan. Do you see that there?---Yes.

That’s totally inconsistent with the notion that the Katherine office was ensuring that parents understood their rights to access and how to progress reunification with their children when such a large proportion of children in care didn’t even have a care plan?---Well, I mean, it doesn’t mean they didn’t have a care plan. It meant they don’t have a current care plan. So it may mean that they had a care plan or they may have had four or five care plans, but the current one isn’t signed off and approved.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4743 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So they didn’t have a care plan that was relevant to their current circumstances. Is that what that means?---Yes.

You’ve also given evidence about ensuring that the case workers from Territory Families make contact with children who are in care, even if they’re up in Darwin, at least once a month?---Yes.

You will see there that in the big rivers region 59.8 per cent of children had no face-to-face contact within that monthly requirement?---Yes.

That’s totally inconsistent with the evidence that you’ve given about case workers always ensuring that they meet that minimum standard of monthly contact?---Well, within the best of our ability that’s what we’re trying to achieve.

That’s what you’re trying to achieve?---Right.

But that’s far from what you are achieving?---Well, if you’re talking about a 100 per cent compliance, then absolutely.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s a 60 per cent compliance, isn’t it?

DR DWYER: It’s a 40 per cent - - -

THE WITNESS: I meant .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 40 per cent compliance, sorry, yes 40?---If we’re setting out to achieve a 100 per cent compliance is what I meant, sorry.

Aspiration.

MS GRAHAM: The care plans that do exist, that are current care plans, that is care plans relevant to the current circumstances of a child and their family, I suggest to you that there’s a real issue with the quality of those care plans being very poor. Would you agree with that?---Absolutely. In fact, in the current – since around about December 2016 there has been a concerted effort to increase the quality of care plans. We have come from a period of – a real drive for administrative compliance to try and make reports like this one look better. However, you get care plans that don’t necessarily mean much to a child or to their parents. So, since that time, we’ve really been trying to make sure that the case managers writing their care plans – that it’s not a desktop activity, that they’ve been out to their relevant communities, they’ve spoken with the child, they’ve spoken with the parents, they’ve got a really good understanding of what their needs are, what the strengths are in the family and yes, the family have contributing to that care plan. Now, that has taken a lot of work. It’s still going on now, and therefore there hasn’t been as much administrative compliance, but in my opinion the quality of the care plans is – has increased significantly for the Katherine office.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4744 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There has to be some aspect of your evidence there, though, that is in the category of aspirational, given the excessive workloads that are faced by workers in the Katherine office. Would you agree with that?---I do.

When there are delays in progressing reunification with a family, do you agree that that can only end up in a situation where it becomes less and less in the best interests of the child for them to be reunified?---I think it would have to be a significant delay.

Do you accept that there are significant delays in progressing the reunification goals because of the gross overworking of the workers in the Katherine office?---No, I don’t. I think there – sure, there are delays in progressing reunification goals, but often – I mean, the idea of reunification, like I said earlier, is that the parents – you know, understand what the – what the risks were that led to a protection order and that they’re receiving the supports they need to mitigate those risks. So we’re talking about reunification orders of two years or less and we’ve always got the – the option to extend those if we feel like there’s good progress being made. So that could be up to four years. So whilst there are delays certainly in the office, and there’s workload management issues, absolutely, I don’t believe that they are that significant that they are affecting whether those orders ..... reunification or long-term orders, for example.

Finally, in relation to the placements team, you’ve given evidence that they’re based in Darwin and they cover also your region. Do they cover further South Australian to Alice Springs and the Barkly region?---No. They – the southern region has their own placement unit, is my understanding.

And there’s a difficulty, is there, in terms of the placement team being based in Darwin and then being able to get into communities regions in your region to properly progress things like kinship assessments?---So the placement team don’t do kinship assessment work. That’s – we have a team, called a care assessment and support team, in the out-of-home care division. They are based in Katherine, and they do all of our kinship assessment work and carer support and assessment.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Graham. Mr O’Brien-Hartcher, I see you waiting in the wings.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER [6.36 pm]

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioners. It has been a long day, and a long wait, and I will try not to keep people.

