Transcript 23 June 2017 Web viewWe ran job fairs, we went out to school fairs, ... it’s recorded in the system. It doesn’t count on this performance measure. So, for example,

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-784705

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

9.49 AM, FRIDAY, 23 JUNE 2017

Continued from 22.6.17

DAY 48

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 Danila Dilba Health ServiceMS PARSONS appears for Toni Eyles

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4861©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good morning, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Good morning, Commissioners. Commissioners, we are now going to move to another of the personal stories that have been told throughout this section of the Commission of Inquiry. Today’s personal story is that of DW, a mother, a grandmother and a carer. She has four children of her own, and her two youngest sons live with her. DW also cares for her cousin’s son, who she’s raised from infancy. In her personal story DW tells of her struggle to become the carers of her daughter’s child. She recounts how, even with the agreement of her daughter, the pathway to becoming the carer of her grandchild was long and challenging. If we could please play DW’s personal story.

RECORDING PLAYED

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Yes. Thank you, Commissioners. The next witness is Mr Andrew Jackomos, Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. I call Andrew Morgan Jackomos.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

<ANDREW MORGAN JACKOMOS, SWORN [10.55 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Kindly be seated.

MR McAVOY: Mr Jackomos, can you just tell the Commissioners your full name?---Andrew Morgan Jackomos.

And your current occupation?---I am the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People in Victoria.

And you’ve prepared a statement for this Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry?---Yes, I have.

On the screen to your left you will see a document bearing your name dated 13 June 2017. Do you recognise that document?---Yes. That’s my document.

And that’s your statement?---That’s my statement.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4862 A.M. JACKOMOS XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And the contents of that statement are true and correct, to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, they are.

Mr Jackomos, I’m going to ask you a few questions – sorry, I will tender Mr Jackomos’s statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 558 for Mr Jackomos’s statement of 13 June.

EXHIBIT #558 STATEMENT OF ANDREW MORGAN JACKOMOS DATED 13/06/2017

MR McAVOY: Mr Jackomos, I will ask you a few questions about – arising from your statement. You can assume that the Commissioners have read your statement. Mr Jackomos, you are a Yorta Yorta man?---Yes, I am, with direct lineage to the Gunditjmara from south-west Victoria and the Taungerong of the Kulin nation.

Thank you. And you’ve had a long career in Aboriginal affairs, whether it be in Government or Aboriginal community organisations?---Yes. My first job in Government was in 1969.

And, indeed, you’ve worked as the manager of the Poly and Secretariat Unit, Central Office and Regional Manager for Northern Queensland, based in Townsville from 1981 to 1986?---With the Aboriginal Development Commission.

And most recently, before being appointed as the Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner for Victoria, you had a role in the Department of Justice and that’s set out at paragraph 6 of your statement?---Yes.

Department of Justice in the State of Victoria?---Correct.

And your role there was – sorry, paragraph 7. And your role there was as executive officer in the Victorian Department of Justice as the director for the Koori justice unit?---Correct.

If you could explain for the Commissioners some of the activities that were undertaken in that role, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal justice agreement and the – perhaps the longevity of the programs that were established with your unit?---Yes. In mid-1999 I was asked to go for six months to the Department of Justice to write the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement which was a commitment from the Victorian Government in response to the 1996 ministerial summit on implementation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody recommendations. I started on that in May, July in 1999 but it was – I was told to write it but – but not to have any financial commitments. Change of Government in October 1999 and there was – with the new attorney-general, Robert Hulls, he asked me to put flesh on the bones to develop the justice agreement. I had


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

done that and the core part of the justice agreement that I wrote was to bring justice and the community together. That was launched in early 2000 and remains to this day. The community and justice are currently developing phase 4 of the justice agreement. Core initiatives of the justice agreement is the Aboriginal justice forum. Core – which brings to the table every three months, I think they’re up to their 70th justice forum, brings heads of justice agency, heads of courts, Aboriginal community bodies, Aboriginal family violence, Victorian Aboriginal legal service to the table every three months to – with the primary aim to decrease recidivism in Victoria. Key elements of that are they are network of Koori courts which now raise from children’s magistrates and county court and tomorrow judicial officers and Aboriginal community are meeting to look at how we grow that.

Thank you, and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Jackomos, when the agreement was first entered into - - -?---Yes.

- - - who on the Aboriginal side were the co-sponsors of it, if you like. So the cosignatories were on – I’m trying to recall back then.

The government is easy?---On one side was the attorney-general.

Yes?---The Minister for police and corrections. There might be – I’m not sure whether there was, the Police Minister, Minister for youth justice. On the community side were members of what we call the Koori caucus, which are community leaders who sit at the justice forum table and that would be Mr Alf Bamblett, who was a chairperson of the Aboriginal justice advisory committee, as well as I think there was the Victorian Aboriginal legal service and community bodies. There were maybe a couple of others but - - -

We’re just a bit interested, of course - - -?---Yes.

- - - in who speaks for - - -?---Yes.

- - - Aboriginal communities?---So a key initiative of the justice agreement then was the establishment of a partnership work, partnership groups across the State called regional Aboriginal justice adviser committees which were subgroups of the forum, so on those we have community representatives, Aboriginal community, as well as sheriffs, youth justice, police, Community Corrections in those. So they sit together. The chairpersons, the Aboriginal chairpersons community of those then six regional Aboriginal groups sit at the table with the secretary of the department, heads of courts and heads of justice agencies. We’re now up to nine Aboriginal regional Aboriginal justice advisory committees. We also have at the table community head of the Victorian Aboriginal education association group, Muriel Bamblett, who’s the head of the Aboriginal Childcare Agency, Wayne Muir, who’s the CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Antoinette Braybrook, who is the CEO of Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention Legal Service, so it’s an excellent diverse


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

group of both key players from the community in justice side, social, as well as justice agencies and other heads of agencies from across government. And I think we’re now 69, 70 meetings and for me, the – the work of the justice forum and the justice agreement – sorry, the work of the justice forum and the transparency and accountant there is fundamental to how the justice agreement has survived change of Governments.

That was going to be the next question, of course. And is that because it’s so entrenched that it would be difficult, and can demonstrate runs on the board, as it were, that it would be difficult to dismantle it or is there just no political interest in dismantling it?---So in – in 2010 when there was a change of Government, two thousand – there was a change of Government from Labor to the Liberal National Party Coalition. The then incumbent attorney-general Robert Clarke had indicated he was of the position that he wanted to do away with the Koori courts. When he did come in, when he did take up his position as attorney-general after winning the election, his party, I showed him the evidence of the Koori courts and how they had been effective in reducing recidivism, and the following impact on people once you go into the system. I also showed him the cost effectiveness of keeping people, kids out of youth justice, adults out of the prison system, and he was most supportive. And we had a significant growth of the Koori court network during his period as attorney-general as well as continuing to grow the justice forum and agreement, and which has continued to grow and as I mentioned tomorrow, judicial officers and community are meeting on Saturday all day to work out how we grow the courts.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners.

And I take it, just following on from that question, before we go to your present role, in the child protection area - - -?---Yes.

- - - you place a high value on monitoring and record keeping in order to provide the data for evidence based decision-making?---Absolutely. I think evidence and recording of decisions are – both in child protection and youth justice – are fundamental to good practice into transparency and accountability, whether it’s decisions made in child protection as to specific incidents or overall systemic practice, and whether it’s good or bad, you know, the record keeping is fundamental into us maintaining a good system.

Thank you. Just moving now to your present role, you’ve set out in your statement what your functions are but can you explain to the Commissioners what you do, you know, on a day-to-day or weekly basis in fulfilment of those functions?---Okay. So I commenced in – four years ago, and so I was – being the first Commissioner for Aboriginal Children I was able to mould it – mould the position. So my position is mixed between, I believe, very much, community development as well as individual cases and that’s across family support, youth justice and child protection. So the – I assessed when I come into the job, that there was a failure of community advocacy


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and involvement in the child protection side, and through my work and work of others from across community and government, we was key to the development of a Victorian Aboriginal children’s and young persons’ alliance which was the first time that we had a peak body representing the 15, 16 Aboriginal community child organisations of Victoria to provide a combined voice to government. I was also been instrumental amongst others in developing the Aboriginal children’s forum which is modelled on the Aboriginal justice forum, bringing people together from across the sector. Also fundamental in the current development of the Aboriginal children – children’s and family strategy, which is currently in development, which we look to have launched in Queen’s Hall in Parliament in October.

How much of that work is done from your desk in your office?---I am never in my desk. I employ good people. There are no children or Aboriginal community people organisations in my office. I see my job as being out in community, out in youth justice centres, out visiting Aboriginal community controlled organisations where I can get a hands-on understanding. So I spend very little time in the office. I have good staff and I expect them to represent me.

And how do you distinguish your role from the role of the Children’s Commissioner?---So my job is to advocate for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Victoria, primarily vulnerable Aboriginal children and under our Act that relates to children and young people in the child protection and youth justice systems. But I take it much broader. I’m also involved in education side. I see education as fundamental to achieving long-term change. So the – the Commissioner for children and young people is – I think I have a more – I’m more involved in community development and I think whereas that’s not so much the case with the Leanna Buchanan, who’s the principal Commissioner. I hope that answered the question.

Kind of. In terms of the role that you play in community development, how important is it that it’s an Aboriginal person that is in the position?---I think beyond community development, I think it’s fundamental that the person – that there is an Aboriginal Commissioner for young people. In Victoria I broadly know the families. I’ve worked in government since ’65. I know the impact of government policies. I know genealogies. My father, albeit Australian of Greek heritage, was the genealogist for the Victoria Aboriginal community. I know genealogies. I know government. People can relate to me. I have broad connections by blood across the State in most corners. People know me, they trust me, like, and come to me. And also in an important part of my role is as an honest broker. So I can say things that many Aboriginal organisations can’t say to government, fearful of funding.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Funding?---Future funding issues: I can say things people can’t. Also can say things to Aboriginal providers that government can’t say. And I – I’m an independent person, both independent from the community sector as well as government. I see my main stakeholders as children.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: In your role you have some awareness of the impact of the child protection system on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in other jurisdictions outside of Victoria?---I have an understanding. I have – I do certain work with SNAICC and try to make myself available to SNAICC and their activities, given that we don’t have Commissioners in other States, as much as possible.

Do you think that, from what you know, that there is a need for consideration as to whether there should be Aboriginal Children’s Commissioners in other jurisdictions?---There should be a Commissioner for Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander children in every State and Territory and the Commonwealth. I can’t see how my – the work I do was not done prior to my appointment in Victoria. No one – what my position has been able to achieve in the work, I just don’t know – you know, I think per capita the majority of calls that come to the Commission to me are by Aboriginal kin, by grandmothers, and before they wouldn’t call the Commission, but they know that there’s an Aboriginal person here and they know my role. I regularly go out and hold community meetings about my reports, what I found. I regularly go into youth justice centres and meet with boys and girls. I regularly go out and community organisations and talk about the role that I would like them to see to do.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr – can I - - -

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Jackomos, adding to that issue around the need for an Aboriginal Commissioner - - -?---Yes.

- - - is the vast over-representation of children - - -?---Yes.

- - - in particularly – well, both child protection - - -?---Yes.

- - - and youth detention. We had a witness earlier this week describe it as if it was in health terms it would be an epidemic; it was a humanitarian crisis. Do you think that alone is the motivation enough to say we’ve got to fix this problem by having a specialist Commissioner?---Can I say I have said – if I could come to your question, I’ve said that the situation, over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in the youth justice system, in child protection, if it was white children, there would be a national – there would be a state – a national task force to change it. It’s not just their over-representation. It’s about culturally understanding the issues that drive over-representation, the issues that impact on our children. Non-Aboriginal people and – as Commissioners can’t do that, non-Aboriginal child protection workers and people in the justice field can’t do that in respect of whether it’s child protection youth justice, they can’t do that work because they don’t know the issues. They don’t know – they may pretend you can do a two day course in child protection, in cultural competency, but you know, that may give you 5 per cent of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

you know, what’s shake a leg and painting, but it doesn’t tell you responsibilities, social responsibilities, connections, meaning to country. These things can’t be known by non-Aboriginal people no matter how much, how many cross-cultural programs you do.

The issue about the crisis – you know, it is a crisis?---Yes.

I’ve said I’ve run out of adjectives. But I just wondered, the importance of your role as honest broker. You know, we’ve both been in similar positions of - - -?---Yes.

Can you just enlarge a bit on that role about saying things to the Aboriginal community - - -?---Yes.

- - - that no one else can say, basically?---Yes. I can say to an organisation, and I do say, that they aren’t performing. I can say, with empathy, to families, “You’ve got to pull your socks up.” I can – I can say – I can represent the community in my role as Commissioner, the community organisations can’t do, being fearful of repercussions.

And that is a really important role, isn’t it? Honest broker, you called it?---Yes. I think as an honest broker I can get to the heart of things that other people will beat around the bush.

Like – I know Mr McAvoy will finally get to it - - -?---Yes.

- - - but the work you did on that 1,000 children?---Yes.

It would be hard for anyone else to do that sort of work?---It would be hard for anyone else. Can I say it was very hard for me.

Totally?---After doing that it – I think it changed my life along the way to – one is that took us a number of years to do, where we looked into 980 children, but it’s – in looking at the children for each child we looked at the genograms of each child. And along with this, at the same time I do this, I do child death inquiries of Aboriginal children. And you can see through the deaths of Aboriginal children, whether they’re usually babies or others, I know things. I – I mightn’t know – I won’t know the child. I won’t know their parents. But I am likely related to their grandparents if they’re Victorian Koori. I know the networks and then when I go out to do Task Force 1000 and I looked at the children, it was very hard for me not to know things that were happening that child protection weren’t telling me.

Yes?---When child protection, you know, were telling me that they couldn’t place a child with kin and I know the grandmothers, or I know the grandfathers, and I knew them because I was Aboriginal from that community, you can’t get that elsewhere, that knowledge and intelligence.

Just, like, it’s pretty brave to do what you’ve done because you uncovered a lot of things that are not quite positive for our mob in Victoria, you know? I’ll wait for Mr


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

McAvoy to get there, but I just want to talk about how you said it affected you. We’re confronted with similar things up here - - -?---Yes.

- - - in the Northern Territory with this Royal Commission about some things aren’t so positive?---Yes.

- - - for the mob?---So things that affected me on task force, one was hearing why the child was removed, how the child was removed, the lack of respect for kin. What also affected me was poor practice, when kids didn’t have to be removed, they could have been with kin and returned home earlier. When children are necessarily have not – not connected community and culture, when children who have been in for 10 years in the child protection system and haven’t had the benefit of State funded Aboriginal family led decision-making conferences because the State or community organisations had failed to fill positions funded to ensure that happened. And community – and some community organisations wouldn’t call that out, nor would government. I was able to call it out as an honest broker.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr Jackomos, if I can just take you back to your role, from what you’ve said I take it that that position as an honest broker requires you to have a degree of independence from government and certainty in your positions?---The position needs to be set in legislation, has to be locked in legislation, that it is an independent position that reports to Parliament, that has powers to undertake own motion inquiries, that has resources to enable you to effect your responsibilities. They are some of the fundamental – you know, you can have the powers to undertake own motion inquiries but unless you have the adequate resources and excellent staff to enable you to do that - - -

And your level of resourcing at the moment?---I have four – I have four full-time officers, far less than I should have, and I – I have sought more staff. I haven’t received a reply from government.

In terms of making your position as effective as it could be, are you able to estimate how many staff you would need?---I would – at a minimum I would think a position would be at least eight to 10 covering child protection, youth justice. Also, you know, there are just as many vulnerable Aboriginal children who aren’t connected with the child protection system who are out there who are couch-surfing, who are disengaged from community, disengaged from their families. We have significant numbers of homeless children. I would like to do more work around that which I’m not doing because of resources.

Thank you. It appears from your statement to be a number of primary mechanisms that are used in the Aboriginal child protection setting in Victoria to – for


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

engagement and development of strategy and that’s the Aboriginal and young – children and young person’s forum?---Yes.

And the alliances you’ve referred to, the Aboriginal children and young people’s alliance?---Yes. Also Victorian Aboriginal child care agency, which isn’t part of the alliance but a core part of the justice forum – children’s forum.

That process in some way replicates what occurs in the Aboriginal Justice Agreement setting?---Yes. I’ve seen the success of the justice forum and the success of what will become the children’s forum is having all the right players at the table. So it’s not just the Aboriginal – so for the children’s forum we have the alliance, not only the alliance but every community organisation – Aboriginal community that provides out-of-home care services for children sits at the table, the Victorian Aboriginal child – including Victoria Aboriginal Child Care Agency. We also have heads of major non-Aboriginal agencies such as Berry Street, McKillop, Anglicare, now Auschild, Uniting Care is joining us. So it’s important that you get everybody involved. I just didn’t want Aboriginal people at the table. I want everybody who’s got a responsibility for Aboriginal children, not just Aboriginal, but universal services have to play their role as well as government at the table.

And I take it then that the proposed strategic partnership process is intended to be a child protection version of an Aboriginal Justice Agreement, or - - -?---Well, but better. So I see it as being successful, as being a tripartite document. It is the intent of the community and the non-Aboriginal community sector that it survive change of government so we’re looking for bipartisan support. If not for the document, at least the principles of the document.

Are there some very fundamental goals of that strategic partnership in terms of where you want to be in the next five or 10 years?---Yes. So it is a target within the Aboriginal children’s forum which will go into the strategy is that all Aboriginal children in out-of-home care are transitioned from government and non-Aboriginal sector organisations to Aboriginal community controlled organisations by 2021, in five years time from last year. Our target for the end of this year is 30 per cent. So at the moment only 15 per cent of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Victoria are with Aboriginal community organisations. The targeted is by the end of the year that will be 30 and by 2021 that will be 100 per cent of the target that was mutually agreed to by government and community. So that is happening. We’ve also got a process in place called section 18 under the Children, Young Persons Families Act, Victoria, whereby the secretary of the department of health and human services will delegate – I’m not sure of the correct term – guardianship powers to Aboriginal – to the CEO of Aboriginal organisations to provide guardianship for children. So at the moment - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Jackomos, the provisions on the screen in front of you?---Yes.

If you were comfortable just glancing through it.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: I propose to come to that in a moment, Mr Jackomos. Yes.

I just wanted to ask you about that particular target - - -?---Yes.

- - - of all Aboriginal children placed in the Aboriginal community - - -?---Yes.

- - - organisations sector within five years?---Yes.

There are many targets that you could have focussed on?---Yes.

But there must be some rationale behind choosing that particular target. Is it the case that if that result is in place, then it means that other things must have also occurred?---So I – we know at the children’s forum that children will be reunited, reunified with family quicker when they’re in Aboriginal organisations. We know that they are more likely to place with kin. You know, local community organisations will know who are the Aboriginal people in the community. So they’re more – so we’re likely to have – we will have a greater compliance with Aboriginal child placement principle when the children are in our care. We know they’ll go home earlier. We know that they’ll have stronger contact. They’ll have stronger connection to culture, to community, to family.

And do you know that from the evidence obtained from undertaking the Task Force 1000 review of those 980 files?---I know it from the evidence from Task Force 1000. I know it from the work after that and alongside. I’ve seen it from, so we’ve had section 18 pilots with the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and the Bendigo and district Aboriginal corporation where we have seen children who have been on section 18 guardianship placed there, returned home at a higher rate than if they were with child protection or community sector organisation. We have the evidence. And so does the department.

Thank you. I just want to take you now to section 18, if we can have that back on the screen, section 18 of the Children and Youth and Families Act, Victoria. The existence of this provision and the capacity to delegate to Aboriginal agencies creates a little bit of a conundrum for Aboriginal communities; is that fair to say?---Sorry, I apologise. The correct term is authorise – section authorises. Yes, it does. Particularly with smaller communities, because it actually moves – it’s more of a child protection role provided to communities. So it is – it is absolutely up to the local communities whether they want to take on section 18, because unless you do it right, unless you take the community along with you, unless the community own this process, then it could destroy a community and a community organisation. So – so an important part of this task, section 18, is to have the community fully aware of what it means for their community. So I know – so we started with VACA, a Bendigo District Aboriginal Corporation, the CEO, Raylene Harradine, did work with her community informing them about what are the consequences of section 18, what will it mean for children, what will it mean for family. Also, there was an important part with working with her workers, who were concerned about what does this mean for them. But she – they have agreed, the community have agreed, that the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

community should do that. It’s up to the children being placed whether the family, whether they want that, the child to be placed with Bendigo And District or child protection. And my understanding is everybody wants the child – children to go with BADAC. The similar Ballarat, Ballarat Aboriginal Corporation and District, they are currently having those discussions with their community now. 12 months ago, Karen Heap Atkinson was very much opposed to coming to her community. She’s had the discussions in her community and she along with Rudolph Kirby up in Mildura District Aboriginal Service, Mallee District are saying “We want it to come here.” So a task for the children’s forum is to find two more communities by December this year and that I think most likely will be Mildura and Ballarat, so – but communities have to do the homework.

In terms of developing both the community support and the capacity and trust to make the sort of decisions involved in the section 18 delegated authority, is there a pathway that community organisations might follow in terms of getting certain activities or functions right?---So the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency has been working with Bendigo about the lessons that they’ve learnt. There’s been a significant work there. Also in ramping up the skills level, management, computer systems, Bendigo has been working with Anglicare in Bendigo so it’s important to have those working – those great work between Aboriginal organisations and the big community sector organisations. A key part of this work for Aboriginal organisations and for the government is to ensure that there is – that we have more than adequate funding for management and workers inside. You can’t do section 18 unless you’ve got a fully funded model that doesn’t take shortcuts. You also must have strong governance. I would never support, and I’ve said it, I would never support section 18 or even children under case management in the transition going to any Aboriginal organisation that hasn’t got rock solid governance. I don’t want to remove – I don’t want to have a child transition from one place to another where they’re going to be worse off, even if it’s Aboriginal.

Just a moment ago you talked about the need for resourcing for those organisations - - -?---Yes.

- - - that are taking on those functions. I mean, one of the issues that arises is a question as to whether, having left the arena, so to speak, government might take the view that it can wash its hands and the community will now look after the child protection issues. Are there any safeguards against that apart from resourcing?---So it’s critical that government doesn’t walk away, and I’ve seen things happen before where government have passed responsibilities for programs and services over to community and they’ve walked away. In section 18 the department still retains ultimate responsibility. The ..... for the child. There’s still requirements to undertake annual accreditation reports. Government will still receive the incident reports as well as myself. I intend to do some inquiries into how section 18 is going that will be public documents. So it’s essential that government doesn’t walk away and it’s my belief that the Victorian Government won’t. But - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: It’s just another argument for your position because, like you’ve said, many – a few times now, that part of that’s going to be monitoring the performance of Aboriginal organisations?---Yes.

Here?---Yes. So a part of both my reviews in the child’s best interests and always was, always, was just – was about – as much about reviewing the practice of Aboriginal organisations as well as child protection and non-Aboriginal organisations in their practice for Aboriginal children. So those inquiries weren’t specific to the State Government. It was also in how community sector, non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people do their job as well.

MR McAVOY: You’ve made some observations about the insight you can bring to the genograms?---Yes.

