TranscriptCreator · Web viewIt’s like our passport. Like our ID that we use ... And this diagram, ... who has since become a close friend came to me and knocked on the door of the

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-786493

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

ALICE SPRINGS

9.36 AM, TUESDAY, 30 MAY 2017

Continued from 29.5.17

DAY 40

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 C. JACOBI and MS A. SWINDLEY for the Northern Territory of AustraliaMR D. WOODROFFE appears with MR O’CONNELL for North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4066©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

THIS TRANSCRIPT IS ONLY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

MR McAVOY: Good morning Commissioners. Yesterday we heard the first of the personal stories that will be presented during these hearings in Alice Springs and continuing in Darwin from 19 June. These personal stories have been gathered by the Commission staff and are personal recollections of those who have experienced the care and protection system, from a range of different perspectives. That is, the stories of the children, families and communities that have felt firsthand the effects of the welfare system and where it has failed. Today’s personal story has been pre-recorded.

We have allocated the witness, him, the pseudonym CO, and his voice has been altered to protect his confidentiality. CO talks about his experience and recollections as the grandfather of a child in care. He reflects upon the loss of contact with his grandson and the impact of the removal of his grandson from his culture, country and kin. And now that his grandson is no longer in care, CO tells of how he has worked to repair those broken links to language, to tradition, to the land and to culture. If we could please commence the recording. Thank you.

RECORDING PLAYED

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. The first witnesses today in this set of hearings is a panel, and it’s comprised of three witnesses, and I would call those witnesses now.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you.

MR McAVOY: Margaret Turner, Kumalie Riley, and Petronella Vaarzon-Morel.

<MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER, SWORN [10.09 am]

<KUMALIE RILEY, SWORN [10.10 am]

<PETRONELLA VAARZON-MOREL, AFFIRMED [10.10 am]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Kindly be seated. Yes, Mr McAvoy.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4067 TURNER/RILEY/VAARZON-MOREL ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. I just ask you to move a little bit closer to the table because we need you to be able to speak into the microphone so that everybody can hear and the transcript can record what is happening. If you want, you can pick the microphone up to bring it a bit closer.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it’s fairly sensitive, though. I’m this far away, and I think you can hear. Is it satisfactory? Good.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Ms Turner, you’ve prepared a statement for the Royal Commission and you can see on the screen in front of you is a copy of the statement that was prepared and that you’ve signed. Do you remember that statement?

MS TURNER: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And that statement has some diagrams attached to it, annexure 1 and annexure 2. MKT2. You remember that statement?

MS TURNER: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And that statement is your statement and it’s – yes.

MS TURNER: Yes, it is.

MR McAVOY: And it’s true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

MS TURNER: Yes, quite correct.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I tender the statement of Margaret Kemarre Turner dated 24 May 2017.

EXHIBIT #460 STATEMENT OF MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER DATED 24/05/2017

MR McAVOY: Ms Riley, you have also prepared a statement for the Royal Commission.

MS RILEY: Yes.

MR McAVOY: You will see that on the screen in a second. That’s dated 24 May 2017. Can you see that statement? Do you recognise that statement?

MS RILEY: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And you’ve signed that statement at the bottom and attached to the statement, attachment 1, is a diagram.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS RILEY: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And attachment 2 is a second diagram; yes?

MS RILEY: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And that’s your statement? And the content of that statement is true and correct?

MS TURNER: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I tender the statement of Kumalie Riley.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 461.

EXHIBIT #461 STATEMENT OF KUMALIE RILEY DATED 24/05/2017

MR McAVOY: And, Ms Vaarzon-Morel, you have also prepared a statement dated 25 May 2017.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: That’s correct.

MR McAVOY: You can see the statement on the screen. That’s your signature that appears at the bottom?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: It is.

MR McAVOY: And that statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

MS RILEY: It is.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I tender the statement of Petronella Vaarzon-Morel.


EXHIBIT #462 STATEMENT OF PETRONELLA VAARZON-MOREL DATED 25/05/2017

MR McAVOY: Ms Turner, first I would ask you if you would like to introduce yourself to the Commissioners and tell them about yourself and introduce yourself in the proper way.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TURNER: My name is Margaret Kemarre Turner. I’m eastern Arrernte lady. I’m Akarre – my language, Akarre speaker. I’m a mother and a grandmother and a great-grandmother. I’m a translator, and interpreter, and an author, and also lots of things. I work in between in two parts, in two ways.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Ms Riley, could you introduce yourself to the Commissioners, please.

MS RILEY: Hello, my name is Kumalie. I’m an Arrernte woman, born and grew up here. And I teach. I’m a teacher and interpreter and also a translator like my mother. She is a Kemarre woman. And I grew up immersed in my culture, could dance and sing and tell stories of the country, and also I have a very knowledgeable lady in the elders, like my mum here, to keep the culture and language strong in schools as well. I am a .....

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Ms Vaarzon-Morel. Could you briefly describe your experience both as a teacher in the early part and now your work as anthropologist in the Northern Territory.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. I first came to Central Australia, as a young teacher, and I worked for a couple of years at Willowra, which is a Warlpiri community about 350 kilometres northwest of here. I’ve maintained relations – very close relations with that community since that time, and have worked on four Aboriginal land claims associated with community, plus right now I’m working on a cultural mapping project with the community, and also a native title claim on a neighbouring pastoral lease. But apart – after becoming a teacher, I retrained as an anthropologist, a sociocultural anthropologist, and I currently teach at New York University, Sydney campus in the Rocks in Sydney. Anthropology of Indigenous Australia, and Anthropology of Indigenous Art, plus I’m a research associate at the University of Sydney, based at the Conservatorium of Music, on an ARC linkage project which is with Central Land Council, and it’s to do with cultural repatriation or cultural heritage materials.

MR McAVOY: Thank you very much. Ms Turner, Ms Riley just described you as her mother. In western terms, she is your niece; is that correct?

MS TURNER: Yes. She is my – my daughter as – because she’s – we don’t call it a niece in our family, it’s our brother’s children and our children through mother, we call them our daughters. So I’m a mother as well as her mother.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. And you’ve known Ms Vaarzon-Morel for some period of time, Petronella sitting next to you.

MS TURNER: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. You’ve – you said you are an author; you have written a book?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TURNER: Yes, I did.

MR McAVOY: This is the book that I’m showing you now.


MR McAVOY: What is the title of the book?

MS TURNER: The book means – Iwenhe Tyerrtye: to be – What is to be an Aboriginal.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I will tender a copy of the book later in this sittings. This book, I think belongs to one of the juniors who is reluctant to part with it, I understand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What kind of tender is that, then, Mr Goodwin?

MR McAVOY: Well - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just let us look at it, but we can’t keep it; is that the idea?

MR McAVOY: I’m assured that we will have a copy for tender before the end of this hearing, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: To keep it in a good place, so we will know where to find it, why don’t – don’t you think it’s a good idea to putatively tender it now, so it gets a number when Ms Turner is giving her evidence? Even though we will be replacing that copy with one - - -

MR McAVOY: I’m happy to do that over the potential objection of my junior.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, you’ve got the authority.

MR McAVOY: I will hand that up now.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 463, Mrs Turner’s book. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #463 BOOK BY MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER, IWENHE TYERRTYE: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ABORIGINAL PERSON

MR McAVOY: Your book, Mrs Turner - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I take it we have Mrs Turner’s signature in it, as well, as author.

MR McAVOY: No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: She might be kind enough to do that for us.

MR McAVOY: Yes, perhaps, before the day is out. Mrs Turner, the book covers life as an Aboriginal person, but particularly your life as – and your understanding of life as an Arrernte person.


MR McAVOY: And in that book you discuss in some great detail the kinship systems that operate in Arrernte society.


MR McAVOY: And you understand that today’s evidence is really to discuss matters of kinship and to help the Commission understand the role that kinship plays in Aboriginal communities and the effect upon children when they’re dealt with by welfare – the effect upon them and the kinship system; you understand that?

MS TURNER: I do understand.

MR McAVOY: Yes. And in your statement, there’s – the first diagram that appears at MKT1, if that could be shown on the screen please, is a diagram of Arrernte skin names.


MR McAVOY: And immediately below the words Arrernte and Skin as they appear at the top of the diagram – can you see that on the screen there? Is the name - - -

MS TURNER: .....

MR McAVOY: Is the name Kemarre.

MS TURNER: Yes. Kemarre.

MS TURNER: Yes.

MR McAVOY: That’s your name?

MS TURNER: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Are you able to just explain for the Commissioners how to read this diagram.

MS TURNER: Name that – we’ve got Kemarre there.

MR McAVOY: At the top left.

MS TURNER: Yes. Which is on the left-hand side, on the top, Kemarre. It’s also – Kemarre is also – my grandfather is a Kemarre, and that is how I got my name as a Kemarre from my father ..... which is on the right-hand side here. His children are also Kemarre, so it goes backwards and forwards a lot, as you see it on the arrows.

MR McAVOY: Yes. And you have also prepared for – to teach your grandson, another diagram, which is MKT2, and you’ve got that in front of you on the table.

MS TURNER: Yes, I have.

MR McAVOY: And at the centre of that diagram is a large red circle. What does that represent?

MS TURNER: The middle circle represents ..... which is on the left, the left-hand side in the middle, and the right-hand side, the name beginning with the H, is .....

MR McAVOY: And the title at the top of the diagram, Everything Comes from the Land. That’s to help the people that are reading this diagram and learning from it to understand that everything starts with the land?

MS TURNER: Everything come from the land. Yes. Everything come from the land, and also the things already are described in the – I can’t see properly, because my glasses are not - - -

MR McAVOY: Mrs Riley, I know that you – from your statement that you use this document also in – as a teaching tool in your work as a sort of a cultural adviser. Can you explain for the Commissioners how you use that document to assist you?

MS RILEY: This one or the Arrernte skin name? This one. Okay. How we relate to the country and how we relate to each other and how we are born into that system and how we learn about the country, the dance and the songs and the stories that goes with the land, and how we connect with the land, and how the land connects to us. And also the children learn individual – individually first to get to know their skin names, and then how they connect to mum and dad, the grandparents, we have special terms for our families in that diagram. And they learn about how and who they marry to traditionally, traditional marriage systems is also embedded in that diagram.

And that diagram is also our law and order that keeps us in there, and it rotates. It’s a living thing. It’s not just a diagram. We live it, we breathe it. We dance, we sing,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and dance, and cry through this system. But – and it also gives our children their identity. Like the gentleman that was talking – telling you a story. It’s like our passport. Like our ID that we use. But we don’t have to use it: It’s within us. We are – we are that part of that ..... group, that skin group subsection, or moiety group, whatever you want – you know, you might call it. And there’s father to child, child to father, mother to child, connects us all together, rotating in that system.

It used to be round, but when we had linguist people come and did this diagram the way we could all use and look at it, and it’s also embedded in other dictionaries and booklets, you know, the other groups around Alice Springs here. And this diagram, we use and we are passionate about making sure that our children stay in that system, that our children are looked after in that system and relating to everyone, respecting it, respecting everyone in that diagram, behaviour patterns and through songs and dance and everything else that goes with it.

MR McAVOY: And the diagram that you’re talking about – which, Commissioners, is annexure 1, MKT1, it’s in a star shape. Is that important?

MS TURNER: Yes, very important.

MS RILEY: Yes. It is very important to us. To us as Aboriginal people. Every Aboriginal have this rule in their – every community. In this diagram, it ..... the families, the parents, and also it holds our rule of the land in the eyes of Aboriginal – every Aboriginal people in this diagram. It’s our law of the land.

MR McAVOY: Ms Vaarzon-Morel, you’ve worked at a number of different communities in the Northern Territory. What do you say about the operation of a – of kinship systems of the nature of that which is described in the diagram from your observations in other communities?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: The principles that MK is referring to operate. So that’s principles of difference of generation level between parents, children and grandparents. Also differences between the mother’s and the father’s side. There are different kinship systems that operate in the Northern Territory. The system that Margaret is referring to – MK, apologies – the Arrernte system is also the system that is used by Warlpiri, Anmatjerre, Kaytetye, and Yolngu in the Top End, various other people. Of course, they have their own language names for the different relationships, but there are somewhat different systems that are used also by ..... Warumungu, and Barada, and yet more distinct systems by other Aboriginal groups.

But the principles of relationship to the land underlie it, and if we – I will give you two examples. MK has talked about the Arrernte system. The Pitjantjatjara system, which – I will call it that, which the Pitjantjatjara us at Mutitjulu, Areyonga, at Docker River. That has slightly different ways of categorising relatives. So if I compare this system, the Arrernte system with the English system, for example, in the English system it’s actually – anthropologists call it the Eskimo system it has got similarities. But it has got very restricted kinship, and so there’s a mother and father,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

but the mother and fathers’ siblings will be uncles and aunts in the English, which is quite different to the Arrernte system as has been explained. So the mother’s sister will be another mother for a child and the father’s brother will be another father. And - - -

MR McAVOY: That’s the Arrernte system?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes, that’s the Arrernte system. And then with the Pitjantjatjara system, that is the same, but you get differences with the two systems at the level of the individual that we’re looking from the perspective of. So the grandparents in the Pitjantjatjara system aren’t differentiated according to the mother’s or father’s side as they are in the Arrernte system. And on the level of – if I’m talking, I will call my – in the Arrernte system and the Warlpiri system, I will call my mother’s – my father’s brother’s children will be brothers and sisters for me, and my father’s sister’s children will be what I call cousins. But in the Pitjantjatjara system, at that level they are all regarded as siblings, so they don’t differentiate in the same way.

So the different kinship sometimes have implications for different things such as lines of descent and how you are connected with country and also marriage parents. Another difference with the English system is that of course in all Aboriginal kinship systems, you have extension of not just the immediate family but everyone within the linguistic group is categorised as a relative. And so it’s not restrictive in the same way as the English system. And then they have, as Rosie and MK have referred to, they’ve got the skin system which is in the Arrernte and Warlpiri system it’s a subsection system. It’s – in Warlpiri it’s eight subsections. They differentiate between whether it’s a – the names are slightly different depending whether it’s a male or a female.

And some – and this is like a ready reckoner, a shorthand way of classifying relatives throughout society, so that you don’t have to work out through the kinship system exactly how everyone is related. And in the kinship system it’s worked out from the individual egocentrically, whereas the skin system is categorised as relative from a socio-centric way. Different kinship systems throughout the Territory – some, not all, have the subsection system. Some have what’s called a section system where people are categorised according to foreskins and then of course amongst Yolngu which was referred to in the earlier tape recording, you’ve got the named moieties do a ..... which are another way of categorising people.

MR McAVOY: At the risk of overgeneralising, the result of the kinship system and the skin system is a very dense relationship with many people or all of the people within a community?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. Kinship is the idiom of social relatedness, it’s how people related to other becomes and the land and MK talks about it in her book, but the trees, the animals, the plants and, you know, it’s like a web, really. And there are commonalities between all the different kinship systems but there’s also variation.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Mrs Turner, do you describe the kinship system as a web?

MS TURNER: Yes. Sometimes it looks like that, but it’s in – the way that we looked at it is in a circle and a triangle, that why I’ve got it laid here in the front. It does look like a web, because it is joined back to every families, every parent, every families in this diagram is joined in as – it seems to look like that as well.

MR McAVOY: And so a child in an Aboriginal community would fit in that web and be connected to everybody else in the community some way?

MS TURNER: Yes, it will.

MR McAVOY: And is there a particularly strong relationship between children and their grandparents, grandmother in particular?

MS TURNER: There’s a strong relation between all of the parents, as we know. But most parents is with their uncle and also with their father, and especially with their grandmother. As we know in this diagram, there’s – in Aboriginal society, we don’t usually have just one mother or one father or one grandfather or one aunty. All those families are related to that one child. And that child is get looked after by all of those families, but mostly with his uncle, the uncle of his mother’s brother, and some time with his father’s brother. And also mostly the children are really brought up by grandparents. They relate more to their grandparents, to their grandma, and with their other uncles and aunts.

And all of us in the family are responsible for that one child. That one child is a child who is related and come from every of those parents in that triangle. Like is related Kemarre, which is my father, it related Warlpiri, which is my brother ..... my brother is a Kemarre, and also ..... all those people with arrows back forwards and forwards, they look after those children. Every individual children are looked after as well as their own, and in that diagram – holds our line, our totem, our language, our connection and also our rules of the land as well. I ..... get more of that – what did you ask for?

MR McAVOY: And – thank you. And so you say that – you’ve just said that a child has got all of this family around. Their parents, brothers and sisters, and their grandparents, and did you say that they are looked – the child is raised by all of those people all the time, not just sometimes?

MS TURNER: No. That’s all the time, yes. And if that child is in trouble, everybody – all of those families are really worried. Every individual people ..... because they are all connected to that child. If he’s in trouble, they all see that trouble is not a good thing for that child in their – in their families.

MR McAVOY: Ms Riley, I noticed that you were nodding your head as we were talking about that. Is there something that you would like to add to that – the discussion about a child being raised by the whole family group?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS RILEY: Yes. Well, I come back to the diagram. Okay, we have eight skin groups and this is the group I’m in, this is the group my mum, my uncles, my aunties, my nephews, my nieces and my sons and daughters belong. And here, I have myself, my grandmother, my sister-in-law and this group here. So when a child is born, either from these groups, that child grows up in the middle and all these people are responsible for that child’s wellbeing, not just the one mum and dad, and the main ones being the grandparents of the child, and everyone in this group have got roles and responsibilities for that child as well as for ceremonies, dance, marriages, you know, and the babies.