Mr Fletcher, my name is Charles O’Brien-Hartcher, I represent a lady with the pseudonym DS. You may not know who she is, but it’s not necessarily relevant for the current questions that you need to know. Is it accurate to say that the substitute care team have the role of placing a child that has been removed and determining how long the Department would seek to have that child in its care?---No.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4745 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What – which team would play those roles?---Investigation and assessment.

Investigation and assessment. And do the – do different officers in different regions around the Territory follow the same policies and procedures when it comes to those functions?---Yes.

And when a child comes into that team, you would make sure that they are fully across the protection concerns regarding the child and the strength of the evidence for those concerns?---Yes.

And have you ever come across a matter where you thought that a child should not have been removed in the first place, but instead maybe placed with another family member?---Maybe once or twice.

Okay. Is that something that you would consider when a child is first taken into care?---Through the kinship system?

Well, not necessarily. Before we get to the kinship system, when you’re considering taking a child from a family, is something that you consider maybe putting them with other members of the family who might be able to look after them?---So we can’t put or place a child with another member of the family or a community member, that’s ......

If the parents are supportive of that?---So what we do is spend a significant amount of time, if it permits, in the investigation. If we – if we do think that the child will otherwise be removed, asking parents to identify to us supportive people that can help. That can help with their problems or that can help look after perhaps, but we can’t suggest people, because that’s - - -

Sure?---Yes. Bad practice.

If the parents – if the parents were aware of someone, grandparent or someone to look after a child while they dealt with their problems, that would be something the Department would .....?---If they brought it to our attention, and that person was willing, and it was a safe environment, absolutely.

What about if other members of the community brought it to your attention?---That’s fine.

Would it be true to say that – I withdraw that. When you’re considering a family placement like that in a remote context, would that – would the information and opinion you receive from, for example, a remote area children and family worker provide a valuable insight into whether a child should be placed in a particular situation?---Yes. Yes, it would.

Would you accept that a nurse, remote area nurse, for example, would provide good information or opinion or a valuable insight into such a placement if they knew the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

child and the family, for example?---Theoretically. It’s difficult, when you start getting into services. We really want to hear that from the parents because they’re exercising parental responsibility at that time, so ultimately they have the right to say where their child is going to go and stay.

Sure?---Unless we go to are court and change that.

Would the information and opinion of a local police officer be a valuable insight into such a placement?---Again, not so much.

Okay?---It’s good information, but we really need the parents to come up with the safety plan themselves.

So if - - -?---Or the family I should say.

Okay. So if the family can nominate someone to look after the child and in a circumstance where a remote children and family worker – remote area nurse and a police officer were all giving their opinion that that would be a good idea, that would be a pretty compelling reason to place the child with that family member. Would that be fair?---We couldn’t place them.

Okay. Well, so that’s a matter of nomenclature.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You really have to be careful, because it’s quite clear: the Department, unless it takes on those responsibilities, has just no right to do that.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Yes. May it please the Commission.

MR O’MAHONEY: It’s certainly not a matter of nomenclature at all, I think as my friend just said. It’s really far from that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s quite fundamental, yes.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Please the Commission.

Let me rephrase that. If you had a family who was nominating what they said was a suitable carer, and that was supported by the parents, and the local police, and the remote children area family worker, and the remote nurse, were saying that it would be good to have that member look after that child, that would be a compelling reason to support that child being looked after by that family member?---If it was in that investigation and assessment phase, yes.

Okay. And if you receive information which went against placing the child with that family member from one of those community members what would you do to verify that information?

MR O’MAHONEY: I’ve let the last couple of questions go.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I understand that.

MR O’MAHONEY: It’s becoming a Geoffrey Robertson Hypothetical and obviously these are situations turn on their facts and it’s just not possible, I think, to put assumptions like that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think – yes, I accept the objection, Mr O’Mahoney. It’s putting a fact situation even though it’s looking .....