And the decisions that have been made over time in respect of the children and families. Are you able to also make some observation about the rate of notification and what might be the drivers of the increasing rate of notification and substantiation as it’s occurring?---So in our work we identified that close to 90 per cent of children were being removed for both family violence and alcohol and drug, parental mental health, 60 per cent, and in the family violence side it was predominantly male perpetrated. And it could have been Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal perpetrator. The – the mother could have been Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. But in all times the child is Koori. So we know that. But if you look at the levels of removal, I think currently in Victoria it’s around 80 per cent, 80 out of 1,000, but we have communities in Victoria where it’s well up into 160 if not more out of 1,000. So you can see the impact of past government policies on the inter-generational trauma, how it’s affecting our communities. So we have a community in inner Gippsland centred around Morwell, Traralgon, that is, you know, well up into 160. The average for the State is 79, something, out of 100,000, but we have communities below that. And then you look at, in the Gippsland, say why is it so high? Most of the people in inner Gippsland are Gunaikurnai, who have – and the majority of them, old families, have come from Lake Tyers Aboriginal trust, where the Victoria State Government controlled people’s lives up until 1969, 1970. They controlled who come and went. They had the padlock on the gate. They controlled your employment. They controlled families. And that has impacted directly on the significant high rates in inner Gippsland. You can look at other communities. If you – from my own community, the Yorta Yorta, we walked off of Cummeragunja mission in 1939, the great majority, and camped on the river banks between Shepparton and Mooroopna, where we accessed education and employment, and you can see the difference between the Yorta Yorta, home of Sir Douglas Nicholls, William Cooper, Bill and Eric Onus, Auntie Marj Tucker, Geraldine Briggs. And you see there – for me that was very much about having access to employment, education and getting away from repressive government regimes as opposed to the Gunaikurnai, who really didn’t escape that until 1969. They have – and I would imagine those impacts of government policies play out across Australia, including here.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And the Yorta Yorta took control?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

When they walked off Cummeragunja?---Yes.

And that’s so important, isn’t it?---Yes.

MR McAVOY: Is it fair to make the observation that that level of – that capacity to identify those trends and those family connections and connected with the Aboriginal history of Victoria is something that an Aboriginal Commissioner - - -?---Yes.

- - - such as yourself is better placed to do - - -?---Yes.

- - - than somebody who is not an Aboriginal person?---But I would say it’s not just an Aboriginal Commissioner, but it’s an Aboriginal Commissioner from the area. From the – so while an Aboriginal Commissioner from elsewhere outside of Victoria would bring – absolutely bring certain skills, having the knowledge of community and local politics and not just having the knowledge but knowing – the community trusting you and knowing you is fundamental.

And your observations about inter-generational trauma lead to questions about early intervention and primary prevention programs?---Yes.

And the Commissioners have heard some evidence about the need for those sorts of programs. How important is that given your evidence and how important is it to be delivered by Aboriginal community controlled organisations?---Yeah. So for me, having adequately and more than adequately funded family services is critical to – and wrap around services for young families is critical to reducing children being removed, and we have an excellent model run by Mallee District Aboriginal Services under the CEO of Rudolph Kirby that have developed a model of wrap around services so a young mum, expecting mum, she walks through that one door and in that corridor there are dental hygiene, there’s family violence, there’s perpetrator programs, there’s accommodation, there’s family services, and by wrapping around those services, the model that Rudolph has developed with his workers has significantly reduced children being removed. It’s fundamental. It’s where people can trust the – going there and that’s why I believe that children transitioned back to our Aboriginal community organisations that have those wrap around services will not only prevent children being removed, because the work that they do in growing strong families will also return children home quicker by working with the families.

Thank you. I just want to ask you some questions about the role of case workers that you’re able to observe particularly from your Task Force 1000 research in terms of communication and transparency of decision-making at the child protection and child placement level - - -?---Yes.

- - - in particular. Is – has there been criticism of the degree of transparency of decision-making in the Victorian context?---In task force and in my work I have seen some excellent practice by Koori and non-Koori workers. I’ve seen excellent leadership by Koori and non-Koori workers in areas across the State, but it’s not across the board, and I have seen significant gaps in practice, poor practice in the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

child protection sector. I have seen where decisions have been made contrary to legislation. So in our – in the Children’s Youth Families Act there is legislation around a service called ACSASS, Aboriginal Child Specialist Support Service, and where they are required under legislation to be immediately contacted by child protection once a child is identified as being Aboriginal. And we have seen, both – in both inquiries that I tabled – where there was a failure to timely notify ACSASS to involve them, and the important role that ACSASS does in helping to identify kin. It’s also about identify alternatives to removal. And so this service is delivered both by Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and Mallee District Aboriginal Services. And the role of ACSASS is to maximise compliance with the Aboriginal child placement principle, and we have seen across the State where that has – where the system has failed to do that. And that is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability, and it continues to this day. While there is – while the Government has committed more funds to recruit more ACSASS workers, it’s not just about funds. It’s about ensuring that there’s timely notification so you get community checks and balances in place, but there’s also, in doing that, there’s work where children I’ve seen haven’t been identified as Aboriginal for years afterwards, where there’s been – where we’ve saw the department and its – where the agencies have attempted to de-identify children and the lack of accountability there, where child protection workers have told me that they didn’t ask about their identification of Aboriginal children because they didn’t want to embarrass the parents by asking them if they were Aboriginal. These all – and there’s that. There’s where I believe that children haven’t been identified as Aboriginal because then they have to involve VACCA and other Aboriginal organisations, they have to look for Aboriginal kin, they then have to develop Aboriginal child placement, Aboriginal cultural support plans.

If I can stop you there for a second?---Yes.

In the report that you did, the second own motion report, you referred – I think you used a term of “cultural safety”?---Yes.

Do the processes that you’ve just described describe an absence of cultural safety?---They absolutely show evidence of a failure of cultural safety.

And what do you mean by “cultural safety”?---By “cultural safety” is where Aboriginal workers, Aboriginal families, Aboriginal children can be confident that the system will not only comply but support, promote Aboriginality of Aboriginal children and families or they’ll comply with the requirements, where they’ll respect the need and respect Aboriginal kin and placements, workers. I had a – the most senior Aboriginal person in the Department of Health and Human Services told me two days ago that she was resigning because the place wasn’t culturally safe. So it’s not, culturally safe goes beyond – it goes to the workplace. And in developing a Koori friendly culturally safe place you’ve got to start in workplace to ensure that the policies and programs are delivered as they should be delivered.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So is it fair to say that through the work of the alliance and the forum that there is progress happening in terms of the philosophy and at the policy level?---Yes.

Are you seeing that reflected in the front line and team leader level?---I am seeing terrific work being done by child protection leadership management. I am still – it’s too early for me to say that I’ve seen significant change in practice.

Are there any things that you could recommend as being able to facilitate a more rapid change at the front line level?---Yeah. I think you’ve got to start with leadership in the department. While Aboriginal children make up 22 per cent of – 22 per cent of all children in out-of-home care in Victoria, we do not have one Aboriginal executive officer in program delivery or policy making. I’m hoping to see a – I recommended that the Government undertake urgent work around developing strategies and they’ve – so, and they’ve responded with strategies. We’re still to see those appointments input at the very top levels of child protection, and for me when you get Aboriginal people at the highest level they then cannot only attract good Aboriginal workers to come to that environment, they also modify behaviour, practice. Areas where I did see good practice in Task Force 1000 was when I couldn’t identify the presenters to me were from the local co-op or from child protection. When I had to lean over to the child protection director, say “Is that one of yours or is that one of the community workers?” That’s when I saw the best practice. When I could see Aboriginal workers from the co-op go and make themselves a cup of tea in child protection or vice versa is where I saw best practice and I saw best practice in areas across the State but many areas I didn’t see that. Yes. As – as we have greater partnerships and I was – I’m confident of seeing better practice across the State.

Thank you. I’ve just one last question for you before you will be asked some questions by other counsel. You’ve publicly gone on the record as having formed the view that the state of the child protection system in Victoria demonstrates institutional racism and an institutional bias against Aboriginal children. Can you just explain the basis on which you’ve made that observation?---When – when 91 per cent of Aboriginal children are placed with non-Aboriginal carers, as identified in the Productivity Commission’s report on Government services, when there’s a failure to comply with Aboriginal child placement principle and the disregard of potential Koori kin, a failure to comply with the cultural safety plan requirements as put out in legislation, when there’s a lack of management accountability in ensuring compliance with Aboriginal child placement requirements, when there’s a failure to develop a diverse workforce and total lack of Aboriginal employment at executive levels, where our children make up 22 per cent, when key data involvement Aboriginal children in out-of-home care has been kept from the Aboriginal community in the past, when there’s a failure to ensure proper levels of counselling and health needs for Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, when it is culturally safe for Aboriginal workers and executive, when there’s lower levels of funding to ACCOs for family service than provided to non-Aboriginal organisations, when there’s a lack of identification of Aboriginal children in a timely manner, when I see


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

de-identification of children, when I see racist attitudes of child protection staff, this helps me form that view of institutional racism and bias.

And knowing what you know from your long – your long period in Aboriginal affairs in various jurisdictions in Australia and knowing what you know from your work with SNAICC - - -?---Yes.

- - - are you able to make any observation as to whether those same circumstances exist in other jurisdictions in Australia?---I would – I would say yes. I say yes. From my discussions at SNAICC forums, at my discussions with other Aboriginal people I know from across the State I would suggest that these very well would be found in other areas of the country.

And if they were found to exist in other areas of the country, even not all of them but a number of them, you would say that that would indicate there’s a degree of institutional racism and bias - - -?---Yes.

- - - in those jurisdictions?---Yes. And while – while the most senior levels or the Minister, Jen Mikakos, have not said that there’s institutional bias or racism, I have had it said it exists by next level down. I’ve had people say to me “Yes”, people who have the most – some of the most senior people in the department have said in forums institutional racism exists in our area and what are we going to do about it.

Before I sit down, I might just ask you another question about that. How important is it that there is acknowledgement from the government agencies and the people involved in policy development and program delivery that such a situation exists before you can attempt to address those circumstances?---It is key to improving practice, key to improving outcomes for our kids. No matter how good your policies are, no matter how good your legislation is, no matter how many dollars you allocate, if you have poor practice that arises from institutional racism, as it does, then we will never have a good service for Aboriginal children and other children. You just can’t achieve that unless you confront and own up that there’s institutional racism and bias within – within the child protection system. And the youth justice system.

Thank you. They are my questions in-chief, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr McAvoy. Dr Dwyer?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [11.57 am]

DR DWYER: Commissioner, as you know, my name is Peggy Dwyer and I appear on behalf of NAAJA. In relation to your evidence about the over-representation of indigenous children in Victoria, are you able to tell the Commissioners to what extent does poverty, general poverty contribute?---I think poverty and not just poverty in itself, but disengagement from society, disengagement from the socio-

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4877 A.M. JACKOMOS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

economic treasures of this nation, I think, are significant contributors to the level of family violence, to disempowerment of our community. For me – and for me, critical to – critical to improving outcomes for families and children is education, employment and escaping disengagement.

At paragraph 33.6 you talk about how there’s a need for early interventions to support families. Really, if we’re going to address the trend away from Aboriginal children being taken away, do we need to have early interventions in relation to each of those areas you talked about, education and housing and health?---Yes. And they are best delivered by Aboriginal community organisations and if I refer back to my comments about the excellent work done by many of our organisations, but particularly Mallee District Aboriginal Services, about the wrap around services where we’ve seen up there they showed evidence which they gave to the secretaries board of the Victorian departments how – it was something like over 250 children were diverted from child protection through building strong healthy families in wrap around services delivered by Aboriginal community organisations.

And you refer to, I think, around 15 ACCOs that work in Victoria?---Yes.

You know the Northern Territory doesn’t have a single one at present?---Yes.

And it used to have one that was then – was de-funded. How important is it to have Aboriginal control and leadership of those organisations in terms of addressing the mistrust of communities with welfare?---It is critical. Aboriginal people and Aboriginal designed programs and delivery are critical to changing and – but it’s got to be correctly funded organisations with rock solid governance, with the best management, best government systems, but they need to be empowered and resourced by government for that to happen.

I prefaced that question with issues of mistrust. Is it your experience that there is a significant amount of mistrust from Aboriginal communities towards welfare, if I can call it that, in Victoria?---Yes. And – and I hear it every day. I have – I have – I have kin. I have grandparents, I have uncles and aunties who call me – call my office every day to talk about the mistrust and the disrespect that they have as kin and kinship carers. We have it every day.

What’s the impact on trust if an organisation like Karu, for example, an ACCO, is funded, or underfunded to perform a service and then funding is removed?---I think it just increases the distrust of government. I think it’s a gut-wrencher for community and families. I saw – in both my reports but particularly Always Was, Always Will Be Koori children, I saw where community sector organisations, while many were good, I saw where many of them provided culturally unsafe practices for our children. I saw that. And I have evidence of it.

And - - -?---And if it happens in Victoria, it happens elsewhere.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

If a service is effectively underfunded or under-supported, it can be set up to fail; is that fair?---Yes. And in my various jobs over many years, more than four and a half decades, I’ve seen where government has underfunded and we’ve seen organisations fail. And we’ve seen, in Victoria, figures given at a public forum, ministerial forum two weeks ago where Aboriginal services in Victoria only received 7 per cent of their allocation for family services, yet our children make up 22 per cent of kids in care. And that is purely where government overfunds non-Aboriginal organisations and underfunds Aboriginal organisations.

Commissioner, at paragraph 36 you refer to the institutional, or the inherent racism and institutional bias in relation to funding models for Aboriginal organisations across the board?---Yes.

You’ve seen that in legal services?---Yes.

The underfunding of aboriginal legal services, medical services, etcetera?---Mmm.

Is it true that in order to support children in care, each of those services that link with Aboriginal kids in care need to be properly funded to provide the service?---Absolutely. I – I have recommendations in Always Was, Always Will Be, that say all Aboriginal children in out-of-home care should have their health needs met first and continuing health needs met by Aboriginal health services. I can say in Victoria, and I suspect it elsewhere, health services aren’t just about providing health needs. They are cultural centres and particularly where the kids can go and play with other Koori kids. It’s where they’re most likely to meet kin, their cousins, because particularly where, in Victoria, where so many of our kids are placed out of community, health services are cultural centres for our children. We also have health and medical specialists there who understand the particular health needs of children, cardio, hearing, child specialists in respect of trauma. Only specialists with that training which when we pull together an Aboriginal health service can provide that. But when a non-Aboriginal carer or even Aboriginal carer goes into health service there’s a notice board, what’s happening in the sporting word, what’s happening in cultural. In Victoria a lot of our health services provide early years programs. I have made recommendations that every Aboriginal child should go to an Aboriginal early years program where they can play in the sandpit with other kids. So cultural support plans aren’t just taking the kids on a NAIDOC march or showing them a boomerang. It’s about the kids playing in the sand and with other kids, particularly their cousins and kin where they can have lifelong relationships with them.

Commissioner, you call for a – that leads to my next question which is paragraph 44. You call for a deeper understanding of indigenous culture?---Yes.

And is your experience that despite the goodwill of many people within the department in Victoria there is a lack of deep understanding of cultural connection by white people, by non-Aboriginal people?---Yes. And, you know, we have some very good people with good intentions but we need a workforce, we need an Aboriginal


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

workforce that’s reflective of our community and saying that our kids should be with our community.

Dr – sorry, Commissioner, outside, I had an opportunity to tell you about Dr Fejo-King?---Yes.

A Larrakia woman who’s done a PhD on – called Let’s Talk Kinship about the Larrakia and Warumungu kinship systems. She says at – I’m quoting from paragraph 15 of her statement – that the use of genograms in the Northern Territory by child protection agencies – well, she’s including Territory Families – is inappropriate when dealing with Aboriginal children and families. And she goes on in her statement to describe the much more broad kinship system, including skin name groups?---Yes.

As a Yorta Yorta man, you would defer to her expertise in local areas; is that - - -?---Absolutely. I only – I only say I have degree of knowledge of the Victorian systems, and I would absolutely defer to her knowledge as being a local woman.

So as an Aboriginal person can I suggest that you understand the complexity and depth - - -?---Yes.

- - - of Aboriginal culture such that you know you’ve got to go to the local experts on the ground to understand kinship?---Yes.

Do you think that’s widely understood by non-Aboriginal people working in the system?---I don’t think it is. You can’t – non-Aboriginal people can’t do that. You can’t do it, and unfortunately a lot of people in child protection system think that you can do a two day cross-cultural program and be an expert. You might see, “That’s a dot painting,” or, “This is a boomerang,” but you don’t – you know, 95 per cent of our culture is below the surface. It’s about your social responsibilities, it’s about how you greet, it’s your connection to country. These things you can’t pick up in two days or a week or a year. These are things that you learn from a child.

Commissioner, do you see occasions where those two day workshops that you have referred to can, in fact, lead to an overconfidence along non-Aboriginal people?---Yes.

So they don’t know what they don’t know?---Absolutely. I’ve seen it. You know, people say, “I did this course, you know, I’m qualified.”

Should the main message at those courses be from NT families that you aren’t going to understand Aboriginal culture deeply. You need to talk to local experts on the ground and find out about kinship systems?---You need to talk to local experts. You need to have local experts involved in the process of child removal, understanding families. You can never learn as much as we know. You may think you do but you don’t. And that’s why – and as part of this is we need to involve local community absolutely in the whole continuum of child protection family services.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Commissioner, do you also think that there’s a place for whatever courses are delivered in terms of cross-cultural knowledge to teach non-Aboriginal people the history of the generations of trauma and the impact of further removal?---Yes. So it’s – you need to understand policies. And it needs to be delivered by local people, local leaders. Local leaders need to – and people need to deliver the program.

Commissioner, I’m getting the wind-up. Your Honour, might I just have one more topic with a couple of questions attached.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Dr Dwyer.

DR DWYER: Commissioner, you spoke about the importance of visibility, and your visibility extends to going to detention centres pretty regularly?---Yes.

How often would you be at a detention centre in Victoria?---I would go every couple of weeks but I have my staff – my workers go every week to Youth Detention Centres. I have independent visitors, Aboriginal, who will go to meet. I have kin who call me up, I’ve got an example, last week – two weeks ago I went to [REDACTED] Youth Detention Centre where a young Aboriginal boy suffering significant mental health issues wouldn’t come out of his cell. I rang his [REDACTED]. I knew his [REDACTED]. I said, “Can you come on Saturday? So I can come with you so the boy can see me together with you.” And I went there with his [REDACTED]. And the boy said with his – he saw the association, he said, “Please don’t go. Stay with me.” And I said, “No. I’ll leave you with your [REDACTED] and I’ll come back.”

Commissioner the fact that you knew how to contact [REDACTED] just underscores the importance of an Aboriginal Commissioner?---Yes. Yes. Yes.

And the final question is you obviously appreciate the geography of the Northern Territory is very broad?---Yes.

It’s important for a Northern Territory Aboriginal Commissioner to still have visibility to the extent possible?---Yes.

In those circumstances, might it be necessary to think about an Aboriginal Commissioner in the north and south so that they can - - -?---Yes. I think that would be critical. For me, my job, I’ve been able to do my job because I know communities. Victoria, you can probably fit four or five Victorias in the NT, in geographic – it’s critical that you know the community and the community know you and the issues.

Thank you very much. Thank you, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Dr Dwyer. Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [12.11 pm]

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4881 A.M. JACKOMOS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: Commissioner, as you know, my name’s Felicity Graham and I appear for CAALAS. In Victoria there are a range of different systems in place or apparatus to promote compliance with the Aboriginal child placement principle?---Yes.

And you’ve mentioned ACSASS, the Aboriginal Child Specialist Advice Support Service. That’s an important part of ensuring that the Aboriginal child placement principle is honoured in Victoria; is that right?---Yes.

And it’s important or critical that that structural apparatus is enshrined in the legislation?---Yes.

And in your view that structural factor allows or promotes the involvement of the Aboriginal communities to identify alternatives to removal?---Yes.

And where there is removal, to ensure that the child is more likely to be placed with an Aboriginal carer?---Yes.

And so that’s an important factor – I withdraw that. The ACSASS is critical in making sure that their advice is available and that regard is had to their advice at every significant decision point?---Yes.

And it’s critical that they are involved at the earliest stage possible?---As soon as the child’s identified as being Aboriginal, they have to be contacted and involved, and participate.

Is it critical that the legislation require that involvement as a mandatory requirement at that very earliest stage?---Yes, it is.

So that there can be accountability when it’s not met?---Yes. And it’s essential that that service is based in the community to keep that independence.

In Victoria there are the two services, the Mallee District Aboriginal services based in the Mildura region, and then VACCA that covers the rest of the State?---Yes.

They’re both funded by government, is that right, in terms of providing that ACSASS service?---Funded by State Government. Yes. Correct.

It’s critical for that service to work effectively that it’s funded sufficiently?---Yes. And I was critical of the funding in my recommendations, in my final recommendations and the government has responded and providing further funds to enable additional workers to be employed to maximise compliance.

One of the other structural aspects of the Victorian system that promotes compliance with the Aboriginal child placement principle is the Aboriginal family led decision-making meetings system?---Correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that meeting is required to occur at both a substantiation of harm phase and also at the phase of there being a protection order made; is that right?---And on a regular basis prior to permanency, it’s critical that they happen.

And indeed, they should happen, those family led decision-making meetings as early as possible - - -?---Yes.

- - - to avoid removal?---Yes.

Is that enshrined in the legislation in Victoria?---I’m not sure whether it’s in legislation but it’s agreed – it’s practice that it – I think it happened that we organise it within 48 hours of a child being removed.

You would support that Aboriginal family led decision-making process being enshrined in legislation so that there can be accountability?---Yes. But it’s also important in Victoria for each child to have an AFLDM. There is a community funded Aboriginal family led decision convenor as well as a government convener, so there’s two conveners from community and government for every AFLDM.

And it’s critical to the success of that process that there is that partnership - - -?---Yes.

- - - between the Aboriginal community and the department?---Yes. And that’s to provide support to both the family as well as to ensuring there’s openness and transparency.

The – another aspect of whether or not there’s compliance with the Aboriginal child placement principle in Victoria is whether there’s a completed cultural support plan for Aboriginal children?---Yes.

And that’s critical to promoting connections to Aboriginal family, community and culture for Aboriginal children?---Yes. So we had previously to March last year only children in guardianship required one. Changes to the Act now require all Aboriginal children in out-of-home care to have a cultural support plan. But it’s not just the plan; it’s the integrity that goes with it. It’s about whether it’s a lived experience. So cultural support plans are, for me, a piece of paper. It’s the experiences that go with it, and that’s the important part.

And the piece of paper can’t just be a tick a box or cookie cutter approach - - -?---No.

It has to be individualised?---Which it has been in the past.

The only publicly reported indication of compliance with the Aboriginal principle child placement principal in Victoria is the type of care that the child is placed with, and your view is that that’s inadequate?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Why is that?---Because it doesn’t give a breakdown between kith and kin, so we’ve seen where to by – to work around Aboriginal child placement principle people are put down as kin. Also it doesn’t identify whether the kin are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. And while I’ve seen some extremely good non-Aboriginal kin, I’ve also seen white kin who’ve denied Aboriginal children their cultural connections. Also you’ve seen child protection are more likely to place children with white kin than Aboriginal kin contrary to – to good Aboriginal kin, contrary to the Aboriginal child placement principle.

Of course, you would expect compliance with the principal to be a key priority of any child protection agency across the country?---Yes. I expect 100 per cent compliance.

And you would expect there to be internally regular reporting in a detailed way on compliance with the intent of the principle?---Yes.

And also public reporting on compliance with the principle, for example, in annual reports?---Yes.

Central to your findings of the in best – in the best interests of – in the child’s best interests report, was that there was strong compliance on a policy and program side but minimal compliance in practice?---Yes.

What advice do you have about closing that gap between what the system intends to occur and what actually occurs in practice?---I think ACSASS have to be identified straightaway, but before ACSASS we must have child protection have the question, “Is the child Aboriginal?” Because ACSASS, cultural support plans, AFLDMs, don’t happen unless the child is identified as Aboriginal at the critical first – at notification, and that’s where we see the gap in practice in many cases, where it’s not asked.