So this child grows up like in a shell. Okay. It’s like ..... a shell, when it opens, open the country, the land. It opens up this for the child. And the child knows to respect them, behave in appropriate ways, and learns that only within this group these people marry; only within that group, these people marry. And that’s what the child grows up with. He’s born into it, to grow up strong as Arrernte child, or Warlpiri child, or other families that are outside in the other communities. So that child know who to go to if he’s – if, you know, we have many mothers and aunties and uncles in that group, and we all connected to – through the land, through song lines, and this child grows up – grows up very strong in that culture, immersed in it. But if child is taken away from us, there’s nothing there for that child to learn – learn about, and we need that child to grow up strong, with identity, dignity, a very proud little Arrernte child in our structure.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Just for the transcript, I just want to describe that you held your hands up with your thumbs together and your fingers pointing upwards showing a shell-like shape with your thumbs representing the child in the middle.

MS RILEY: Yes, that’s right.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. How important is it – you’ve just touched on this. How important is it for a child to be taught about their skin system and their skin group and understanding the rules of kinship? An Aboriginal child, that is.

MS RILEY: Okay. Well, a child – is very important that this child grows up and following in the structure that – you know in the structure we have law and order, and in that the child learns to follow the orders, learns how to look at the skin group and look at the skin connections, and who the – who that child is related to and how is it related, because they have to learn one individual skin group from an early age, from preschool, maybe from the first ..... a lot of our children come to school already knowing their – already knowing their – our skin groups. But there are other little children that we have in the schools and we get the children interacting together, “Oh my skin group is this one, what’s yours?”

And a lot of that happens with our – with our other children. And then by the end of the term that child knows where that – you know, the little one from another family, maybe grew up in a local environment not knowing that he was connected to all of us. Then when – at a – when they get to the secondary stage, you know, we hope


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

that the structure is understood, and the structure is being used, and the structure helps that child, where he fits in, where he stands in our Arrernte culture. Very important structure. It’s like - - -

MR McAVOY: Help the child understand their – who they are?

MS RILEY: Yes. And who they are, and which family is connected to the country, and also – and it also give him that ..... and something that – you know, sort of grabs him like – the skin name grabs them like a magnetic field. Bang, you know? “Okay, I’m a Kemarre, I’m a ..... okay. So you – “ then the kids will start relating to each other. You know, “You’re my little .....” at that – in the preschool, T1/2, the children are relating. “You’re my cousin, you’re my aunty, you’re my little uncle.” This one – and the kids starting – when it comes to ..... they start teasing them. “Well, I’m not going to marry him”. But that’s how they start to relate to one another from an early age.

MR McAVOY: Yes. And that learning process goes on through there as they get older and through their teens?

MS RILEY: Yes, it’s a recursive pattern, it doesn’t stop from 9 to 5. You go to school and learn ABC or whatever, but it’s happening at home, it’s happening at ceremonies, it’s happening – it’s an ongoing, a live thing in our culture. We grow up in that. And then you know, graded by our elders at what stage that should – what, “That child should know so much at this age. That child should know so much at this age.” It’s like go into grade ones and twos and threes, it’s grading them right up to where I am. My mum is still grading me up to be the next elder.

MR McAVOY: A lifelong process of learning.

MS RILEY: Yes. It’s a living thing in our culture.

MR McAVOY: Ms Vaarzon-Morel, what you’ve heard described there in terms of the way in which children are raised and taught about relationships, and their relationships to each other and their country, is that something that is universal across the communities you have worked with in the Northern Territory?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes, absolutely. The process of socialisation and growing up, children that’s – you know, to become a person really requires – you don’t become a person on your own. You become a person as a member of a family group and that’s a lifelong sort of process of socialisation. There are different – at different stages of the life cycle, different processes of socialisation as well, and children learn their sense of identity and belonging, and how they fit in, really comes from that knowledge of what clan group you belong to, your relationship with country and dreamings and how you are related to other people.

And so kinship is not just a matter of terminology and of names for different relatives, it’s also how you relate to those relatives and the feelings that you might


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

have for them. And there are different expectations of behaviour to do with different relatives. So, for example, an uncle and a nephew/niece might have a very warm friendly sort of joking relationship, which might be different to other categories. There might be relatives that you have to avoid, and that changes depending on the life cycle where you are, and when a person goes through – you know, ceremonial business as well. So it’s a whole process of socialisation that involves not only the immediate family but the extended family and the sociolinguistic group.

MR McAVOY: And are you able to comment, from your position as an anthropologist as to the capacity for non-Indigenous families or communities to provide that type of learning or environment for Aboriginal children?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: I think it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible. You know, kinship is a matter of language as well. Language is a matter of culture, and for an Aboriginal child to grow up in an English family, an Anglo-Australian family that don’t have the language, that don’t have that way of relating to kinship, the child is not – for a start, families aren’t – an Anglo-Australian family doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It has its own values and assumptions and ideas about the world, and that’s going to be radically different to many of the ideas that Indigenous people have, and that they’re imparting to their children, ideas about kinship, social relations, how they fit in the world.

And this is not something you can teach just occasionally and intermittently. It’s not a matter of just going to NAIDOC week. Or – you know, it’s a matter of being immersed in the culture. Cultural literacy is something that requires ongoing process of socialisation and being embedded within a social structure and framework.

MR McAVOY: And as a demonstration of how that might be done in certain communities, you’ve been involved in a cultural mapping program. Could you just explain that program, or that project for the Commissioners?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. At the moment I’m involved, over the last three years have been working with the Willowra, which as I mentioned is the Warlpiri community and they’ve been very concerned about younger children learning about their sites on the land and countries and understanding how they’re related, because children have to go, of course, to western education and there’s all sorts of requirements on people with employment, and they don’t have the opportunity necessarily to go back out in country the way that they once did. And so this is funded by the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust, it’s funded by Warlpiri money and supported by Central Land Council.

And the community – we got an artist to come up and paint a large canvass. It’s about three metres by four metres and she projected 1:250,000 topographical map, so you have got the structure there of the river and the roads and that was used as the baseline it was painted on. What we have been doing with the elders from the community, men and women, and it’s multigenerational, is going out to different families’ country and the elders have been telling the stories for that country, singing


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the songs, naming the sites and talking about the dreaming tracks and where they go and we have been recording those sites on the campus and it has been a part of a sort of family process.

And the next stage is to hopefully get funding to be able to put this on to something like a Google map on a computer where – involving training of younger people with skills in GPS technology and computer technology, etcetera, where you will be able to sort of go into sites and zoom in and pull up photos of people associated with that country and families and oral histories and stories and that sort of thing. And this is based – this map in the community, in the community learning centre, which they largely funded.

MR McAVOY: And it’s a demonstration of a way in which technology can be used culturally - - -

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Absolutely.

MR McAVOY: - - - to provide for ongoing learning and preservation and transition of knowledge?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Absolutely. It can’t replace, the sort of embodied practice of being out there on the land but it’s another tool to add to it and, of course, younger people are now using mobile phones and this sort of thing. And when you go out to country they are capturing photos of themselves and of sites and bluetoothing and circulating with other young people, and using technology in ways that sustain kinship and relatedness and that understanding of who they are and belonging to land. So, you know, culture is not static. Culture is something that changes and adapts and – you know, there’s a concept in anthropology: indigenising modernity.

So Warlpiri people sort of taking – and other people – taking these new tools to grow and expand their knowledge in different ways. And, of course, MK’s book is an example of that.

MR McAVOY: Ms Turner, how difficult is it for young people, like the grandson that the man was talking about earlier this morning, to come back to communities, traditional communities after they’ve been away for their childhood?

MS TURNER: I think it’s very, very, very hard for a child to come back. If he went into his manhood or if he is still a young teenager, to come back and learn all that, it is very, very hard. And it’s very, very hard for the old people, when he comes back, to be taught, because his learning was really cut short. He didn’t learn the things that he could have been taught by his parents, all those teaching were taught by other people or non-Aboriginal people when he got taken away. And all those – it’s very hard to bring back a child, a young girl or a young teenage boy, to come back to be taught in the way that they should have been taught when they were together in their family.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It is very hard, language. English and language is very hard to be taught to a little teenage – a young teenage boy to learn his language, his stories, his games, his ways, his movement and his life of living. It’s very hard.

MR McAVOY: So when those kids that have been taken away, they come back, do they feel different to everybody else?

MS TURNER: They feel real different to everybody else, and the people in the community and the children in the community feel real different to him as well.

MR McAVOY: And when those children – when children are taken away from community, how does it affect their family and their parents?

MS TURNER: It affects a lot of families. It’s not – in fact, it’s a broken heart. It’s a really broken heart. It’s like a – the world torn in two pieces. It’s like that to a family, to grandparents, to all the families belong of that child. It’s a heart – it’s a heart broken and it’s really deep inside for us.

MR McAVOY: Do people get angry about it?

MS TURNER: They get very angry. They get very upset, very angry and angry, and angry. And it’s really, really deep angry inside.

MR McAVOY: Who are they angry at?

MS TURNER: They get angry because of those people taking the child get taken away. And also they get angry by not being told. As we know, Aboriginal people hasn’t got good understanding of language. When our kids get taken away, when somebody mightn’t have an interpreter, might be a good English speaker, good understanding, and those sort of things, and that’s very hard in our society.

MR McAVOY: Ms Vaarzon-Morel, are you able to add to that in terms of the range of responses and emotions that you’ve observed in communities to removals or understand to have occurred?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes, I totally agree. And I’ve observed individuals coming back after long periods of time to some communities and a sense of alienation, of dislocation, confusion about identity. There’s all sorts of issues. If a child is taken away and grows up in a white family, how to cope with issues of racism, issues to do with identity? These sorts of things. So when I was a school teacher at Willowra, for example, back in the 70s an Aboriginal woman, who has since become a close friend came to me and knocked on the door of the caravan that I was living in – it was a caravan school at that stage – and asked me for some tinned food and some food, she said, “Like white people eat.”

And I said, you know, “Why?” And she said, “Well, my daughter has just come back.” And at that stage I had no understanding at all of the Stolen Generation, I


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

didn’t know about it. I hadn’t learnt about it in school. And what had happened was that a daughter who had been taken away as a baby came back to meet the mother and the family, and the mother was so concerned, and she knew the daughter had grown up in this quite separate situation, and that she would find it difficult to adjust and be part of the family and community and in fact the daughter had been told by various people – one of the reasons she hadn’t come back earlier was because there had been fear instilled in her that, if she went back, people would grab her and she would be married off, which of course was completely false.

So it was profoundly heartbreaking, and the daughter found it very hard to reconnect. You know, poverty shouldn’t be equated with culture and people weren’t very well off. These particular people didn’t have houses at that stage, or access to running water, and the daughter found it very hard to adjust. And she later became a teacher and worked at [REDACTED INFORMATION] and the mother would – in order to keep contact, would offer to look after other people’s children, other people from the community who were training at [REDACTED INFORMATION] so she could sit out at the fence outside of her daughter’s house and see her. So a profoundly dislocating and alienating experience.

MR McAVOY: Ms Riley, we’ve talked a lot about the situation in communities and particularly communities where people are still living a more traditional way. Do you have any insight into how kids who grow up in the towns, who are Aboriginal, are still affected by removal? How does it affect their connection to their community?

MS RILEY: Okay. After listening to you, yes, I can relate a lot of that what she said. And I find a lot of our children that are taken away, or living in town in the local environment, lose that value of learning and connecting with families. And coming back to – I don’t know, I just refer back to where the system takes our children away, it’s also a – you’re looking back at the Stolen Generation history as well, that I see a relevant situation through the – through the system, that there is no communication, no consultation whatsoever with our people, and there’s no programs with our people. There’s no – the other party coming out, sitting down and communicating with our families, how is the best way to look after these children?

And that hasn’t been done through all this time, and that we feel that our children are taken away for whatever reasons in our families. “Just because I’m a drunk, I can’t look after my children, but I also have over sisters that can look after my kids until I recover or I go to rehab or what sort of programs for our people.” There’s none so far. And the children that are growing up in local environment that come to school, they do not have that grounding that what our children have and go to school, go to that other school that we teach in four languages and the mainstream language and then - - -

MR McAVOY: And there’s many Aboriginal children that have grown up and their parents have grown up in town in Alice Springs or in Darwin. Is it still important for those kids to have connection to their family and their culture, do you think?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS RILEY: Well, so far in the – that I have, from my observation, I’ve seen families that have come back, and they’re going back to the stage where we are happy to see them when they come or when they find their families in town or wherever they were taken away from, and we embrace them. We tell them we are their families, like we were talking about it before. But it’s hard for them to grasp the cultural knowledge that they’ve missed out on all their lives. And it’s hard for them to come back and connect with a family because they haven’t had that connection with families from the beginning. And that child, like the young man, find it hard coming back to their – coming back to his family, find it hard to learn, start – you have to start from an early age to understand what that young man should be by now. And our families, once they find out who we are, they know what the families are. But they are still at a distance.

They still feel distant. There’s a missing link there. That the chain has been broken through their lives, when they get taken away or through the Stolen Generation, they lost that and maybe they’ve – you know, they can learn their individual skin name, but, like we say, it’s like a cobweb. That cobweb connects us. That’s a journey they have to take as an adult, and sometimes they find it hard, very hard to grasp that, you know, because the chain has been broken from an early age. But they will still call me aunty or uncle or mum or something that we relate to. It’s a, you know – it makes us angry in a way, but – and there’s also that getting our families back after so many years away, or even our children.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mrs Riley, you mentioned a minute ago about the occasion when, say, if I can use the term, mum and dad might be drinking too much and the child is at risk. How can this kinship – and a person coming outside the community – and all they see is this child at risk, or maybe not eating, not going to school – how can we use this kinship system, in the mainstream system to access a – and then look after that child rather than remove that child, because the mum and dad aren’t there right now, but there’s the rest of the family? Of course, some kids are at risk in communities.

MS RILEY: They are.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: How can we use that system that you mentioned, you and Mrs Turner, about protecting kids and getting the other system to understand that? I know that’s a long question, but maybe how can we use that kinship care system of yours to protect kids better?

MS RILEY: We need to educate the other system so they can work alongside us, so they can embrace our culture as well. We were fortunate enough to embrace the Australian culture, but the Australia haven’t come back to embrace ours. That is the system to break down, where the breakdown area is. And we need to look at – of course, our children don’t have to get taken away. Our children can stay with us. And the other system – I know I see it as an institutional system. It’s institutionalised and we can’t see over the bench. What’s happening with our kids over there? But they can – it’s alright for them to come and take our children, but


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

there’s no need for it. They are our children. They need to be with our family, with mum and recommend the next daughter’s, you know, her daughter’s daughter to look after the child. She is a reliable person.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So rather than – if I can use a term Mrs Turner used, mum and dad, the birth mother and father being the only people, they talk to the community, say, your mob, there would be a whole lot of other people who would support that child.

MS RILEY: You have to have all the family involved in the decision-making of that child, and it’s just not mum and dad’s role because it is the role of that whole – in the system here. Okay.

MS TURNER: May I? In the system, in the Aboriginal society where those two parents are not very capable of looking after the child, like what my daughter said. There are other families as well. We have a lot of families in those families in the diagram here; it says our mothers and aunties, and uncles and thing like that. They might be very professional people who can talk to those people who take those children away, instead of taking the children away from their – from their environment, those people might have something, strong word to say in their society, you know. So maybe a good language speaker, maybe a good interpreter. There might be somebody in that family which will keep those children in the family. Because, like interstate, what that grandfather was talking about it, was so hard. So it’s exactly the same what he said in his word and his writing and his understanding and his idea, the exact same word in every Aboriginal people in the society was born into, to become literate in understanding of teaching the story.

If those teaching had been brought down and break down in between another society, it’s very, very hard to that child and those families to teach that child to be taught in the way that his way of life in an Aboriginal person because he learnt two ways. He learned in non-Aboriginal way. He learned in – after that non-Aboriginal way was twice as much as what he could have taught in his Aboriginal way. And then when he come up a teenager, that was some of the hard – would be taught to come back as Aboriginal people, young Aboriginal teenagers, when they come back here to the community it doesn’t fit in anywhere, that Aboriginal parents would be, to be recognised who he will be and who was he. That’s our – and it would be really hard for those old people to read that – his mind and him to read their mind, what he is when he goes back to a community. But we love those kids. When they come back, we love them heaps. We love them. We love them. When they come back, that child is everybody’s. Everybody want to grab him, take him here and there. But it’s very hard for him to learn in that category.

MR McAVOY: So if the child - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So if we were to – this Royal Commission was to say there has to be that interaction between families and communities to realise an understanding around those relationships.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TURNER: Yes, we do.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Do you think the community would want to step up and participate in that process?

MS TURNER: Yes, I think it’s – I think we like to very strongly to participate in that category, with that child.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So the decision is made.

