Web view.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17P-4288J. LINGGOOD XXN ©Commonwealth of AustraliaMR WOODROFFE.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17P-4240K. VATSKALIS XN

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-786505

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

9.38 AM, THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2017

Continued from 31.5.17

DAY 42

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 ServiceMR J.B. LAWRENCE SC appears for Josie Crawshaw and ADMS K. ROUSSOS appears for CK

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4238©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MR McAVOY: Good morning, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good morning, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: This week we have been hearing the stories from across the Northern Territory of the experiences of those who have been in care, their families as well as providing care in communities. We have heard stories of families separated and children removed from culture, kin and tradition. We have heard of the efforts to reunite children with their land, their people and their culture once they are no longer in care. Today we continue with a personal stories, with that of CS and CT. CS and CT are grandparents already caring for two of their granddaughters, and in this personal story they tell of their experience following the birth of their newest granddaughter and of her immediate removal into care.

Commissioners, the couple tell their story in their own languages with the assistance of interpreters and the story will be played over two days, with the first part this morning. We understand that they are listening to the proceedings this morning from their community. If the first - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: - - - recording could be played.

RECORDING PLAYED

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, we are going to hear further from that family?

MR McAVOY: We are tomorrow, Commissioners, for the remainder of that personal story. The next session of evidence will be in closed court, and there are two witnesses during that session.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Do we need to adjourn to open the court and close it?

MR McAVOY: To close the court.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I can do that. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [10.03 am]

CLOSED SESSION ENSUED

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4239 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

PUBLIC SESSION RESUMED

RESUMED [11.46 am]

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Commissioners, I call Konstantine Vatskalis.

<KONSTANTINE VATSKALIS, SWORN [11.46 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you, Mr Vatskalis. Would you state your full name, please?---My name is Konstantine Vatskalis, short Kon Vatskalis.

What is your occupation?---The regional manager for Leukaemia Foundation.

Were you formerly a member of Parliament in the Northern Territory?---I was.

And were you a Minister?---I was.

Over what period of time and what ministries did you hold?---I became a Minister in August 2001. I held several portfolios from tourism, sports, mining, health, child protection and several others.

And for what period of time did you hold the portfolio of child protection?---December 2009 until August 2012.

Thank you. Prior to that, for what period of time did you hold the portfolio of health?---I believe it was 2006 or ’07, until 2012.

For the purposes of this Royal Commission, have you prepared a statement dated 26 May 2017?---Yes, I have.

And have you had the chance to read that statement for the purpose of these proceedings?---Yes, I did.

And what do you say about the truth and correctness of that statement?---It’s true and correct.

And did you annex certain documents to that statement?---Yes, sir.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4240 K. VATSKALIS XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Commissioners, I tender the statement and the annexures and I would seek to say something about three of the annexure as well, once they’re tendered.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 481.

EXHIBIT #481 STATEMENT OF KON VATSKALIS DATED 26/05/2017

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Commissioners, annexures – Mr Vatskalis, just excuse me for a moment, there’s a formal matter I need to attend to. Annexure KV1 is the Second Reading Speech of the then Minister, Ms Scrimjur, introducing the Care and Protection Act into Parliament in 2007. KV2 is a cabinet decision extract dated 18 October 2010, KV3 is a transcript from Hansard. We understand there’s no point taken as to any privilege attaching to the cabinet decision. Concerning the Second Reading Speech, KV1 in the transcript, KV3, the Commissioners may recall that on 27 April 2017 a similar issue arose in respect of material sought to be tendered by Minister Elferink, then Minister Elferink at the time. The Commission ruled ex tempore on that occasion, it having been conceded that there was some relevance to the material. But notwithstanding the limits to be placed on questioning and in particular on cross-examination, based upon such material, that it having some relevance, it was appropriate to receive the material into evidence. There is no material difference on this occasion to the material sought to be tendered. And, therefore, it seems to me anyway, as Counsel Assisting, that it’s appropriate to have these matters tendered on the same basis and bearing in mind that those seeking to ask questions, including those with leave to cross-examine, recall that there may be no impugning or reliance in the same terms as the previous ruling, a copy of which will be made available to anyone cross-examining.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Morrissey. Do you wish to be heard, Ms Brownhill? I would propose to make the same - - -