If you assume that it’s easy to identify whether a child is Aboriginal or not, what advice do you have about making sure that there’s not this wide gap between what the system intends and what happens in practice?---One is ACSASS but greater – greater accountability, so – so I have people who tell me that they feel threatened or they don’t feel supported in taking it up. So I won’t – I want ACSASS workers to tell their management to tell me if they aren’t being contacted at the right time. So there needs to be openness and we need to have greater reports from ACSASS into when it’s not happening.

One of the other system barriers that you identified was that management were overly reliant on staff being personally responsible for compliance?---Yes.

And that there were no systems - - -?---Yes.

- - - or processes in place to identify noncompliance and then address it?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What advice do you have for managers in Territory Families who are over-reliant on staff or overconfident about staff’s abilities to achieve compliance?---One step is to have greater Aboriginal employment as workers who know families. Two is greater feedback from – and I’m not sure of the system here, whether there’s an ACSASS system here in place, where the checks and balances, which undermines for me the process. There needs to be, and it’s difficult not knowing the system here but it’s critical that there are other reports from departments. When you start to see – when you know in an area that there’s an Aboriginal population of so many, and where that – where you’re not seeing – where the numbers are underrepresented, I would be – I’d be looking and saying something’s going on here, why have we had a drop in the numbers of Aboriginal children, without having an understanding of are there other initiatives happening.

You say in your statement at paragraph 7 that you achieved a significant growth of the Koori workforce in the Department of Justice?---Yes.

And its agencies?---Yes.

How did you achieve that?---I achieved it by starting with a commitment from the attorney-general, Rob Hulls, who was absolutely committed to us doing our work, through leadership, departmental leadership, Penny Armitage, given the power. It’s also about having the most senior person you can get who then goes out. We ran job fairs, we went out to school fairs, attracted – we had scholarship programs. The Department of Justice with Justice Jeffrey Eames: we helped set up the Tarwirri Indigenous Lawyers and Law Students Association to promote mentoring. We had a whole range but I just didn’t target people at base grade employment. I went for the most senior Aboriginal people I can get in all areas, in courts, in police, in corrections, in policy, program delivery. I went for the most senior people to develop that it had to be Koori friendly environment, and then you can attract other people. You can attract your apprentices, but it’s also about nurturing them, so it’s not just recruiting. It’s nurturing, providing a culturally safe place where they want to stay and they want to tell other Kooris to come and work in justice.

And it’s really important to ensure that Aboriginal people are attracted to fill leadership positions in government agencies?---Yes. And it’s not just at front line. You know, we need Aboriginal people developing policies, and that’s not policies not just for black fellows, but for everyone. You know, we need at the most senior levels development policies; providing advice to Ministers and secretaries in briefs, for me, is essential. Unfortunately in many government agencies across the nation, they concentrate on base grade recruitment, cadets and short-term things where after 12 months you’re out the door. It’s about growing your staff, giving them the tenure that they need.

If a department has a reputation has being a culturally unsafe workplace will that be deterrent for Aboriginal people?---Absolutely.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And critical to achieving a culturally safe workplace is one where Aboriginal staff feel listened to and that their knowledge and expertise is valued?---Yes. And it’s about ensuring, so we have the Aboriginal justice forum. We’ve recently had youth justice come over to us from DHS to Justice. Koori workers are saying they – in youth justice who have just transferred, saying that they haven’t been involved. Spoke to head of youth justice and justice now – they have to come to the Aboriginal justice forum. They can’t learn unless they’re at the table, listening.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY [12.24 pm]

MR McAVOY: Two matters in re-examination arising from some questions of Dr Dwyer’s, Commissioners.

Mr Jackomos, you were asked some questions about the process for ensuring that there is cultural safety and about identification of Aboriginal children ensuring that they are dealt with, particularly in terms of the application of the Aboriginal child placement principle?---Yes.

Appropriately. Is it the case that in Victoria there is a review or appeal mechanism from decisions of case workers in relation to removals and/or placement?---So once – when a child – when there’s a court order made, family can seek appeal to a higher court. They can appeal to the County Court or the Supreme Court and they are to be provided with legal assistance from the Victorian legal aid. When, after that, if there’s a – an appeal to a decision made by child protection once the child’s in care, they can ask for an internal review by a senior officer within the department. If they’re not happy with that decision, they can then appeal. They can then take the matter to VCAT, Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal, for a review. And in a comment from a very senior child protection person last night, in respect of this matter, the VCAT is growing more liberal in their decision-making.

Has your office become a de facto review mechanism for some decisions?---Yes. So on a daily basis, literally, we have requests from kin siblings, parents, about decisions made and I, on a daily basis, will seek advice from the department why these decisions were made, other alternatives that can be considered. At the end of the day it is the decisions ultimate responsibility, I have no legislative powers other than influence and providing alternatives.

Thank you?---But it would be great to have legislative power.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4886 A.M. JACKOMOS RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you, Commissioner. Before we move away from this witness, I might just tender, firstly, section – a copy of section – section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The Victorian Act?

MR McAVOY: Yes. Victorian legislation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 559.

EXHIBIT #559 SECTION 18 OF THE CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 2005

MR McAVOY: And the two reports referred to in the Commissioner’s statement, first in the best interests of the child, which has been loaded into the system, from October 2016 and the second – sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. That can be exhibit 560.

EXHIBIT #560 REPORT TITLED ‘IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’

MR McAVOY: And the second, Always Was, Always Will Be Koori Children from October 2016.


EXHIBIT #561 REPORT TITLED ‘ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE KOORI CHILDREN’


MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Commissioner, thank you for coming, spending the time with us, bringing your vast knowledge to this Royal Commission and you’ve certainly given us plenty of food for thought. So thank you for your time and the effort you’ve put in preparing the statement?---Thank you very much. Can I just apologise to the local community for failing to acknowledge traditional owners. I apologise most sincerely.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4887 A.M. JACKOMOS RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. We will pass it on to the Larrakia people?---Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We have a number of them on our staff, so - - -?---And that’s fantastic.

Thank you, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.28 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Thompson is to resume - - -

MR McAVOY: To resume.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - her evidence now.

<BRONWYN THOMPSON, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION [12.29 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Please be seated. Thank you, Ms Thompson.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Thompson, when we left off yesterday I think you were going to follow-up on the question of a policy relating to what occurs at a handover; is that correct?---That’s correct.

Have you been able to locate that?---Yes. Yes, I have. And if I might start just by providing a little bit of context that I didn’t provide yesterday when I was given that question. I think your question was about could I point to any changes that had taken place.

This was – just to fully contextualise is, that was in relation to the concept of a child in detention having contact with case managers whilst in detention, and the fact that there was a valid concern registered in August of 2015, that this was an area that DCF could improve on?---Yes.

And so you’re about to tell us about some improvements; is that - - -?---Yes.

- - - what I gather?---That’s correct. Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4888 B. THOMPSON XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---So one of the things that I didn’t mention yesterday was that since we have had – I did mention the machinery of government changes that have resulted in some structural changes where youth detention and care and protection are now located within the same department, and since that time we have implemented some communication meetings that are held out in Don Dale. Those meetings are – when they involve the conversations about young people who are in the care of the CEO, case managers from care and protection are invited to attend those meetings along with the case managers from the detention centre so that there is that full sharing of information. So that is one thing that has changed since we’ve become one agency. In terms of what I was talking about, the handover of information: so when a young person who is in the care of the CEO enters Don Dale or a detention centre, whether that’s on remand or being sentenced, that actually triggers for us in our system, that’s a change – we consider it to be a change of placement. So the young person has been living in some out-of-home care, most likely scenario, and then when they go into detention, that’s a change of placement. So we do have a procedure that relates to placement changes and a requirement at that point for a placement meeting to be called. That would bring together all of the areas who would be involved with the care of that young person. So the case managers from the care and protection side of things, the placement unit, the people from Don Dale who are involved in the care of the child and other agencies, if they are involved, to discuss the care of the young person and to make sure that the – the new placement, which in this case would be a detention centre, were aware of the needs of the child. And that is outlined in our procedure called placement changes.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And has that been active forever?---For quite some time. I can see whether there’s a date on this. Actually, the date on this is 9 February 2017. I believe it is just an updated version of what would have been in place.

For some years prior to that; is that your understanding?---I – I’ve only been in this role for nearly a year. So I’m – I’m unsure. I’m not in a position to comment on.

I mean, there are a lot of very good initiatives that have taken place very recently?---Yes.

And, of course, our terms of reference do require us to look back rather further than that?---Yes.

And the distinct impression, I think I’m right in saying, is that in years past, in the detention centres both in Alice Springs and in Darwin there seems to have been a singular lack of understanding of the needs of the young people who are under the care of the department in whatever form it was?---Yes. I think that’s fair.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: And so for that purpose, would you be able to – not right now – but actually confirm for us how long that policy has been in place?---Yes, I’m happy to take that on.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Thompson.

MR CALLAGHAN: We probably don’t need to worry about those documents now; if we can follow-up at a later stage. Now, I took that topic out of sequence yesterday because we had that short period to fill, but if we come back to your own responsibilities over the period of time that you’ve been involved in child protection, you’ve outlined them in paragraph 7 of your statement, and we apprehend from sub-paragraph 7C and 7F that you had direct responsibility for the development of child protection policy and procedures between March of 2010 and October of 2012 and then again between May of 2014 and September of 2015. Would that be right?---I – I wasn’t actually – I was trying to find it on the screen. I think you may have made an error there. From March 2010 until December 2011.

Yes, director of care and protection policy?---Yes, that’s correct.

Yes?---But I think you extended that until October 2012. I – I was director of policy and service planning in the Department of Health at that time.

I see?---So it’s a separate department.

Alright?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, we can read all of that past history, of course, unless there’s some particular point, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, can we clarify then whether – what the status of what you say is paragraph 9A is, where you say that you had direct development for child protection policies between March 2010 and October 2012?---I am sorry. That is an error.

Okay?---Yes. In my statement. That should say “December 2011”.

Alright. Well, at some stage in that period, that first period that you’re talking about, you would have read all of the recommendations from the Growing Them Strong Together report?---I did, yes.

And you would have been aware that it was one of those recommendations, recommendation 52, that parts of the – or the parts of the policy and procedures manual relating to out-of-home care should be made available online. You agree with that?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Did that happen?---I believe that, and I couldn’t give you a date, I’m sorry, but I believe that some of those policies were made available not to the general public, no, but to carers.

Well, the answer then is that the recommendation was not implemented; is that right?---Wasn’t implemented in full.

Well, the recommendation is that - - -?---Yes, sorry.

- - - it be made available online to the public so it was not implemented at all; is that right?---Yes, that’s correct. So one of the issues that we did face with the making policies available, and I can that that is something that is about to take place now, is that at that point in time we had a – our policies were all contained in one manual that was chapter based, and it had a range of – it wasn’t just the policies in there. So the work to separate out policies from procedures and internal workings took place later and they have now been separated out which will allow us to publish the policy as other jurisdictions do.

The Growing Them Strong recommendation set a time frame of 18 months?---Mmm.

Was that not long enough to separate out the policies from the manual and put them online?---Well, I was only there for part of that time. I - - -

Well, would it have been long enough? I mean, it doesn’t sound like a particularly laborious job?---It was a very laborious job.

18 months’ worth?---Yes. I believe that is how long it has taken, yes.

Well, it still hasn’t happened though, has it?---It has happened. We have separated out the policies from the procedures.

They’re not online?---They are online at the moment. They are online as an internal document and we’re about to publish them.

Well, online and available to the public; that’s not the case, is it?---Just about to. It’s not the case right today as we speak, but it is something that is in the pipeline right now.

Seven years after the recommendation was made by the Board of Inquiry?---Yes.

And only after this Royal Commission has been convened is something as simple as making policies available online about to happen?---Well, I can tell you that having been involved in the process, I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t describe it as simple, but yes.

Well, there – I think – did I apprehend from something that you said a moment ago that they’re internally online, on an intranet, if you like?---They are now, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And when did that happen?---They’ve been available in – as I said in the – as the one document chapter version online. I couldn’t tell you when that was available. However, the piece of work that was required to be done in order to make them available to the public was to separate out the – within the chapters, within every chapter, the policy from the procedure. That’s now available online internally and it will be made – the arrangements are in play right now to make them available on – to the public via the intranet – internet.

Why could that not have happened the moment they were available online internally?---I’m not in a position to give you a description of what was required from the – from the IT side of things.

You understand – just – I’m exploring this because we have to explore what has to be done in order to confront what might be termed the inquiry mentality. I mean, here we have a recommendation that was made by an inquiry seven years ago.

MR O’MAHONEY: I object to that. That’s the second time that’s been put as a premise and it overlooks the fact that witness has had her feet under the desk in her current role for 12 months, and for a substantial part of that has been on leave, and I think it’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think it’s been sheeted home to Ms Thompson. It is a function of a decision by departments in whatever manifestation, and she is here as the senior bureaucrat. So that’s in the nature of the beast, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: I understand. But as long as it’s not being suggested and it just – it occurred to me that it could be, that she’s somehow ..... to every one of those seven years.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Of course not.

MR O’MAHONEY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’ve got the list of positions that Ms Thompson has held over that time and what she has done. No. It’s not to do with Ms Thompson personally. She’s just here as the front line spokesperson now.

MR O’MAHONEY: Please the Commission.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And could I say while we’re having this little interregnum how helpful we did find your very long statement, Ms Thompson. Commissioner Gooda and I have both spoken that perhaps we wish we had had that a bit earlier and we might have understood - - -?---Yes.

- - - how it all comes together. So we are grateful - - -?---Thank you.

- - - that you took that trouble. Thanks, Mr Callaghan.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: And, of course, it’s not directed at you personally, but you are being proffered as the person that can give us some insight into the way that policy is developed and implemented?---Mmm.

And there is a clear policy that was recommended by a Board of Inquiry seven years ago. It was given an 18 month time frame and it still hasn’t happened. You tell me it’s about to happen, I understand, and I’m sure that’s in part due to your diligence. That’s understood. But can you give us an insight into how something as apparently simple as this recommendation would not be implemented at some stage in the seven years since it’s been made?---Well, I think to understand that, even though I wasn’t working in the department at the time, I think you would have heard evidence from Robyn Lambley, there was a change of Government and there was a decision made that all work that had been incomplete on Board of Inquiry recommendations was to cease.

Alright?---Now, that’s not to say that the department, if the department decided that that was something that they wished to happen, would not have made it happen, and we have proceeded. But there was a period of time under the previous Government where that wasn’t the priority and we had other priorities.

Can I ask you whether there’s any rationale that you know of which would tell against the publishing of such policies to the public online? Why would it not be done?---I think the – I answered the question before about the - - -

No?--- - - - separating out the policy from the procedure. I think that is the issue; that has been the issue.

Let’s leave aside the logistics of that and whatever might have been involved in the technological aspects of it. As a matter of philosophy, if you like, is there any reason why it would not be done?---Absolutely not. We have – that is a decision that we have taken, so that is something that we do want to – we do want to pursue.

Alright. Can I turn to the topic of care plans. You’ve indicated in your statement that a care plan is the key document in providing services to children in care?---It’s the key planning document, certainly.

I’m just using the phrase you used at paragraph 264, but in any case it sets out the crucial information about a child’s needs and the measures required to address those needs?---Yes.

It’s so important that it’s actually mandated by the statute, isn’t it?---Yes. It is. Yes.

And we’re not talking here, can I make clear, about the interim plans that might be introduced under section 76. We’re talking about the section 70 care plans that Territory Families is required by law to implement for every child taken into care?---Yes. Every child – sorry, I’ll just confirm. That’s every child who is in the care of the CEO.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---Which is not every child who’s taken into care, because there are some orders – so there are some children who are on protection orders where parental responsibility has been assigned to a third party.

No. You’re right. The section makes it clear that it’s a child who’s taken into the CEOs care?---CEOs care.

Can I take you to paragraph 266 of your statement, in which you explain that there’s a requirement for a care plan to be implemented within six weeks of the child having entered care; is that right?---That’s correct.

And within your statement you introduce the concept of a draft care plan, that’s what you’ve got in the second sentence of the paragraph there. Can you tell me this: does the concept of a draft care plan have any status in law or policy?---If you’re asking whether there is such a thing as a draft care plan, no, the terminology there refers to a care plan that may not be completely finalised, but is in draft.

A work in progress?---A work in progress.

So when does a draft become a formal plan?---When it’s signed.

Signed by?---The parties to the care plan.

Right. Can we take it that when statistics are compiled the only ones that would be counted would be those that are signed? When you’re counting the number of care plans in place, you wouldn’t count draft care plans?---No.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could it be the case that there would in fact be a completed care plan but which is not signed?---Yes. Well, apart from – so if I just explain, maybe, the process of developing the care plan. So the care plan is meant to be a document that comes about after bringing the people together who need to have involvement in the care of the child. So a range of care providers, family members, the child themselves if they’re of a sufficient age to participate, various other government departments, if they’re involved with the child, are meant to all participate in the development of the plan. So there might be a – a case conference that’s called, everyone comes together. The plan is developed in that case, so everyone goes away understanding the – what the plan is for the young person. Obviously then the plan has to be written up. If there are financial – the care plan is actually signed off by the team leader. So if there – and the manager, if there are financial parts to that plan. So if, for example, there’s been a commitment discussed at the case conference for the young person perhaps to undertake some travel so many times a year to – for the purpose of maintaining family contact, there’s obviously the financial delegation for making those decisions and expending those dollars sits higher up in the agency. That’s part of the reason why the care plan is


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

then approved and would get signed and then entered into the information system. And then be counted.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. And, the importance of the document being underscored by all of those reasons, by all of those things that you’ve mentioned?---Sorry?

All of those things that you’ve mentioned underscore the importance of the document?---Yes.

But you say that, in a limited number of cases, various things take precedence over the formal documentation of the care plan?---Sometimes it’s very difficult to finalise a care plan because the circumstances around the child are still up in the air. For example, if you’ve taken a child into care and there is an interim – an order on adjournment, and so you haven’t yet got the – the final order in place, you don’t know how long the child will actually be in care for. Sometimes that can make things difficult to do that longer term planning that you were meant to document within the care plan, and the focus in that case would be on the immediate needs of the young person being met.

With a view to completing the care plan as soon as practicable?---Yes.

As required by law?---Yes.

But I want to explore what you might mean by “a limited number” or at least the extent to which the law is complied with, and doing that can we go to exhibit 518 and specifically to page 5362 of that document. And if we just go under the heading Case Management, the first field relates to the percentage of children without a current care plan. Total of 28.9 per cent in the Northern Territory as at 31 March 2017 did not have a plan; is that correct?---28.9 per cent.

Yes. Over 300 children, in other words?---A current care plan. Yes, that’s correct.

Well, that’s right. So, to that extent, the law is not being complied with in respect of those children. You would agree with that?---So these – there – I’ll have to qualify that answer, because what you’re seeing on the screen is a result of information entered into an information system. So that’s how we get this report. So there are circumstances that will impact on that number there.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t – I really don’t understand what that means?---Okay.

I thought this was supposed to be a record that can be used. What – could you - - -?---It is, but - - -

- - - explain what you mean by those hedgings that you’re giving around these figures?---So one of the problems that we have is around, I guess, our – we’re stuck


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

with the information system that we have and it doesn’t allow us to distinguish. So that figure there of the percentage of children without a current care plan, while it may be an accurate representation of what is in the information system, there are – it’s applying – that percentage figure there is applied to all kids who are in care, not in the care of the CEO. So when your question to me was about the legislation, the legislation requires a care plan for every child who’s in the care of the CEO, and that figure is calculated out on the number of children who are in care, not in the care of the CEO. That’s one aspect to that. The other thing that can affect that figure is there may be documents on the information system that is a care plan, that is a signed care plan, and it’s a current care plan, but if the case manager who has entered that hasn’t actually triggered the service event that says “care plan”, it won’t show in that figure there. Now, I think that’s probably fairly small numbers, but - - -

You would hope so, wouldn’t you?---Yes.

Because it just requires them to enter their data correctly?---Yes. So in my experience, it’s unlikely that children who are in the care of the CEO wouldn’t have a care plan. It may not be a current care plan. So the care plan may be under development and it hasn’t managed to be entered into the system in the timeframe that’s required, which is every six months. So when they come into care, as soon as practicable after that, there’s – a care plan is developed and then over six months it’s required to be updated.

MR CALLAGHAN: If it’s under development that means it hasn’t been signed off; is that right?---It may be at any point of development, yes. It has – it’s not a finalised, entered into the system to trigger that report.

No, sorry. We have to work with the figures we’ve got. What does this mean? We look at that and it says there are children in the Northern Territory without a current plan. There’s a footnote there to indicate that it excludes children who do not require a care plan within 60 days of commencement. So that’s leaving out some of the children, you say, who might be under care but don’t require a care plan?---They haven’t reached that point.

Yes?---Yes.

What’s the point of having a statistic of children without a current care plan unless it reflects those who were meant to have one?---Look, I think it’s a – it’s a – it’s a useful piece of information for us to have, and it’s – it’s relatively accurate. I’m just – I was only giving you the – the exceptions to what is counted in there. As I said before, my – in my experience, what it will mean – you asked me before what does this mean – what I think it means is the – the children who were in care who have a care plan would be a lot larger than the number that is represented there, or who don’t have one is a lower number. However, it – this measure is about a current care plan. So I don’t think there are a large number of children who are in the care of the CEO who don’t have a plan – a care plan.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A formal - - -?---It’s whether they have – a formal one, yes, a formal care plan. This requires - - -

Well, how do we know? How do we know how many children, if there are any, in the care of the CEO, who do not have a current care plan?---This is about current care plans.

Yes. And you’re telling me, “Well yes, but it’s not necessarily relating to children who are in charge of the CEO”?---In the care of - - -

In the care of the CEO?---Yes. So we know that number of children, so we can subtract it.

What is it?---25.

Who are in care, but not in the care of the CEO?---The care of the CEO.

Okay. So we’ll take that number out from a total of round about 1000, I think from memory; is that right?---1046.

Yes. So let’s round it all down as much as you like. Let’s say 1000 and let’s say the figure was 25 per cent. Would that still means there are 250 children in the Northern Territory who are meant to have, by law, a current care plan and do not?---Yes.

At least that many?---That’s correct. And - - -

Okay. So the law is not being complied with in respect of at least 250 children; do you agree with that?---Yes.

Okay. Can we talk about some other statistics that are in this exhibit and that relates to the concept of face-to-face contact?---Mmm.

And in annexure BT67 to your statement you have the procedure for the monitoring of wellbeing of children in care and the required standard for a case worker is recorded there as at a minimum face-to-face contact at least once every four weeks; is that correct?---That’s correct.

If we go to your statement, though, at paragraph 225 sub (d), it says:

Face-to-face contact is required to occur in a supportive environment at least every two weeks.

Can you just reconcile those for us?---I’m really sorry. I think that is another error.

So, look, four is the – four, as in the policy document, would be right as opposed to your - - -?---I think that’s meant to be two months. If you go back to that care plan procedure, it talks about that the minimum requirement - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Minimum requirements, according to the procedure, is once every four weeks for face-to-face contact?---Yes, so where a case worker cannot have face-to-face contact within a four week period, they must arrange for a third party to have face-to-face contact with the child.

Yes. We will come to that, but I’m just wondering – might that just be a slip in paragraph 225, should that be four, or do you say two months because they can skip a month with third party contact?---Yes.

Is that – so it’s two months?---Two months.

Okay. So 225(d) should read two months on the basis of the proposition that you can have face-to-face contact with a third party?---Yes.

But the next face-to-face contact has to be - - -?---Must be with a case worker. Yes.