MS TURNER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Not just from a, if I can say, a middle class view of relationships to your community, that view of relationships, you would be willing to step up and communities would step up and say we want to participate in that, about our children.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: I totally agree. I think that Aboriginal, there’s a range of care givers within an Aboriginal family, and by that I mean the extended family. I’ve seen children that I taught grow up by mother’s sisters; they called them mothers. They gave them a very stable life. Also by sister-in-laws, although that’s less usual. By aunties, very much by grandmothers. The grandmothers had a very important role. Often, on a day-to-day basis, there will be somebody who has got primary responsibility for that child. But it doesn’t mean that that child won’t go and stay with other relatives at various periods. I know I’ve encountered in some of the work that I’ve done on evaluation monitoring for dialysis programs in the Katherine region and the Warlpiri region, I’ve encountered some families at Lajamanu who extremely scared to leave their children in the care of grandparents or other people if they have to go to a medical appointment because they’re worried about welfare coming in, what they say is welfare, and taking the children away.

There’s a lot of fear out there about this. And I think that Aboriginal people should be given the right to reproduce their values and their traditions on their own terms. And they’ve had to struggle against this constantly in settler society. And they should have the right to assert their cultural autonomy and self-determination. And I think what this means is that wider families should be consulted and, depending on the community, they may also have other structures. I know at Lajamanu they’ve got a Kurdiji group which is a community group that actually is involved with the courts and mediation. And I know that they want to be involved with this sort of thing. Communities differ. They’re not all the same.

If you have a small community where you’ve got lots of clan groups neighbouring each other that, that over many years have intermarried and think of themselves as all one family, that community is perhaps going to have a different response to a community where people have many language groups and have been moved off their land and it’s a much larger one. So the idea of community, you have to sort of look at that as well. And the other thing that I would say about the construction of family


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and kinship, it’s – you know, Anglo-Australians very much of course have a lot of their own assumptions based on their own kinship systems but also what kinship is. It is not just biological blood relatedness; it’s also about nurturance. So within the Aboriginal families you can have people who aren’t necessarily what white fellas would call close relations, but they’ve grown up and lived with them and are regarded as close kin. Would you agree?

MS TURNER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Vaarzon-Morel, could I ask you – probably it’s a bit of a higher level theoretical question. But government will always be involved in the safety of its members. That’s just this is the way it works, and it ought to be too, as the final ..... for these things. But if the welfare system is to operate in partnership with the Indigenous system, it needs to have a set of values for measuring the appropriateness of the placement of the young child who is at risk. Sitting down, of course, and have wider family and community group conferencing is, obviously, the way forward. But they also have to have some measure. It can’t be that the child has its own bedroom, for example, or that there be two bathrooms in the house, any number of what would be the criteria if the Department sends its inspectors in to see if it’s a good place for the child to live. How would we go about collecting some appropriate Aboriginal values for departmental people to consider when they’re thinking about a placement for a child with its kin?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: I think this is a discussion that should be had with families and communities and as to what they consider good care giving and growing up a child, what it should involve. I know people would be very concerned about things such as safety, cultural safety, education, going to school, these sorts of things. Having said that, it depends on the relationship in the community with the people that are supplying these services as well. So I think one needs to really have that conversation with the community and the families. And I think interpreters really need to be involved because we are not just talking about language terms here; we are talking about concepts and understandings about socialisation, about growing up. And, clearly, there are a number of basic things that a child needs for, yes, for safety, security and for nurturance.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It does, and because Government employees really need to have a set of criteria against which these things are measured, they do have to be assembled because so many of them are not – they may be culturally aware, but they are not culturally competent, so there’s a lot for them to learn. So I was hoping that you might have some pointers as to what kind of skills they would need to have to navigate this new criteria set, if you like.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Well, I think that one of the basic things also is understanding that being – you know, kinship and the significance of that, and that it’s not just a matter of the mother and the father. And that if there are complexities, if the child is at risk, there are other family members that should be looked to that may step up and take that position. So that should be a sort of a first thing. So it


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

should be an understanding that kinship is wider than just the immediate sort of parents and family.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So it’s family mapping, in effect, is it?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. That’s correct. And I think – yes, consultation with the family group, ideas about stability. You know, nurturance in terms of sort of food, looking after the child, that it’s being cared for, not running around at night, these sorts of things. And, of course, in communities you’ve got – you know, programs such as – the names actually escapes me at the moment but it’s where they will go around at night.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Night patrols.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. Night patrols, thank you. Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And of course, I think it was – Mrs Riley said we have got to educate people.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes. And most Aboriginal people – every Aboriginal person I know wants their child to be educated .....

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I mean educate people in the system about the Aboriginal way.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes, absolutely. It’s fundamental.

MR McAVOY: I won’t ask any further questions, at this point, Commissioners. I understand that there have been applications for cross-examination and leave has been granted. I understand Mr Woodroffe is to go first.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Woodroffe.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE [11:24am]

MR WOODROFFE: Commissioners. My name is David Woodroffe. I’m a lawyer with the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency or Aboriginal Legal Aid in Darwin. Ms Riley, you’ve spoken today about the need for welfare, and Governments to talk with elders and families, and they can assist in keeping a kid – a child, on country in talking about the right family to stay with and also helping families to support them when things are going wrong. Is that right? And that’s something that you see as very important?

MS RILEY: Very important, yes.

MR WOODROFFE: And, Ms Turner, today would you like Governments and courts and politicians to hear that Aboriginal kinship – that Aboriginal men, grandfathers, second fathers, uncles have a very important role in protecting children?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TURNER: Yes, they have. Very strongly.

MR WOODROFFE: Right. And Ms – sorry, Vaarzon-Morel, I beg your pardon, you spoke about cultural literacy and part of that cultural literacy would be that Territory Families and Government departments do kinship and family mapping so that it can have informed decisions?

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe. Ms Graham, do you have some questions?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [11:25am]

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms Riley, my name is Felicity Graham and I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. In the historical context of the Stolen Generation, is there often a feeling of powerlessness when a family has their child removed from them?

MS RILEY: Exactly, because of that – it happened – it has also taken away roles and responsibilities of our people for that child. And it was taken away without consultation and it has happened many times. Powerless, and also a lot of families have taken up to drinking and they are still crying for their children, and their children haven’t come back for many, many years. Still suffering, still right through to this day, even though – the Department – the Welfare Department now are still taking away children away from our, away without consulting us right to this day. And it’s about time we need to get together and talk.

They need to come, talk to the family, “What’s the best way, the tradition way that –” they want to place one of our grandchildren, not to the – not to them, but they can easily place that little child with the next mother. Let’s keep our children with us. But that’s what the system needs to understand.

MS GRAHAM: To recognise that powerlessness that people feel, is it necessary for the Government to go out to communities and actively ask questions and listen to what community has rather than expecting community to come to the Department?

MS RILEY: Like I said, we need to – they need to come to us and talk to us, and we will talk to them, which is the best way for that child in future, and we – like I said, we still need to keep those children with us, not empower us – not empower, not make us feel that it – it affects all of us, that the system over there fails to recognise that we are accountable for our children, that we can look after our children but it takes away, like I said, roles and responsibility and what are we supposed – how are we supposed to talk to those people if they come and if they take our children away? For what reasons? There is no reason. I know we have issues in our traditional side as well, but we need to keep that child.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

So if the grandmother is still alive or if the mothers and the fathers are still alive, and – but the system is an alienated world, so sometimes we can’t understand how that system works, even if we go to a meeting about little – little families, and the system is so very – I don’t know, they have this structure that doesn’t – that doesn’t make us see what’s over the counter. That – there’s a barrier there, we can’t go over that barrier, but we are not – the system is, you know, the people from the Department is not meeting with us, not listening to our story, but we need to hear their story, and how do they operate. They need to know how we operate in our culture. So it’s a breakdown of barriers there too, that creates that.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Vaarzon-Morel, you were nodding during parts of the answer. Do you have something to say about this powerlessness that is experienced in communities and how that can be addressed.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: I think you’ve also got to look at this in the context of what has happened over the last 10 or 15 years as well in Central Australia where there has been a dissolution ever community councils, amalgamation of the Shire, and people feel they’ve lost a voice for their community. A lot of power and authority has been taken away from them with aspects of the Intervention as well. And so there’s this – very much sense of, you know, not having a lot of power, and that white authorities can come in and do things. And they don’t necessarily understand the implications, or what their rights are in the situation, so I think it’s a really – a really significant issue, actually.

And you know, Aboriginal people will say, “Our children are our future,” and taking away children and putting them somewhere else is a sense of colonising that future. And whether it’s in the best interests of the child to take them out of a certain situation, I think Aboriginal placement principles and looking around for the community, who else could be a caregiver, should be sort of a first step to have that conversation with families, is really significant. And to have perhaps a representative there to point out what are the rights, what are the possibilities from an Indigenous organisation, I think, would be very important.

And, you know, some people say, “Well, I’ve heard, Warlpiri and other people say these Angle-Australians-” or whoever, it’s not just Angelo Australians, who some children go to stay with, and often it’s not just one person. They might be moved around, and they get support that they feel that the Aboriginal families aren’t given that kind of support as well. So I think we have to look at supporting Aboriginal communities and families in ways that is not happening at the moment.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: No re-examination.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mrs Turner and Ms Riley and Ms Vaarzon-Morel so very much for your evidence today, and for the great care with which you’ve put together your statements, and thank you very much for trying to explain to ..... about the kinship system, which is very complex for us.

MS ..........: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And thanks for – thank you for coming. Thanks for sharing that information and your culture with us here. It certainly gives us a lot of food for thought as we go around thinking about how we can empower the Aboriginal community to be involved in the decisions around their children, and it’s certainly something we will be taking on board but the evidence today has helped focus us in that way. So, for me as well, thank you for coming along.

MS RILEY: Thank you very much, your Honour.

MS TURNER: Thank you.

MS VAARZON-MOREL: Thank you for the opportunity.

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [11.35 am]

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, the next witnesses is to give evidence in closed court, and that’s scheduled for 12 noon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We will adjourn until then, and thanks, Mr McAvoy.

ADJOURNED [11.35 am]

CLOSED SESSION ENSUED

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

PUBLIC SESSION RESUMED

RESUMED [2.08 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Afternoon, Commissioners.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4090 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Afternoon, Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: I call Kirsten Schinkel.

<KIRSTEN SCHINKEL, AFFIRMED [2.08 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Kindly be seated.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY [2.08 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks, Ms Schinkel. Would you please state your full name?---Kirsten Pamela Schinkel.

Thank you. And what is your occupation?---I am a social worker employed within Territory Families as an acting team leader.

Alright. Thank you very much. Commissioners, I make the comment it’s very difficult to hear Ms Schinkel. I don’t know if that’s an amplification issue or if it’s just the prevailing situation. But perhaps if you do the best you can to keep your voice up, if you wouldn’t mind?---Sure.

Thank you. Actually, that is better. I think the microphone .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, the location of the mics might be the - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

You solved the problem, thank you. Ms Schinkel, did you produce for the purposes of this Commission a statement dated 19 May 2017?---Yes, that’s correct.

And have you had a chance to read that statement for the purpose of today’s hearing?---I have, yes.

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

Commissioners, I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Schinkel’s statement of 19 May 2017 is exhibit 468.

EXHIBIT #468 STATEMENT OF KIRSTEN SCHINKEL DATED 19/05/2017

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4091 K. SCHINKEL XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: If you just excuse me while I tender some other documents. May I tender a tender bundle index.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 469.

EXHIBIT #469 TENDER BUNDLE INDEX

MR MORRISSEY: And it’s probably convenient if I just tender a series of documents, six in total, as they may arise during cross-examination. May I tender, tender bundle document 231, a fact sheet concerning reunification.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is that out of that tender bundle 469?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, it is.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So we will – and just remind me again of its number.

MR MORRISSEY: Tender bundle 231. Do you want the ring tail number as well?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, certainly not. No, definitely not. Exhibit 469.231.

EXHIBIT #469.231 FACT SHEET CONCERNING REUNIFICATION

MR MORRISSEY: Tender bundle 218 is the reunification flow chart.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 469.218.

EXHIBIT #469.218 REUNIFICATION FLOW CHART

MR MORRISSEY: Tender bundle 229 is the reunification procedure document.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 469.229.

EXHIBIT #469.229 REUNIFICATION PROCEDURE DOCUMENT

MR MORRISSEY: Tender bundle 279 is the reunification procedure of July 2015.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #469.279 REUNIFICATION PROCEDURE OF JULY 2015

MR MORRISSEY: Tender bundle 272, these are the chapter 14 revisions dated January 2007.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 469.272.

EXHIBIT #469.272 CHAPTER 14 REVISIONS DATED JANUARY 2007

MR MORRISSEY: And the final reunification policy is tender bundle 317.


EXHIBIT #469.317 FINAL REUNIFICATION POLICY

MR MORRISSEY: Ms Schinkel, could I just commence by taking you to the goals and objectives of reunification. Could you explain what reunification is?---So reunification is a planned process where children in out-of-home care placement are reunified with parents or family.

Yes. You’ve indicated it’s a planned process. Is it a component of that process that it be planned and timely?---Yes, it is.

Yes. Thank you. Now your team is responsible for working with families and children to attempt to ensure that that process occurs; is that correct?---That’s correct. We’ve responsible for completing care plans for children that are in out-of-home care.

Yes. What’s the geographical area that your team covers?---Ours is the northern region, which is the urban area of Darwin and Palmerston.

Now, just at – I’ve just got a couple of very high – general questions to put. Then I will come to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just while we are doing that geography, Mr Morrissey, have you got a rough idea of the population of the area that you cover?---I don’t know.

Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Now, I take it from your statement, reunification is always the ultimate goal for children in care, unless there has been a specific decision made that reunification is not appropriate; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

Very well. There has been some evidence in this Commission that there has been a recent increase in Territory Families seeking 18 year orders or, in effect, permanent orders. Is that your experience?---No. That’s not my experience.

Very well. Do you need to deal with – although you’re – as the reunification team, you nevertheless deal with young people and their families who are subject to such orders, 18 year orders?---Well, within the reunification team, we primarily focus on shorter term orders. So within six months to two years, although that does vary. There’s a long-term team responsible for the case management of orders – children on orders until they’re 18 years of age.

With what frequency do you deal with children who have orders that are less than six months?---Not very often.

Alright. Can we turn to the issue, please, of reunification plans. Now, can you indicate, first of all, what is a reunification plan? Is that different from a care plan?---No. So, a care plan within that has an aspect that focuses on the child, and the child’s needs, and it also has reunification aspect which focuses on the – I guess you could say, the parents’ needs and how the parents are going to meet the children’s needs.

So as a matter of structure one would say that the care plan is greater and the reunification plan is a subset of that plan?---No. It’s all equal within the same document.

Sorry, just say that again?---It’s all equal within the same document.

It’s within the same document?---Yes.

Alright. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry, but you did indicate the reunification seemed to be focusing on the parents’ needs. Do you not see reunification as a child’s need as well?---Yes, absolutely. It’s all documented within the same care plan document. The first part of that is the part, form 1, which is the child’s needs and identifying the children’s needs enables us to identify what the parents need to do to be able to meet the children’s needs.

Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Perhaps if you could just explain the structure of a particular care plan, then. You’ve indicated there it’s broken into two sections. So how is it structured?---Yes, so the first part of it is purely about the child. It’s not detailing


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

information about the parents. It talks about the child’s health needs, their educational needs, their emotional and behavioural needs, as well as their cultural needs, and it also allows, I guess, lots of opportunity to put in individual issues or concerns for each child. Then the next part of that document focuses on the parents and, obviously, having the identified child’s needs within that document helps to assess what the needs of the parents are.

Yes. Alright. Thank you. Now, it’s difficult to generalise, but I will ask you to do so if you can. How long does it normally take to develop a reunification plan? Here, using mainstream examples, children who are on that sort of order between six months to two years?---So a reunification plan should be developed as soon as practical after a child is taken into out-of-home care. It’s something that’s a live document, that’s continually being worked on, and it’s required to be reviewed, and this can depend on the family’s needs, but usually every three months or every six months at most.

Elsewhere in your statement you have referred to your responsibility as the team leader. To who does it fall to set the frequency of those reviews and who does the review?---So the review, the person responsible for reviewing that is their case manager that the team leader oversees to make sure that that review occurs, and then we have got the manager overseeing the team leaders.

And with what sort of frequency does one find reunification plans being reviewed?---Between three and six months.

Between three and six months?---Yes.

Now, you gave useful information there, but I don’t think we quite got to the end point. You said as soon as practicable but, in practice, when does that happen? Is it within a month or five months that one finds a reunification plan in place?---I would say it’s definitely within a month.

Within a month?---So when a child first enters into out-of-home care, they’re overseen by the investigation team and they’re required to put together a plan – it may even be an interim plan – before the child is transferred to the case management of the reunification team and then we are required to meet with the family and put a more detailed plan in place.

Now, did you refer to the investigation team?---I did, yes.

Now, can I just ask you – this is anticipating something that will come later on – but is there continuity of contact with a particular person from the investigation team who formulates the reunification plan and the reunification team which has to bring that into reality? In other words, to get a change of personnel that the young person has to deal with and their family has to deal with?---So just to confirm the investigation team aren’t responsibility for developing the reunification plan. They will make recommendations and I guess work with the family at some things that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they can commence doing in the period of a child being transferred to the reunification office. And, in most cases, it will be a new case manager that the family will be working with after the investigation is completed. However, we try to ensure that an adequate handover occurs and then, best case scenario, the previous case manager will introduce the new case manager to the family.