MS BROWNHILL: We are in favour of that position.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MS BROWNHILL: The statement was drafted by us and we attached those documents to the statement, we’re in favour on their tender on the basis submitted by my learned friend.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Brownhill. Then, the Commission will receive that material on the same basis that it received the material relating to Mr Elferink, and just remind those who are going to ask questions that they can’t seek to impugn any of the material contained therein. Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks very much, Commissioners. Thanks, Mr Vatskalis. Sorry. We have your statement and the Commissioners have read that statement, but


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it would help if you took us through, really, how – I would ask you to start with the Board of Inquiry. I understand that that Board of Inquiry was first commissioned and commenced before you took over, but you were well aware of it. So could you say something about what was the need for the Board of Inquiry and how did it progress?---There was an obvious problem with child protection in the Northern Territory and that has been for a long time, not – it didn’t happen just in 2009 or 2010. There was anecdotal evidence, there was media information and, of course, we made several attempts then as government to rectify it. But what happened it was the death of the 12 year old girl that was put on care, the foster parent that brought it to the attention not only to the public, to the media, but also the government. It was a tragic death and death that should never have happened. But it did happen. Myself, as a father, I felt really awful for something like that to happen, especially in our worlds. The Board of Inquiry was constituted, with everybody’s approval, all members of Parliament agreed to that, at least from our side, and before we even came out with recommendations, we made a public statement we will be accepting all recommendations if and when they’re submitted to us

I’m going to ask you about that in a moment. I will just break that up a little bit. You’ve mentioned the trigger, I’m not sure if you saw any of the proceedings yesterday but both Commissioners asked questions of another witness about the way in which a crisis of some sort can trigger an inquiry and a renewed interest in the child protection space. In your case, though, there had been some ongoing issues, had there not. Perhaps I should ask you this: early on, say, the early 2000s, I think in your statement, you observed there was only 100 child protection staff in total?---In 2001 we were very surprised to find out that child protection system in the Territory had a budget of $7 million for one hundred people. It was – for a place like the Territory, with all the problems, the remoteness, the social composition of the population, I thought it was extraordinary.

Yes?---And since then we made efforts. We put money, and of money ..... fixed everything. We put more people on the ground to address these issues. We did the first one which was $53 million and extra ..... staff, but even that one wasn’t enough so we went back again and we put more money and more people and that culminated at the Board of Inquiry outcome with an extra $130 million and even more people to address the emerging issues, especially in rural and remote areas in the Northern Territory.

It does appear – and perhaps I will ask for your comment about this – it appears that whilst the government did increase funding and take various steps such as the drafting and introduction of a new act in 2007, at the same time, the demands on the child protection system increased fairly radically, it looks like you have got an increase of 400 per cent in notifications over an eight year period a doubling of the number of kids in care. So you seemed to be running fast just to stand still over that period of time in the lead-up?---We actually did other things as well. We changed the legislation. We made the mandatory reporting legislation. Every person that realise or come to attention that there was an issue with child abuse, child neglect had to report it. Teachers, policeman, nurses, everybody.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

May I ask you to expand on the notification issue because it does appear that the increase in notifications created a workload that was perhaps more than expected?---I was coming to that one, counsel.

Yes?---We put the legislation in place. We had all the good intentions like every government has. But we should probably ..... better. And the schedule was fantastic, people have to report child abuse but after that what happened we got all these notifications but we didn’t do properly, we should have done it find a way to assess the notifications. Whether the no further questions is warned an investigation by the department. If a neighbour sees a neighbour smacking a kid and reports it, is there a serious child abuse? It is probably abuse to some people, for others it’s a way of punishment that people use ..... our system that says what’s the seriousness, what the allegation and if it’s serious, then you forward the government to investigate. If it’s not, you find a way to mediate. The legislation, I think, increased significantly our notification. We put – to put it plainly, we put the bar too high.

There’s one other issue, sorry just to jump forward you did address that issue of triage subsequently to the Board of Inquiry?---Yes.

Yes. Well, we will come to that in a moment. But just one more issue about notifications, if I could: there is privacy legislation in place?---There was privacy legislation and I think that privacy legislation was not very well either understood by the public servants or, in some cases, was used by certain people. But to give an example, we got notification of a person who was abused person, we got the school nurse and asked for this kid. The school nurse says, “Well, the legislation doesn’t allow me to provide information.” Which, for me was surprising. Hold on, you’re a public servant, we work for the public service, we’ve all got the common interests of the child in our mind. You can’t tell me you can’t tell information about the child because of the provisions of the legislation. It’s stupid. And we treat the legislation to remove this obstacle so people can talk to each other. People create silence and they hide behind the silence sometimes for various reasons, they don’t want to provide the information because they are afraid they will break the legislation or they don’t believe the ..... very strong to provide evidence, but we’re are trying to eliminate this silence and, at the end, I think we achieved that.