- - - with a case worker. Right. I follow. Just before we go on, I suppose four weeks, do you know where that figure came from, or who settled on that figure? I mean, it doesn’t seem – it seems too long, I would suggest, in the life of a child?---That figure has been in place for a long time. I can’t tell you how long. I do know that, in 2008 I believe, there was a coronial inquest where one of the recommendations from the Coroner was to extend – well, was to ensure that case workers were having face-to-face contact with a child, but for a longer period of time, and we decided not to change it at that stage because we wanted to keep it at once every four weeks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Was the recommendation from the Coroner more frequent or - - -?---Less frequent.

- - - less frequent but for longer periods?---No. Not for longer periods, the case that he was looking at was one where a young girl hadn’t had contact and so his recommendation, I think, didn’t take into consideration what our current policy position was.

So obviously it was a very long period of no contact, so that that which was recommended probably looked reasonable in the facts of that case?---That may be the case.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, understanding now the policy, in paragraph 281 of your statement you record that Territory Families is not uniformly meeting this requirement; is that correct?---That’s correct.

Can we just see what the exact situation is though, if we go back to the document we were looking at a moment ago which is BT67 – sorry, exhibit 518, and to those figures that we were looking at before under Case Management. You’ve got


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

percentage of children without current face-to-face contact within one months, Northern Territory total 50.4 per cent. We read that to indicate that, more often than not, Territory Families is failing to meet the four week requirement; is that correct?---It is correct insomuch as it’s the case worker who is not having the contact with the young person.

And I apprehend from that answer - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, Mr Callaghan. You’re drawing our attention to the balance of your 281 paragraph where you name a raft of other people who may be having contact?---Yes.

Is that right?---Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: That’s exactly what I apprehended you were alluding to. Can I ask you, though, how do you know?---Because it’s recorded in our information system.

Contact with all of those people is recorded?---Can I - - -

If there’s contact between a child and someone falling into one of those categories?---Can I see the categories again.

In 281 of your statement?---Yes.

Yes?---Can I see it, please.

Yes?---Yes. Certainly, if other people including Aboriginal community workers, the carer assessment and support practitioners, the residential care workers, remote family support staff, we have records that those people are having face-to-face contact with the young people.

Alright. And that might be permissible. A case worker might miss the four week period but then if someone else had had that contact, that’s permissible within the policy, but then the next contact has to be with the Territory Families?---Yes. But the point I’m making is that there is a lot of contact with young people in care that isn’t recorded or – well, it’s recorded in the system. It doesn’t count on this performance measure. So, for example, if you’ve got a young person who is in residential care, the residential case workers will be seeing those children every day.

But you’ve got no way of monitoring that unless you actually have face-to-face contact with the child, do you?---Those people are having face-to-face contact. So I’m talking about our staff.

Yes, I understand. It’s – well - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The residential care workers won’t necessarily be your staff though?---Not all of them, no.

They will be - - -?---That’s right. But the Aboriginal community workers, family support workers is another group of people who I haven’t listed there, but are having contact with the young people in their placements and, you know, sometimes transporting them to appointments, meeting with them for various reasons, but we don’t – it doesn’t impact on that measure.

That might suggest you would really need to look again at how you’re recording the data, would it not? Because it’s – I mean, it’s a sense of safety, isn’t it? That the child should have some delegate if you like of the chief executive of the Department?---Yes, absolutely. And I think it comes to the purpose of the measure, and if it’s about having eyes on the child, and knowing that the child is okay, and giving the child an opportunity to raise concerns, then we should be moving to record the contact more broadly. I think the reason it is the way that it is, is that the case manager is responsible for the overall direction of the case, and that’s the reason why we’ve said it’s important for them to have contact.

MR CALLAGHAN: And even on your own policies, though, it should never happen – should it – that a child might go for three months without face-to-face contact with someone from Territory Families?---Not in accordance with our policy, no.

No?---However, those circumstances are more likely to be – we’ve got a number of young people who are living interstate and that does make it very difficult to visit and you will see in that the policy that was up before, that it does list exceptional circumstances.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Away at boarding school is an obvious one?---Away at boarding school is another one, yes. There are also, I have to say – you know, in terms of the figure and what it looks like and our difficulties, because we do have difficulties in maintaining that level of contact in some cases, some young people in the system are seen on a very, very regular basis because of the nature of the issues. You know, where there are potential placement break Downs or where there are, you know, intersections with the youth justice system, we’re actually having a lot of contact with those young people. And then you have another young person who’s been with a foster carer and in stable care for – might be seven years. So our – our figure doesn’t distinguish between those young people. And that’s not to say that I don’t think that those young people should be seen. They should be as well, but the priority obviously, when time is limited, ends up going to the young person who’s facing some difficulties and to try to sort those things out, rather than the stable placement which you may well be in contact with the foster carer and know that everything is travelling along okay.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, you might know that from the foster carer, but not from the child?---That’s correct, but you know, and - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can I come back to this issue of those who might not have been seen for more than three months. According to the figures that we have in exhibit 518, that’s 17.8 per cent of the 1095 who have not been seen for more than three months. Now, I understand you say some of those might be interstate or boarding school or whatever, but can you give us any sense of how many of them would fall into that category and how many of them just haven’t been seen?---No. The terminology of “haven’t been seen” makes that a difficult question to answer.

Well, perhaps if we just look up the page a bit. We’ve got some numbers there of number of children residing interstate?---Mmm.

That’s 58. So if we took them out of the equation we’re still talking about over 100 children who haven’t been seen in a three month period; you agree with that?---Well no, there are other categories, such as the Commissioner listed before.

Still haven’t been seen; there may be a reason for it?---Well, yes. Well, that’s true.

How many of them – well, give us a clue, how many of them would be in boarding school?---I don’t have the figures for the boarding school children in front of me at the moment.

Roughly?---I wouldn’t want to guess.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Callaghan, while you’re drawing breath, there is clearly some way to go with Ms Thompson’s - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - evidence, so we might break for lunch at quarter past 1 – in a few minutes – or if you want to stop now? But I think you want to finish. You might like to finish this topic of the sighting of the children.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, perhaps I might just – however many there are, Ms Thompson, the Children’s Commissioner gave evidence to this Royal Commission and agreed that children were being exposed to further and increased risks of harm by Territory Families as a direct result of failures of this respect: of making face-to-face contact. Do you agree with that?---As a general statement, yes.

And if that’s the case, the question must be asked – I mean, if one child is not seen by their parents and is known to be, as the Children’s Commissioner agreed, at a risk of harm, it tends to be all over the news and it’s treated as an emergency. What sort of priority is this issue receiving from Territory Families?---Look, can I say I think this is an area that we absolutely need to improve on, as is the care planning, and in my experience when we have really focused in on this topic what tends to happen is – and it’s just – I think it’s a matter of resourcing. When we focus in on getting 100 per cent compliance with care plans, current care plans, usually the other figure


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

drops. So it’s a matter of trying to get that balance right and making sure that we don’t have unintended consequences. That being said, they are important measures.


MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, could I just raise one housekeeping matter – well, it’s not a housekeeping matter, but I should raise it. It has been raised – as I understand it – with solicitor assisting that this witness has a personal commitment that would require her to leave the hearing room at 2.45, by no later than 2.45, today. She was originally - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, then we will take half an hour for lunch and we will see if we can do something about ensuring that that happens.

MR O’MAHONEY: Be grateful for that, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Webcast is down. Well, just as well we’re going for lunch now. Yes. Alright. So can you keep that in mind then, Mr Callaghan, if you possibly can.

MR CALLAGHAN: We will do what we can.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. And perhaps the two witnesses who were asked to come at 2 o’clock might be given some indication they won’t be required for a little while. Thank you. We will resume at quarter to 2.

ADJOURNED [1.16 pm]

RESUMED [1.52 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms Thompson, I’d like to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, but is this actually working now? Notwithstanding it’s an interesting picture. Right. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’d like to turn to the topic of leaving care and leaving care plans. Can we go to annexure 102 of your statement, the guideline for leaving care planning. From that and specifically from the second page of that document, do I conclude that it’s Territory Families’ policy that a leaving care plan is required for all people aged 15 years and over.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that in the legislation, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: It’s – well, I don’t think so, but I can clarify that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright.

MR CALLAGHAN: This document is a guideline and I was going to ask Ms Thompson about that. First of all, is that the case, that’s the Territory Families’ policy?---That’s the policy, yes.

Yes?---That’s the guideline.

The guideline, policy?---Yes.

Whatever you like. It’s not required by the Act?---No, it’s not.

No?---Apart from a care plan is - - -

A care plan?---Yes.

Yes. Indeed, that is the clear intention of the legislation. If we can look at exhibit 520, the review by the Children’s Commissioner in 2016 of case files sampled for children between 15 and 17 years of age, 73 per cent of them have no specific leaving care plans; is that correct? Just bringing that up. Just on the top left hand of that middle column, the top of the middle column on the screen there; you see that?---Yes. Yes.

And I can take you through the records if you like, but I would suggest to you that this was the fourth time that the office of the Children’s Commissioner had reviewed the department’s compliance with this issue, and found breaches of this policy. That indeed was the evidence given at transcript 4484, but does that accord with your understanding, that this has been reviewed time and again and breaches of this policy have been found?---Well, I think it’s strong language to say a breach of policy when it’s a guideline, but other than that yes, I accept what you’re saying is that it has been reviewed and on a number of occasions.

Can you just tell me the difference between a guideline and a policy?---Well, a policy is a must-do document that’s a decision that’s been signed off by Territory Families to say this is something that we must do, and a guideline provides guidance to staff that this is what they should consider in practicing.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So if someone breached the guideline would they find themselves in a bit of strife?---No, not usually. A guideline is meant to provide – be of assistance – be of assistance to case managers and others providing care to children and – but it’s not a policy. So it’s not a must-do.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Policy is a must-do?---Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: The fact that the guideline is being breached in so many cases must be of concern though?---The reason why we have the guideline is because we think it’s a really good idea to do leaving care plans for young people as – as early as


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

is possible, but to prepare them ultimately for leaving care. So it’s something we think is important, but to use the term “breach” doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: If there’s that many people doing it, not getting done, it’s almost meaningless as a guideline?---It’s something that we want to do and do try to do, but as you can see from the Children’s Commissioner’s report we have – our figures haven’t been great, yeah.

MR CALLAGHAN: Can we go back to BT102 and to the second page of that document and just again look at the language that’s being used here under the heading Planning for Leaving Care, it says:

A leaving care plan which is built upon a young person’s existing out-of-home care plan is required.

?---Mmm.

There’s nothing discretionary about that. The guideline is a guideline but it is telling people that is required and it’s not being done?---It’s not being done in all cases.

Well, in 73 per cent of them on that sample?---No. If you go back to the page from the Children’s Commissioner’s report, I think you’ll find that there’s some language in there that talks about – can I have it up on the screen?

That’s exhibit 520.1. It was a sample but it’s still got to be indicative of a serious concern that something which is said by a guideline to be required is not happening, isn’t it?---Yes, so 73 per cent, 27 young people had no specific leaving care plans, that’s right. That doesn’t mean to say that they didn’t have plans because they would have a care plan and in that care plan it may outline what each action that the department is going to be taking to prepare the young person. It just means that there was no specific leaving care plan. But I accept the premise that this is an area that we need to do a much better job on.

Can you put it any more strongly than that? I mean, this is becoming a bit of a refrain, we need to do this better, we could improve and so on. Is this not a cause for alarm for instant action if the Territory Families’ own policies are not being complied with, and I’ve this morning and this afternoon taken you through at least a few different policies. I’m about to take you to another one, but if the department is not complying with its own policies, it’s a definition of failure, isn’t it?---So, I don’t mean to give the impression, if I have, that we aren’t taking immediate action. We are taking immediate action over this.

Well, what are you doing in respect of leaving care plans?---We are absolutely working to improve the quality of leaving care plans.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---So that has involved going through – having a look at every child who is in the care of the CEO and identifying those children who are coming up for leaving care and asking the region who is responsible for that to prepare leaving care plans and expecting there to be improvements and monitoring those improvements.

So there has been an audit of every - - -?---There has.

Of every child in respect of leaving care plans?---In respect of a number of things, yes. Every child who is in the care of the CEO.

One of those things being leaving care plans?---One of those things being leaving care plans.

Thank you?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Thompson, while we’re on the leaving care plans, it’s not a leaving care plan, but section 86 of the Care and Protection of Children Act talks about the assistance for a young person who has left the CEOs care?---Yes.

How would any assistance that’s given to a young person, and that will be in the 18 to 25 year old bracket, as I understand it, where would that be captured? Is a file maintained post 18 for any young person?---When we’re providing support to a young person after they’ve left the CEOs care, we have a category within our information system called after-care support, and we capture the information in there.

Thank you. And where would that generally be reported on? We’ve seen the document which has got the tables, the monthly returns. Is it somewhere similar to that?---I don’t believe so. I might need to get back to you on that one as to – I haven’t seen that information and I don’t think it’s something that we generally report on.

Thank you. If at some convenient time in the next little while you could do that, I would certainly appreciate - - -?---Certainly - - -

Finding out about that, that group of young people and how their data is captured for this?---We also fund a non-government organisation to provide support and some assistance to young people. So - - -

Is that to CREATE?---No. Although CREATE, we do fund CREATE, and they do provide support and advocacy for that group of people. We fund Anglicare to provide the Moving On program, and so some of the information is more likely to be captured in their system than in ours. So it depends whether the young person comes to us and if they come to us they’re likely to get the referral to the moving on program as well, or if they go directly to Moving On.

Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Is any work done to evaluate the plans you do have, because we really haven’t heard anything that positive about people leaving care’s experience so far?---I know that Anglicare have done some evaluation of their figures and what service they’re providing and who they’re reaching.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’re talking about the leaving care plans, aren’t you?

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Ms Thompson, I think, is talking about that .....

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Okay. I was talking about the leaving care plans?---The leaving care plans?

Is there an evaluation of those? As I was saying, we haven’t heard anything too positive around the experience of people, young people leaving care?---We do audits of care plans internally from time to time and – but that wouldn’t be specifically about leaving care. To my knowledge we haven’t done one specifically about leaving care plans but I could be wrong on that one.

MR CALLAGHAN: Can I just come back to the audit that you told us about a moment ago in respect of a number of things including leaving care plans. What were the other things that were audited in that process?---There was a range of things. There was looking at young people and their education, so whether they were enrolled in school, looking at children five years and under and whether they were attending an early childhood program, looking at our Aboriginal children in care and where they were placed and whether they were placed with kin, looking at – what was the other ones? Sorry, I don’t have the document in front of me but - - -

Well, what is the documentation? I don’t think we’ve seen it, have we?---No. It’s – it’s pretty much – it’s a manual audit of our information system to pull out the names of young people in various circumstances. So one of the other ones was actually – sorry, I just remembered – the – the young people who would be on long-term orders until they were 18 who might be eligible for a permanent care order.

Alright. I’m not sure I understand. A manual audit?---Yes.

Was there a review of every file of every child?---Yes.

And presumably the results of that examination were recorded somewhere?---So the – if I can clarify so that you don’t get the wrong impression. So under those categories that I’ve listed, they – there was an audit of all of the files of the young people who would fall into those categories to determine their eligibility, for example.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. But presumably the result of that was collated and - - -?---Lists of clients to send – it’s a very operational matter, and it was for the purpose of sending these out to regions so they could take action on it.

But it would give some statistical guidance to the state of play as regards to those issues, would it not?---Yes.

Alright. Well, would we be able to see that?---They are a point in time measure, but, I mean, I think they could be - - -

So is everything?---Well, not everything is, but, yeah, they could be de-identified.

Alright. Thank you. Can I take you to another Territory Families policy which relates to Aboriginal community workers. Can we get BT45 from your statement up evening and on the second page of that document, just above the heading Use of Interpreters, you can see the words there:

Basically when decisions are made a case worker must include an Aboriginal community worker or Aboriginal practice adviser in all planning meetings or discussions.

?---Yes.

Similarly, if we have a look at BT99 and you go to page 783 of that document, or, sorry, page 10 of the document, 783 in the top right-hand corner, 0783, you see the flow chart that is used and central to the process is consultation with an Aboriginal - - -?---Yes.

- - - community worker?---Yep.

Clearly an integral part of Territory Families - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - policy?---Yeah.

And obviously an important one?---Yes.

The Commission has a statement from Ms Boucher, B-o-u-c-h-e-r, who is a senior Aboriginal community worker in the Palmerston office?---Yes.

And she has told us that she has to provide primary support to 16 case managers and their caseloads. Does that sound right?---Yes.

And if we take a line through the evidence from Ms Kerr, who says that the average case load as at 31 March 2017 was 39.3 cases per worker, that would suggest that Ms Boucher is providing support to approximately 500 cases. Would you agree with that?---I can’t comment on how many she’s actually providing support so but on your calculation I can see how you arrived at the figure.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. Given that ratio, it would appear impossible for those policies that I’ve taken you to to be complied with?---Is there a question, sorry?

Well, put a question mark at the end of what I said. Does it not appear impossible for those policies to be complied with, given those numbers?---I believe those policies are being complied with.

Again, these issues have been reviewed in the past. They were reviewed in the Growing Them Strong Together report. They were reviewed another time. I’m just trying to abbreviate this, conscious of the time. Perhaps we could go to Mr Twyford’s statement at annexure 73. This document – just looking for a date – you can see on the second page of this document, Recommendation 39, there was a recommendation for review of this – of the roles played by Aboriginal community workers. I suppose to cut to the point, do you – is your evidence to this Commission that the situation with Aboriginal community workers within Territory Families is satisfactory?---In what sense?

Well, is it unsatisfactory in any sense.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think a bit more helpful with the question, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Bit broad.

MR CALLAGHAN: Is there a concern that Aboriginal community workers are overworked?---There is no doubt that Aboriginal community workers are absolutely invaluable to the work that’s done by Territory Families.

It’s not what I asked you though. Is there a concern within Territory Families that they are overworked?---I think as a general principle we know the caseloads are high and you could say – you could apply that to all staff within Territory Families.

Well - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I take it that answer is yes, they are?---So yes.

MR O’MAHONEY: It’s really explored in quite some detail in paragraph 281 of the witness’s statement.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thanks for that.

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m trying to assist - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: You’re not.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR O’MAHONEY: - - - my friend.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you anyway.

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m grateful for the feedback.

MR CALLAGHAN: Can we go to the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: .....

MR CALLAGHAN: And I’m happy to offer it at any time.

Can we go to the concept of the structured decision-making tools, or SDM. They’re tools used by the central intake team. You’re familiar with their use and operation?---There are two tools: structured decision-making tools that are used by the intake team, and other tools that are used by case managers, yes.

Are we talking about safety assessment and risk assessment?---Yes.

And the risk assessment tool is based on actuarial data that assesses the likelihood of harm to a child in the future; is that right?---Yes.

You explain in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your statement that the SDM was developed by an organisation based in Wisconsin?---Yes.

Introduced to the Northern Territory in 2011?---Ultimately, yes.

And in paragraph 25 of your statement you say that:

It was contextualised for the Northern Territory.

?---Yes.

Can you explain that to us, how did this contextualisation actually occur?---I’m sorry, I can’t explain that to you in any great detail in that I - - -

Well, can I make it simpler perhaps. Were Aboriginal organisations consulted, involved?---I was actually not working in the agency at the time so I’m unable to provide that detail for you.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So when you were checking over the statement, because I’m sure you had the assistance of many of your staff to prepare your statement, you relied on something that you were told about that SDM, were you?---It’s - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You say it was contextualised for the Northern Territory?---I’m aware that that took place but I don’t know the details of how exactly it happened.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. Thank you. Can I - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If it were thought important we could perhaps ask somebody who has some historic knowledge about that?---I think it’s likely to only exist in documentation, but we could try to find it, absolutely. You’d think it would exist.

But it might be – I think the question, which isn’t surprising, is that since it’s been contextualised for the Northern Territory, you would have to think that it related to the indigenous population of the Northern Territory?---Absolutely.

And so the question really is to what extent were indigenous advisors utilised by the department in doing that job?---Yes. Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Can I get tab 10 on the screen, please. These are the minutes from an executive leadership group meeting. I don’t know that the attendees are noted there but given the date and the nature of the meeting is it likely that you were present?---No. 2012 I believe I was working – certainly not in this department at that time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think you say in Health?---I may have been working in Health.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. If you go to page 5 of that document I’ll just note that the executive leadership group received a presentation from a Mr Damian Worley on the analysis of the structured decision-making project?---Mmm.

And if then if we could get tab 9, we can have the presentation itself. And if you two to page 6 of that document under heading 5, we note that it was recorded that validation of the assessment for the Northern Territory was essential. Were you aware of the requirement for the SDM to undergo validation?---Yes. All SDM tools once configured require validation.

Right. And if we look at what is said in that paragraph it is a process that could take, if we add up the figures involved, up to 15 months perhaps but the paragraph concludes that:

A final validation study was likely to be available in the 2013/14 financial year.

That’s correct?---That’s correct.

And the validation was, in fact, paid for, if we could go to tab 11 and go to 627, that’s page 13 of that document, in the column Rationale, towards the bottom of that column, it’s noted that:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The money for the completion of the risk validation has already been paid to the children’s research Centre.

?---Yes.

So it was paid for in October 2013. That’s the date of that document which is annexure LT65. Take that from me?---I don’t know when it was paid but it looks from this document like it has been paid.

It has been paid pre-October?---Pre-October.

2013?---Yes.

Well, was it done?

MR O’MAHONEY: Well, I object. As my friend has just indicated the date of the document is October 2013, and it predates the witness’s involvement in her current role by a period of years.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that’s true, but I think all Ms Thompson needs to say is “I don’t know that answer”, “I don’t know the answer to that question”.

MR CALLAGHAN: You do know, don’t you?---I believe the answer to that question is no, that it was not done at that time and it has recently been completed.

That’s it, isn’t it? It’s been done this year since this - - -?---Been done this year, yeah.

Since this Commission was called?---I am not aware of when the plans for that validation study were instigated.

Alright. And please, you know none of this is being directed at you?---Yes. I’m fine.

But it’s a bare proposition that a tool that needed to be validated that was the subject of payment for a validation was not, in fact, validated until this year. That’s the situation, isn’t it?---That’s correct.

And in all that time, it’s been used in the Northern Territory?---Yes.

It’s been used throughout that period unvalidated and indeed when the validations were done, if we look at annexure BT29 to your statement, if you get that up, it contains some memos that you’re aware of that indicate that not only was it unvalidated but it’s actually been misapplied. If we go to page 6 of that document:

Northern region, 66 per cent of risk assessments found to have errors in the application of the tool. Southern region –


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

down the bottom of the page –

76 per cent of SDM risk assessments found to be completed with errors in the application of the tool.

This is the tool that’s being used in the Northern Territory all this time without validation and with that sort of error rate; is that correct?---There were errors found, yes, I agree. I can see the report.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it not the case that, in fact, those who are making the risk assessment are required to use the tool but that they can exercise their judgment?---Professional judgment, yes.

Because otherwise you could just have somebody who was not trained, surely, doing it. So there must be some clinical skill involved?---Yeah.

I’m just not quite sure then about this finding, Mr Callaghan, whether it means that it was a departure from the tool itself because clinical judgment was brought to bear on the situation or whether there’s some other meaning to be given to it.

MR CALLAGHAN: This is – those are fair questions and are not readily apparent on the face of the materials we have which is leading to my questions of Ms Thompson about the use of this tool and the future of it. Is it going to be reviewed further? Is that going to be done by the people who devised it or is the Northern Territory going to do its own review of it? It seems that it can’t be that it continue to have any use if it’s being misused to the extent that it would seem it is?---I think the risk validation study has identified some recommendations and some minor tweaks that are required.