Alright. Just in terms of duration, can you say how long it is that the investigation team worker – is that a case manager, is that what their title is?---Yes.

So the investigation team case manager, how long might they be involved with the young person before that hand over occurs?---It just depends on the situation. Usually, an investigation is a period of one month. So depending on what occurs within that month will depend how long they have involvement with that family.

Yes, alright. There has been various pieces of evidence before the Commission already, but it is – the research does seem to indicate that reunification works best within the first 50 days of the child being placed in out-of-home care. Is that your understanding as well?---Did you say 50 days?

Yes?---My understanding is the sooner a child is reunified – well, the sooner we can do it, the higher chance of success. However, I haven’t heard of 50 days.

Yes. Very well. Now, in terms of developing the reunification plan, I would just like to ask you a question about the role that parents play in that. Elsewhere in your report you have mentioned that one recurring issue is that sometimes parents or a parent may take some time to appreciate what it is that has – what it is they’re being required to do, in effect, and that that can be a changing and developing process. In that first assessment, when the reunification plan is being formulated, what role do the parents have then?---We arrange a meeting with the parents and that can also include other stakeholders, depending whether that’s relevant or not. But it’s a planned process that involves the parents. It’s not a decision that we make independently. We work with the family as much as possible to obtain their input.

Alright. Now can you just indicate to the Commissioners: how is it that parents are informed, at this early stage, as to what they need to do to regain custody of their child, and how is that communicated to such parents?---Through meetings and it’s also recorded within the care plan. So they are informed verbally, but also have that written formally as well within the care plan.

Now, are parents provided with copies, either redacted or unredacted, of the care plan?---Yes, they are.

That is inevitable position?---Yes, definitely. They need to be provided with a copy of the care plan, once that has been completed.

What is the position for parents who either have literacy issues or for whom English is not their first language? What is done to ensure they appreciate what’s in the care


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

plan?---In those instances, we would utilise an interpreter, and quite early on those issues are identified. Some parents can be quite open about the fact that they need that extra support, so we would look at support services that can provide that support for them.

Two matters preliminary to the next question. One is that you’ve noted that there was some unevenness in the training of your own staff, in their ability to deal with the case load that they have. Another preliminary issue is the indication this Commission has received, from various case studies and submissions, that families frequently say they’re not sure of what’s required or that they have an element of doubt, sometimes larger than other times, as to what is required of them. Now, are you aware of that as an issue? Can you give some instances of it if you are, and can you say what can be done to address that problem?---I have heard that it is an issue that is – has been raised. I think the care planning process and involving families as much as possible is the key to ensuring that they do have a good understanding of what’s required.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And at one of these meetings, does it occur sometimes with the wider family group than just the parents who just may be absent?---Yes.

But there may be many other family members who are able to assist?---Yes. Most definitely that occurs, and the parents are encouraged to bring along a support person. Extended family that are involved in the children’s lives are always welcomed and encouraged to attend.

Does – in a geographical sense do your teams just relate to the urban families?---Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Thank you. Subject to any other questions, I just move to another topic, and that’s the reunification process itself. So you’ve indicated that meetings are a key manner in which the reunification is managed. Can you say how frequently – assume a family which has some issues, and you’ve used substance abuse as an exemplar, and assume again the typical case of – you know, between six months to two years order, with what frequency would you expect the meetings with the family to occur in the reunification process?---Meetings should be occurring on a monthly basis, but my experience has been that that occurs far more frequently, fortnightly, and meetings can take – you know, there’s a formal meeting but then parents are always welcome to have meetings on, I guess, an ad hoc basis, which can be weekly, fortnightly, depending on the needs of the parents. We, I guess, try our best to meet those needs.

Now, at the case management meetings, who is present? The parents, the case caseworker?---Yes.

Who else?---Depending on the needs of the family, we will have an Aboriginal cultural worker present, there will be extended family. Could be individuals from Education Department. It could be the child’s counsellor. It really is an – an individual process.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes, I understand. Now, I just want to bring to bear on that process, if I could, some of the issues you raised. You raised in your statement – towards the end of it, you said you were making some positive comments, and some areas that could do with improvement. And I won’t take you to each and every one of those, but could you apply that to this process here. You indicated an issue with understaffing and perhaps a large number of unfilled positions, as many as 18 in one instance, and a consequent issue with training and variable abilities of your staff. Now, how does that play out for the family that is the subject to the reunification process?---In that regard, I think the biggest thing would be that perhaps we’re not meeting with the families as much as would be an ideal situation. So it may be that instead of getting those weekly, fortnightly interactions, that they are only getting a monthly interaction which may not be well suited for some particular families, particularly those complex matters.

Yes. So just pursuing that a little bit further now. Where you’re – where you’re short staffed, and you have given some figures as to how that occurs, the effect of that is you have less frequent contact with the family and perhaps with the young person involved as well; is that correct?---Yes. Although, we still do ensure that a monthly home visit occurs with the children.

Yes, of course. Now, is that difficulty one that fluctuates? In other words, the short staffing that you referred to, does that fluctuate from month to month or it is a fairly steady issue that you’ve identified?---At the moment it has been fluctuating quite regularly, particularly this year. However, I guess any office goes through periods of stability and then periods of instability.

That is demonstrably true, of course, that’s right. But we have to deal with the problem that occurs in your office, and how that expresses itself. So what is the issue that you’re noting? Are you noting that it’s hard to keep staff, or that positions are not being filled for bureaucratic reasons? What are the issues you are seeing?---The issue for me is that it’s hard to keep staff.

Yes. Now, as a manager you must have a sense of what staff morale is like. How have you found staff morale this year, given the difficulty in keeping staff?---I think, given the difficulty, it has been quite positive. At times, obviously, it’s not as great. But for the moment, at this present time, it’s quite positive.

What are you seeing as the drivers of the difficulty of keeping staff?---I would say the high caseloads and the responsibilities that is required within the case management of each case.

It’s unavoidably an emotionally demanding job, even though you preserve your professionalism; would you agree with that?---Yes.

Do you find people coming to your office newly trained without a great deal of world experience?---At times, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And because of the short staffing issues are you, in a sense, desperate to get people on the floor to do the job?---Yes.

So people who come to work there are thrown in at the deep end?---Not on all occasions, but that definitely does occur.

Yes. And that’s - - -?---In saying, that we try to provide as much support as possible.

I take it – sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, can I just perhaps – before you move on a bit. When your staff are leaving, do you do exit interviews with them to ascertain the reason why they’re leaving, and for what – and where their destination might be after leaving you?---I don’t do that personally, but that is a requirement and it does occur, and I’m aware there has been a huge push on obtaining that feedback from individuals when they leave positions.

So that position would be available, you would think, from someone who does that in – someone in the HR department?---Yes, within HR and recruitment.

But do they speak about where they might be headed after they’re leaving, because it’s unusual for staff who have worked in this sort of area in a team just to walk out the door without talking about their plans?---Yeah, of course. Darwin is quite transient within itself. I guess probably exiting child protection is probably the biggest reason, in my experience.

So they would be looking for work in a different sector?---Yes.

Thank you.,

MR MORRISSEY: Could I just ask you some specific questions about the process here. Was the process for varying the length of a child protection order, when you see it as appropriate, if the parents make good progress or appear to make better than expected progress?---We complete an application and apply to the court to vary an order, or extend an order, depending on what we see needs to occur.

Yes. I wondered if that might be a process that would depend on the experience of the worker. In other words, if you had an experienced case officer who saw good progress, your case officer might be quite proactive in pursuing that. They might see it, they might have the experience to spot things well, “Let’s vary the order.” Whereas your less experienced officers might be cautious or not see it. Do you see some unevenness in that process or not?---Not really. I guess, in relation to that, it wouldn’t necessarily be that we go and apply to vary the order. It would be, I guess, fast tracking the reunification plan with the family, having the children returned home, and then continuing to monitor and support that rather than going to court and varying the order.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. You made reference in your statement to a concept called practice integrity consultations. That’s at paragraph 25.6. What do you mean by practice integrity consultations?---So the practice integrity consultations, to explain a little bit, practice integrity set up a process in which, if there are any concerns identified about a child in care, they would oversee how that concern was managed. So we are required to participate in a meeting with them to discuss what is being done about a particular concern that has been raised.

Yes. Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Who raises that concern?---So that will come through our central intake team. So it could be a notification made by any individual, or it could actually be a case manager who has reported the concern, or a carer, or a parent.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Sorry. You didn’t have a follow up question to that?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. I understand it now in the context of just relating to the home care placement.

MR MORRISSEY: One final issue from that topic, and then I will move on to another one. How do you deal with the phenomenon of a child who self-places or starts choosing where they wish to go? Do you – does your team play a role in that, and if so, what?---Yes, we do. A big part of that is identifying what the children – the child’s needs are, and their reason for absconding from a placement. I think, knowing that information, we’re able to support that child as much as possible to returning to the nominated placement. So each situation is very different, so it’s difficult to comment.

It’s a fairly frequent phenomenon isn’t it?---I wouldn’t say that it’s frequent. It’s definitely not my experience at the moment within my individual team.

Alright. Thank you. Could I just turn to the links with other critical services. And many questions that could be asked about this topic. But one of them is – perhaps if I could ask you this. You’ve spoken in your statement about linking individuals into those rehab services, therapeutic counselling and parenting programs, and so on. The question is: does your team – do you need to train your team members to know and be aware of those services in order to refer parents to them?---In some instances, yes. But it’s very much a shared response in that we would look at the issues and between the case manager, the team leader, the manager, the practice advisor, we would identify what supports would be best suited.

Yes. I mean it sounds like something that would need to be local knowledge because although one has a degree, you won’t know about the services on offer in your particular area. How many such services do your workers need to be familiar with in your zone?---I couldn’t give you a number to be honest. It’s a large number of services.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you make some estimate?---I guess we have our key services that work alongside Territory Families, which would be probably around 10 that we work with quite frequently, but then that can expand out to numerous others.

And might those services on-refer to other smaller service, or more particular services?---Yes, definitely.

And what are the major services you work with?---For ours they’re intensive home support programs, such as Save the Children, Somerville, CatholicCare, which work with the parents within the home, especially around when the parents are spending time with the children. So they’re completing those observations.

MR MORRISSEY: Are you able to say how many, or what percentage approximately, of those services would be Aboriginal community controlled organisations?---What do you mean by Aboriginal community controlled?

Well, are they specifically Aboriginal services or are they general services?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps we could give an example. Danila Dilba, for example, is one at the Top End that you would be familiar with?---Yes. couldn’t say what percentage, but it’s definitely something that we look at as a priority for families of Aboriginal background. If that’s what their need is, we would look at those services first. And then, if they were unable to meet the family’s needs, then we would look elsewhere.

MR MORRISSEY: Given the demands on your time and the caseload you have, which seems to be a heavy one, to what extent are you pragmatically able to assist parents who you are encouraging to attend such services, to actually do that, given that some of them may not be familiar with it or may be reluctant or shy or embarrassed about doing something?---Well, that’s our role within the reunification team. That’s our – I think that’s the main part of your work is supporting families to access the services that they need to address their child protection concerns, so that’s definitely a priority.

Very well. Could I come back to the issue of – I’ve got some specific questions now about the caseload and staffing issues. Just because of your – you have, in a sense, a hands on management role, as I described it – and I won’t ask you to reiterate everything you have said there – but you yourself, as well as managing, share a caseload, is that correct, of about 25?---At the moment, it’s currently reducing. I do have a caseload, that’s correct. However, that’s quite common in an acting team leader position, that you would continue to manage some of the cases that you previously managed. But it’s definitely the plan that that reduces over time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is it because you are acting that you are not surrendering your files and - - -?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So what would the non-acting, the permanent position, what would that look like?---Within our office at the moment I’m area that team leaders are carrying small caseloads, so that – but definitely the aim that they would not continue to do that, and those cases are at this moment being distributed to case managers.

So it ups their load, unless you - - -?---Not necessarily. New workers coming on board would then get those caseloads or we may have some long-term orders that are transferring to the long-term team. So that would free up some vacancies.

MR MORRISSEY: I rather took you to say that the normal caseload for a staff member is 15 to 20, is that right?---Yes.

You carrying a caseload of 25 seems inordinately high for someone who is also performing the important role that you have to perform as a manager. Does that indicate to you that there is a real staffing problem right at the moment?---At the moment my caseload is reducing. So previously there was an issue with staffing. However, as the weeks are going on, that’s being addressed as quickly as possible.

Yes. The short staffing to which you’ve referred, I asked you a general question as to whether that impacted on the number of meetings that you might have in the course of the reunification work that you do but, I take it, it must also impact upon the way in which your staff members are able to spend time with the parents that they’re seeking to help. In other words, taking them out somewhere, taking them to a particular service, encouraging them to engage and supporting them with follow-up and so on. Is that a fair comment to make?---Yes.

Alright. Could I ask you about the retention of staff issue. You said that you saw some people leaving, expressing the view that they wanted to transition out of the area altogether. What would you see as – and this is hands on, you are not being asked to do a structural answer, but just as a hands on comment, what’s the sort of thing that you see might persuade people who have started to get some experience to stay in the field and build on that experience?---It would be around caseloads, having manageable caseloads.

Yes. So what you’re seeing really is that some promising workers are – this is my term – just having their optimism crushed out of them by the caseload?---At times, but there’s also other contributing factors.

Yes. And can you identify any of the other factors that - - -?---There’s lots of little things, and someone’s personal life, yes.

Of course.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And what about ongoing training, because there’s a bit of an assumption that many of the people who come into this field are relatively young in terms of their post graduation experience in social work, so that they always need to learn. What availability is there for further training in these particular areas


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

in which they’re being thrust, in your part of the Northern Territory?---I think there’s definitely always opportunities for training. Obviously, there’s the mandatory training that Territory Families offers, but we also have work partnership plans which help identify what areas staff members feel that they need additional training in and also team leaders to identify where they think staff members need additional training, and we can seek outside services to assist in, I guess, filling the gaps where perhaps further support is needed that’s not provided within the mandatory training.

You did mention earlier in your evidence that it’s a relatively transient workforce?---Yes.

At least in your field, in the Northern Territory. By that, do we take it that there will be people who are not familiar with the population of the Northern Territory? Some will come from outside the Northern Territory, some will come from overseas, and so what training is there for them to become aware of the very different issues that arise in dealing with Aboriginal client families?---So there’s the cultural training, but also we have our Aboriginal cultural workers within the office that, when a new employee is starting with Territory Families, we want them to spend time with these individuals to help increase their knowledge and understanding of the different families that we work with.

And how many of those do you have in your office?---I believe there’s three at this point in time.

You have three Aboriginal workers?---Yes, and - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Just as a final question on that topic. Could I just ask you, you as a manager might be placed on a fork, which we have heard other managers being caught on. On the one hand, you are obliged to provide opportunities for training for your staff. On the other hand, you are dreadfully short staffed. How do you deal with that situation where you have staff who are entitled to, and need, training but you are very short staffed?---Just to confirm, acting team leader - - -

Yes?---The training is always a priority.

Yes. So you find that the training schedules are being met, but that’s at a cost of having someone on the floor?---Yes.

Yes. Very well. Thank you. Can I just turn to some questions concerning data and best practice. I indicate there are questions to come from our colleagues at CAALAS and NAAJA, and I wish to leave some time for them, but I will just seek to ask you a couple of questions concerning data. It appears there were 1020 children in out-of-home care as at 30 June 2016. It seems similar to the numbers previous. In that year, the year ending 2016, Territory Families reported that 195 out-of-home care cases were closed and the children returned to the family. So that seems to be a low number, 20 per cent of children in care. Now, are you able to say why it is that there is such a number, such an apparently low number, first of all? And then I’ve got a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

question concerning data, but can you say why it is – why those numbers are they are?---I can’t say why the numbers are, all I can talk to is individual circumstances.

Yes. Do you have any sense of what – at your level of management, do you have any sense of what trends the data is showing, or is there data that you have access to, to show trends of children being returned?---Not – that’s not something, in my position, that I would look at.

Are you provided with anything by your superiors or by the Department to indicate that timely, safe, and effective reunification is, in fact, occurring at any particular rate?---I personally haven’t. However, I’ve only been acting as a team leader for a very short period, so that’s not something that I’m privy to but – in terms of actual statistics.

Alright. Just – now, you’ve indicated at paragraph 13, if you don’t mind just going to paragraph 13m that you contribute to data collection. Now, could you please just indicate what type of data is in fact collected in terms of reunification. So you take your time and go to paragraph 13?---So that is part of my role. At this present time, it’s more about the completion of care plans. I guess on a smaller scale to what you’re talking about.

Yes. So is it really – is the data that collected – this is my term – is it really compliance data to ensure that you and your workers are compliant with your duties rather than outcomes for the clients’ data?---Outcomes are very much the most important thing, but compliance is also considered as well.

Well, I get that, but what I’m really asking though is: is the data that you’re collecting able to indicate the rate of reunification?---Yes, I believe it does to an extent. If we’re meeting the requirements in terms of the care planning that’s helping, I guess, work towards ensuring children are returning home, which then meets the data that you’re talking about in terms of overall numbers.