Now, among the heaviest of the notifiers, I understand that quite a large number of people became notifiers, both public servants and otherwise, were the police. And the police don’t have the same check as far as privacy difficulties, do they?---Well, first of all, the police was obliged under the legislation to notify us and when they notify us they gave us all the details. The other good thing with the police is the police was in the coalface. It was police in the communities that would come to us and tell us that some children were at risk or they were abused or they were neglected and they would provide all the information to their credit, which we really appreciate.

Yes, I understand. Alright. Well, could we perhaps move to the Board of Inquiry itself. We have heard from Dr Bath already, but perhaps if you could explain from


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the, if you like, the political perspective and soon after that, the ministerial perspective that you had. How did the Board of Inquiry go about its work and what sort of support did it enjoy in doing that work?---The Board of Inquiry was given the term of references. It had the full cooperation by the government and the full support of the government. I was not involved with the Board of Inquiry because I became Minister after it was established and ran its course and I received the recommendations. I have to say I feel privileged to know Howard Bath. He’s an excellent person and an excellent professional and I had a very good working relationship for the two years I was a Minister to the effect that we would meet monthly informally and sometimes we would pick up the phone and talk to him informally, because I trust his judgment and trust what he was telling me that was true an accurate.

Now, just before I go any further with the Board of Inquiry. The Board of Inquiry was doing its work already by the time you accepted the difficult challis of coverage of the child protection portfolio. Can you indicate what it was that you, yourself, recognised as the crucial requirements when you took that – when you agreed to take on that Ministry?---As I said before, I was Minister for Health for about six years and I used to joke and say that was a poison challis of a ministerial appointment. And then one day the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, we were very good friends, walked in and closed the door of my office. I knew something was not right. He sat down and said to me, “I’m your friend, you’re going to hate me for that”. So I really knew there was something wrong then. He told me I want you to get the child protection portfolio and fix it. I looked at him, I said, “Are you joking?”, and he said no. I said, “I’ve got health already, you want to give me another poison challis.” He said yes. And I said to him, “Minister not supposed to decline portfolio ..... but I will tell you here unless we accept the Board of Inquiry recommendations, unless we split the department to be separate”, because at that time it was actually part of the Health Department, “And unless the department has got its own dedicated budget and its own dedicated CEO, you can take it and give it to somebody else because I’m not going to take it. And at that time he told me that I would do all the things he asked. That’s the way we progressed. We had a separate department of child protection and families with its own CEO and its own budget, because if we’re going to fix a problem, we have to start somewhere to start building somewhere. That was the foundation to start addressing the issues within the Territory and to put a capable department in place to fix it. The department had fantastic people, but if the people are not supported, if there are not enough people to meet the requirements of the community, the people will burn out like they used to do. People didn’t last more than two years, they were just fed up and burnt out and would disappear. And we have another appointment and another appointment. The department had to be fixed and that what I asked.

I would like to pursue that – a couple of matters in that answer, if I may. The first one is picking up on the last comment. We’ve heard, or the Commission – sorry, I say “we” – the Commission has heard evidence of burn-out and of difficulty in retaining staff at very many levels, one might say coalface level, middle management level, senior executive level, top level. In other words, retention of staff was a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

genuine difficulty. What did you see as the reasons for those difficulties in the child protection space?---We definitely need more staff, but you get staff but if you don’t support them, you don’t train them, you don’t provide the needs for their job they will go out and it’s a tough job. Health and child protection are two of the toughest job in government. People come here with all the good intentions. The problem was people come from Victoria to the Northern Territory. What do they know about people living in ..... or in Santa Teresa? Is the induction appropriate? Was there an induction? I personally visited – after my appointment, I visited every single office, Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Alice Springs, met personally with the people and I sat down with them and I said, “Tell me what you want?”, and before I left I gave them my personal telephone number, my ministerial telephone number, I said, “If you come up with an idea, please ring me directly and tell me what you need and we will deliver it.”