Well, an error rate of that kind - - -?---I think – to separate out the two issues, I think the risk validation – validation is really asking us, is it measuring what we think it’s measuring, and so there are some minor tweaks to that. The application of the tool is a different matter.

Yes?---So the risk validation study is not about how staff are using the tool.

No. But I was asking you about the use of the tool?---Yes.

And staff’s use of the tool. If they’re using something and making mistakes while using it, that’s a source of concern, surely. They’re misusing something to the extent that these figures would suggest?---I personally think that – I mean, this report is about cumulative harm – sorry, the previous report that you showed me. I think that the – what concerns me is the – our ability to use our tool in the identification of cumulative harm.

Do you agree that accurate use of the tool is a key area for improvement?---It’s a decision-making – sorry, it’s a decision support tool, not a decision-making tool.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Well, do you agree that the accurate use of the SDM risk assessment tool is a key area for improvement?---It’s one of a number of areas of improvement, yes.

Well, but you don’t – I understand what you’re saying, but I’m only using the language that appears on the first page of BT29?---Mmm.

Where it’s identified as a key area for improvement. You have been most reluctant to embrace that.

MR O’MAHONEY: I think if I can just - - -

THE WITNESS: Not at all.

MR O’MAHONEY: - - - interrupt, and I’m sorry to do so, given the response I got from my friend when I did earlier, but I think - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You have got broad shoulders.

MR O’MAHONEY: Thank you for that, Commissioner. But I think the case is that the questioner and the witness are at cross-purposes. There are two different processes or assessments in play. One is a validation assessment and one is a cumulative harm assessment and I think - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think Mr Callaghan is aware of those differences, and Ms Thompson has certainly made it clear.

MR O’MAHONEY: Well, I let the questioning go, Commissioner, but I would say there was a fair bit of fusing of the two in the questions, and I think the witness is hopefully going to get a chance to clarify, because I think it’s an important clarification.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is. My impression was, and I may be wrong, that Mr Callaghan had really put to one side the validation of the tool itself doing the job that it’s supposed to do and focussed more on the second aspect of it.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was reading – as the record will reflect, I was reading word for word from the first page of annexure BT29.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Which talked about accurate use of the SDM risk assessment tool. That’s all I have spoken about. There was no ambiguity, but I’m once again much indebted - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. We’re not going to have a little jousting match, Mr O’Mahoney, because it might be painful for both of you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: I will leave it at that for the time being?---So perhaps I could clarify that the report we are looking at here is a report about cumulative harm. It is not a report that – so it wasn’t an assessment of how way were administering the SDM tool. That is a finding from this. So we were looking into cumulative harm, and searching those cases, and that what we found in those cases, rather than a separate review of how we’re administering the SDM tools.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan. Now, we have – those of you who have been given leave to cross-examine Ms Thompson, and there are three: CAALAS, NAAJA and Danila Dilba, you must share the remaining 17 minutes between the three of you. You understand that, don’t you?

DR DWYER: Yes, your Honour. Yes.


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [2.29 pm]

DR DWYER: Ms Thompson, my name is Dwyer, I appear for NAAJA. At paragraph 115 of your statement, you talk about the commitment of Northern Territory families to deliver a culturally competent and responsive service?---Yes.

That’s an earnest aspiration for the Department; is that correct?---Yes.

To that end, cross-cultural training is conducted with staff?---Yes, it is.

And the Commission heard evidence from one staff member who operates across 12 different communities in the Northern Territory that she had had a two day mandatory cross-cultural training. That’s not – that’s a typical scenario; is that right?---We have a range of training available, including an online module that is an accredited module, so it may be that that staff member hasn’t made herself – has not paced – self-paced through that module.

Do you agree with me that it’s difficult to convey the complexity of the culture and kinship in a number – in different Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory in the sorts of cross-cultural courses that are available to you, either two day or online?---It is, and I think that’s the reason why our training is developed to be specific to the area. So we have – even though it’s the one program as such, it’s actually tailored to the regions for exactly that reason.

Non-Aboriginal people are never going to be engaged deeply enough to understand culture in Aboriginal communities. I suggest to you what’s needed is to access Aboriginal people who can provide that information. Do you agree with that?---Look, I agree with that, and the trainers obviously are Aboriginal elders. So

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4914 B. THOMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

we start with that, and we understand that that’s not the end of it. That this is just the start of it, if you like.

I referred you outside the courtroom to the evidence of Dr Fejo-King who spoke to the Commission earlier this week. You haven’t had a chance to read her statement yet?---No, I haven’t.

No doubt you’re very interested in doing so; is that right?---That’s true.

Can I read to you briefly that she – I will paraphrase for the sake of time. She says that the use of genograms by child protection agencies, including Territory Families, is inappropriate when dealing with Aboriginal families and she refers to the importance of kinship mapping that includes, for example, accessing skin name groups?---Mmm.

Or linked skin name groups. You understand in general terms the concept of skin name groups?---Absolutely, yes.

And she points to the room for improvement in that. Do you agree that a deeper understanding of the kinship model that she – that I’ve referred you to from her evidence may well improve the compliance with the Aboriginal placement system?---I do think that that is the absolute starting point, yes, and in my time I’ve certainly seen some very good examples done and some poor examples.

In relation to the poor examples, can I refer you to the evidence of the elders panel this week, which included two members of the Burnawarra and the Kurdiji from Lajamanu. You haven’t had a chance to listen to that evidence yet?---That’s correct.

No doubt you’re very interested in doing so; is that right?---That’s true.

Paraphrasing from that can I just ask you to accept that the thrust of that evidence was that the Kurdiji and the Burnawarra are not being properly consulted with by Territory Families. I’m not putting that to you as a personal criticism, but do you accept that there must be a deeper engagement with Aboriginal people - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - in communities in order to address the Aboriginal Placement Principle?---Absolutely. I do accept that.

Can you think of – this is my last question for you – going forward from this Royal Commission and learning the lessons, can you think yourself of better ways to do that?---Yes. Look, we’ve got an example of where we’re starting to do this work differently. So over in East Arnhem we’ve got a – there’s a reference group has been formed in East Arnhem of Yolngu clan leaders, and we are working closely with that reference group who are very interested in helping us to ensure that Yolngu children are not – do not need to be removed from their community. So we’re working with them at the moment, and I think that’s the sort of direction that we’re going in.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4915 B. THOMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Are you aware of a program funded by the Federal Government called Safer Communities for Children?---Yes, I am.

What do you – is that operating in that sort of way? I’ve just read the guidelines, just came across it recently?---I’m – I probably not the right person to be speaking about how it’s operating. I could probably - - -

From the documentation it seems like it’s in this sphere anyway, engaging communities - - -?---Yes.

- - - in decisions.

DR DWYER: Would you support reference groups that you just referred to in each of the different communities so that you can access the expertise of different clan groups in terms of kinship models?---It’s something I hope we move to.

Thank you. Nothing further.


MS GRAHAM: Ms Thompson, my name’s Felicity Graham and I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. You say at paragraph 291 of your statement that in relation to cultural care plans there are a range of different aspects to those plans individualised to the child – I’m paraphrasing. Do you accept that?---Yes. They are individualised.

I ..... up on the screen, perhaps. 291. Directly linking the child to their cultural – to their culture through connection to skin and clan name, whole range of family relationships, their specific culture and identity, planning for individual child, do you agree with that?---Absolutely. That’s part of the care plan.

That’s part of the policy that Territory Families has in relation to creating care plans for Aboriginal children; is that right?---It’s part of the policy, and it’s built into the template for the care plan of what is completed as part of the care plan.

You’re not suggesting, by what you say in your statement to this Commission, that in practice Territory Families is fully compliant with creating an individualised and meaningful cultural care plan for all Aboriginal children?---We heard earlier that our compliance with care planning is not at 100 per cent so yes.

Do you acknowledge that, particularly in relation to the cultural aspect of care planning, that that is an area where Territory Families is very deficient?---Look, I’ve seen a range of the quality of care plans. I’ve seen some excellent care plans, and I’ve seen some poor care plans, so I think it’s a bit of – bit of both.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4916 B. THOMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The creation of a cultural care plan is an area where Aboriginal staff play a particularly important role. Do you agree with that?---Absolutely.

And unless Aboriginal staff are being listened to and their wisdom and experience being valued, Territory Families is not going to be able to do a good job for Aboriginal children in care. Do you agree with that?---I think their advice is invaluable.

Are you aware at all that Aboriginal staff within Territory Families feel that their knowledge and expertise is not used, not valued, and that they’re not listened to?---That – wouldn’t surprise me to hear that not all Aboriginal community workers – I don’t think all Aboriginal community workers get the same experience across the Territory, and that has been an issue for us in terms of the expectation on those roles. They’re – they tend to be used differently in different parts of – of the Territory.

Do you - - -?---And that can sometimes be because of the skills that they bring and their particular desire, how they want to contribute to the role, and sometimes it’s something that’s more imposed by the role.

Do you accept that improving on creating a culturally safe workplace is one of the urgent matters that Territory Families needs to address?---I believe it is a matter that the – that Territory Families needs to address.

In relation to children who are in detention and who are also in the care of the CEO, you accept that those children are extremely vulnerable?---Those children are vulnerable and the other children that we look after are vulnerable, too.

When a child who’s vulnerable in the community goes into detention, that often increases their vulnerability. Do you accept that?---I guess so, yes.

You would be familiar with the range of evidence that this Commission has heard about treatment of children in detention, including inappropriate clothing being provided, namely tracksuits in over 40 degrees heat in Alice Springs, insufficient shelter from the extreme climate in the Northern Territory, filthy living conditions, putrid smelling living conditions, children being deprived water, food, deprived basic hygiene products like deodorant, soap, physical abuse, sexual harassment of children, psychological abuse of children. You’re familiar with all that evidence that has been given before the Commission?---Yes, I am.

Yesterday you gave some evidence – this is at T4857 – that when a child is in detention their general care needs are being met at that stage. For a case manager who – for case managers who have high caseloads, it has tended to be a time when they have got on with other work in their high caseloads. Do you remember giving that evidence?---I do remember giving that evidence.

And that was about case workers having engagement with children who are in detention who are also in the care of the CEO?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can I suggest to you that it is wrong for case managers to assume that, when a child is in detention, their general care needs are being met?---I accept that.

And that is an aspect where there needs to be much greater emphasis played on the role that Territory Families needs to play on the child protection side of the agency to ensure the wellbeing of children in detention?---I accept that and, you know, I guess it’s within the context that we do only have a very small number of children in the detention centres. So, for example, at the moment – as of yesterday there were seven. So I accept that it is important, but I’m trying to put a context around we have other issues that need to be dealt with as well.

Could I clarify one aspect of your statement. It’s at paragraph 201. You talk about the operational support part of the agency that is going to be newly instituted?---Yes.

Do I understand that that part of the agency is going to fill the role that the old professional standard unit part of the Department of Corrective Services played in relation to providing oversight to what’s going on in detention centres, or is that going to be something different?---I believe that is the intention. The reason why I hesitated is because at the moment, structurally we have youth justice and detention separated out, and from the other side – so when I’m the general manager of operations at the moment it doesn’t cover off on detention or youth justice matters. And at some point in time there – there is the intention that after we’re sort of more established that these things will come together so that it will be covered off by operations more generally.

Finally, yesterday at the community group meeting the Commissioners heard that young children in care are being identified on the Territory Family – I withdraw that. Young children in care are being identified on the Territory Police Facebook page. Children are being suggested that they should be used as croc bait, if they’re suspected of or have committed crimes, on the Territory Police Facebook page. You’d be familiar with the damaging impact on - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: I object. I mean, it’s a question that’s properly directed at a member of the police force.

MS GRAHAM: If my friend could listen to the question, please.

MR O’MAHONEY: Well, the – I have listened to what has pre-empted the question, and they’re both references to a department that the witness doesn’t work to. It just seems to be - - -

MS GRAHAM: If my friend could wait for the question, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I think you should wait for the question because I anticipate what it might be and it doesn’t matter what the source of it is. Or at least I’m assuming that, Ms Graham.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: First of all, you would be aware of the damaging impact on children in care, or children that are otherwise vulnerable, on the demonisation of them or the identification of them as being in care. You agree with that?---Absolutely. And I can say that, in terms of the young person being on the Police Facebook page, we absolutely ensure that a child is not identified as a child in care, because that is a breach of the Act and if that occurs, not through – through a member of the public, for example, posting something on there, we’re on the phone to the police immediately to get that removed.

The Commission has heard yesterday that the comments by the public are completely unregulated, or appear to be completely unregulated. What are you going to do with your counterparts at the police to ensure better practices in relation to how the Territory Police Facebook page is monitored?---We do raise issues with the police when we see them on Facebook pages, and that is one of the really tricky parts of having a Facebook page. We’re not in control of the Facebook page, but we are in contact with the police if there is something that gets posted on there that we think is inappropriate.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Mr Lawrence, this is probably an impossibility for you. You may not have been here when Mr O’Mahoney informed us that Ms Thompson absolutely must leave at quarter to 3.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Now, I suspect you’ve got time for one question. So - - -

MR LAWRENCE: One.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So choose your best one. You can do that, you’re very, very experienced counsel.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE [2.45 pm]

MR LAWRENCE: Well, my name’s Lawrence, senior counsel, and I’m engaged as counsel for the Danila Dilba health service. You aware of them?---Yes – yes.

Let’s go to paragraph 83 of your statement, please. I’ll ask you a question about health. And it’s to do with when the Department has cause to investigate a situation and concludes, following it, that there is no abuse or neglect and specifically the child has been harmed or at risk, however the parents haven’t caused it and they’re in fact acting in a protective fashion. Do you follow that?---I’m sorry. Could you just say that one more time. It was jumping around on the screen.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4919 B. THOMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s okay. I’m trying to summarise your statement, which is when the Department has reason to investigate a family?---Yes.

They have various findings and one of them is no abuse or neglect?---Yes.

And that can be associated with children who have been harmed, or they are at risk, but the parents haven’t caused that and indeed they have been found to be acting protectively of the child?---Yes.

Right. Now, my question for you is this, and it’s a health question: when that occurs what, if anything, does the Department provide of any therapeutic service for the child in question?---Well, it’s very much dependent on the specific case. I would say that the majority of these types of matters are likely to be where sexual harm has occurred and a referral, making sure that the family are referred into an appropriate health service or, in fact, SARC would be one of the things that we would ensure.

Right. What if it’s not sex?---It’s very much dependent on the circumstances of the case and - - -

What I’m trying to get at is: does the Department then definitely take steps to provide therapeutic services for the child which was considered at risk, or indeed has been harmed, notwithstanding the parents had nothing to do with it?---I think you – if there’s a level of harm, I think it will be – it would be associated with a level or the significance of the harm. If there was significant harm and a child was found – and a family, in fact, were requesting assistance, that’s where we would link them into services. This may well be – what could be covered off in here in terms of the harm may, in fact, also be minor harm issues. So - - -

Look, if you - - -?---For example.

Sorry, go on?---We may have received a report that the child had been seen with bruises and we go out and investigate and we find that the parents haven’t caused those bruises and, in fact, there’s quite a reasonable – it might be the next door neighbour’s child, who’s ended up in a bit of a fight with the young person, and they’ve got – they’ve caused the bruises. I don’t think it would be likely that we would think them into therapy in that circumstance, but if we took an example that was more of an extreme one where – and I used the sexual abuse one, because it was an extreme one, but you could use a physical abuse one as well where a young person had been grabbed by someone, a stranger perhaps, and assaulted. Then it’s – well, in that case we would have made a referral to the police in the first instance and I would imagine they would be follow that up. However, if we were involved there and the family were actually seeking some kind of therapeutic assistance we would again think them into appropriate services, if there was one available.

You’re saying I think – and there would – is there actually a policy and a guideline for your employees that says coming upon that situation they have to either satisfy themselves there’s no need for therapy or, if there is, they have to definitely go to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

either psychologists, doctors, police. Is there an actual guideline policy?---There’s not a general policy. At one point in time there was a practice direction that in the case of children who had been sexually harmed, but not by a parent, that we would actually follow-up. So a practice direction on those particular matters.

And that can be produced for the Royal Commission, so that we can look at that, please?---It could be, I imagine. Yes.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s nearly 10 to.

MR LAWRENCE: Reluctantly, I will of course abide by the witness’ and the Commission’s. I do have other areas, I can do it - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If there are other questions that you really feel that you must ask, perhaps you could reduce those to writing and, through the Commission they could be sent. Ms Thompson is kindly going to actually deal with a number of areas that she needed some notice to produce, so that could be done, if you can give them to Mr Callaghan.

MR LAWRENCE: Certainly. I can do that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I see Mr O’Mahoney is nodding and he’s happy to facilitate that as well.

MR LAWRENCE: I’m content with that. Thanks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr Lawrence.

MR CALLAGHAN: I have some tendering to do, but Ms Thompson doesn’t have to wait for that.

MR O’MAHONEY: I have three very short questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You will have to bear the wrath, then, if - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: No. And I must apologise to everyone and the witness if I’m responsible for you being late, but there are three questions I just want to quickly ask of you, Ms Thompson. The first, as of today, are you aware of how many young people are currently in the care of the CEO in the Territory?---I believe there is 1046. I may – I haven’t seen the figure today so that – there could be late change on that, but roughly that.

Do you know of that number as of today how many of those young people are within the youth detention system?---Seven.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think she has already given that evidence.

MR O’MAHONEY: Is that a ratio that accords with your experience over the past year?---The figure has gone up and down a little bit but it tends to be, yes, a relatively small number. It may have – I mean, it may have got up to 20 at one point but, of late, it has been quite low.

No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney. Thank you very much, Ms Thompson. We’re obliged to you for your assistance to the Commission and for your willingness to undertake some further research for the Commission?---Thank you.

Thank you. You’re free now.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: You have got some documents.

MR CALLAGHAN: I have got some administrative duties here, so that the transcript can make sense. When I referred to tab 10, that’s the structured decision-making project update of October 2012. I tender that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, that tab – that’s tab 10 in supplementary tender bundle exhibit 515?

MR CALLAGHAN: No. These are all individual exhibits that have been referred to in the course of this witness’ evidence that have to be tendered separately, so I’m told.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What do you mean when you say tab 10, that’s all.

MR CALLAGHAN: Tab 9. I referred to tab 9 in my questions. That was just – that numbering system is no longer of any relevance. I’m just saying that because it will appear on the transcript that I said that, and when I said that - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s a separate exhibit you’re tendering.

MR CALLAGHAN: These are all separate exhibits and I’m only referring to the tab number so that the transcript makes sense at the end of the day.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan. Exhibit 562 for tab 10.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4922 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #562 THE STRUCTURED DECISION-MAKING PROJECT

MR CALLAGHAN: That was 9.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Tab 9. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: When I said tab 9. I was referring to the executive leadership group minutes of December 2012. I tender that.


EXHIBIT #563 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2012

MR CALLAGHAN: When I said tab 12 it was the NCCD memo to the Northern Territory executive team of 7 June 2016. I tender that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 564.

EXHIBIT #564 NCCD MEMO TO THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXECUTIVE TEAM DATED 7/06/2016

MR CALLAGHAN: And attachment A to that memo, I tender.


EXHIBIT #565 ATTACHMENT A TO NCCD MEMO TO THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXECUTIVE TEAM DATED 7/06/2016

MR CALLAGHAN: And attachment B to that memo, I tender.



MR CALLAGHAN: I referred to tab 16. That’s the CEO memorandum of 18 July 2016 I tender that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


EXHIBIT #567 CEO MEMORANDUM DATED 18/07/2016

MR CALLAGHAN: When I referred to tab 21 it’s the understanding and considering culture document report of Jane Lloyd of May 2015. I tender that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 568.

EXHIBIT #568 UNDERSTANDING AND CONSIDERING CULTURE DOCUMENT REPORT OF JANE LLOYD DATED MAY 2015

MR CALLAGHAN: When I said tab 22, it’s an email of 6/8/2015.


EXHIBIT #569 EMAIL DATED 25/06/2015

MR CALLAGHAN: And when I referred to tab 23 that was the executive leadership group minutes of 25 June 2015. I tender that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 570. Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

EXHIBIT #570 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP MINUTES DATED 25/06/2015

MR CALLAGHAN: Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. The next witnesses to be called are Ms Ann Owens and Mr Joseph McDowall who I understand are in court.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, we’ll just get the place arranged a little.

MR McAVOY: And they are going to be giving their evidence as a panel.

<ANN OWEN, AFFIRMED [2.56 pm]

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4924 A. OWEN ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<JOSEPH McDOWALL, AFFIRMED [2.56 pm]

MR McAVOY: Ms Owen, could you tell the Commission your full name, please.

MS OWEN: Anne Marie Owen.

MR McAVOY: And your occupation.

MS OWEN: I’m the chief executive officer of Foster Carers Association Incorporated.

MR McAVOY: And you prepared a statement for this Royal Commission.

MS OWEN: Yes, I have.

MR McAVOY: That statement is dated 23 May 2017?

MS OWEN: That’s correct.

MR McAVOY: If you look to the – on the screen to your left. You will see a document. Do you recognise that document as your statement?

MS OWEN: Yes, I do.

MR McAVOY: Are the contents of that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

MS OWEN: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I tender the statement of Ann Owen, dated 23 May 2017.


EXHIBIT #571 STATEMENT OF ANN OWEN DATED 23/05/2017

MR McAVOY: Mr McDowall, could you tell the Commission your full name – please, Dr McDowall sorry.

DR McDOWALL: My name is Joseph James McDowall.

MR McAVOY: And your present occupation?

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4925 OWEN/McDOWALL ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: I am the executive director, research, at the CREATE Foundation.

MR McAVOY: And you provided a statement for this Royal Commission?

DR McDOWALL: I have.

MR McAVOY: And if you look to the left on the screen, there is a document on the screen. Is that your statement?

DR McDOWALL: Looks like it, yes.

MR McAVOY: You recognise it as your statement?

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Your signature at the bottom. And that statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge.

DR McDOWALL: There was that one correction, that I identified earlier, which I think - - -

MR McAVOY: Paragraph 68.

DR McDOWALL: Paragraph 68, yes.

MR McAVOY: And that correction is in respect of the second last line.

DR McDOWALL: That’s right.

MR McAVOY: And it involves deleting the last three words in that line being, “discharged from” and inserting the word “in.” Is that correct?


MR McAVOY: How does that affect that sense then?

DR McDOWALL: Well, that sentence was sort of leading into the table that’s in section 69 and that table is from the AIWs statistics showing the number of young people in care at 30 June 2016.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. With that correction, is your statement true and correct.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Commissioners, I tender the statement of Dr Joseph McDowall.


EXHIBIT #572 ATEMENT OF DR JOSEPH McDOWALL

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Perhaps starting first with you, Dr McDowall. Could you just explain briefly for the Commissioners the – your role as executive director of research and the nature of the organisation you work for, CREATE.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. The CREATE foundation is the peak body representing the voices of children and young people in out-of-home care. My role as executive director, research, is to work in the third aspect of CREATEs mantra. That is connect, empower and change. CREATE connects young people in out-of-home care together so that they feel that they’re part of a system, that they’re not isolated, they know others are involved in the same experience as they are. We empower them through programs that we run to build their self-esteem and their confidence and then we use that so that when we talk to the young people they’re informed and can help us gather information that can change the system to improve out-of-home care in general across the board.

CREATE is a national organisation, so we have offices in every State and Territory. So my role is to write the reports summarising, aggregating all the information that we get from the young people.

MR McAVOY: And the reports tend to be on a – have a national focus then?

DR McDOWALL: Certainly, a national focus, yes. We also do smaller consultations on a local basis, state by state, but my work is largely with the national reports.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Ms Owen, could you briefly describe the role that Foster Carers Association NT fills.