In – now, your experience now as being an acting team leader but do you feel that there’s data that can assist you? If you were able to click your fingers and have your masters provide data to you, what sort of data would you like to see or could help you to do your job, if it were made available to you. This is an aspirational question here, I understand that you may not have an easy answer, but what could help?---It’s difficult to say off the top of my head. Data collection, to me in my position at the moment, is not overly important. It’s more the individual work that’s occurring with families that’s my concern.

Very well. Thank you. Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Maybe I can ask a question. So the care – the kids, the children in care, you say it’s an average six months/two years. How many of those are reunified within that time without having to go back and ask for an extension?---I couldn’t provide a number, unfortunately, but it is a small number.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That are reunified or that ask for extensions?---A small number that are reunified within that time period. And, in relation to the extensions, that can mean a variety of things. It may be that we’re applying for an extension just to allow additional monitoring and support, and the children are already reunified, or it could be that the children aren’t reunified and that an extension is required to continue that work.

And, following on from Mr Morrissey’s questions. we don’t have the data to disaggregate those numbers at all?---I’m sure the data is there, it’s just not something I look at on a day-to-day basis.

So if we wanted to find it, where would we go and look within the system, if those numbers are there?---That would be possibly through the director – through the manager of each office and then through the director.

I see.

MR MORRISSEY: Without access to that data you would agree that, as a general prospect, it is highly desirable that the unification rate be improved. That would always be a goal; you agree with that?---Yes. Most definitely. But we don’t need the data to – like, the specific numbers, to continue the work that we’re doing.

It’s hard to set a target, though, if you don’t have any data indicating what the target is?---It’s not about target, it’s about reunifying every single child, and the work that’s done on the ground to get there, rather than the data.

Yes. I understand. Could I ask that Mr Woodroffe take the stand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Sorry, my friend has .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Jacobi.

MR JACOBI: Commissioner, perhaps I can give this indication: in view of the question that has been asked, perhaps I can indicate that we will obtain the data that you are asking for, so that you are in a position to be aware of that, but that’s not a matter I think we have addressed ..... and I’m happy to make inquiries of the relevant people that have access to the system.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you, Mr Jacobi.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE [2.49 pm]

MR WOODROFFE: Ms Schinkel, my name is David Woodroffe. I am acting for the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency from the Top End, and what I did

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4105 K. SCHINKEL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

want to talk to you about is your engagement with families around Darwin. Now, you’ve told us that you work in the northern region, that services Darwin and Palmerston, but are there other units that service remote Aboriginal communities? Is that on an individual community level or regional level?---There are other offices, yes, and individual communities and regional.

Okay. And the families that you work – there are a lot of Aboriginal families that their community of origin is in remote communities; that’s right?---Yes.

And when you’ve told us about the working with care plans, and with extended families, what level of support is done to assist extended families in their community of origin to be involved in that care plan process?---Each situation is different, but it depends on the wishes of the parent. If they’re communicating to us that they would like additional family members to be a part of the process, we try and support that as much as possible.

So is that level of support assisted travel, or is that level of support actually going out to the community and talking to the grandmothers or the aunts, or etcetera?---That – both of those – both of those things do occur, yes.

Okay. Frequently?---I would say frequently, yes.

Okay. Now, is there a coordination of services between your team and other teams that go to communities?---No. It’s quite separate.

Now - - -?---But at times can be coordinated, just depends on the situation.

You would see that in those sort of complex situations of a high mobility of families, that there should be a coordination of services that go to remote communities and to assist families based in Darwin as well?---Yes, we would complete case support requests, so requesting another office to assist us in doing whatever it is that needs to be done.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That might be the Department of Health, for example?---No, I’m talking just within Territory Families.

Just within Territory Families?---Yes. But then we can liaise with other services about support, such as health, education, what support they can provide as well.

So does that mean if there’s no coordination, that someone from your team, for example, might travel – just pick the Tiwi Islands, because it’s relatively close and there are probably a lot of Tiwi Island people who come in on one week, and then someone else from the Department might go out another week, and then someone from other services another week to talk to the same people?---No, sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear. That doesn’t occur in the first instance. We would put in a case support task, because the Tiwi Islands aren’t somewhere our office would primarily


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

go to. We would in the first instance see if another office could assist in doing that. Depending what the task is.

If, indeed, the task was something as general as just seeing what other family members might be available to assist, aside from the parents, with the child, where would you seek that information?---We would contact the Arafura office, which services that area, and have workers regularly visiting the area and in most cases would have a bit of awareness of families out there and obtain the information from them, find out when they were next travelling the area, and to liaise with them about that travel.

Thank you.

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you, Commissioner.

Ms Schinkel, you’ve told us that in working with interpreters, perhaps in your role as the acting team leader, is there collection of that data on the number of interpreter engagements or the primary Aboriginal language groups that you work with?---I’m not aware of a collection of data about how frequently an interpreter is used, no.

Is there policy and procedure that an interpreter is used with all engagements or is it up to the individual protection officer?---No. That’s something that we would consult with the family about, if that’s – if we identified that there could be an issue there, we would ask for their permission, if that’s something that they’re wanting, and we would follow that request.

Now, in respect of - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: ..... might tidy that up a little bit. Presumably you do that through the interpreter service?---Yes.

And one would expect that they would keep records of where they’re working and why, would you - - -?---I would say that that would be the case, yes.

So that would be another way to get the information if your office doesn’t keep it?---Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: Now, concerning care plans and referrals for families to rehabilitation centres, therapeutic counselling services, is it a situation in some instances that families are just provided a list of contact services?---At times, yes. Depending on the situation, they may be provided a list and asked what service that they would prefer to utilise.

And is it the situation, in those circumstances, that the person themselves has to do the referral and make their own arrangements?---It depends on the service. Some services require that the individual, being the parent, contact them directly and refer


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

themselves. They won’t accept referrals from another agency, but in most cases I would say that we complete those referrals.

And just inquiring in relation to the level of support in referrals to agencies from people in remote communities, is there financial assistance to assist in their transport and assessment fees and things of the like?---In relation to the remote communities, I’m not based in the Arafura office, I’m in the Casuarina office, so most regularly we are not working with families that are living out in remote communities. They reside in Darwin or Palmerston.

But your experience and knowledge in the Department, well, do you know of support services or referrals that you can make to people whose home communities or extended family etcetera are from remote communities?---I’m sure that would be the case, but I can’t comment. I can only comment about my office.

Now, you’ve also indicated that Territory Families provides assistance with issues that surround housing when families go to rehabilitation centres. That’s a major issue, isn’t it, housing in Darwin?---It can be an issue for some of our families.

Isn’t it the case that some of the families if they go into residential programs for three months or however long the program is, it actually lose their housing lease or their tenancy?---No, that has never been my experience. Territory Housing are very supporting of individuals accessing rehab services, and I’ve never been aware of anyone losing a home because they’ve gone into a rehab service.

But you’re statement – you make mention that you provide services and assistance and you help people engage when they do lose their housing, so people are losing their housing?---Yes. But it’s not because of issues of going into rehab and losing a house. It’s personal situations why they lose their homes.

Does Territory Families assist in helping the continuation of rent while the person is in those residential programs?---At times that can be – that can occur, but most situations I’m aware of NT Housing and Centrelink assist them in meeting those costs while they’re in rehab.

Now you’ve referred to, through the Senior Counsel Assisting in relation to your caseload, 20 to 25 child protection matters. Are you able to indicate the case load in relation to Aboriginal cultural workers, whether they are engaged across the board or what’s their level of engagement?---They are engaged across the board. So for each case that is requested from the family to have an Aboriginal cultural worker, they will have one assigned to the family.

Is three Aboriginal cultural workers sufficient for your needs or the needs of your section?---I believe so, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it a regular request? And I take it that emanates again from the family initiative, rather than from your team saying we think, “We


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

would be assisted by having our Aboriginal and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander worker here”?---We always recommend it, but we do have families that decline and don’t want that additional assistance. In most cases I think they do obtain that support in some way or another.

Are there issues – for example, do you have any Torres Strait Islander workers fulfilling one of the three positions or are they all Aboriginal workers?---My understanding is that they are all Aboriginal.

So are there any issues about the area of the Northern Territory that the workers come from in assisting some of the families that you manage? They may come from a totally different area. They might come from the centre, for example?---In my experience, that hasn’t been an issue for families. I think they’re happy to have that support from an Aboriginal worker. That has been my experience. I’m aware that there are other experiences out there.

MR WOODROFFE: ..... just comparing your history and work experiences, also as a child protection worker in Queensland, are you able to speak about what was the level of your case load in Queensland when you were employed there?---So within Queensland, I wasn’t a child protection worker. I worked for an NGO responsible for doing foster care and kinship assessments and supporting foster carers.

Sorry about that. But would you be aware that Queensland, following the Child Protection Commission Inquiry, has made recommendations that the average case load would only be 15 cases in Queensland?---It was around three years ago that I was in Queensland, so I couldn’t comment as to what the case loads are now.

I will leave it at that. Thank you, Commissioners. That’s my time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Woodroffe. Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [3.01 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Ms Schinkel, my name is Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Do you acknowledge that, the statistics that are available, the experience of Aboriginal community organisations, Aboriginal communities, is that the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle is not being honoured in a widespread way in the Northern Territory?---I do. But I can see that every effort is made to meet that principle.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I am not quite sure what that answer – it’s not really a helpful answer, I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but we need to have some content?---Well, part of that is we don’t have large numbers of Aboriginal placements available for Aboriginal children. So although we want to meet that placement principle, it’s difficult when there’s no placement available.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4109 K. SCHINKEL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Perhaps you would like to continue.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Would it be – seeing that the Northern Territory is signed up to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, wouldn’t it be part of the role of the agency to actually get those people in place or – I notice Queensland, quoting Queensland again, just had a great big promotion of foster carers, including a lot of Aboriginal foster carers. Do you say that’s the responsibility of the Department to actually get those workers – those placements in place?---It is through recruitment. We are recruiting foster carers but, at the end of the day, you can’t force people to become a foster care.

No, I understand that, but - - -?---It’s getting the numbers that we need, I guess, to be able to fill that – fulfil that placement principle and I think it’s more so a community responsibility for people to be putting their hand up and, you know, going through the process to become foster carers so we can meet the placement need, as well as the Department as well.

Yes. Okay, thank you.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Schinkel, you say in your statement at paragraph 25.2.3 that, in effect, all family options are carefully considered for placement of Aboriginal children. But I suggest to you that there has been a systemic failure by the Department to identify kinship carers for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. Do you acknowledge that?---I acknowledge that there has been difficulties, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think that’s a different kind of answer than the question that was asked. Perhaps you could repeat it again, Ms Graham.

MS GRAHAM: Do you acknowledge that there have been systemic failures by the Department of Territory Families or its predecessors to identify kinship carers for Aboriginal children?---Yes.

And do you acknowledge that the Department is often not best placed to identify kinship carers for Aboriginal children?---It’s difficult to answer that question, because a lot of the decision-making is in consultation with the family and speaking to them about their wishes, so my experience is that conversations occur with the family about who they feel would be suitable kinship options. And that’s how we go about identifying those options, as well as obtaining information from extended family and services.

Do you acknowledge that barriers like language, mistrust of Government, geography, and cultural clash compromise the ability of the Department to identify kinship carers for Aboriginal children?---Yes, I do.

And that often the case will be that an Aboriginal community organisation will be in a much better place to identify kinship carers for Aboriginal people than the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Department will be?---I think it’s probably something that needs to be a shared responsibility.

Do you acknowledge that there have been widespread delays in the assessment of suitability of kinship carers for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory?---Yes.

And do you also acknowledge that there have been systemic failures to assist identified kinship carers, who are appropriate, with barriers to a placement coming to fruition, such as housing or other like matters?---Yes.

Within your team, what internal reviews are carried out to ensure compliance or report on compliance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle?---Within my expertise specifically we are not conducting those reviews. That is most likely something that occurs through our care and assessment team and our placement unit, and at a higher level.

In relation to reunification, after a court order has been made removing a child from their family, you mention at paragraph 19 of your statement a number of steps that the reunification team takes to assist families in that process. Could you just acknowledge that none of those points in paragraph 19 mention assisting families and Aboriginal children to remain connected to culture or that promote their cultural connection?---My statement could go on for pages and pages, including all of that information. I think what you need to be looking at is the policy in relation to that. My statement is only very brief and general.

In relation to family contact for Aboriginal children where their family of origin is in a remote community, it’s commonplace that that contact doesn’t occur on community. Rather, it occurs in the urban centres like Darwin and Alice Springs. Do you acknowledge that?---I can’t comment on that specifically, because as – I am located in the Casuarina office, so the work we do with families is talking to them about what family contact they would see their children wanting and that we try to meet those wishes as best as possible. However, in terms of how contact occurs within the remote offices, that’s a different issue.

I think you acknowledged, in answer to one of Mr Woodroffe’s question, that a number of families that you deal with in – or a number of children that you deal with in the Casuarina office come from remote communities; is that right?---Yes. That’s right, but they’re residing in Darwin and Palmerston.

At the time that they’re in care?---Yes.

And what I’m suggesting to you is that, during the time that they’re in care, family contact is more often than not organised only to occur in the urban centre like Darwin; is that right?---We would work with the families about what their usual arrangements would be. If the children are residing in Darwin and Palmerston prior to their removal, well, we would try and fit in with how did they usually have contact with extended families? Members of that extended family travel to Darwin, or were


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the children going out once every six months, once every 12 months, whatever the circumstance would be, and we would try and be consistent with whatever that arrangement is.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do your relationships with the parents, who may have a lot of challenges themselves, sometimes break down so that you can’t get the sort of information that you need about the child’s background?---That does occur at times, relationship breakdowns, but that’s why we continue to work with the family and move through whatever identified issue it was that created that breakdown, to address that so that we can continue to move forward.

MS GRAHAM: In terms of the concept of reunification, do you agree that the department generally approaches that term through the prism of reunification with biological parents?---That’s the primary. If that’s where children have been removed from, their parents, the primary objective would be that they would be returned to their parents. However, in some instances, children are living with extended members, and if that’s where they were living at the time of their removal, the reunification plan is in relation to whoever they were removed from.

And so, for example an out-of-home care plan generally at the very beginning has a plan goal and the question – or the topic is reunification and there’s a yes or no ticker box, for whether that is a goal of the plan; is that correct?---Yes.

And, unless reunification is contemplated with biological parents, that ticker box is usually marked “no”. Do you agree with that?---No.

It would be too narrow, do you agree, to consider reunification for an Aboriginal child through the prism of biological parents?---Yes.

Do you acknowledge that in the decision-making steps that occur where – when a child is engaging with the care and protection system, that there is generally a lack of information to assist decision-makers about the cultural context for that child and their family, matters of systemic disadvantage, the impact of colonialism, intergenerational trauma, these cultural and community context matters. Do you acknowledge that there’s a generally a lack of that kind of information available to decision-makers?---Yes.

There has been some evidence earlier this week about the types of information and reporting that could be made available, to particularly court decision-makers, but also at other stages of the process. Where that kind of information is made available to the Department, or to courts, is that something that you see could be a real area for improvement in care and protection of Aboriginal children?---Yes, it could.

You mention at paragraph 8 of your statement that part of your training involved strengths approach training. Is that training where the focus is on looking at the strengths that a family may have in their ability or their approach to caring for a child?---It is, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What aspects of Aboriginal cultural approaches to caring for children are regarded as being strengths by Territory Families?---I think the biggest thing is the number of individuals around that family that support the family, so that they have that shared responsibility in meeting the child’s needs.

I’m told time is up, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’ve got a brutal timekeeper next to you, Ms Graham. Thank you, they are useful questions.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MORRISSEY [3.14 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: I only have one matter in follow up there, if I could, and it concerned the recruitment of foster carers, particularly Indigenous foster carers. Just in your experience of foster carers, and working with them, do you have any suggestions as to how to promote better and more prolific recruitment of such carers and, I will ask you the general question first and then a specific one. What do you see as a way of encouraging that, promoting it?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: This is Aboriginal foster carers?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes---A difficult question. You’ve put me on the spot. I think the sharing of information, and ensuring that they have an understanding of what it actually is that they will be required to do, and improving the relationship of Territory Families and these families would be of benefit.

MR MORRISSEY: In some other areas, and perhaps in this one as well, we’ve – there has been evidence of a generalised mistrust of Government – of government agencies, including yours, which no doubt you’ve seen at different points. Where have you seen that mistrust successful dispelled? Have you got any examples of where you’ve seen that overcome?---I’ve seen that been overcome by Territory Families following through and, in particular, the individual case managers following through with what they say they’re doing, I guess, what they say they’re going to do and working regularly with the family. So more regular communication.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That certainly seems to be a pretty constant complaint from a lot of clients of the Department that we’ve heard from, that case workers will say, “We will see you next week,” and they don’t, or that they will arrange something and it doesn’t happen. And that no doubt is a consequence of the heavy case load, but that does seem to be the source of the major mistrust.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Those are my questions, it falls for us to thank Ms Schinkel for her - - -

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4113 K. SCHINKEL RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Schinkel, for taking some – quite a lot of time out of your office in Darwin and coming down to speak to us. We’re most grateful to you. Thank you---Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’re – it’s changing of the guard isn’t it, Mr Morrissey?