Yes?---I went to Katherine, there were three people and I gave my word we going to recruit people. Six months later we get a phone from Katherine, “Can you please find a bigger premises, we’ve got so many people we’re sitting on top of each other.”

Yes?---We had to provide more people. We have to train our people to meet the requirements. We have to provide the additional skills and that should not only stop us as people, in the public service, foster parents provide appropriate training, engage them all, pay them better.

Could I just ask you one other – to clarify one other issue that you raised there: you said that you made it clear to the Chief Minister that the child protection needed its own unit and its own budget. Just structurally speaking, why is that? Why does it need its own budget?---The department was part of the Health Department. Now, the Health Department has got 5000 providers. The department ..... struggled to provide service to other ..... at the time. We had emerging issues of ..... diseases, communicable diseases. The CEO of the department would focus where the problems are and sometimes we get some other people to deal with the small system, Department of Child Protection. No, I wanted somebody to focus in the department on the problem. I did want someone to delegate and delegate. We need people to focus on their task and the task was child protection. That’s why I wanted a dedicated department with its own budget and its own CEO.

Yes. Alright. Thank you. Now, just returning now to the issue of the Board of Inquiry, while it was doing its work, you’ve indicated in broad terms that you supported that work and that your department did so. And the Commission has before it a submission that the Department of Health and Families made to the Board of Inquiry, with which I expect you’re familiar, it’s a submission dated 7 April 2010 and that, I think, was annexed to your statement at KV5. Now, here, you – sorry. I say “you”, the department, I should say, indicated that it does not currently have the capacity to sustain an adequate response to the growing demands in intake, child protection investigations and out-of-home care. And it was suggested that another model be pursued. That was this:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Early and targeted ongoing support of families will help create diversion from long-term with the statutory system. The current policy and service system response is clearly not sustainable into the future. The time has come to reconfigure vital links at the service level and address gaps in quality issues in current service delivery systems both statutory and non-stat industry.

Here, you are highlighting the need for early intervention and the need to support NGOs, among other things. And when we jump forward to the Board of Inquiry, that is the thrust of many of the recommendations that they have made. Now, you had to deal – just to be clear, the submissions that the department made to the Board of Inquiry, you felt that the Board of Inquiry listened to and understood; is that correct?---That submission was made before I became a Minister.

Yes?---However, what it highlights there is exactly what we did after the Board of Inquiry. Early intervention is the trigger to avoid future problems. And my background is in health. We always find easier, cheaper and more effective to prevent diseases than treat it and this is exactly what we did there, support the families before the problem starts and then they were not going to have problems or are going to have less problems in the future, especially vulnerable families that don’t get much support from anywhere else.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Coincidentally, we heard that approach is almost a public health model?---Absolutely.

That approach at primary, secondary and tertiary is being proven in the health system many years ago?---That was my approach, Commissioner, I come from the health sector and that’s what we used and that’s what I want to use and you will see throughout my submission, I tried to use public health issues, public health models throughout the child protection.

MR MORRISSEY: Just to pursue that answer, and Commissioner Gooda’s question generally, we see in the materials a great deal of reference and, in particular, in the Board of Inquiry and its follow-up, a great deal of reference to early intervention and focus upon primary and secondary services to avoid and to avoid an overfocus on mere tertiary services to the exclusion of the others. Now, as Commissioner Gooda pointed out, that is analogous to the approach taken in health policy formulation, as well, is it not. Did you – I understand you say that was your background, but is that something that you also emphasised when you came to implement the Board of Inquiry recommendations?---Absolutely. I worked in the public service in Environment and Health, but I was fortunate enough to work in Indigenous Medical Service in Darwin. A lot of the things I learnt there I tried to implement it during my time as Child Protection Minister. For example, it didn’t control medical services. Since they were established they’ve done miracles in promoting and health in Indigenous communities. Why? Indigenous people providing health service to Indigenous people controlled by Indigenous people. So when the person goes to the clinic, it’s dealt by an Indigenous health worker and he feels more relaxed, more comfortable to talk to these people than talking to somebody who came from


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

England, Ireland, Victoria or Sydney. And that when I want to use in the child protection. And that’s why I instigated the Indigenous Control Child Protection, the safety, as you probably seen in my submission.

Yes?---That’s what I was ultimately want to do to see in the communities. Indigenous control, child protection services, providing services to Indigenous communities and I say Indigenous here because a lot of the problems we dealt with was coming from Indigenous communities, mainly neglect.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Now, just in terms of implementing the Board of Inquiry, that reported in October of 2011; is that correct?---Yes.