MS OWEN: Certainly. Our role is to provide advocacy and support for foster and kinship carers right across the Territory. We do that through providing access to knowledge, for example, legislation and policy, training and professional development, and providing connecting up and networking events for our foster carers to connect with others of similar mindset.

MR McAVOY: And your – the membership of the Foster Carers Association?

MS OWEN: At last, I believe it was 653 persons.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you able to break that down further? We know that kinship in our Commission has tended to be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship. It’s broader than that, of course, but your – when you talk about kinship in your organisation, are you specifically referring to Aboriginal kin?

MS OWEN: No, we’re not. We have a lot of grandparents. We have a lot of aunts uncles.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that’s the widest definition of kin.

MS OWEN: It is the widest, and we haven’t sought to break up those figures to identify and separate. It’s just being related. A lot of our members have been members of the organisation for quite some time, so they were often – days before we even started to value breaking down information in such a manner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought it was important to clarify that, because of the way we’ve been tending to use kinship care in our evidence this week. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: In that regard, Ms Owen, is – how does foster carers – the Foster Carers Association embrace the growing role of kinship careers in terms of the work it does?

MS OWEN: Well, we recognise that majority, well over majority of the children who do come into care are Aboriginal children, and we have – we have a solid – I’m not sure what you would call it – our projection is that foster and kinship careers receive the same types of support as each from our organisation.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. In terms of support provided by your association, there’s – you say at paragraph 16 that there’s education and professional development provided to current and potential carers. What sort of education and professional development is provided? Can you just expand on that a little bit?

MS OWEN: Sure. We often find a specialist on providing care and tools to assist with carers with children who are – who have – children with challenging behaviours, or perhaps foetal alcohol syndrome. So we would find a specialist and put on a training session that gives the carer specific tools with – that they are able to manage that disorder more closely and more effectively for the child. We do first aid training, you know, there’s many sources of training.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And you said in your statement FASD is a growing area of – like, you mention it in training for instance.

MS OWEN: Yeah. It – Northern Territory has considerable number of children who are affected by FASD. And so we see that as a really key opportunity to upskill


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

our carers so that they are able to recognise different tools or mechanisms with which to work with that child far more successfully.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: pretty encouraging, isn’t it - - -

MS OWEN: It is.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: - - - that people are looking to have that sort of training.

MS OWEN: People attend – the rooms are always full. So it’s such important training.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Dr McDowall, you’re familiar with the national standards for out of home care.

DR McDOWALL: Indeed. Yes.

MR McAVOY: One of the – a number of the standards deal with the health needs of children and young people going into care and during care. There has been some work conducted by the CREATE Foundation in relation to the extent to which children are receiving the necessary medical assessments upon entering into care. Can you just expand upon that a little bit from a national perspective?

DR McDOWALL: That’s a difficult one for us to deal with, because we talk to the children and young people, so we have a question in our survey that asks them if they remember having a health check when they first came into care, but large numbers of them came into care very young and it’s very hard to remember these sorts of details. But generally I think – I would have to check the actual figure that we got, but we try to limit it to those eight and older so that they would have some understanding of the question, but from memory it wasn’t a major concern in terms of the numbers that knew about that initial check. In fact, the health area that we looked at was one that was handled quite well. Most of the young people in care reported feeling that their health was quite good and that they could get access when they needed it to health support. Dentists, doctors and so forth. So the health was one of the areas that was probably more positive than many of the others.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Do you – part of that, do you talk to people, young people who’ve left the care system?

DR McDOWALL: Left the care system?



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: We certainly – we probably don’t talk to those people about their early experiences with the health system.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: It’s just that we’ve had a couple of witnesses who – a fair bit older ..... have reflected on what they needed.

DR McDOWALL: Yeah – yeah. Well, a lot have – the ones that we talk to, who have left care, certainly would recount somewhat negative experiences. But again, we’re looking across the board and at the moment, sort of 2013, young people were feeling that those needs were being met reasonably well.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’m just thinking of a particular instance where the mental health and trauma issues were really prominent in this witness’s thoughts.

DR McDOWALL: Well, that’s certainly – that’s not sort of initial health checks, that’s ongoing health problems and certainly the mental health issue is a profound one for young people.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s almost a health topic in itself.

DR McDOWALL: It is.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The mental health needs whereas teeth, hearing, sight perhaps - - -

DR McDOWALL: That’s right. That’s sort of acute, but the other is really long term.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And perhaps some people – young people may not actually recognise their need for mental health services.

DR McDOWALL: That’s right. I mean, that does evidence itself usually after they’ve left care and the whole impact of being on their own and responsible for themselves exacerbates that situation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just follow-up on that. Do your researches indicate that across the board in Australia, in all jurisdictions, there is a dearth of mental health services for young people that are put in that sort of post care, 18 to 25 age group?

DR McDOWALL: Mental health is one of the major issue that is young people raise with us that’s just not being adequately handled.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Children raise that with you too.

DR McDOWALL: They do, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. As the point has been raised, Dr McDowall, does the CREATE foundation have any view as to the compliance with an effectiveness of the national standards for out of home care and whether that would benefit from greater strength in terms of perhaps legislative support.

DR McDOWALL: Well, I think that’s certainly something that we would advocate strongly that when the national standards were set up it was – they were introduced because there was considerable variability across the various jurisdictions in terms of the legislation, in terms of the requirements for the support of young people, but also how those supports were being implemented.

And I think when those standards were introduced it looked as though we did have something that would focus attention on the really basic demands that had to be met, but since then, the – the monitoring of how well the standards are being met has been really lacking. We did a huge report in 2013. We’re doing another one this year that will look at the whole sector. But there were – some sections were great. The young people reported that they felt safe. That generally was positively received. But other things like cultural support plans, leaving care plans, those sorts of areas really left a lot to be desired in terms of those standards being met. So it was piecemeal in terms of how they were met.

So – but there’s no follow-up, there’s no requirement that if that isn’t met, then what happens, what’s the accountability? And at the moment those standards are sort of there in the background – excuse me – but there’s no really – no guarantee that they are being adhered to.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Who has oversight of compliance with the national accreditation standards?

DR McDOWALL: Well, it started off – there was a national implementation working group when the Rudd/Gillard Governments were in play. That’s when the Abbott Government took over; it went back to just being a forum for a discussion. It’s supposed to operate through COAG. COAG signs off on it, so there’s the secretaries meeting that looks at the detail and passes that on to COAG, but they’re basing it on, like, the survey that the AHW did in 2015 and 2016 was the first effort of the Commonwealth to actually look at the outcomes and that probably left a little bit to be desired in terms of how the survey was conducted, and the results that were found.

So I think at this stage we – they are proposing to do another survey maybe next year to follow-up on that. But a problem is that to do this national survey they’ve allowed the States to actually do the questioning. So each State is coming up with its own set of questions. They’re – a lot of them are using the same tool to ask the question, so it’s done on a carsy-type instrument, but they ask slightly different questions, so it means you can’t actually compare what’s happening across the board because there’s different emphasis in the different jurisdictions. So that’s the advantage of the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CREATE study, because we ask the same questions across the board, so we’re getting a fairly clear picture of how the different jurisdictions respond.

MR McAVOY: Ms Owen, I noticed you nodding at certain points during Dr McDowall’s answer to that question. The Commission is aware from your statement that you also wear another hat as the President of the national body.

MS OWEN: Yes. The national body for foster and kinship care associations around Australia.

MR McAVOY: And Dr McDowall’s observations about the limited utilities, if I may use my own words, of the AHW data of 2015: you seemed to nod at that point. Do you agree with his observations.

MS OWEN: Yes. Yes, we do.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I’ll just go back to Dr McDowall for a second. There was an issue raised by the Commissioner in relation to the services for – mental health services for young people continuing on past their 18th birthday into adulthood. Does – do you or does CREATE foundation have a view as to the extent to any – that care or support service should extend past the age of 18.

DR McDOWALL: Well, certainly when the national standards were introduced CREATE was advocating strongly for, in the transitioning from care area, for planning for transitioning to start at least at 15 and for support to be continued to 25. That was – several jurisdictions already provide support or at least allow access to the support up to 25. Others limit it to 21. So we were trying to, and at the time the standards were introduced some actually had – well, one had 19 as the age that would allow support. So we were advocating to 25. But we could not get agreement from the States to add into the standards support to 25.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What’s the - - -

DR McDOWALL: We’d certainly advocate for it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, now the Northern Territory in its Care and Protection of Children Act does have assistance that may be made available to young people between 18 and 25 on a range of areas - - -

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - that are listed in the Act. In that sense, then, it’s a little in the vanguard.

DR McDOWALL: It is. Yes, indeed. Actually I think it from memory it was Victoria and Tasmania that are still limiting it to 21, but I think the other point that we should make regarding that support: it’s alright to say that they have support to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

25, but it’s always an opt in process. It’s expected that these young people with maybe mental health issues and all sorts of problems have enough capacity to be able to find these services and access them to get the support they need. And that’s a – that’s a pretty tall order. That’s difficult to expect. We would advocate that it should be, they should opt in first and if they don’t want it opt out. So that everybody should be able to access and be expecting to be accessing the services up to 25 and be introduced to those services as part of their leaving care arrangements.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, exactly. That’s what you would think, wouldn’t you? It should be in the leaving care plan. Yes

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Ms Owen, the national framework for protecting Australia’s children, the third action plan has only got three strategies. One is that exactly. Do you think that’s an opportunity to raise this issue?

DR McDOWALL: Well, we’ve been raising the issue.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: No. I’m looking at you thinking you’ve heard this before.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. We still will keep raising the issue.


DR McDOWALL: There are a lot of issues associated with that as well. Extending the age of care to 21 is probably fundamental because if we can provide – that’s not to say that all young people have to stay in care to 21 but if young people need that support and choose that option then being able, for the carers to be supported to support the young people up until 21 is critically important. I mean, that has been demonstrated everywhere in the word, throughout the US, Mark Courtney’s work, in the UK, they have the staying-put legislation now, it just – it’s so obvious that’s what should be happening here as well.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I was at a conference called by the Minister in New South Wales and this young person told him it sucked.

DR McDOWALL: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So do you think you have got good planning for us getting out of “it sucks.”

DR McDOWALL: And that’s the start. Because it’s alright to say these services are out there that you can access to 25, but just by giving these young people that extra support and a base to operate up until 21 means that they’ve got a much better preparation. So they know more of what their needs are, what needs to be, the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

supports they need to access so they are much better prepared to know where to go to get them, how they can get them. And that extra time is going to be incredibly important.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And Ms Owen from the foster carers’ position, they will be starkly aware of how ready or unready young people in their care are at 18. What’s the sort of feedback that you get.

MS OWEN: Most foster carers believe that there should be longer care options available for children in care. Many, and being mindful, I think, of many of our kids who come into care in the Territory have some significant trauma to recover from, and quite often need a longer time to adjust to their adult life. So a longer period, we’d absolutely support that and have participated in a number of forums about changes to leaving care legislation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: After all, it’s not that many decades ago when 21 was the age of majority.

MS OWEN: That’s right.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It was thought that perhaps that generation was wiser than – we’re given all the research about the development of the brain - - -

MS OWEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - for young people. Now, we’ve taken over your job, Mr McAvoy, I’m so sorry.

MR McAVOY: I was about to sit down, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: A much-speaking judge.

MR McAVOY: Just following on from that point, Ms Owen, you have – have you formulated a view as to what would be an appropriate level to which care could be provided in appropriate cases?

MS OWEN: Look, I do believe that people – children develop at different paces throughout their life, so I think there should be some options through that. 25 is a very real option for some young people. Coming back to the 21 is also an option and some are ready to leave home at 18. And I loosely call that home, it’s a home environment and some truly are ready, but I think we all know with children in this world, everybody – everybody’s child does choose to leave home at different – different ages. So I think 25 – I think the option should be there till the child is 25, or a young person.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And taking Dr McDowall’s suggestion that it’s assumed everyone will get that support until they opt out.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS OWEN: Yes. Yes. And it’s really important that foster carers are supported to continue supporting that young person.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. And just going back a topic, you heard Dr McDowall’s answer to the question about access to medical care and assessments. Do his observations, the research that they’ve – CREATE foundation has been able to undertake, does that accord with your members’ observations of the degree, extent to which people are assessed when they come into care?

MS OWEN: Yes. We do find that there’s not – not a lot of collectively research done very early in – in a child’s life when they do come into care. They’re – to our way of thinking, children should be assessed on the basics of hearing, eyesight, speech and general physical health, and that should be a mandatory assessment when they do come in so you have a baseline to continue working from.

MR McAVOY: And that’s not the case at present?

MS OWEN: No, it’s not.

MR McAVOY: Is it the case in some instances but not uniform, or is it – you can say that it generally doesn’t occur?

MS OWEN: It generally doesn’t occur, but we have some very strong advocates in the way of our carers who – who challenge that and persist, and certainly our service does advocate for a number of carers to ensure those medical tests are undertaken.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Some of those no doubt will come through school references. You could imagine that the teacher will notice the child is struggling to read and think because they’re very experienced, it might be sight and recommend a test.

MS OWEN: Yes. Some of them, some do .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But then again, a lot of these young children haven’t had much time in school.

MS OWEN: I think, what’s important to recognise that a foster or kinship career spends 24/7 with that child or young person so they can note the significance changes or requirements. Quite often there’s something they can – or can’t put their finger on and so they will then talk it up with the teacher or communicate further and certainly bring it to the attention of case management.

DR McDOWALL: Could I just say that it is one of the national standards that we have that assessment within six months of coming into care.

MR McAVOY: I just want to ask - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The national standard for all - - -

DR McDOWALL: Out-of-home care.

MS OWEN: Out-of-home care. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - out-of-home care. Yes. Thank you. Is that – does that include foster care when you talk about out-of-home care?

MS OWEN: Yes. Yes.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. All home-based care, yes. Well, and residential care.

MR McAVOY: I want to ask you both some questions now about information exchange, information sharing. Starting first with you, Ms Owen, at paragraph 64 of your statement, do you discuss a problem that no doubt your members tell you about in terms of a lack of information being provided to them upon receipt of the child into a placement, about, in particular, about such things as particular behaviours of the child. Can you just expand on that for the Commissioners as to why it’s so important that the carers have that information?

MS OWEN: Yes. Certainly. When a child comes into care there’s usually a document called Essential Information Record. Now, that provides an outline of simple things like medical issues that the child has, maybe allergies or something similar. It’s also provides a basis from where a carer can start building a relationship with this young person who’s – who’s come into their home and is usually quite – quite concerned about this new placement and acceptance and all of the associated things that come with that. We do find that that’s not always provided as quickly as it should be. So carers are really in a situation where they have to go in with no tools, no knowledge about the child. Sometimes there’s barely more than a name on the – on the document.

Now, if a child – if a child has been placed elsewhere previously and is changing placements, there may have been an incidence where the child has inflicted some danger on the carer or one of the children in that placement. So it’s really important for carers to have that sort of information put before them so that they know how to best protect the other people in their – in their home and ensure their own safety. In a lot of cases that we see, that’s not always information that’s provided to the carer, if ever, or at least some time after the initial placement. So it’s – some carers are – have been put in unsafe situations because of this lack of information.

MR McAVOY: You’ve also made some comment in your statement about the lack of involvement of carers in development of care plans for their children in their care. Can you just expand a little bit on the problem that creates.

MS OWEN: Yes. When a child is in care, there are often, in that particular placement, there are often a number of other children in that placement. And just as


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

a simple example, each one of the children may have different sporting equipment commitments and other activities. Often a child coming into a placement will have a care plan set out with their commitments in it which bear no consideration of the carer having to juggle everybody’s lifestyle commitments at every port. Until recently, carers, even though it’s very much been talked about, have not been permitted or not largely been involved with the developing of care plans.

However, I received in the last couple of months a template of a new document which requires a carer’s signature. So if a care plan is now drawn up, the carer is to sign off on that, that they have been consulted and have been – have participated in the actual drafting of the care plan. In the past there were situations where care plans had – contained information in them that was not actually relevant to the child that the care plan was written from. So it was definitely a cut and paste opportunity.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We’ve heard quite a lot of criticisms of that.

MS OWEN: Yeah. So I’m very pleased to have seen the new template and I’m looking forward to watching that as it evolves, because my understanding is that a care plan is not locked in place until a carer has been included in that consultation and has been able to sign off on the finalised document.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Do you think – we have met with carers, but obviously not as much as you. Do you think that will help resolve some of that angst they feel about the information? You know, it’s - - -

MS OWEN: Well, a lot of the angst that they do feel about the department in general is that they’re not consulted. So, yes, the short answer to your question is it must help if carers have been given an opportunity to participate in that really important process.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Because we – you know, you hear stories that they’ve got a care plan, they do something, it’s not inside the care plan, next moment they’re getting - - -

MS OWEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: - - - calls from families have been a go at them about what they’re doing. So I think this information is just so important that it’s shared everywhere.

MS OWEN: Yes. I agree. And it’s such an important part to have all professionals who are responsible for the care of that child to include a foster carer as part of the most valued group of people who are in charge of that child’s upbringing.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: We ask so much of them, don’t we?

MS OWEN: We do.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Foster carers. As a society.

MS OWEN: Absolutely.


MR McAVOY: And Dr McDowall - - -

DR McDOWALL: So could we add the child to those discussions?

MR McAVOY: I was just coming to you. I could see you just about to jump out of your seat there. CREATE foundation has done some work with children in order to determine how satisfied they feel about their capacity to contribute and how well they’re heard. Hearing the observations about the foster carers’ concerns about their involvement and access to information, is there any comment you can make from the – as a children’s advocate?

DR McDOWALL: There would be a parallel, I’d say, because that’s one of the biggest complaints we get from the young people; is that they’re not consulted. They don’t get a say at all in what’s happening in their lives. We find that some – some are just never consulted about anything. Others have limited possibilities. They’ll perhaps be able to talk about some of the day-to-day things, but anything significant like schoolwork and what they’re doing in their courses and so forth, they may not be getting an opportunity.

So I think as standard procedure it should be that young people are consulted. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child indicates quite clearly that young people must participate in any decision making that affects their lives, and these sorts of decisions are incredibly important. So they should be one of the key players in the whole process.

MR McAVOY: In that regard, perhaps as an adjunct to that issue, you’ve got some views about whether there should be an independent complaints mechanism for young people in care to access?

DR McDOWALL: Well, again, I think we place too much onus on the young people to be able to advance these issues and introduce them into the system when they’re making complaints. We know from our work that about half the young people have a rough idea what to do to make a complaint but a lot of them are then concerned if they do make a complaint, what’s the consequences. Am I going to get into trouble? Will I get somebody else into trouble?

So these are real worries that the young people have. And I think we need a mechanism that doesn’t place the onus on them to make the decision to complain and have to do something special: find a particular service or find a Commissioner or find an ombudsman to raise the issue. We need mechanisms that are much more user friendly, proactive, that will allow the young people to have a voice.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: And you’re aware of such a mechanism that has been used in the past.

DR McDOWALL: In Queensland we had a very useful system that was part of the Children’s Commissioner at the time. It was the community visitors program, and those visitors as a matter of course went out to see all the young people in care. They reached them once a month or so, just to check how they’re going, touch base, see how things are, any issues. And the young people – it was an informal process. The young people felt that this person was there as an interested party, concerned with supporting the carers as well as the young people, and any issues could be mentioned in discussion.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How did that – how were they recruited and how did that get into the system?

DR McDOWALL: It was part of the Children’s Commission, and that was part of the problem because as you could appreciate it was a fairly expensive exercise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: As of Queensland?

DR McDOWALL: Yes. And it led also – I think one of the difficulties was that a lot of issues were raised, like, young people have all sorts of problems and they might have something that, “I need a new computer” or “My TV’s broken” or something, and though the visitors were quite responsible and would pass all this information on, but I think the people in the Commission were getting inundated with all of these, perhaps not all that serious complaints or requests, and so it became a really – it was expensive to maintain and it was bogging down – a lot of the bureaucratic time was taken up trying to follow these up.

But the principle I think was really sound: that you’ve got people who are there who are interested parties who can contact the young people on a regular basis and just, just to see that everything’s okay, they’re still in the placement, there are no major problems, and then – but if there are, then you’ve got a vehicle where you don’t have to do anything special to raise that issue. That person will follow it up for you. So that’s one mechanism that has worked in the past.

The other I think that operates in the UK is the personal adviser model which I think is the really ideal one, because what that does is give the young people a mentor, someone who is associated with them while they’re still in care, but after they leave that person remains with them. So we establish the relationship while they’re in care. It’s not just another person who’s forced it upon them. They actually make that connection and then that person is there to support them in their journey through life up until at least 25. And any little issue they have, they can touch base with that person and that person acts as - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Am I right in understanding that in the United Kingdom every child exiting care is actually given a dedicated - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: Personal adviser.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - personal adviser until they reach 25.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Or whenever they discard the need for that person.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. And that serves a multitude of purposes, because it’s not only that base to return to for support, but it’s also – we’re able to track the young people, because those advisors have, as part of their responsibility, the onus to maintain contact with the young person. So it can’t just be that they disappeared, “I don’t know where they are.” If that happens, then that poor old personal adviser has to take steps to locate the young person, to find out where they are.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: In terms of cost, because obviously you could hear people shrieking and saying how costly is that for each person, but I’m sure that those who do these things will have said that keeping them out of homelessness, out of - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Trouble.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - trouble, generally, yes, out of debt and all of those things makes it worthwhile. Is that – was that done in that case?

DR McDOWALL: Well, it was done in that case. It’s been done in Australia. The Morgan Disney reports that are available here, 2006, I think they were written, show that whatever investment we can make early on as the young people are leaving care will be rewarded hundred fold down the track. It saves millions of dollars over the life course by providing adequate support at the beginning.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Ms Owen, you’ve commented in your statement about the need for independent complaints mechanism and the concerns of foster carers about making complaints.

MS OWEN: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Would you just like to expand on that a little bit.

MS OWEN: We often receive an inquiry from a foster or a kinship career about, “Can you please explain the policy around this”, “Can you explain how or what the consequences are?” and they often say to us “I don’t want you to lodge a complaint because I fear consequences.” “I don’t want you to advocate on behalf of us because I’m worried about losing” their children, and that’s quite a common discussion. We – we have found that when we can assure foster carers that there won’t be any repercussions lodging a complaint, a complaint process either will take it up through the points of escalation that we have set out with the department, but often we’ll


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

encourage them to make a written complaint via the website, the department’s website which has a complaints line.

Now, usually once a complaint is received by that mechanism, it is put immediately into a time line. They have so many days to respond, which is good. However, often the person taking that complaint will refer that complaint back to the person who originally investigated, not to an independent person to review the whole data, and that person will come back with a response. I did this because of whatever that might be. And that’s the end of the matter. The decision has been finalised as far as the department is concerned.

We would like to see an independent body that was separate from the department that could actually take these complaints in such a way that they are investigated fully and independently from the department. This current course means that there is no right of appeal.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. We have some time constraints and although there are going to be some further questions of other – from other counsel, I would just ask given that you’ve covered a lot of material in your statement, is there a particular issue from your statement you really want to bring to the Commissioners’ attention that we haven’t already covered?

MS OWEN: There are a number of points in my – in my statement that I – I feel strongly about. And I can’t think – I can’t pull any specific one out.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you want your statement in front of you to flip through it? You’ve got some recommendations, of course, at the – at the end, Ms Owen, which are helpful.

MS OWEN: I would like to see there some legislation be put in place for an organisation such as ours not to be able to be de-funded because we raise and challenge the process that is taking place. We - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you fear that that is the case or might be the case?

MS OWEN: Yes, I do.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I was going to raise that issue with you, Ms Owen, because you give a couple of instances of that in your statement.