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: I withdraw the question. I don’t want to waste time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. I think you can’t put your client’s situation, really, in this way.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: You’ve – Commissioner, I’ve just been asked to finish up. I have a couple more questions, if I might be granted a few more minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: More useful questions would be good, thanks, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: You have extensive experience dealing with courts in your role – I withdraw that. I will move on. When there are proceedings with respect to a child it might be the case that the Department initially disagrees with the party who seeks to have the child – might be the Department initially disagrees with someone who – a parent who wants to have the child placed in the care of a family member. Would that be fair?---Yes.

And that might be protection concerns or something that you have at that point in time?---Yes.

And through the court process you might be given evidence that supports that that person might be a decent carer for a child?---We would have them assessed - - -

Okay?--- - - - by the care assessment team. We do it all the time.

Alright. If you did get evidence that suggested that someone would be a suitable carer, then would you reconsider those initial protection concerns that you had?---No. We would have them assessed as a carer. So the kinship system doesn’t exist unless you have a protection order. Otherwise, it’s just the family doing their own thing with – you know, with who’s looking after the child. So we would – I mean - - -

But you obviously have a mechanism to?---Hypothetical like.

You obviously have a mechanism to reconsider whether or not your original assessment was correct?---No. Because the reason why we would be at court is due to the parents. That’s why we go to court: due to care and protection concerns for


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the people exercising, you know, parental responsibility for a child. If somebody else is identified and yet we’re past that investigation and assessment stage, and we’re in the court setting we would proceed with our protection order, because that’s what gives us the ability to place the child with a kinship carer, and we would have that person assessed as a kinship carer.

You would have that person assessed before the court process, would that be right?---Well, that changes all the time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Might depend where the – when the person was identified, of course .....?---Correct.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: If the person was identified before the court process, they would be assessed. Would that be fair?---Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher. Anything from you, Mr O’Mahoney?

MR O’MAHONEY: Only very briefly, Commissioner, for obvious reasons.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY [6.45 pm]

MR O’MAHONEY: Sir, you might remember the last question you answered before from Counsel Assisting was about the removal of children from families, and I think to use your own words you said – and I’m quoting you – children don’t get removed lightly. Could you tell us who makes those decisions in your experience?---It’s – it’s always a shared decision. So a case manager initially will go out and observe a situation. If it’s decided that the situation is very critical, and there’s an immediate risk to the safety of the child, and therefore provisional protection would be potentially be used, but the case manager would come back, if the situation permitted. So the case manager, the Aboriginal community worker that was accompanying them, the team leader, the office manager, practice leader if you had one, Aboriginal cultural adviser if you had one, would all meet to discuss the situation urgently and you would have to come to a consensus that provisional protection was going to be necessary before it was enacted.

And can we take it that it’s a decision – if it is reached – that is really a choice of last resort for want of a better word?---It is. I mean, by definition there has to be immediate threat to the child’s safety.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4749 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And could I ask, in answer to a question from Commissioner White earlier, you said about what the biggest problem in the local community in and around Katherine is. You said, the first part of the answer was domestic violence. How much does that feature in the sorts of situations that result in children being removed from families?---Significantly. In a very large proportion of cases, it’s either the main concern or certainly one of the concerns that we have.

And is it fair to say that would be for you – and I guess you can’t speak for your colleagues – but for you a very stressful decision to arrive at personally?---It is, yes.