MR MORRISSEY: No. I remain the guard, if there’s a changing of the guard. It’s now time for the child protection, policy, and services panel.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, some of the guard. I’m sorry, Mr Jacobi. I didn’t ask you, did you have any questions? I know that you would be quick to jump if you did.

MR JACOBI: I would be, and no, I didn’t have any.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.18 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Commissioners, I call Wendy Morton and Lesley Taylor.

<WENDY JOY MORTON, AFFIRMED [3.18 pm]

<LESLEY JANE TAYLOR, AFFIRMED [3.19 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks. Ms Morton, firstly to you, what is your full name?

MS MORTON: Wendy Joy Morton.

MR MORRISSEY: And what is your occupation.

MS MORTON: Executive Director of the NT Council of Social Service.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Did you prepare a statement for the purpose of this Commission?

MS MORTON: I did.

MR MORRISSEY: Have you had the opportunity to look at that statement for the purposes of the Commission?

.ROYAL COMMISSION 30.5.17 P-4114 MORTON/TAYLOR ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS MORTON: I have.

MR MORRISSEY: And are the statement true and correct?

MS MORTON: They are.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I tender that statement along with the annexures.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you. That statement is exhibit 470.

EXHIBIT #470 STATEMENT OF WENDY JOY MORTON

MR MORRISSEY: Ms Taylor, what is your full name?

MS TAYLOR: Lesley Jane Taylor.

MR MORRISSEY: And what is your occupation?

MS TAYLOR: The NT Manager of NAPCAN, and the National Manager of Prevention Strategies.

MR MORRISSEY: And did you prepare a statement for the purpose of this proceeding?

MS TAYLOR: Yes, I did.

MR MORRISSEY: For this Commission. And have you had a chance to look at that Commission – that statement recently?

MS TAYLOR: Yes, I have.

MR MORRISSEY: Are the contents of that true and correct?

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. I tender that statement as well, Commissioners.


EXHIBIT #471 STATEMENT OF LESLEY JANE TAYLOR


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Now, I will address questions – I will point to the person I’m addressing it to, but it may be if somebody has something to add you can just put your finger up and indicate that that’s the case. We’re grateful to you for attending, thank you. So, Ms Morton, could I ask you briefly to explain what NTCOSS is to the Commissioners please.

MS MORTON: So NTCOSS is a peak body of the social and not for profit sector in the Northern Territory. We have a role about being an advocate those being disadvantaged in the Territory as well as being an advocate for our members.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. What is NTCOSS made up of?

MS MORTON: So we have, at the moment, about 110 members. About 100 of those are organisational members and about 10 individual members.

MR MORRISSEY: And does it include Indigenous organisations?

MS MORTON: It does.

MR MORRISSEY: About how many, or what percentage, would that be? As your best estimate.

MS MORTON: Yeah. I’m taking a guess. About 15 Aboriginal organisations. I think we have four on our board as well.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Thank you for that. Ms Taylor, could you please explain what NAPCAN is.

MS TAYLOR: NAPCAN is a – the Northern Territory branch of the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. It is our not for profit peak advisory body that promotes the prevention of child abuse for all children.

MR MORRISSEY: In particular – with particular reference to raising public awareness of child abuse. Alright. Thank you for that. And I will just ask you, perhaps each in turn, how does your organisation go about achieving those aims? First of all, Ms Morton, how does NTCOSS proceed?

MS MORTON: So we have a role of being, I guess, an advocate for our – for the – more than our membership organisations and individuals across the Territory. So that might be through individual consultations, you know, large forums, a variety of ways. And then advocating those positions to Government, and then I think we also play a role in trying to ensure that Government is consulting with the sector, and so feeding information up and down.

MR MORRISSEY: At paragraph 13 of your statement you also mention that you assist community organisations to understand Government policies. So it’s a two way street, in effect. Can you explain how that’s done, what the thinking is there?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS MORTON: I think if I use the Board of Inquiry as an example. There was such a lot of things were happening, and we had a role in ensuring that NGOs were taken, I guess, along the path with Government. So, as things were happening, ensuring the government was providing information to the sector.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: When you – did you say with – is that the Board of Inquiry for 2010?

MS MORTON: Yes, just as an example.

MR MORRISSEY: And, Ms Taylor, could you just say something about NAPCAN’s strategy and how you go about promoting your goals?

MS TAYLOR: We have a suite of programs that we deliver, including community workshops, that we would deliver to organisations right across the Northern Territory on a range of topics associated with the safety and protection of children from child abuse prevention, mandatory reporting, community responsibilities for children’s safety, how to make organisations safe for children, we have been doing that for about 12 years now.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. I’ve got a series of topics to go through, some of them will cross over. There’s an artificiality in breaking them up, to some extent. You can point that out, if it’s necessary to jump from one to another, and feel free to do so if you need to. First of all, I just wanted to talk about the current lack of a peak body for child protection in the Northern Territory. It seems from each of your statements, and it seems to be the case, that that is in fact the case. Ms Morton, could I perhaps just start with you, has there ever been a peak body in relation to child protection in the Northern Territory.

MS MORTON: So after the Board of Inquiry statements we had the Safe Aboriginal Families, Together, otherwise known as SAF,T.

MR MORRISSEY: So SAF,T is an acronym, just so that everyone here is - - -

MS MORTON: SAF,T is an acronym for Safe Aboriginal Families, Together.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. That was a peak body that lasted for what period of time?

MS MORTON: Maybe three and a half years, roughly that.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. We will come to some questions about that body in particular, historically.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS MORTON: Other than that there has never been any child protection or youth funded peak body.

MR MORRISSEY: Perhaps I will direct this question to Ms Taylor, but either of you may have a – can you explain what is the need for a peak body in that space in the Northern Territory?

MS TAYLOR: There is an absolute need to have a body that represents the needs and interests of children in all of these systems where children’s voices are very easily lost. So it’s having a focus, a particular focus on the safety and wellbeing of children, in the context of their family – because children don’t exist outside of their family, and families don’t exist out of a community. So it’s that big picture around community, supporting families to look after their children that gets lost when people are concerned with a particular problem associated with a child, or a particular problem associated with a family, so families become divided by their departments and we want someone to look at Children and Families and communities and how to strengthen them to keep children safe. That’s what we’re looking for.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think that one of you mentions in your statement – it might be you, Ms Taylor, I think so, yes – that this seems to be a real issue and that there is a real risk of a child falling between departments. One tends to think of Territory Families as being an overarching Department, but one suspects that’s not the case, and so that leads me to this fairly high level question: do we need to consider a special overarching department or ministry for children that would pull all of these departments into line and them accountable, if you like, for the delivery of necessary services to children, and their parents, and their families?

MS TAYLOR: I think that would be an ideal situation. We do, in the Territory, have a Minister for Children but I’m unfamiliar how that works in the context of what you’re talking about at this point. It is very early days, but that’s – what you’re talking about would be a significant step forward.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Could I just ask you this: because of the lack of a peak body, would you say that there’s also a lack of a framework in place that emphasises early intervention? Would you see those two things as being related, the lack of a peak body and that lack of a focus on early intervention?

MS TAYLOR: Well, the first time that the Territory has had, in my opinion and in my – I suppose, in my view, was the vision for a coordinated service system to promote child and family wellbeing was the very first time, and that was driven by the NGO sector, with NTCOSS, to establish a framework in the absence of Territory Families. At that time – Department of Children and Families, they were at that time, saying that was not their responsibility. Their responsibility was child protection, not the wellbeing of families.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Are you referring there to what might be called the vision document that is annexed to Ms Morton’s affidavit at WM3? Might we return to that, because it’s an important document to go to, and I think we will. But just in terms of the absence of a framework, can I just perhaps ask Ms Morton a question at paragraphs 20 and 23 of your statement, you refer to that. You said, specific to the child protection in the Northern Territory in 2015, NTCOSS partnered with Anglicare, Foster Care NT, and the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse, and NAPCAN, in short, to produce the framework. Now, that was a framework that was produced outside of Government and with – did it have any Government input or any Government assistance?

MS MORTON: There was Government people who came to some of the forums, but there was no Government involvement in the direction of – and in the planning of it and in the pulling together. So they were considered, you know, a stakeholder at some of the forums, but no.

MR MORRISSEY: What was the need that you identified that called this forth? Perhaps each of you can say, because you came at it from a different perspective, so - - -

MS MORTON: Well, look, were both at the same meeting when the Department were showing us a strategic plan they had done, and there was questions around the table about whether there had been any involvement from the NGO sector. So - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Just pause there for one moment. I just want you to park it. When was that meeting?

MS MORTON: This was maybe three years ago. I shouldn’t say strategic plan. It was a framework, they had called it a framework, for how their Department was going to work. And so (1) there was questions the NGO hadn’t been involved in the development and (2) the framework starting at the point of notification. And so there was lots of people around the table saying, “Well, what about all the stuff before notification?” You know, “What are we doing to prevent people ending up in the system?” And one of the people from Government around the table said, “That’s not our problem, and if that’s what you want, do it yourself.”

MR MORRISSEY: May I ask you whether the term “front line services” was used in that discussion?

MS MORTON: I don’t recall it being used in that discussion. Many other conversations at the time, but I don’t recall that one.

MR MORRISSEY: Just – and one final follow-up question, then I will ask Ms Taylor to answer the same question. But this occurred after SAF,T, the pre-existing peak body, had been scrapped by the Government of the day; is that correct?

MS MORTON: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Sorry, Ms Taylor, so you’ve heard the genesis of the vision report. Why did your organisation seek to - - -

MS TAYLOR: There was an absolute absence of any prevention, community education or early intervention. It was only when families were in crisis that they were allowed to access support systems.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Alright. Thank you for that. And just finally could I ask a question about that. It’s evident from the document that you were calling for a whole of Government response and it was one that you recognised Territory Families, on its own, couldn’t fix. It’s maybe a different way of asking Commissioner White’s question, but how important did you view a whole of Government response in the context of what you were doing.

MS MORTON: Incredibly important, and after we released the framework, we did a lot of information sessions and – you know, to different Government departments, and indeed the Chief Minister at the time sat through a 45 minute presentation about it, with all the other chief executives, and we always started with saying this is not the Department of Children and Families’ problem alone. This actually needs a whole of Government response. And – I mean, just for example, in every single consultation we did, the issue of housing came up. You know, mental health services, alcohol and other drug services, and so we went to great lengths to emphasise the need for a coordinated approach and for everybody to recognise that children and families were their responsibility.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Could we just turn for a moment to a historical issue. There was – and you’ve indicated it’s obvious why it is that a peak body would be needed in light of what you identified. The SAF,T peak body had suffered some criticisms at various points, but could you perhaps ask each of you to identify some of the strengths and weakens that you saw in that body during its period? So perhaps ask Ms Taylor first.

MS TAYLOR: Strengths. Okay. So the strengths was an absolute need for a body to take a lead for Aboriginal children and their interests in the Northern Territory. There was absolute total support in every organisation that I met for the formation of that organisation, and then absolute commitment from everyone to make that work. The weakness was that it was unsuccessful. I’m not privy to - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Why was that?

MS TAYLOR: I’m not privy to a huge amount of information around what didn’t work, other than being devastated that it didn’t work.

MR MORRISSEY: What were the symptoms of it not working, though?

MS TAYLOR: There was such a huge expectation from everyone on this organisation to do everything, from fix the child protection system – which can’t fix


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

itself – to support every family that came through the door. So the community demand is so huge that I believe it became overwhelmed, and that there was this desire to do everything at the same time, rather than having a clarity of focus, and I was aware that there were continuing conversations with Territory Families, or whatever they were called at that time, Department of Children and Families or Department of Family and Children for a few months, that they could not agree on a focus.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: And I think that was very debilitating, in the early stages of an organisation, to not be able to have a focus.

MR MORRISSEY: Ms Morton, could you perhaps – I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But three and a half years isn’t a real long time to establish a peak body like that, is it? Like, they take time to evolve.

MS MORTON: Certainly. Maybe I can address that as part of this.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, if you would.

MS MORTON: So one of my reflections is, and understandings at the time was I think in the initial set-up by the Department, and funding, you know, the expectation was too big and they wanted a peak body that was – you know, particularly work around the child protection area, but they funded it as the child youth and family peak body, and so there was an expectation they were involved in the youth justice conversation, in all of the issues that had to do with children and young people and families, and I think that sort of – it was sort of almost up in too big a way, and perhaps could have been a more focused sort of area that it was initially set up for.

MR MORRISSEY: Do you feel as if the role was sufficiently clearly defined at the start?

MS MORTON: No. That’s when I think it wasn’t.

MR MORRISSEY: That’s what you’re getting at. Yes.

MS MORTON: It was too unclear, and too big, and I think in hindsight could have been more targeted as to what role they wanted. And, from my perception, there was a constant kind of toing-and-froing as to whether they wanted to be in the early intervention prevention space or whether they or the Department wanted them to be in the out-of-home care space and setting up Aboriginal child care agencies to look after children. And then a lack of clarity about whether they were being funded as a peak body to do advocacy, or whether funded to set up service delivery and participate in that. And, you know, from running a peak body for quite a long time,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it’s difficult to be both. And – I mean, I’m fortunate that we have been able to stay just in the peak body space, but it’s tough to fulfil both of those.

MR MORRISSEY: I would ask you to explain that a little bit further. There seems to be at least a potential for attention between that service delivery role and the peak body role. Perhaps say a little bit more about that in pragmatic terms and add to the answer if you would. Is there a way in which an organisation can do both coherently, is there a way of skating through that dilemma? So sketch the dilemma and then sketch a way out, if you could.

MS MORTON: I think you can, depending on what role you are playing in the service delivery. Just an example, you know, one of the – I’m in lots of meetings with Territory Families at the moment, where they’re looking at new services. And it’s kind of – it’s a luxury for me to be in the room, not being the one who is going to deliver the service, so I’m not actually in that meeting seeking money to be the one to deliver the service. I just want a really good model of service to happen. So there’s a luxury, I think, in not having to be both. But we are a small jurisdiction, that is never going to have peak bodies in every aware, and be able to separate it.

So there’s some realities of – maybe in the Territory we, you know, do need to combine those roles. But I think in answer to your question, Commissioner, I mean, I think one thing we should learn out of this is when things aren’t working, rather than just defunding a service, we need to work with that organisation to see where it’s going wrong and how to change that. And there were enormous amounts of resources that went into SAF,T and other things at the time, and to just sort of have it all end – you know, means that all of that is lost, and I think we need to make – if we’re going to move forward we have got to make commitments about seeing things through those difficult times and the way to deal with it.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Is a way of making sure that happens is that being driven from a community level rather Government?

MS MORTON: Certainly, the community needs to be the one, I think, putting their hand up saying, “No you cannot defund this, when this is an essential part of the way forward.” And I – you know, I mean, there were certainly some voices saying that at the time, but I guess it was also in the midst of a whole lot of organisations being defunded as well, which may – you know, the voices got key decreased because there was less and less of us there.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But I mean that question about what I would probably term policy, the service delivery, wouldn’t that be better driven from a community perspective, rather than - - -

MS MORTON: Very much so. Again, I think – you know, my thoughts on the way forward in terms of what we need now is whatever is put in its place to fulfil a similar role that SAF,T was to, it needs to be very community driven rather than something new. And I think we’ve got avenues maybe to expand on someone else’s


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

role potentially, but it very much needs to come from that community level and I think have a bit more ownership.

MR MORRISSEY: Does that mean assisting the community organisations themselves to develop a capacity?

MS MORTON: Possibly. I mean, I think there’s a range of different models, but you could utilise an existing organisation. You could split up some of the roles, for example, you could connect to say a Federal – you know, another peak body such as SNAICC. I think there’s different models that you could look at. But – you know, to start another organisation, it’s a whole new governance process we – you know, that maybe the way forward is to start smaller, and more targeted, and to use existing services or resources that are there.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Ms Taylor, sorry, you wanted to add something earlier, so please do.

MS TAYLOR: I concur with Wendy’s comments. NAPCAN is a peak prevention body, as well as delivering services, so just in terms of the capacity to do both, yes. But it is a difficult balance to continue to have an unbiased advocacy role about children and deliver programs. So the main thing is to be really aware of the programs that you are delivering, and promoting all programs that are making a difference, and doing good things for children, but it’s the absence of prevention and early intervention in the Territory that has forced us to develop programs, because there’s no funding for those programs so we have done that through a variety of philanthropic opportunities and one-off funding grants in order to continue that role.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are there too many service providers in the Territory, given the population? Each one sucks up a lot of administration cost, just to be established and remain established, and certainly in our journeys through many communities we have seen an enormous number of service providers. Duplication, in many cases. Should there be a rationalisation?

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely, Commissioner. I think that that has been concerning, that so many services can go to a community without a commitment to the skills building within that community, that – my own personal opinion, the demise of the community councils was quite a blow to many communities across the Territory. That was the place where small organisations could come together and meet and share information around who else was doing what in a community, whereas it’s difficult to coordinate funding. Funding is local, Federal, State, philanthropic, multiple programs funded by multiple people by multiple departments, and no one talks to anyone until they get to the community.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And do you have any solutions in a practical sense?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TAYLOR: It is about empowering communities to have the authority to develop plans for their own community, but then all services can contribute to. So if a community has their own plan for the safety of children, then every service can be challenged about, “How are you contributing to our plan, in what way?” Rather than every service that visits has their own plan.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And we have been to communities where agencies go in and actually set up their own reference group. And one community went – had about three reference groups set up by separate agencies, which almost contributes to the dysfunction within that community. Everyone – you know, we all know about factions and all that in communities. They all line themselves up with a particular organisation, and - - -

MS TAYLOR: It’s – it must be exhausting.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: - - - they’re actually contributing to the dysfunction.