And you’ve indicated that even before it reported, you had indicated that you wished the department to implement each and every one of the reports. Now, could I just ask you what was the reception enjoyed by the Board of Inquiry report when it came in. Firstly, in the political sphere and secondly, in the media sphere. How was that report received?---Well, the media was very critical before – for the government’s approach to child protection, quite rightly so. We had too many failures. When we came out that we are going to adopt it they were surprised because never before a government adopts a recommendation before they’re even tabled, but I think they saw it from the point of view that we really meant business, we want to do something. Then, of course, when extra money came through and the separate department came through, and all of a sudden more people appeared in the department, they realised that we really meant business and we did mean business. We wanted to address these issues as much as possible. We couldn’t fix everything in one year or two years, I tell you that would take more than 10 to 15 years to fix it, but at least we started somewhere. $130 million was a drop in the ocean. We needed five times more money to actually address all the issues. But at least we put some serious money on the table.

Yes. How was the initiative – when the Board of Inquiry reported and when you committed in the way that you did to following through, what was the reception on the other side of politics to you of that? Was it supportive? Was it indifferent or was it hostile?---The payment system is based on the west Minister which is adversarial. You never agree with the opposition, the opposition will never agree with the government, very rarely it will happen. My personal view – and that’s my personal view – is the child protection – I wanted – what I wanted to do I wanted to engage the opposition for the simple reason today is my problem, if there’s a change of government it’s going to be their problem tomorrow. So how about we sit down together and try to address together this big problem, instead of having a four year cycle of money or no money, appointments, no appointments. This is intergenerational problem, it’s not a four year problem. At that time we were a minority government and the opposition smelt victory and the opposition didn’t want to engage, and I’m pretty sure you’ve questioned some members of the then opposition, then government, and you can ask the same question to them. I mean, I can only give you my opinion, I don’t know what they were thinking.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. Just on that issue, we’ve heard from Dr Bath and other witnesses of the need for, or the perceived need for a bipartisan approach to child protection and you’ve given the same opinion in your statement here. You’ve retired from politics now; is that correct?---I have. I’m not involved in politics, I did my time, let the new generation take over.

Yes. Well, may I – but I ask, nevertheless, is it part of the need for a bipartisan approach that the solutions to the problems that exist are not solutions that can occur within a period of three to four years, which is the usual life cycle of a government in the Northern Territory?---I came to the Territory in 1993 from Western Australia for two years. I’m here, I lived in the Territory more than I lived in any other place in the world, even in my mother country in Athens. I’ve seen these problems from 1993. It not just happened yesterday. And nobody solved these problems within two to three years, there were successive governments, probably they tried, I don’t know how hard but they didn’t solve the problems. But successive Labor governments, we tried and we have solved the problem. This is a Territory-wide problem. It’s a Territory community problem, it’s not a political problem and unless we have got a commitment by all parties we are going to work together to sort this out nothing is going to fix because our cycle is four years and playing games and a change of government another four years, and people come and go, it’s not going to be fixed. It has to be a joint approach to fix this problem.

Can we turn to the implementation now, the government response to the Board of Inquiry report you’ve set out in paragraph 27 and following in your statement. You set out here that structurally you divided your response into seven, one might say, platforms?---Yes.

And they’re set out at paragraph 27. I won’t ask you about each one because you have already provided detail but there’s a couple I would ask if you could clarify. 27.4 is the one that concerns working together reform – a working together reform. And it’s aimed at improving community collaboration, ultimately improving stream lining delivery of services. Now, that raises the issue of trust and also the issue of distrust, and I just ask you to comment upon that: what were you trying to achieve under the reform working – the working together reform?---Engaging the community, engaging sectors of the community, engaging Indigenous communities, engaging urban communities and remote communities, government sector and non-government sector. I couldn’t see why the Health Department would work in isolation of the Child Protection Department or the police when they should be working together. I couldn’t see why we should actually keep people employed from Ireland that they have to go to Indigenous communities or even some areas in the urban areas to address issues that they were not familiar and they ..... capable people or we could train people to do this job. Local people from the community, if you are going to ..... with the community, you have to engage the locals. You have to make them own it. If they don’t own it they will resist it. Nothing will change and that will .....