And could you just paint the picture for us briefly of the sorts of scenarios that result in a decision like that being made?---So like I said, there has to be for provisional protection, that is, there has to be an urgent – an urgent need to protect a child. So you know, some of the situations we’ve had in the past – so there was a two and a five-year-old found in the middle of the night in a camp in Katherine. There wasn’t any adults around, they had been crying for hours, it was actually a community member that made a report to the police. So when the police arrived they – they found the two – the two children, a little – the little one was crying, in a soiled nappy which camp dogs were trying to eat while she was wearing it. So at that particular time we couldn’t find any adults, certainly not the mother or father, so that was a situation where provisional protection was used for those two children in the middle of the night. So the mother was found not long after that, unconscious due to intoxication, and she had a less than one-year-old infant attempting to breastfeed from her unconscious body. She – she was also – he was also removed, I should say, under provisional protection. So even after that situation presented, I spoke to that mother for hours the next morning trying to get a safety plan put in place. So what I mean to say by that is we still weren’t definitely going to call it. We were trying to get a safety plan with whoever – anybody that she could have nominated, and I had a senior Aboriginal lady with me trying to get that to happen, and she just couldn’t come up with any safety plan, so that resulted in a temporary protection order and a protection order.

In your time working - - -

MS RODGER: I might just ask at this stage for consideration, this is going into very specifics of case studies that hasn’t been done in relation to other counsel, either Counsel Assisting or - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: My next question was going to be very broad.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Well, that’s an example that illustrates the general proposition I think that that’s probably enough, though.

MR O’MAHONEY: Certainly not going to explore anymore.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 21.6.17 P-4750 P.B. FLETCHER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR O’MAHONEY: And I’ve got two questions to go. The second last question, sir, is this: that you indicated, in response to Commissioner White’s question, that domestic violence certainly ranked right at the top of the problems that are being encountered in and around the Katherine community. In your time working in child protection, are you able to say this: has it got better, has it got worse, has it plateaued?---In general, I actually don’t – I don’t – I don’t really know whether it’s got better or worse. I make a concerted effort when I was working in child protection to only focus on who was in front of me. So that way you can celebrate small – small wins. And – and that’s much more satisfying than trying to look at the big picture, all the time, which can be quite overwhelming. So individual families, individual children being taken to safety or reunified or doing really well at school, for example, that’s where we get our - - -

And finally – so you were asked a number of questions about delays in reunification. Are you able to say what to your mind is the biggest cause of delays in that process?---The biggest cause that delays reunification is the parents’ ability to address the risks that were posed to the child. Now, every situation is different, again, but obviously some of the problems that we’re dealing with are very deeply enshrined and they take a long, long time to be able to be undone so that there’s a situation where a child can return to a safe home.

Thank you, Mr Fletcher, no further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney.

MS RODGER: Commissioners, might I tender on a confidential basis the Children’s Commissioner report that was referred to.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 543, and a – it’s received as a confidential exhibit.

EXHIBIT #543 CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER REPORT

MS RODGER: No further questions. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Rodger. Thank you very much Mr Fletcher, we’re obliged to you and again thank you for losing your place in the witness queue?---That’s alright.

This afternoon. And thank you for your assistance in painting a picture of the difficulties of the Katherine office.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We adjourn to 9.30 pm tomorrow, and we will be in closed court for the first session. Thank you.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 6.52 pm UNTIL THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2017


5

Index of Witness Events

CHRISTINE FEJO-KING, AFFIRMED P-4661EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DIGHTON P-4661CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4672CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4676

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4678

JOSEPHINE CRAWSHAW, AFFIRMED P-4678EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4678EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4689


CLARE MARY GARDINER-BARNES, SWORN P-4692EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4692CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4715CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4718CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4721


PETER BARRIE FLETCHER, SWORN P-4725EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODGER P-4725CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4741CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4743CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER P-4745CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY P-4749


Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #538 STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE FEJO-KING DATED 22/05/2017

P-4662

EXHIBIT #539 STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE CRAWSHAW DATED 17/06/2017

P-4679

EXHIBIT #540 AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLARE GARDINER-BARNES DATED 4/06/2017

P-4693


P-4725


P-4726

EXHIBIT #515.233 LETTER TO CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER P-4729


5

EXHIBIT #543 CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER REPORT P-4751


TranscriptCreator - Web viewI hated it, so I ran away and came home. And so when I came home ... no,...

Documents

Transcript of TranscriptCreator - Web viewI hated it, so I ran away and came home. And so when I came home ... no,...