COMMISSIONER GOODA: And I was going to – a couple, if I can, Mr McAvoy, the issue of advocacy is one, so there’s points where you advocate for carers.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Within Territory Families. And then if I can frame it as sort of political advocacy, there’s two types of advocacy you do.

MS OWEN: Yes. We would like to be always considered in the development of legislation. We do feel that if we have particular cases come before us, that we and the Northern Territory Government, this particular Government has been very open to inviting me to come to discuss that at any point in time. So I feel that there is some positive change there. There has been an incident which I did put in my statement where we very much were challenged.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’ll say it: threatened.

MS OWEN: Threatened, yes. I would like to have the knowledge that foster and kinship careers can feel safe in bringing their information to us and having our skilled team advocate on their behalf without recrimination or fear of recrimination.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yes. And just a general question, and I notice you’ve got significant increase in funding.

MS OWEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Does your contract have a special condition about not advocating? There’s one that’s generally in Commonwealth funding guidelines.

MS OWEN: No. However, last – last round of funding was issued in 2016 and there was much debate about removing the word “advocacy” out of that agreement and I fought fiercely to maintain the advocacy because that is such an important component of the work we do.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yes. And just removing it like that would take away all the advocacy that you do.

MS OWEN: That’s right. Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Whether it’s in the public or whether it’s in – within - - -

MS OWEN: And the perception was that we would still offer support to carers, however we had to battle that to retain individual advocacy which meant that we can take a case-by-case opportunity and try and mediate that through with the department. And most of our work is about mediation and trying to find a solution that is workable between the foster carer and the department and to the best interests of the child.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I will ask you one more question before I turn to Dr McDowall, Ms Owen. You’ve provided the Commission with a copy of the funding


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

agreement between the Northern Territory Government and Foster Carers Association Northern Territory.

MS OWEN: Yes.

MR McAVOY: If we can just see that on the screen, if you can just turn to page 1 of schedule 1, please, which is – got the suffix .0027. Thank you. And you’re familiar with that document.

MS OWEN: I am. Know it off by heart.

MR McAVOY: Under care, expressions of interest halfway down the page the second dot point says:

The Department of Children and Families agrees to provide reports as applicable of all newly-approved carers.

And talks about developing policies and procedures at the second – at point B to ensure that applicant details can be provided to Foster Carers Association Northern Territory. Have you attempted to obtain the information referred to in that contract from the department officers in - - -

MS OWEN: Yes.

MR McAVOY: - - - the period since the contract has been entered into.

MS OWEN: Yes, I have. I met regularly, monthly usually, with Marnie Couch, and always a part of my inquiry there were how many foster carers have been approved and because part of this requirement is that we are to contact new foster and kinship carers within – I think it’s six weeks or eight weeks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Eight weeks.

MS OWEN: Yeah, of them being registered, well, we don’t know who they are so that’s impossible.

MR McAVOY: And what was the response to those requests.

MS OWEN: We’re still working on it was usually the response. It’s difficult to give us the information and a lot of that was around the – the presumption that there was a right to – no right for us to have that personal information belonging to the – those carers. However, my objection has always been that that’s what the information sharing legislation was built to do.

MR McAVOY: And did you ever receive that information?

MS OWEN: No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


MS OWEN: Not at all.

MR McAVOY: Dr McDowall, I’ll pose the same question to you, to give you a last chance, of any issue that you would like to draw to the Commissioners’ attention.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. The issue is practically the same as that one because it’s about information sharing. For CREATE to do its job, where they’re charged with finding the voices of the young people, but how do we find the young people? Well, the departments have records, supposedly, of where the young people are, who they are, what the contact details are, and we would ask the departments to pass those details on to us so that we can make contact.

But we’ve had numerous situations where this just doesn’t happen, and I’ve listed in my statement the classic that we had from 2014 to 2016 when we did our Go Your Own Way report. All the governments funded us to provide these leaving care kits for young people about to leave care, to provide them a planning template to give them a lot of resources that they could prepare for leaving. So the government has funded us to do that, 2,000 kids we prepared. And we then went to the governments and said well, who are the 17 year olds who should get the kits? “We can’t tell you that because of privacy.”

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Absurd.

DR McDOWALL: So we said to the governments, “Well, how are we going to get the kits to the young people?” Some said, “Give us the kits and we’ll give them out.” Others said, “Well, look, you can give them to this distribution centre and we’ll give the centre the mailing labels and they can post them out.” So we had to go through this convoluted process of trying to get the kits out to the young people.

Well, part of our project plan was a few months in we were going to contact the young people to see, “Did you get your kit? Have you got any questions about it? Have you got any questions about it? DO you know how to use it? Have you talked to your case worker yet about it?” to see if they had started to use it. But we go to the government, “Who did you give the kits to?” “Oh, we can’t tell you that because of privacy.” So we couldn’t make any contact with the young people to see how things were going.

Then we get to the stage – the plan was 12 months or so after the event we were going to see was it of any use, “Did you get a plan? Did you use it? Was it helpful?” So we go out then, and, of course, the young people have aged out of care. Now, in Australia we have no records whatsoever, anybody, of who the kids are who have been in care. Once they’ve left the responsibility of the departments, nobody knows.

So, fortunately, CREATE – we support young people who have been involved with our programs up until 25. So we’ve got a large number, reasonably large number on


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

our database. So we were able to contact 369 young people in that age cohort and ask them, “Well, did you get a kit and was it any good?” And only 52 per cent of that 369 actually got a kit. So we lost control of the distribution process. We couldn’t make it effective because we couldn’t help prompting to make sure it was being used. And that’s all because we couldn’t get the information about the young people.

Now, the Royal Commission in South Australia, the Nyland Royal Commission, they actually recommended that the government there share the contact details of young people with CREATE. And as CREATE is an agency in the system, as all the foster caring agencies are, it would seem reasonable that we would be legitimate people with whom that information could be shared. So that’s our big issue.

MR McAVOY: So in case that doesn’t come across clearly in the transcript, is it fair to say that is a voice of exasperation?

DR McDOWALL: That is a voice of exasperation, indeed.


DR McDOWALL: We’ve been doing these report cards – I wrote my first one in 2008, and we’ve had the same problem all the way through. But the Go Your Own Way last year was the classic, because there the governments have funded the project. They have specifically given us money to prepare the kits, saying this is a great thing, it came out of the national standards, we were charged in the second action plan to actually do this, and we did it to the best of our ability, and then we can’t find out who the young people are who need the support. So - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: That’s almost the definition of exasperation.

DR McDOWALL: Yes. I think - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Worse than that.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I might, before I sit down, tender the service agreement funding contract between the Department of Children and Families and Foster Carers Association Northern Territory.


EXHIBIT #573 SERVICE AGREEMENT FUNDING CONTRACT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILES AND FOSTER CARERS ASSOCIATION NT



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you. That’s the evidence-in-chief. I understand there are two parties who have been given leave.


DR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour.

Dr McDowall, might I start by asking you a question in relation to the personal adviser in the United Kingdom, I think my instructing solicitor had the opportunity to give both of you just a flyer from the UK, if I can call it that, from the internet. Can I hand that to you and ask that that go on the web, which it has done. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Dr Dwyer appears for NAAJA.

DR DWYER: I’m sorry. Thank you, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I know you’ve probably got a little forgetful because you’ve said it so often.

DR DWYER: Dr McDowall, if I can preface this by the effect I’m summarising of the Northern Territory Care and Protection Act is that section 86(2) says the CEO must provide support after leaving care, but it doesn’t – only to the extent that the CEO considers that appropriate. And section 86(3) says without limiting the ability to provide, it may include the following set out on the screen, I’m grateful, accommodation, education, employment. But there’s no mandate for the CEO to provide specific assistance, is that right?


DR DWYER: And that’s different to the UK, where the CEO must – or I withdraw that – where the government must provide ongoing assistance after 18, including a personal adviser.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: So if I could go back to that UK document, again, this is a summary document but it suggests that the council there must give the young person a personal adviser, must give the young person a pathway plan setting out what advice and support they’ll need and make sure they’ve got somewhere to live and enough money until they turn 18. Do you thinks that idea of a mandatory obligation to provide a pathway plan and a personal adviser post 18 is a good one?

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: And, in fact, can I go further than that, or ask you to go further than that and say it’s really essential to enshrine that in legislation so that we’ve got a benchmark against which government can be held to account.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: Absolutely essential. And the UK has a very – a strong accountability system in place to monitor this, because within each council they have the independent reviewing officers. So they sit there with the teams who are providing the support and make sure that that support is being provided. So that happens within the council region. But then you’ve got OFSTED which is a national body that can come into any of the jurisdictions and inspect their whole process. So they inspect the independent reviewing officers and all the teams to make sure that that support is being provided.

DR DWYER: You would like to see that support provided until the age of 25.

DR McDOWALL: Certainly. We – most of us agree that 25 seems to be a very important age. Yes, we have to provide that support to 25. And make it proactive, not requiring the young people to do the hard work to get - - -

DR DWYER: So kids that have been in care of the department are mandated access to a personal adviser until the age of 25.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: And – I’m sorry to interrupt you.

DR McDOWALL: No. No. It would just be fantastic. And we have – as I have said, we’ve advocated. They’ve done trials on this in Victoria, at Berry Street, one of the care agencies there. The Federal Government has just put aside 3.9 million for another trial of personal advisors in Western Australia. We don’t need any more trials. This has been operating in the UK since 2000 as legislation. Fantastic.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you know any evaluation of the UK scheme?

DR McDOWALL: It’s being evaluated all the time through OFSTED and through the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

DR McDOWALL: I couldn’t tell you offhand any document I could point to that would say – but you look at the reports from OFSTED and they show that if it’s not happening, one area can actually – it can be closed down, basically, until the improvements have been made, and it’s quite draconian. The areas are very concerned when the inspectorate comes around to see what’s going on. So it carries a lot of weight, and because of that it’s an ongoing evaluation. It’s not, sort of, sitting back five years later to see how is it working. It’s a work in progress. It’s being monitored constantly.

So I think that’s what – we need to put our money not into more trials, but to actually look at how we can roll out a system like this. The UK is different because it’s got a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

national government that sets the legislation and the local authorities implement it. We haven’t on quite got that same level of control in Australia.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. It’s much more difficult for us.

DR McDOWALL: Much more difficult. But the Commonwealth can play a role, play a play. For example, in the US, where talking about keeping the young people or giving them the option of staying in care until 21, what the Federal Government did there was to say, well, we can’t control, we can’t make you do it, but we’ll pay half the costs of that extra keeping them from 18 to 21. The Federal Government will put in half the cost. So that’s an incentive for the States to say, “Well, okay, yeah. We’ll try it, see how it goes, because it’s not going to cost us a huge amount to provide that support.”

So the Federal Government can do those sorts of things. At the moment we’ve got TILA from the Federal Government which – $1500. Through the system in the UK they can get up to £2000. So we could certainly improve the involvement of the Commonwealth considerably, and that would be one way to support the States to maintain the young people’s options up until 21.

DR DWYER: Ms Owen, I just note for the record that you were nodding throughout the evidence given by Dr McDowall. You don’t disagree with anything he has just said in terms of the support it would give foster carers?

MS OWEN: No. We certainly need to support children and young people beyond 18 years, and 25 years would be my recommendation.

DR DWYER: Could I just have that document back up on the screen, just before we leave that issue of the UK. Dr McDowall, just at the bottom of that document and over onto the next page, it talks about a statutory review meeting that is provided for the young person when they leave, where it’s discussed where you’re going to live, if you’re going to work, training, education, how much support you think you will need, etcetera, and over the page it indicates the people who were at the meeting including an advocate, a carer, a mentor, and this independent reviewing officer, a neutral person. Would you advocate a situation like that where you have a mandated statutory review meeting prior to leaving?

DR McDOWALL: Definitely. Well, I mean, that’s what the planning is about. The planning is assessing your needs for the future and the first thing you have to identify is where are you going to live. That is the most important decision that’s going to be made for any of the young people. They have to have a safe environment in which to live. When you’ve got that base you can achieve all sorts of things. You can get a job. You can continue your education, but to have that, somewhere to live is critical.

So to have these people involved, I think, and to make sure it’s happening. In some cases people are saying, well, we should have a situation where the young person actually signs off the plan to say, yes, look, it’s all been prepared. I give it my


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

approval. Well, when you consider that only about a third of the young people that we talk to know anything about a plan, we’ve got a long way to go in terms have making sure that the young people are involved and that some assessment is being made.

DR DWYER: And the legislation, if legislating for that leaving plan is an important step to ensuring it takes place.

DR McDOWALL: Well, we’ve got legislation that does talk about these plans, but, as you’re pointing out, it needs to be much more precise.

DR DWYER: And, Dr McDowall, can I just point – can I ask you a question about a document that appears behind your statement. It’s the CREATE report card from 2013. Could I ask that a particular page be brought up on the screen, the one ending in 0100. It’s page 49 of that document with a subheading Cultural Connections 3.3.3. And you refer in this document to a that was done – thank you. That’s on the screen now. It’s the top table with the mean rating by indigenous respondents of how connected they felt with their culture our cultural community in the various jurisdictions. Do we understand you to be – I withdraw that. You point out in the report that there was great variation across the different jurisdictions about how much Aboriginal people felt connected to kinship.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: The worst report card went to Tasmania.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: The second worst went to the Northern Territory. Is that how I read that graph?

DR McDOWALL: Overall it was very poorly done in terms of cultural support plans. In this one we found about 10 per cent of the young indigenous people knew anything about a cultural support plan. I subsequently did further work and we actually got data from Western Australia that wasn’t in this and the paper was published last year, December 2016 and in total it was 14 per cent of the indigenous young people knew anything about a cultural support plan.

DR DWYER: Are you able to break that down in terms of the Northern Territory children at this stage.

DR McDOWALL: I could. Offhand, though; I can’t tell you exactly. But it would be in the paper, yes.

DR DWYER: Those statistics were drawn from asking children themselves about their knowledge of the plan.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: Yes. Yes.

DR DWYER: This morning the Commission heard the story from a grandmother who had seen her grandchild around town and called out to him. She had to tell him that she was his grandma and she told him in Aboriginal language the word for grandma and he didn’t recognise that name. Do you agree that some of the children will be so disconnected that they won’t understand themselves what they’ve lost in terms of cultural connection.

DR McDOWALL: Yes, when we looked about the extent of connection about a third of the young indigenous people felt very connected. A third were, sort of, take it or leave it, and a third had no interest whatsoever. And the point I made in that was that if that’s their choice, if that’s really what they want, fine, but most of the time it’s because they don’t know. They don’t have the options when they’re in care to maintain those connections, to see the value of the connections. And if they don’t have those opportunities then to say that “I’m not connected” doesn’t really mean very much, because we haven’t given them a chance.

DR DWYER: Ms Owen, do you see great challenges for foster carers despite their best efforts to maintain cultural connections for children, Aboriginal children in care?

MS OWEN: Yes, I do. We are looking at developing some connections with community to provide – to provide programs which do language. We’ve – we’ve started discussions with Batchelor College to talk to them about developing programs for carers to learn the language and take their foster children along so that they can speak it and learn it together so ultimately they don’t lose it entirely.

DR DWYER: Have you raised that issue with the Northern Territory department of families in terms of what support you’ll need?

MS OWEN: No. Not at this point. But that is likely in the next round of applications and funding.

DR DWYER: Ms Owen, I anticipate that next week the Commission will hear from a lady in Maningrida whose child was taken from her and placed with a very kindly lady in Palmerston who was either Greek or Spanish. It’s extremely difficult for somebody in that position, isn’t it, the Greek or Spanish lady, to try and understand Aboriginal culture to a depth herself that enables her to pass that on?

MS OWEN: Look, absolutely. We all know that the difficulty – difficulties arise out of the different accents and tonal understandings that we all are exposed to.

DR DWYER: I’ve got a final question for Dr McDowall if I may. Dr McDowall, at paragraph 93 of your statement you talk about your concerns about the problems with the Aboriginal placement policy.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DR McDOWALL: 93.

DR DWYER: They were based on the, can I suggest to you the alarming statistics in terms of the increasing numbers of Aboriginal children removed from their families.

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

DR DWYER: Have you got – are those problems specific to the Northern Territory or across Australia in your view?

DR McDOWALL: It’s across Australia. I think the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle I think is incredibly important, and we know that there’s a hierarchy of recommendations as to who are appropriate carers, and I think that has to be mandated and followed. But we know also that the number of carers available, indigenous carers, is limited and very – great problems in actually recruiting carers in that category. So we know that 60 per cent are going to be, in the Northern Territory, placed with non-Indigenous carers. But one of the points that’s made in this Aboriginal Child Placement Principle is that the carers and the department have to do everything possible to support maintaining connection to culture.

So even when we’re – we have to place the young people with a non-Indigenous carer, we have to do, bend over backwards to make sure that those carers are supported to make sure that the young people have an opportunity to maintain that connection with their culture.

DR DWYER: Dr McDowall, the Commission has heard this week from Dr Christine Fejo-King, who’s a Larrakia woman, who talked about the keep and complex kinship structures across the Northern Territory and the need to create a deeper understanding of those kinship structures. Is that something that you have experienced as part of your research, that there’s a lack of deep understanding about kinship structures that contributes to a failure to comply with the Aboriginal Placement Principle.

DR McDOWALL: Definitely. I mean, that’s what’s – that’s why we need to have mechanisms in place to help the carers maintain those connections, because it’s the subtlety of the particular community, the country, that the young person is connected with, that we have to make sure we’re meeting. We can’t just assume that one size fits all. We have to look at the nuances of each case and that’s where the department’s really has a responsibility to make sure that those connections are maintained.

DR DWYER: Thank you. My time’s up. Thank you.

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


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, perhaps I will get you to tender that summary document that Dr Dwyer referred to.

MR McAVOY: I can do that now while it’s at hand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. That’s a good idea.

MR McAVOY: And I do so tender the leaving foster or local authority care form from the United Kingdom Government.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 574 for that summary UK document. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #574 SUMMARY UK DOCUMENT

MS GRAHAM: Thanks, Dr McDowall and Ms Owen. My name is Felicity Graham, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. The Commissioners have heard a fair bit of evidence about the issue of children in care self-placing. That is, leaving their designated placement. Can I start with you Dr McDowall, is that an issue that in your experience is a widespread one across all of Australia?

DR McDOWALL: Very much so. I’m actually involved in a project in Queensland at this very moment where we’re looking at missing children. In Queensland the various terminologies, we started with the self-placing as a bit of a euphemism for the fact that the children are running away from home. We’ve had – missing children are the ones who are absent from placement or away from the placement, but nobody knows where they are. So they’re missing. The other term is absent and absent means that they’re not in their placement, but we know where they are, sort of. So they’re with friends or something of that sort.

But it’s a – it’s a problem across the board, and a lot – we’re looking in this study – we haven’t finished it yet, but we’re looking at the reasons that young people might go missing, what are the greatest factors. Two seem to be emerging at the moment. As I say, it’s not complete yet. But when you have difficulties in the placement itself that the young people – there’s some sort of personality conflict or whatever, or maybe even just an argument at a moment that has led to the young person responding in that way. But another one that’s really – that we need to think about is the fact that young people are running away to go back to family.

And a lot of young people are removed and they don’t have a lot of background. They don’t know why. We found in other research that a third of the young people have no idea of why they’re actually in care. Nobody has actually told them, sat them down, given them a bit of family history, talked to them about the implications of that. So these young people, when they get a chance, if they’ve got some


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

understanding of maybe where family members are, they’re taking off to try to reunite with family. So it’s a very complex issue. It’s not just sort of a simple yes, they do this for that reason. There are lots of reasons that they’re going missing.

MS GRAHAM: Well, what can be done to better engage with children in relation to this issue of self-placing or running away, becoming absent from their designated care placement?

DR McDOWALL: Well, I think – as I said, one issue is just making them more informed so they know why they’re there, they know what the prognosis is, what’s likely to happen. How long are they going to be there. What’s the story. Young people need to have this information. And if they’ve got that, then they’re in a much better position to make a more informed decision about their own life, about what they’re going to do. And if there are mechanisms in the situation that, if there are conflicts, then let’s look at some sort of restorative way of resolving those conflicts rather than becoming polarised and then making it, “That’s the only option I’ve got, to leave.”

There are lots – and that would come back through the carer training and the various programs that are available, so that the young people can appreciate what’s happening in their situation, but as Ann said before, if you’ve got a young person who has got a whole program mapped out by the Department, this is what’s going to happen, but in the care context it’s totally different from what the family is doing, then we’ve got a conflict immediately. And if I need to go to cricket on Wednesday, and that’s not part of the program and I can’t do that, then there’s something – you know, here I am on my own, I’m fighting the system, I will be running away. So it’s that level. I believe that if we could give the young people more information, so they were better understood, their situation and what’s likely to happen, we wouldn’t have these sorts of problems.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Owen you were nodding at various points of Dr McDowall’s evidence. What’s your perspective on – from the carer’s perspective on this issue of self-placing, the difficulties and what might be posed as a solution to addressing this issue?

MS OWEN: Well, we’ve recently been dealing with one of the young people absconding at various intervals. Case management seems – even though they can locate her, they seem to – to struggle to be able to bring her back into the fold. So she is saying, “No, I’m not going back.” But she still is – has positive relationship connections with her foster carer, so there’s no – no angst in that relationship, except that she just simply doesn’t want to live there anymore and wants to do her own thing, and it is a huge challenge. Some of my queries around that is if the Department is indeed providing care and protection for these young people, they should be doing that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

They should ensure that these young people are protected. This young girl, my understanding, is living with an alleged drug dealer and, even though police have been informed, she is considered safe. And that’s tragic.

DR McDOWALL: We have lots of cases like that too where young people report to us. That’s where the self-placing became the euphemism, because the idea is that “Well, they know what they want. They’re making their own choices, so they’re okay. It’s sorted out.”

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Which begs the question why put them through that process in the first place?

DR McDOWALL: That’s right. Why did they feel that, and then what’s the responsibility of the departments to then say, “Well, we know.” We had a case on one of the tours I did last year with our report that we were releasing, in one of the cities there was a young person that everyone knew was self-placing in the park, living in a tent in the park, and they were in care. They were on orders. And yet, that’s okay, we sort of, “Yeah, we know where they are.” That’s – and you think there must be a – a better way of – maybe they want to be independent. Maybe they want to control their own lives and you can understand that, but we need to then think, how can we make that possible for them whilst still being aware of where they are so that we know they’re safe. So maybe supported accommodation, or some sort of intermediate stage, would be a way of providing an area that would give them some freedom but also give us a little bit of confidence that we still have them under our care.

MS GRAHAM: An earlier supported transition out of care where there’s - - -

DR McDOWALL: Yes.

MS GRAHAM: - - - greater emphasis put on allowing that child’s independence to develop and be honoured?

DR McDOWALL: Exactly. Yes.

MS OWEN: So my question is there this child is [REDACTED], so that really tears at the heartstrings. The carer is distraught. The case manager has been fabulous in – out looking for the young girl constantly, but she has no power. She has – that child stays there, because she’s not at immediate risk of harm and that’s the definition.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Owen, at paragraph 33 of your statement, you outline some of the training that you identify and arrange for carers.

MS OWEN: Mmm.

MS GRAHAM: The Commission has heard a lot of evidence about the need to bring a trauma informed approach to young people.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS OWEN: Yes.

MS GRAHAM: Have you been able to identify and provide training that involves not only the theory of a trauma informed approach, but practical tips for carers on how to respond to children who’ve experienced trauma?

MS OWEN: Firstly, we do – within the confines of the resources that we have, and a lot of our training opportunities are working with other organisations to provide that training, because they have a responsibility of delivering the training. So we tap into that. So our resources don’t stretch at bringing together some of this key training, especially around trauma informed information. So we can only deliver that at very short periods of time throughout – occasions throughout the year. We find that carers will absolutely clamour to attend those sorts of training, because they are in need of the tools to use in everyday care. They want to learn.