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely, yes. So the – that need for community coordination around Children and Families is absolutely crucial. My own opinion was that when the GECs were appointed in communities - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: What are the GECs?

MS TAYLOR: The Government engagement co-ordinators, the Federal Government representatives in each of the remote communities in the Territory, and the Indigenous engagement officer attached. I was mistakenly of the opinion that they were there for children, and I thought that for years, because they were appointed as part of - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The Intervention.

MS TAYLOR: - - - the Intervention. And I was so shocked and disappointed to find out that they had no responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of children and families written into their position descriptions.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: It’s all a bit of a mystery, so – and I suggest we should not go to Government business managers.

MS TAYLOR: No. Because I think some of them are the most extraordinary wonderful people, and they do what they can, but it’s about the Federal Government not necessarily feeling they’re obliged to communicate with the State Government, and the State Government not necessarily feeling they are obliged to ..... with local Government

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Like, I’ve read in some papers we’re developing the about monitoring of people visiting communities and in a period of about four, five years, of 45,000 visits to communities in the Northern Territory.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TAYLOR: Be interesting to determine how many communicate with children and young people about what they would like to see different in their communities.

MR MORRISSEY: I’m sorry. No, I won’t cut across if there’s a - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We are letting – over to you, Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: I just wanted to ask a couple of concluding questions about the SAF,T organisation, perhaps how one might avoid the pitfalls identified moving into the future. Obviously, it’s desirable there be a peak body, and we have touched on some of those issues. But could I just ask: were the time frames imposed on SAF,T, perhaps if I might come back to Ms Morton, because I was asking these questions earlier: do you feel time frames imposed SAF,T were realistic at the time?

MS MORTON: I think the timeframes were, because seemingly throughout the whole time it was unclear for the whole time as to what the – where they were trying to get to and it sort of changed a lot. And it was hard for me to know – you know, from my perspective whether that was through Government uncertainty or Government changing its mind, or – you know, SAF,T sort of changing its mind. But I think we went through that time without any sort of clear idea of what they were trying to get to. And so, yes, I think that the timeframes were okay, but – and I guess it was the process of how to resolve the problems that wasn’t okay.

MR MORRISSEY: So although – so this is an issue that may recur, so that although time frames may of themselves be realistic, you can have volatility about timeframes too that they can change and conflict with each other and create competing priorities. Is that something you feel was a difficulty at the time?

MS MORTON: I think certainly, from – you know, hearing different people talk, the relationships with Government weren’t good at times. So to be able to have those discussions to resolve them was probably quite complex, and wasn’t going well.

MR MORRISSEY: But a functional peak body is going to play a crucial role in any such process.

MS MORTON: Absolutely.

MR MORRISSEY: What about the issue of workloads imposed? Is there a point at which a peak body can find itself overly flooded? And do you think that happened?

MS MORTON: I feel it every day.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

MS MORTON: So just adding to the conversation about peak bodies, and – as I say in my statement, because we are quite different to most other jurisdictions, because


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

we don’t have a youth peak body, we don’t have a child and family peak body, there’s a whole range of peak bodies that we don’t have, and that means at NTCOSS there’s an expectation that we will step in, I guess, a bit more and play a much greater role. And so I suspect that we play a far greater role in all of these discussions around Children and Families that what NTCOSS might other locations. So I mean, yes, I do feel every day the expectation of the role that we will play in being able to be that – to do those consultations with all of our members across the Territory. You know, we are really quite small and, you know, I would say very openly, we don’t do it well, and we don’t go into communities, for example, and do those consultations, and that’s where I think a specialist peak body would have that ability to focus – one – be the specialist in that area and to actually hopefully have the resources to go and do those consultations well, right across the Territory.

MR MORRISSEY: Sorry, it’s really a follow-up to that. I guess it’s more of a warning for the future, but I ask for your comment about it. If you set up a peak body without proper attention being given to the issues that we’ve turned to, you may be creating problems for it or even setting it up to fail, so that’s an issue that needs to be faced. What are the sort of ways in which you could suggest that that not occur?

MS MORTON: For starters you need to resource it properly, and I’ve had many, many conversations, particularly with Government departments and recently they, in the last year, spoke to me about setting up a peak body in a particular area and I said, “Well, how much money are you talking about?” And they said $180,000. And I’m saying you can’t set up a peak body of $180,000. That’s one worker. That’s not a peak body, that’s just a worker. And, you know, they have got location costs and – you know, a whole lot of other costs. So if you’re going to do it, you have to resource it properly so that they can have, you know, qualified professional staff, and that they can actually do consultations properly, that they’re able to, you know, work well with Government and have that ability to say to Government, “No, that’s not the right way.”

And you need strong experienced staff in order to do that, and you need to understand things across – you know, I can say you need to be able to understand territory budgets, and you have to understand how to speak to a Minister, and you have to understand the media and you have to – you know, understand how to run an organisation. So you have got to resource it properly, so that they can have professional and experienced staff to start with.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Just a final question on that topic. How does – one can measure the output, if you like, of service providers closer to the coalface, but it’s quite difficult to measure at the time when it’s working the performance or the effectiveness of a peak body such as SAF,T or such as the one that’s being discussed here. Can you suggest ways in which one monitor, at the time when it’s happening, the effectiveness or the functionality of such a peak body? Perhaps, Ms Taylor, if I ask you firstly. How does one know if a peak body is functional?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TAYLOR: Usually by looking for outcomes, except the work that we are doing has long-term outcomes, so that becomes problematic.

MR MORRISSEY: That’s what I’m getting at, it’s that you don’t have the real time effect. So - - -

MS TAYLOR: No. I think that, as Wendy was referring to, a clarity of focus about what you’re going to start with. For me it doesn’t necessarily matter where you start, it is about starting. So there are so many things that are quite achievable in a short period of time, things like that – a focus a cultural care plans, training people in developing cultural care plans. That could actually contribute to families being reconnected and reunification, so there’s some things that – you know, quite specific tasks that could lead to some outcomes in the shorter term. Family group conferencing is another program that leads to quite significant outcomes in families connecting together.

MR MORRISSEY: So there may be some short-term indicators you - - -

MS TAYLOR: That you can have some successes that can – you can build on and move into other areas.

MR MORRISSEY: The reason I raise it, it’s a matter that recurs in each of your comments, but there’s reference both in your statements and in others to what might be described as a cycle of neglect, followed by crisis followed, by an intervention. But bodies such as peak bodies are vulnerable to review and cost-cutting at a later stage, when the crisis seems to have passed, and that’s an issue which will need to be dealt with here because whatever the Commission decides – whatever it recommends in future, nevertheless a time may come when a peak body comes to be reviewed and somebody asks the question, “What’s it really doing?” In a cynical tone of voice. So if I could park that as a background to some of the questions that are coming, in 2012 was there a change of Government?

MS MORTON: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: And did you encounter a distinct alteration in attitude to the implementation of the 2010 Board of Inquiry recommendations, all 147 of them, and to the peak body? Perhaps I could – perhaps can commence with Ms Morton on this question.

MS MORTON: A dramatic shift. And so it wasn’t long after the then-new Government got in that the Board of Inquiry recommendations were abandoned or dumped, and there was quite a lot of defunding of services that happened at the same time.

MR MORRISSEY: Just pause there for one moment, if you could. You have indicated in your statement there was a time of great hope, when the Board of Inquiry report, and when there was significant Government commitment to funding


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it, and to pursuing it, and supporting it. How was the decision by the Government of the day, elected in August of 2012, how was that communicated to the sector and to you in particular?

MS MORTON: To us in particular, so soon after the Government was elected, we had a meeting with the then Minister, Minister Lambley, and we asked her what role she saw for NTCOSS to play. And she said that she understood what NTCOSS did, she had actually done her student placement with QCOSS, and so she understood our role, but she didn’t see a point to us.

MR MORRISSEY: She didn’t see a point to you?

MS MORTON: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: Now, was there a discussion – were you able to explain to Minister Lambley what a peak body did?

MS MORTON: We did, in that meeting, but it was clear she didn’t – you know, support our role and we, at that point, heard some rumours that we were likely to lose some funding, and we certainly came out of that meeting expecting that we would.

MR MORRISSEY: Did you come out of the meeting with a sense that she understood what was to be lost if the peak body were to be folded up?

MS MORTON: No, I don’t think she understood it. But – and I think subsequently a lot of the conversations that people told me about, or the things we heard her talk about, indicated to me that no, she didn’t understand the role of NTCOSS, but she didn’t understand the role and the importance of the NGO sector in general.

MR MORRISSEY: Now, you annexe to your statement a particular newspaper article, sorry it’s annexure WM4 – or an article. Could I ask you a couple of matters arising from that article at WM4. Did NTCOSS lose some of its funding at that time?

MS MORTON: We lost 65 per cent of our funding.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. So apart from – NTCOSS lost its – lost that percentage of its funding. What became of SAF,T.

MS MORTON: So SAF,T, it took a little bit longer, but then SAF,T were defunded as well.

MR MORRISSEY: Was there a great deal of overt public resistance from the sector to these changes and these cuts?

MS MORTON: In – sort of behind the scenes, yes, and people were very distressed and we were certainly getting a lot of calls, but there wasn’t a lot of people who were


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

willing to speak publicly about it, and I very much saw it as our role to speak out on behalf of those organisations who were losing funding.

MR MORRISSEY: So you felt you had to give a voice to organisations. Was that because they appeared scared to speak out?

MS MORTON: Yes, most people weren’t willing to speak out for fear they lose any more funding. And, you know, they had clients and staff. They couldn’t afford to lose any more funding.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. So was the effect this: that, in a sense, the ability of those organisations to speak seemed to be muted, even though they were suffering, and even though they having their funding cut, because they were terrified the last few scraps might be taken away?

MS MORTON: There was certainly that perception.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Well, that was a perception, but is that a perception that you heard privately from those who NTCOSS had to represent?

MS MORTON: Certainly, that’s what people would say – have said to me.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Alright. In that process were you told that there was, by the Government – was an intellectual framework presented to you by the Government as to why this was going to be a better model or was it simply said, “This is a cost-cutting exercise”?

MS MORTON: It came across, and I can’t remember direct words now from the Minister, but it was very much about cost cutting, I think. And it seemed to be to make a political point, that they weren’t going to just follow what the previous government had done and that they had different ideas about how to progress it. But I think what was most – it was so frustrating, but it was actually upsetting, because we had all these people after the Board of Inquiry pour their heart and soul into trying to change things. There was nothing to put in its place. I remember saying to media, or saying to various people, “Suddenly we have got a Minister who appears to know better, but she’s not putting any – so she’s dumping what was there.”

Which, to me, wasn’t a political document. The Board of Inquiry was done by a group of experts, you know, who were independent. It wasn’t a political document. But there was nothing being put in its place, and so organisations throughout the Board of Inquiry, they could see where they fit in it. And people might not agree with every single thing that happened, but they could see where they fit in the plan, and there was a plan, and suddenly we had no plan, and people didn’t know where they fit, and what their role was, and I think at the time there was 4.8 million taken out of the child and youth family sector, and in the Northern Territory that’s a big amount of money.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Ms Taylor could I ask you there – against that background, could you explain to the Commissioners how the vision document was developed and say a little bit more about – we spoke before about how, at a general level, but if you say a bit about how – what your hopes were for it and why it was the form it was.

MS TAYLOR: Well, with the Board of Inquiry, that was the voices of thousands of people from the Territory that contributed to that, rather than just agencies, it was people. So there was a huge commitment right across the Territory. Similar to the experience we’re having now, people are giving their hearts and their beliefs into change that’s better for Children and Families. So the opportunity to be part of a vision, a plan that we could contribute to, with its flaws because of its limited – the limited capacity that we had to be able to develop a vision together, but it was just that it came from community. The community of the NGO sector.

And that’s why my personal belief is being able to contribute to a plan, you can accept it, you can accept its limitations, you can accept the changes, you can even agree to disagree, but you can see that it a plan and you know where you’re going, so we looked forward to the future in the Territory, which we haven’t done for some time.

MR MORRISSEY: Well, just to take that a little bit further though. The very idea was that any plan would be better than none, and were you inspired to put something out of the nature that you did, but even so this is not merely a whiteboard exercise, but a rather developed vision, and I wonder if you could say something to the Commissioners about how that – how it might operate in practice if, for example, that model were to be followed. How would you expect a Government to address it, how should they deal with it?

MS TAYLOR: One of the things about the vision that we worked on was that it had the sector – so it had, for example, it had prevention and community education, it had early intervention, it had a whole range of targeted services across the age range, so that there was a spread of organisations, rather than it all being clustered at the crisis end, so that families could obtain support at a whole range of different points at which they were requiring help, and that there was an understanding of where people were, that there was a way to plan better service delivery and a coordination of how we all work together to reduce the risk to children and families, and how we strengthen families, and communities and how we do that together.

And we’re a small enough – a small enough jurisdiction in order to be able to achieve that, technically, but it’s about seeing that child protection or in my world view, NAPCAN’s world view, child wellbeing. Has child protection at one end and child wellbeing at the other. So it’s a continuum, having a place on the continuum, so everyone can see where they fit. So health services can see where they fit, education sees where they fit, housing see how they can contribute. So we can all see that there’s a place for everyone who has contact with children and families in


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

any way that we are contributing to that, to the wellbeing of those families. Ad child protection is a part of that, but not the only part, and not the driving part.

MR MORRISSEY: It’s an attempt to take the focus away from the crisis end of it. May I ask about a couple of components. Could we go just go to page 0072 on the screen, the second page of that. This is under the heading of System Principles. There are a couple. You set out here a number of dot points, and they are broad principles which you have referred to, but I note here that you’ve referred at the second dot point:

Aboriginal community controlled services are fundamental to providing culturally safe and accessible services for children and families.

Now, obviously that’s a principle there. Do you see that as something that would alter and develop and be improved under your model, and is there a short fall in that currently?

MS MORTON: Yes. I mean, definitely and it also – I think in one of the systemic things at the end, where we talk about the way forward, again building capacity of Aboriginal organisations to work in this space, both in the child wellbeing space and also the child protection space, I think is completely essential if we’re to move forward, and has to be fundamental to any way forward.

MR MORRISSEY: You have also referred in the fourth dot point:

Effective and comprehensive investment in prevention and early intervention as well as tertiary services is critical.

And that’s something you have reiterated many times, but here it is in the statement of principles. And perhaps – although it has been done elsewhere, it would be opportune for you to indicate what you mean by tertiary services, in brief terms, but primary services, secondary services, and tertiary services.

MS TAYLOR: So primary services, also referred to as universal, are services that are available to every child and family in the community, so it would be health services, schools, access to police, policing services, universal services that are should have no stigma attached to them. Childcare is another example, access to childcare. So these are universal services that contribute enormously to children and families doing well, and there’s no stigma attached to those, so they are very successful places in which to reach families and provide supports should they need something. So if a family does need support, if something happens to a family and they’re no longer able to manage their issues within their context of family and friends, then they may need a targeted service, which is also referred to as a secondary – secondary services.

So they may need targeted service to help them with marital break down, financial issues, mental health, whatever issue, but then to ideally be supported back to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

function within their own community, within their own support systems. Then there’s tertiary services, which is where families are no longer able to provide safety for their children and the State is able to step in without parental consent to take action around the safety of children and make decisions about the child’s life and where they live. So that would be child protection services, police, crisis accommodation services, and similar services, working with children who are then in the care system.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Thank you. Now, just – we have time pressures, I need to move on to another area now. But you are aware that Mr Burton was present yesterday and that SNAICC – on behalf of the SNAICC organisation, you are aware of the model of SNAICC?

MS TAYLOR: The family matters campaign?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: Very well. What’s your understanding of that model and does it differ in a meaningful way from the model that you’re suggesting or is it compatible with the model you’re suggesting?

MS TAYLOR: Very compatible. It’s quite a specific – and it’s an incredible opportunity to bring together a whole lot of change across all primary, secondary and tertiary systems around child safety and wellbeing. It’s a pretty comprehensive campaign.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Do you see any differences between – or points of conflict between the model that you propose or do you see it as generally speaking highly compatible?

MS TAYLOR: Highly compatible.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Very well. Would you be happy, in fact, to work with that model, if you’re – well, it appears that the answer is yes.

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Very well. Are there any disadvantages that you see to the model that’s proposed by SNAICC?

MS TAYLOR: No.

MR MORRISSEY: No. Alright. Would you say that SNAICC is well placed to lead development of a policy framework to shift the focus to prevention and early intervention?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TAYLOR: I think so, yes.

MR MORRISSEY: You would be supportive of that. Do you see any difference between the service needs of central Australia and the Top End within this framework? Perhaps, Ms Morton, if you - - -

MS MORTON: I mean, I think overarching there’s going to be some similarities, but I think with everything in the Territory when it actually drills down to the actual on the ground response it needs to be very place based.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: I would agree.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. I’ve got a quick question to – it’s a – it’s something that you referred to earlier. We need to pick it up, and then I have questions about the funding and stability issue that we need to cover. But just concerning the issue of children having a say in the way that issues are dealt with: since the Growing Them Stronger, Together campaign, there seems to be a move towards recognising the voice of young people and perhaps if I could just ask Ms Taylor if you have a couple of examples that you could take us to about where particular communities allowed that to happen and what benefits flowed?

MS TAYLOR: So allowing children to have a say in what’s happening to them enables – is for their own safety as well. If we ignore children, we will end up with another Royal Commission around institutional responses to children in care. That was where children’s voices were ignored in institutions, but if you ignore them in every sector of life, then you are creating a future that is dangerous for children.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

MS TAYLOR: So we need to hear their voices in order to ensure that they have – basically it’s an international right for them to have a say in matters.

MR MORRISSEY: May I just cut in for one moment. I think that you – perhaps – we had an indication, you had two examples one of where – in two particular townships where there were consultations and maybe if you could explain those briefly to the Commissioners, and also how were the children’s voices heard in a practical sense? How was it done?

MS TAYLOR: NAPCAN has – we’re resource rich, if not financially, but the resources that we have, have been tools that we can give to communities and to people who have contact with children on how to engage children in a meaningful way about matters that affect them, things that they’re interested in, and things that they like about their community, and things that they would like to change. So we share those resources and tools through a range of different community education campaigns like child protection week each year, and we launch these and make them


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

widely available. But then we support individual communities to take action around that.

So one of the communities that we are involved in quite some time ago though was Binjari, so that was in 2008. Binjari took action around saying our community needs to be safer for our children. It was largely led by police, in terms of a whole of community process around keeping children safe. And since 2008, as part of that listening to children and young people and everyone else in the community being able to contribute to a plan that – since then, I spoke to Jeanette Kerr, who was part of the police at that point,

MR MORRISSEY: I think you refer to that in your statement, yes.

MS TAYLOR: Okay. She – there has not been a child removed from that community since 2008. There has not been a homicide in that community since 2008. There has not been a riot in that community. This is quite an extraordinary shift, that gives us all real hope that listening to children and allowing communities to come together and develop a plan for themselves can be very powerful and very effective.

MR MORRISSEY: I think I need to move to the funding and stability issue. Each of your organisations – I think you, Ms Morton at paragraph 33 and you Ms Taylor at page 3-4, you have indicated that there was very extensive fluctuation in your funding. And if you could just say something about – apart from the problems that the cuts themselves cause, which obviously means the cutting of programs and services, what’s – what other effects are there as far as maintaining staff, maintaining an ability to plan, and maintaining the confidence of the communities that you’re seeking to help?

MS TAYLOR: That was very problematic for our work, and so it’s quite fortunate because the model that we work on, is that we train people and they deliver programs and services to children and young people. So it’s about building up the workforce and communities, and wherever they are, to work with their children and young people. So that became a way forward. But we were actually basically funded by the non-government sector who funded our programs through a fee for service arrangement rather than any coordinated government funding. So it has been community driven. An example is our Respectful Relationships programs. Most of that has been individual organisations seeking that program, and we have been able to continue that way, but we have not been able to coordinate and support people in that. It has been problematic.

MR MORRISSEY: Before I turn to Ms Morton, could you just make a comment on does it lead sometimes, though, to implementation failure?

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. That’s one of the consequences. Sorry, yes, so Ms Morton.

MS MORTON: I mean, I’m just adding to that. You know, we lose experience in the Territory. Organisations can’t keep that staffing, or people aren’t certain that they’ve going to have a job after at the end of that financial year. So, I mean, the Territory has already transient enough but – you know, things like that funding cuts – yeah, lead to people leaving the Territory, organisations not being able to plan. And – you know, so then we have big gaps sometimes in being able to deliver a program, because we have had no stuff, or – and it impacts, I guess – you know, pretty strongly on relationships between Department and the sector as well.

And all of those other things, like we were commenting today somewhere that how often we asked to be at consultations, and most organisations don’t get funded for that. And certainly when you lose staff then everything is going into that front line, and you are not taking part in any of those other discussions like – you know, creating a new model as to the way forward or whatever.

MR MORRISSEY: This may appear to be, in a sense, a Dorothy Dix question, but it follows directly from what you’ve said there. Each of you seem to be crying out for a bipartisan approach, and a long term approach, to the problem. Is that a fair comment to make?

MS MORTON: Absolutely.

MS TAYLOR: Very much.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Ms Taylor, is the funding of your organisation guaranteed in 2017?

MS TAYLOR: It is now, yes.

MR MORRISSEY: When did that occur?

MS TAYLOR: It’s not formal yet, but I’m reasonably confident.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Well, I won’t ask you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: State secrets.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. I think I - - -

MS TAYLOR: There’s nothing signed, is the issue I think, there’s nothing signed.

MR MORRISSEY: I just – as a final question there, I asked you the bipartisan question but, Ms Morton, you made the comment at paragraph 25-26:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

NTCOSS has concern there’s a significant lack of trust in the community that any recommendations arising from this Commission will be implemented, due to the many reviews that are being conducted over the past decade and earlier, but the majority of whose recommendations have not been implemented.

Now, what is it that you see the community needs to see in order for some of that trust to be rebuilt and built upon?

MS MORTON: I think for starters, at that level, we need both sides of politics to come together and be saying, “This is the way forward and we support it.” So no matter which political party you are with, or independents, that we have a support on the way forward. And so people can have some trust that we are not going to change this again in two years time, or whenever change of Government is. So to me that’s critical. By doing that, you also hopefully get the media on board, who actually play a key role in how the community thinks about the way forward, and I think our youth justice is a good example of that. I mean, when the media is offside then the community is offside.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Could I just invite the representatives from NAAJA and CAALAS to come forward.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE [4.13 pm]

MR WOODROFFE: I appear for NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, and perhaps if I could address the first question to you, Ms Morton. Concerning discussions today about service delivery models and building partnerships with Aboriginal communities and organisations, you’re a signatory to the APO NT partnership principles.

MS MORTON: We are.

MR WOODROFFE: And perhaps if that is possible to be put up, but I will perhaps return to that and take you through some of the key principles. But, of your membership, there’s yourself a signatory and there’s about 22 non-Aboriginal NGOs who are signatories as well. And, through that service delivery model – I won’t take you to every one of them but you’re aware of the process, perhaps if we go to number 2, about recognising the existing capacity of Aboriginal NGOs and identifying their strengths, but the key thing is about having – under 4, seeking partnerships with Aboriginal NGOs or Aboriginal community controlled organisations. And that’s itself – that NTCOSS is also committed to.

MS MORTON: Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: And the prime example would be a partnership with APO NT itself.

MS MORTON: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR WOODROFFE: And the key issue there is in relation to child protection or child welfare, child support, or diversion, is basically looking at how to build capacity and strengthen the existing services of Aboriginal organisations; that’s right?

MS MORTON: Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: And – but clearly also is, under 9, is once building that capacity, is looking at an exit strategy.

MS MORTON: Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: So that Aboriginal control of these organisations and community and services are ongoing, because they’re the longevity, they’re the problems that will stay the course of time.

MS MORTON: Yes. And, I guess adding to that, I think one way exit strategies can be achieved is for government departments to put it in people’s contracts. So if you are funded to work in a community that you must have a plan of how, in five years time, or whatever the timeframe is, how you intend to exit and how you are going to support handing that over, in a sense, to an Aboriginal – to a local Aboriginal organisation.

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you. And, Ms Taylor, whether you have any comments in relation to that, or .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And, perhaps as part of that agreement, you might also front-end it by requiring capacity building?

MS MORTON: Certainly. And, you know – I mean over many years and I think post Intervention was probably when it was at its worst, the number of organisations that arrived in the Territory who had not been before and were suddenly delivering services out on communities is of great concern, frustration, whatever the word is, and – you know, sometimes of hear of organisations that are just being funded to work in a community. I think I’ve never heard of them before or, “What connection do they have to that community.” And, you know, that hopefully the principles were one way of trying to prevent that from happening or actually get organisations to enter into meaningful partnerships.

And, you know, I do believe that in terms of the way forward around out-of-home care services, because currently there is only one Aboriginal organisation funded to be in that space and that’s Tangentyere, I do believe the partnership needs to be a key part of the way forward.

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you. I have nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [4.17pm]

MS GRAHAM: Ms Taylor and Ms Morton, my name is Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Could I come back to the issue of the need for bipartisan support. Do you both agree in the Northern Territory context it’s necessary for that to feature at a Commonwealth Government level?

MS TAYLOR: And local Government. Yes.

MS GRAHAM: And local Government level.

MS MORTON: Yes. And I think it’s even more so this location than anywhere else in Australia, because I think something like 60 per cent of our funding in this area is from the Commonwealth. So – whereas that’s not the case in other States. So it’s absolutely crucial.

MS GRAHAM: In terms of the lack of trust that has developed in the Territory over multiple reviews and recommendations not being implemented do you see, as something useful for this Commission to do, to set a road map in terms of the priorities for implementation of recommendations and time frames for Government to implement them?

MS MORTON: Yes, I do. And I think, you know, being realistic about those and I think that was one frustration with the implementation of the Board of Inquiry was about the speed and the expectation, and it just felt like things were changing over week or every two weeks, and it was hard to keep up. And then there was this enormous or seemingly amount of reporting that went with it, so we need to make sure it’s realistic, and you know, one of the things we keep saying to this new Government is, “We want you to get it right, and so we don’t want you to suddenly try and change everything overnight. We want you to get it right. We want, in 10 years time, for this still to be the answer. And so take the time to get it right.”

MS GRAHAM: Implementation can be too slow, it can be too fast, or it can happen at all, and there needs to be a clear plan that addresses those.

MS MORTON: Yes, definitely.

MS GRAHAM: In terms of NGOs that receive the predominant amount of their funding from Government funding streams, do you acknowledge the tension in your evidence between those organisations speaking out about Government action and then fears of being defunded? In your view, is it important for NGOs such as CAALAS or Danila Dilba or various different community run organisations or NGOs to be specifically funded by governments to play that policy role, even if it might involve criticising Government from time to time, so that there aren’t pressures put always on the frontline service provision when those organisations want to participate in that policy work with Government?

MS MORTON: Yes, certainly. And I think this is again where we often go from other jurisdictions is there’s very few other organisations in the Territory, besides say


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

APO NT and NTCOSS, who have policy officers and so they don’t ever have that capacity to do that meaningful work around policy. And I mean, I – you know, truly appreciate the time that organisations give to us in terms of helping us develop that policy. So I think it is key. They’re the organisations that are working on the ground to have the knowledge, and to be able to play a meaningful role in policy development, I think is really important, without fear of – you know, retribution from that.

MS GRAHAM: And it’s really short sighted for Government not to fund those kind of roles, because the on the ground organisations have such a valuable role to play in informing Government about how they can do their jobs better?

MS MORTON: Certainly. And if we want to get it right, and they’re the people working every day with the people on the ground, and so if we want to get the policy that we are developing right, then you need to be talking directly to those people. Or have a structure in which you can talk, you know, those views will come up.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Taylor, finally, can I ask you about one of the tools that you have developed at NAPCAN for early intervention for children in early preschool and primary school and All Children Being Safe training program. Perhaps we can have that brought up on the screen, thank you.

MS TAYLOR: The All Children Being Safe program was developed by – in partnership with Aboriginal communities initially in New South Wales. We spent several years doing an adaptation with several communities in the Northern Territory, but over a year and a half, two years, nearly two years with Santa Teresa community to do a full adaptation in language. So that now we are very comfortable that communities have the capacity to adapt that program. So it would normally be called a protective behaviours program, but it does not – it’s quite unique in that it’s a – it talks about everyone in a community having responsibility for children’s safety, so the daddy kangaroo has his responsibility to watch out for children, the aunty echidna has.

So there’s a whole range of story based – stories that can be delivered by people in the community to their children. So it’s not – it sits alongside other protective behaviours that may have sex education components but this is truly just about a community approach to the responsibility that adults play in children’s safety, that children are not to be expected to protect themselves, adults and community have to protect them. It has been incredibly well received because people in community like being able to deliver programs to their children. It makes perfect sense, and it’s very easily adapted into language and contributed to a whole range of other very comfortable – comfortable starting points for people to contribute to the safety of children in their community.

So it’s a starting point that’s very well received, very comfortable, and very relevant to all children. So it’s interesting that it’s an Aboriginal program that’s being adapted for mainstream children.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is that being taken to other communities?

MS TAYLOR: Yes. It’s being delivered in a range – I’ve delivered it in 12 communities so far. But now, when you train people in it, then people deliver – I only train it with people, go back into communities. If they ask me if I would like to deliver it with kids the first time, in case they’re not feeling particularly confident about delivering a session. So no, and I do know of some circumstances in ..... where there were 30 people in the training session, was part of their commitment to a suicide prevention strategy. This was one of the components. And they sourced funding and took children out on camp and delivered the program successful in the camp and at school. So it’s programs that enhance the skill of people in community to be able to talk to children about complicated topics like child protection and safety.

MS GRAHAM: Is there time for me to ask two quick follow-up questions to that set of evidence?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you. Is it critical to the success of a program like this that it is adapted to the local settings of the community?

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely, yes.

MS GRAHAM: And could we just scroll down or zoom out, please. In the central box there, there’s feedback from children. Is it also critical that, in reviewing programs that are delivered to children, there is this opportunity for children to have a voice and express their attitudes to how the program worked for them?

MS TAYLOR: Absolutely. So if you don’t incorporate the voices of children into programs, then you are delivering the programs to children, not with them. So we do a lot of work in consultation, so some of the programs in our respectful relationship suite have been designed by young people in the Northern Territory. Our love bites junior was designed primarily by the feedback from young people saying they need more input into social media and how that impacts on their relationships, so we’re – you know, driven by those voices of children and young people and it pays off in spades because if they contribute to the design of it then they really like it.

MS GRAHAM: Could I invite Counsel Assisting to perhaps tender that document, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I am sure he would be pleased to do so, if we don’t have it.

MR MORRISSEY: I’m content to tender that document.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. That’s – what’s it title, Ms Graham? Proper title.

MS GRAHAM: All Children Being Safe.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. That’s exhibit 472.

EXHIBIT #472 ALL CHILDREN BEING SAFE DOCUMENT

MR MORRISSEY: Could I tender the APO NT partnership principles to which Mr Woodroffe referred?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, exhibit 473.

EXHIBIT #473 APO NT PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES

MR MORRISSEY: I have no further questions and it is appropriate to thank Ms Morton and Ms Taylor for their - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We are most grateful to you, Ms Morton and Ms Taylor, for coming along and sharing your experiences, which are very long experiences of course in this field, and of great value to us, particularly as you’ve been able to think about solutions and not just tell us about problems. We have heard a lot about that, but while we have to look at the problems, we really do have to come up with some workable solutions, so I think you offered us some wonderful ideas. Thank you for the care in preparing your statements too, that has been a great help to us.

MS MORTON: Thank you.

MS TAYLOR: Thank you.

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [4.29 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it a 9.30 start tomorrow.

MR MORRISSEY: I believe so, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Adjourn until 9.30 tomorrow.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.29 pm UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2017


Index of Witness Events

MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER, SWORN P-4067KUMALIE RILEY, SWORN P-4067PETRONELLA VAARZON-MOREL, AFFIRMED P-4067THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-4090

KIRSTEN SCHINKEL, AFFIRMED P-4091EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4091CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE P-4105CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4109RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MORRISSEY P-4113

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4114

WENDY JOY MORTON, AFFIRMED P-4114LESLEY JANE TAYLOR, AFFIRMED P-4114THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-4141

Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #460 STATEMENT OF MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER DATED 24/05/2017

P-4068

EXHIBIT #461 STATEMENT OF KUMALIE RILEY DATED 24/05/2017

P-4069

EXHIBIT #462 STATEMENT OF PETRONELLA VAARZON-MOREL DATED 25/05/2017

P-4069

EXHIBIT #463 BOOK BY MARGARET KEMARRE TURNER, IWENHE TYERRTYE: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ABORIGINAL PERSON

P-4071

EXHIBIT #468 STATEMENT OF KIRSTEN SCHINKEL DATED 19/05/2017

P-4091

EXHIBIT #469 TENDER BUNDLE INDEX P-4092

EXHIBIT #469.231 FACT SHEET CONCERNING REUNIFICATION

P-4092

EXHIBIT #469.218 REUNIFICATION FLOW CHART P-4092

EXHIBIT #469.229 REUNIFICATION PROCEDURE DOCUMENT

P-4092

EXHIBIT #469.279 REUNIFICATION PROCEDURE OF JULY 2015

P-4093


5


EXHIBIT #469.272 CHAPTER 14 REVISIONS DATED JANUARY 2007

P-4093

EXHIBIT #469.317 FINAL REUNIFICATION POLICY P-4093

EXHIBIT #470 STATEMENT OF WENDY JOY MORTON P-4115

EXHIBIT #471 STATEMENT OF LESLEY JANE TAYLOR P-4115

EXHIBIT #472 ALL CHILDREN BEING SAFE DOCUMENT P-4141

EXHIBIT #473 APO NT PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES P-4141


Documents

TranscriptCreator · Web viewIt’s like our passport. Like our ID that we use ... And this diagram, ... who has since become a close friend came to me and knocked on the door of the