MS GRAHAM: Is there, in your experience, a real gap in that kind of training being available to carers?

MS OWEN: Yes, there is, in the Northern Territory we’re very limited with our skills base.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thanks. Ms Graham. Mr McAvoy, anything?

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. One question. Dr McDowall, if you look at paragraph 56 of your statement – it will come up on the screen – you have some figures there from CREATEs research in relation to young people leaving care, and I just want to take you to the first figure in terms of the number of people: 35 per cent of young people leaving care being homeless within the first year of leaving care. That’s after exiting care. There will also be a significant number of those who have self-placed – self-placing into homelessness; is that correct?

DR McDOWALL: Yes indeed. And because they’re self-placing we would have to define them as homeless, because they’re not in – necessarily a safe environment. We talked about homelessness being if they did not have a safe operation to live for at least a week, continuous time, while in care. We found that the average was about 31 days that young people were homeless.

MR McAVOY: In the first year?

DR McDOWALL: In the first year after leaving care. And the problem is that a lot of young people are very – we ask them, have you any concerns about leaving care? And in the last survey we did about a quarter said, “No, no concerns at all.” And when you drill down into that though you find that they don’t have any concerns because they don’t understand the implications of what’s going to be involved in leaving care, because they haven’t been informed. They haven’t spoken to anyone


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

about the problems or what the issues might be that they confront. So we’ve got – we’ve got to make sure, like we talked before, about that assessment when they leave care.

Part of the planning is to make sure that they’ve got somewhere safe to live and not to say, “Well, I’m going to get a flat by myself,” because that sounds good and it might be a noble ambition for young people to want to be independent, but when you think about the logistics of getting into the rental market to get your – the necessary points up in terms of your qualifications, to have any sort of letter of recommendation, to have a bond to be able to pay, all of these things that are necessary, if someone hasn’t talked to the young people and explained what’s required then it’s a hell of a shock when they get out there and say “Well, I’m going to be independent – oh, how am I going to be independent? So then we find this is where our 35 per cent come from: they fall into a situation where they can’t find somewhere to live. So that all comes back to that preparation and planning.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Owen and Dr McDowall for coming and giving us the benefit of your long experience and your research into this area. It’s a very important and valuable area for us to be considering, of course, and we’ve certainly taken much note of the legislative change that you want to see.

MS OWEN: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I hope it bears some fruit. We’re very grateful to you.

DR McDOWALL: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [4.25 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will take a brief five minute break so that the transcriber can rest her fingers before we have our next witness.

MR McAVOY: My learned co-counsel, Mr Callaghan SC, will be taking the next witness, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [4.26 pm]

RESUMED [4.36 pm]


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: If it please the Commission, I call Toni Eyles.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Eyles. Would you kindly stand while I administer the affirmation to you. Thank you.

<TONI EYLES, AFFIRMED [4.36 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you kindly be seated, and may I apologise for keeping you waiting for so long - - -?---That’s okay.

- - - to come in and give your evidence this afternoon. Ms Parsons, you appear for Ms Eyles?

MS PARSONS: I do. Thank you, Commissioner.


MR CALLAGHAN: Just for the record, can we get you to state your name and occupation, please?---I’m Toni Eyles ..... attendance and truancy officer.

Ms Eyles, you’ve prepared a statement dated 19 May 2017?---Yes.

Yes. I tender that statement.


EXHIBIT #575 STATEMENT OF TONI EYLES DATED 19/05/2017

MR CALLAGHAN: In that statement, you talk about the work with the Northern Territory Government which started in 2009 as an Aboriginal community worker within the northern remote team in Territory Families. Could you just briefly explain your role in that team?---So I was – would work alongside case managers within – within the team and would travel to one location with the case manager. And because the people we worked with were Aboriginal people, so that’s why I was employed.

Well, you talk about working with them and going into – or going with workers from Territory Families. While you were there, how common was it in your experience for a – for a non-Aboriginal case worker to go into a community without an

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4957 T. EYLES XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Aboriginal case worker?---It happened a few times, but I always accompanied the people I went with, so the case managers.

Yes?---I guess we were assigned to certain people within the team.

Well, can I ask you this: was it your impression that there were enough Aboriginal case workers, or community workers within the team to – or within the department to ensure that in each case involving an Aboriginal child there was input from an ACW?---In most cases. I can’t say for every case. I know that there has been times when I haven’t been involved in a case from the beginning, but, you know, later on have been involved.

Can I just get more of a sense of the difficulties involved and take you to paragraph 25.1 of your statement, and in particular to the difficulties involved in the completion of a genogram of a community within a short time frame. What were the challenges that you faced?---Well, one is that a community genogram, there’s, like, hundreds of people to talk to, and I guess it’s the building of rapport from the beginning, you know, so people actually give you that information.

And was that an issue with information generally and not just in relation to, as you talk about in paragraph 25.1, but in terms of getting accurate information from the people you needed to get it from, that it was a slow process?---Yeah, and I think that it needed to take more time, because first you’ve got to get to know someone and at the end of the day they know you’re from child protection; they’re not always going to want to give up information so quickly. I think it needed to be a longer process.

Yes. And in terms of your workload, did you find that there was – that there were times when you were doing administrative things rather than the sorts of things that might have assisted the case workers in the community?---Yep. I’ve had times when I’ve, yeah, been just, we’re just in the office doing stuff.

Yes?---And I think it’s more valuable if we accompany, you know, case managers, especially if they’re, you know, brand new to the Northern Territory or to Australia.

Was there confusion about the role and value of the work that you were doing, do you think?---What do you mean by that?

Well, we’ve got some other evidence, I don’t need to take you to it necessarily, but there’s been some comments that Aboriginal community workers haven’t necessarily been given clear and consistent roles and responsibilities. They might have been done something of a disservice in that regard. What would you say to that?---Well, within the position – within the position description, you know, there’s the roles of, you know, working alongside and, you know, making families more comfortable because there’s an Aboriginal person present, but there’s also that point in there where you can be asked to do whatever duty that needs to be done within the team, so it may not be Aboriginal specific. So that could be, “Okay. You need to” – this is just an example – do a care plan or do some other sort of document, yeah.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And sticking with paragraph 25 you speak to a disconnect between the management in Darwin and the experience on the ground. What are some of the problems that that caused?---Yeah. That was more round we know in management areas that, you know, there’s KPIs that need to be met and stuff like that. So sometimes I find that was more important than actually doing the work. And allowing time to do it, you know, you get better results.

Yes?---So that’s what my, yeah, that’s what I meant by that.

Okay. We have looked today indeed at a couple of different Territory Families policies which emphasised the need for consultation with Aboriginal community workers prior to contact with Aboriginal clients and their families. Did that occur routinely in your experience?---Prior to going to communities, is that what you meant or - - -

Well, prior to any sort of contact with an Aboriginal client or their family, the policy suggests that case workers should always consult with Aboriginal community workers, Aboriginal community workers?---I don’t believe that happened all the time.

And is that because there weren’t enough of you, resources too thinly stretched?---That could be the reason, resources. Sometimes it’s easier to start the work and do it, than to talk to someone about what you’re actually going to do.

You talk in your statement about the cultural competence training at Territory Families, paragraph 31, we might get that up. Look, the lack of training or the lack of – or the amount of training is a common enough theme that we’ve heard about consistently in this Commission, but your point is I think not that that there wasn’t enough but it was the wrong kind; is that right?---It touched on, like, the stuff that you needed to know about travelling to communities, about Aboriginal people. But I think it needed to be ongoing and not just happen as a two day thing at the start of your employment.

Yes?---With Territory Families.

If – I might have put that the wrong way, not of the wrong kind, but as delivered in the wrong way. I think you suggest that it – would you suggest it can’t just be done an online course?---So there was two different courses. There was the online one where you could just tick a box and if you got it wrong you just tick the next one, so it wasn’t – you wouldn’t really learn anything.

Yes?---But then there was also the two day, that’s a compulsory training, you know, when you start with the department.

But to your mind not sufficient?---No. It’s not. I think there also needs to be some induction within the office that you’re working in, because you don’t know where you’re going, so it’s different wherever you go in the NT.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. Look, thank you for that. Commissioners, you have Ms Eyles’ statement, which covers a lot of areas, but those are the only questions that I have for her.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I wonder if we could just develop a bit further with you the relationship between the professional member of the team in the department, the social worker, I’ll call them I suppose, and people in your position who didn’t have the degree. You say right at the beginning that for legal reasons you could not really be involved in the case work. Is that because you needed to be a registered social worker? I’m just not quite sure what the legal reason was?---Yeah, I think that was how it was put. So there was a time within the department that I actually was a case manager. With the changing of CEOs, I think that changed and we were no longer allowed to case manage for legal reasons and, yeah .....

Is that what you understood the legal reason to be? I can’t think of any other; that’s why I have just sort of suggested that?---Yeah. I think – yeah. I think – I don’t know. I think – that’s all they – I got told. So that’s why we didn’t case manage.

I see. So you didn’t push behind what the legal reason was? It’s a little bit like the newspapers saying we can’t publish someone’s name for legal reasons and never really explain to the reading public, for example, why, or what that legal reason is. No one ever told you?---No one went into specifics with that. We did challenge it within our office but nothing come about it and the office I was in at the time, yes.

And you give an example in paragraph 27 of two different divisions from the department or two different areas in child protection, both investigating the same family, but obviously not talking to each other at all. How could that come about?---There was a little bit of discussion together but two different officers made two different decisions and not a lot of communication goes on between different officers.

In your experience does that happen more than on an odd occasion?---Yes.

In effect it’s a doubling up of resources, is it not?---Yes. And the – yeah, and – I just lost what I was going to say.

You were talking about the fact that there’s not a lot of communication between the various people that work in this field?---Yeah. And I believe that people – you know, different officers can travel together to save resources and, you know, both – the family gets to listen to two officers at the same meeting rather than, you know, they have to talk to three different officers in one day or two.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And that’s from the same – looking at paragraph 40, you talk about different – it might be a sexual abuse, if I can read it properly – read into it properly, sexual abuse team, your team, but people don’t know what’s happening. You mentioned someone going to, in the paragraph Commissioner White mentioned about an STI, but all in the community at the same time but one team


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

didn’t even talk to the family?---Yes. So that was the incident when – because there was two different matters.

Yes?---There was the STI and there was the failure to thrive concerns. The office that actually removes the child – the children didn’t see that family. However we went to see them, so we get there and the family is actually really confused as to what, you know, what’s happening. And obviously we’re the department so we do, you know, have to support each other. So we explained it, you know, what had happened, but I think the family were still confused that, like, we weren’t the people that took the children into care. But we are at the same office so, yeah. It’s - - -

Does that happen very often; you might find the different people from the different sections, if I can call, or teams, in the community at the same time?---Yes. Yes, that happens quite often and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It just seems a bit odd when there’s such a heavy workload - - -?---Yes.

- - - that there might not be a little more coordination about?---I think in – after living in the Territory, because I’m originally from South Australia, after living in the Territory there’s so – it’s complicated for the – the families because they don’t – they know there’s something wrong and child protection’s there, but the people are coming from different offices. I think there’s – but I don’t know how – like, I’ve thought about it, how can we make it easier for the families, like, so then there’s just one person going out to speak to them about, you know, a multiple of stuff, rather than different, yeah, concerns.

Surprised you thought that.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: We have just – you haven’t seen the two witnesses here before telling us about how important information is and we have gleaned that from other witnesses as well. And the majority of your recommendations are around making sure there are Aboriginal people involved every step of the way so that information gets through properly?---Yes. A high number of clients within the department are Aboriginal. Like I mentioned in the statement, the first point of contact is central intake, and there’s not an Aboriginal person in that unit. So – and a lot of families have said that they find it – they don’t want to ring up because sometimes they can’t understand the person on the phone because their English is a second language as well, so – and then the Aboriginal people are sometimes second, third language is English. So it’s got a breakdown of communication from the beginning.

So you think more Aboriginal people, you recommend when meetings with children, I take it every meeting, there should be an Aboriginal person there - - -?---Yes.

- - - so that information does get across that - - -?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - relieves the stress that – it’s always a stressful situation when you’re talking about children?---Yes.

So your – one of your recommendations, every meeting there be an Aboriginal person there?---And they can determine if they need an interpreter as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And also central intake is taking telephone calls: you would make a recommendation about that, that it’s very difficult for, if an Aboriginal person ringing through, to actually understand what’s being asked of them?---Yes. And it stops a lot of Aboriginal people ringing up and ..... told me in community because they – they don’t know if the information is being taken down correctly and then the person on the phone could be taking information and doesn’t understand it fully what they’re saying. So an example is, like, you know, the mum said this. You know, who’s the mum? Because lots of families have more than one mum. So that sort of information is, yeah, important.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yeah. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I have nothing further. I think two parties have leave.


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [4.53 pm]

DR DWYER: My name is Peggy Dwyer. I’m appearing for NAAJA. Could you tell the Commissioners about what your experience is of the level of mistrust within Aboriginal communities you visited and welfare, or NT Families?---Yeah.

Shall I say that again?---Yes.

When you’re talking to families on the ground in communities, is there a mistrust between the families and welfare, so they don’t trust welfare?---Well, there’s the historical stuff, and you know, we’ve – the department has changed their name that many times, but we’re still known as welfare, and a lot of families still believe that their kids are going to get taken away. Sometimes we could go there for – like, when I worked in the Child Abuse Task Force, the sexualised stuff, and the family will just think it’s – they don’t understand that. All that they think is that their children are going to get taken away.

So I wanted to ask you about the example that you give at paragraph 25.1, when you were asked to complete a genogram of the community within a really short period of time and that was just an impossible task?---Yep.

You’re familiar with the work of Dr Fejo-King?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4962 T. EYLES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And she’s told her – the Commissioners earlier this week that Aboriginal family kinship systems are much more complex than is often understood by Territory Families?---Yes.

And they include skin groups and different relationships to skin groups?---Yes.

You’re an Aboriginal woman from South Australia, but you still had to build up trust with the particular Aboriginal communities that you visited, didn’t you?---Yes.

And in trying to get a picture of kinship in the community, is it important that you first establish a relationship of trust?---Yeah, well, it’s just like when you meet someone you have to get to know them and then, you know, sometimes they’re willing to you know, educate you or teach you about you know, what – how they do things in their community.

But that doesn’t happen straightaway. That’s after building a rapport?---Sometimes it request be really fast. Sometimes it takes a longer period of time.

So in this example that you gave, because it was an impossible task, did you come back to Darwin and tell your manager that it was just impossible?---Yes.

And what was the attitude from her – her or him?---There was time limits.

There was time limits?---Yes.

So was there a lack of understanding, do you think, from those who managed you about how difficult it was to build rapport and relationships. Yeah. So, yeah, she – they just wanted – obviously there was a project and there was a, you know, this is – “We’ll do this in three months; we’ll do this in six months,” and just unrealistic, and I think needed to be more longer and stuff like that.

Did that make you feel that the system you were working in was culturally unsafe or incompetent?---Yes.

And how did that feel as an Aboriginal person to be working in that system?---Sometimes I wanted to try harder to change things but then sometimes it’s just easier to give up, yeah.

Do you think that – I was going to ask you now about some of the important changes we could make to the system. Do you think it might make a change to have an Aboriginal – an ACCO, an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation who was working within a welfare capacity?---I think so, yes.

You mentioned earlier when we were talking outside of court about the Victorian model of ACCOs; would that be something that you as an Aboriginal person would be interested in working for?---Yes. And there was something like that up here

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4963 T. EYLES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

before, yeah, so something similar to that, but, like I said before, it has to be people working for the communities and the people, not, yeah, for themselves.

And it would have to be an organisation that’s properly funded and resourced. Do you agree with me?---Yes.

Do you think getting Aboriginal people into senior positions of management and control helps in terms of creating a culture within the organisation - - -?---Yes.

- - - of understanding and support?---Yes.

Nothing further. Thank you, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Dr Dwyer. Ms Graham.


MS GRAHAM: Ms Eyles, as you know, my name’s Felicity Graham. I appear for CAALAS. You say at paragraph 57.6 of your statement that when you commenced studies to obtain qualifications to be able to move to the professional stream as a social worker you were challenged by a manager and you go on to explain what happened. Is it fair to say that you didn’t feel supported about moving into a role where you could be promoted into the professional stream?---Yes. In that statement that was about one specific manager. There was other managers that actually supported me doing some study, but this one said that – that my role as an ACW was not – didn’t – isn’t a social work based role, yes.

And you say, again just a little earlier in your statement:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers are a wealth of knowledge, information, and experience, and the way that they are treated and valued should reflect this.

And you talk earlier in your statement about times when you hadn’t felt listened to or your advice isn’t being heeded, or even feeling insulted by the way that achievements in a team are only recognised amongst the non-Indigenous workers. Is that right?---Yes, sometimes in some teams. Yep.

And - - -?---It’s not - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s not a – your universal experience, though, is it? There were some places?---It was just one specific manager. Yep.

Yes. One assistant manager. Thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4964 T. EYLES XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: Do you feel that more could be done to improve the situation for Aboriginal staff members, whether they’re Aboriginal community workers or whether they’re social workers, to feel supported to speak up about issues that are of importance to the cultural needs of children?---Yeah, there could be improvements.

And do you think employing more Aboriginal people in Territory Families could be one way of improving that situation?---I – I don’t know whether it’s about employing people. I think it’s more about using them properly. So they – sometimes they’re not doing what they should be doing and that’s, you know, they should be valued more, and then you’re obviously going to get more work and good work out of people.

The Commissioners have heard some evidence from Clare Gardiner-Barnes earlier this week, and she gave some evidence about a certificate 7 that was introduced to try to promote, particularly, and acknowledge the skills and expertise that Aboriginal staff hold within the organisation, and she says at paragraph 45 of her statement:

In an effort to recognise the skills, experience and expertise that Aboriginal staff brought to the agency, and provide a career pathway for them that meant that they could one day be the chief executive of the agency or be promoted to any other role that they wished, this tailored certificate 7 course was established.

Did you feel that there was an attitude within the department where Aboriginal staff were getting the message loud and clear that they could one day be the CEO of the agency, or did you feel like there was an attitude that wasn’t valuing and promoting Aboriginal staff?---I – I can’t remember when that course was offered, obviously because I’ve been studying, and, yeah, I can’t really answer too much towards that.

I won’t press it any further. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. Ms Parsons, do you have some questions for your client.

<EXAMINATION BY MS PARSONS [5.03 pm]

MS PARSONS: Just very briefly. Thank you, Commissioner.

Ms Eyles, you’ve spoken about your techniques, the things that you did when going into remote communities that assisted you to build relationships within those communities and trust and respect with the people you were working with. Can you share with the Commissioners one of those techniques that we were talking about earlier today?---So that – obviously before you go out there you need to get knowledge of who’s – who are the important people. So who – who can we – we’ll let them know that we’re actually going there. And then it’s, like, I know a lot of

.ROYAL COMMISSION 23.6.17 P-4965 T. EYLES XN©Commonwealth of Australia MS PARSONS

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

case managers talk too much, and so it’s actually, you know, saying enough that they actually have – you know, given the chance to actually say what they want to say. I think sometimes when too many questions are asked they feel that they just have to say yes, no, and there’s no opportunity to tell their story. Yeah, and it’s just having an understanding of the people you’re working with, yeah. It’s really hard to explain. I suppose because I do it all the time. It’s, yeah, it’s just harder to talk to someone else about it.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So you mentioned it before, you need to take time?---Yep.

You need to be respectful. You know, like I visit as many Aboriginal communities, and there’s not one I’d go into without even – without asking what to do and all of that. So you’d be the same, coming from South Australia?---Yes.

So everyone’s got to do that?---Exactly, yeah. It’s – like I’ve explained to the others before, it’s – it’s like you know, when you go overseas, you go to a new country, you’ve got to learn about that country, you know, and there’s language barriers and there’s lots of stuff to learn, and so for me as an Aboriginal person going into a community I have to learn about them people and, you know, what I can and cannot do, and, yeah, that sort of stuff.

MS PARSONS: And you mentioned, is it, that you considered learning some basic greetings and things in - - -?---Yes.

- - - the languages of the communities you visited? Is that something that you found was helpful?---Yeah, and that’s being polite and respectful, and – yeah. And then they’re probably going to want to tell you lots of things that you don’t want to hear, but, yeah, you’ll get them talking.

Alright. Thank you Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Parsons.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’ve nothing further. May Ms Eyles be excused?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you very much indeed for coming to assist us with our deliberations, Ms Eyles. There’s plenty of meat in your statement which we’ve read with great interest and it will assist us very much in our deliberations?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And we wish you well with your studies?---Thanks.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: By the standards of this week it’s still quite early.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s amazingly early.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Don’t tempt it.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m nonetheless going to submit that we should adjourn.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. That’s right. Someone might leap out and say I’d like to ask some questions. You should leave while you’re got the chance, Ms Eyles. But by the standards of this week we are starting at 8.30 on Monday. Yes, Mr O’Mahoney?

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m very conscious, Commissioner, that there could be an after dinner session on Monday and that 8.30 will be fine.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it was either that or Saturday.

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m more than happy with that. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Anything else that I need to make any statements about, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: Not this afternoon, Commissioner. Not that I know of.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, thanks for your assistance this week, everyone.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 5.07 pm UNTIL MONDAY, 26 JUNE 2017


5

10

15

20

25

30

Index of Witness Events

ANDREW MORGAN JACKOMOS, SWORN P-4862EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-4862CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4877CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4881RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY P-4886

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4888

BRONWYN THOMPSON, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION P-4888EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-4888CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4914CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4916CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4919


ANN OWEN, AFFIRMED P-4924JOSEPH McDOWALL, AFFIRMED P-4925THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-4956

TONI EYLES, AFFIRMED P-4957EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-4957CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4962CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4964EXAMINATION BY MS PARSONS P-4965


Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #558 STATEMENT OF ANDREW MORGAN JACKOMOS DATED 13/06/2017

P-4863

EXHIBIT #559 SECTION 18 OF THE CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 2005

P-4887

EXHIBIT #560 REPORT TITLED ‘IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’

P-4887

EXHIBIT #561 REPORT TITLED ‘ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE KOORI CHILDREN’

P-4887

EXHIBIT #562 THE STRUCTURED DECISION-MAKING PROJECT

P-4923

EXHIBIT #563 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2012

P-4923


5

EXHIBIT #564 NCCD MEMO TO THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXECUTIVE TEAM DATED 7/06/2016

P-4923


P-4923


P-4923

EXHIBIT #567 CEO MEMORANDUM DATED 18/07/2016 P-4924

EXHIBIT #568 UNDERSTANDING AND CONSIDERING CULTURE DOCUMENT REPORT OF JANE LLOYD DATED MAY 2015

P-4924

EXHIBIT #569 EMAIL DATED 25/06/2015 P-4924

EXHIBIT #570 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP MINUTES DATED 25/06/2015

P-4924

EXHIBIT #571 STATEMENT OF ANN OWEN DATED 23/05/2017

P-4925

EXHIBIT #572 ATEMENT OF DR JOSEPH McDOWALL P-4927

EXHIBIT #573 SERVICE AGREEMENT FUNDING CONTRACT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILES AND FOSTER CARERS ASSOCIATION NT

P-4945

EXHIBIT #574 SUMMARY UK DOCUMENT P-4952

EXHIBIT #575 STATEMENT OF TONI EYLES DATED 19/05/2017

P-4957


Documents

Transcript 23 June 2017 Web viewWe ran job fairs, we went out to school fairs, ... it’s recorded in the system. It doesn’t count on this performance measure. So, for example,