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So there are two issues that arise from that as well. You’ve indicated earlier that, at least at the very early stage, you had to go quite far afield to find workers at the different appropriate levels. You have indicated Ireland?---Canada, England.

And Victoria as well, it’s equally far-flung location?---Yes.

Was there some initial resistance or criticism of that – either in the press or in the political sphere, of that decision to go far afield and employ persons from foreign lands?---I think the press were actually – was not critical, they were quite pleased we did something. Certainly at the beginning when everything was happening and we put the money and decide to get people and we decide to clear the backlog because we found a significant backlog when I came Minister, we asked for assistance from New South Wales, there were quite a number of people there, they came, worked with us for a period of time and went back because we clear the backlog. The press and the community was pleased that we actually had people on the ground. The people itself, the department, they were relieved now they had some support, you know, it was nothing everything on them and that’s important, and the opposition criticised us because we employ people from other jurisdictions ..... I didn’t expect anything else from ..... that’s the game we’re planning. That’s what happened.

Could I just ask you – I take it, though, from your statement that the intention was though to develop a basis of local talent and particularly to develop the capacity of Aboriginal services, staffed by Aboriginal people who will deliver the services in a way – and that leads to the question of distrust. What did you notice by way of distrust in the community or suspicion within the community and was that across the board or was it regional and just say what you can about that issue?---The Territory has got a sad history of Stolen Generation. So we’ve got people that went through the Stolen Generation, people that I personally know, people that came to the clinic where I was working at the time, the Indigenous Medical Service and they told me their stories. And I also come from a country that would experience its own Stolen Generation, during the Greek Civil War where kids were taken and were taken to ..... countries and they were fed and when they came 15 years old, they were provided with weapons sent back to fight with the then communist army. So I’m familiar about Stolen Generation, the trauma and the pain, and I’m familiar what these people here in the Territory, Indigenous people experienced with the Stolen Generation and, of course, every time a government official goes to community and take a kid away, or even in an urban environment take a kid away from his family, these memories come back very strong and vivid, and yes, there was mistrust because sometimes departmental officials will go in and pick up kids and, in some cases, this kid would not go back to its family until it’s too late. So it was easier to grab the kid and run than actually spend time with the family to help them to keep the kid in the family. That was my big, how can I put it, grouch. Why we take the kid now and we didn’t spend six months before helping the family to keep that kid there? I know not everybody is like me and you, some people got difficulties, single parents, illiterate parents why we can’t go and help them, do the basics, keep the kid there safe rather than actually take it and put it with one foster parent today and another foster parent tomorrow and another foster parent tomorrow and that’s a really big problem. Yes,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

there was mistrust and that’s why I decided to – it was my initiative to establish safety, so Indigenous people again we can deal with some of the Indigenous families and Indigenous problems because that’s where we’re – the problem we are.

You’ve referred there to at a high level. You’ve referred to dealing with those issues, and you’ve also referred to the need to grow and develop capacity in the local organisations, particularly Aboriginal ones. But was there also a need for a peak body to be established?---Yes. And that’s exactly where the health model came. And that was my initiative because I sat down with my CEO and I said “Well, we can’t do that all the time. First of all, we don’t have the capacity, and the second is look at the health service. Talk to AMSANT, the Aboriginal Medical Alliance NT, how they have actually established Indigenous-controlled medical services, have done significant inroads in health in Indigenous communities. If we establish a peak body here in the Territory, that actually then we can actually find a way to put Indigenous child protection workers in communities, in remote areas, even urban areas and we will see better outcomes. I put half a million dollars, I believe, and by the end, it was about $2 million. This body came together. AMSANT was very supportive because I asked for their assistance and I asked them to help out to establish similar model with this organisation, and I’m very thankful for their help and assistance because we started somewhere, and my expectation was to see it grow and to deliver the services throughout the Territory.

Alright. Just to clarify a couple of aspects of that for the Commissioners, initially the body that became SAF,T was originally lodged within AMSANT; is that - - -?---No, it was not. It was using the model of AMSANT to establish, but AMSANT was providing support and guidance to the people so they can develop a similar body.

But it was very much influenced by the medical model or approach that you - - -?---Absolutely.

Could I just ask you to make a comment about the progress of SAF,T. It has been the subject of comments, some critical and some supportive in the Commission. But you have a perspective on how that was developing, looking over a more long-term period. Could you just explain how you viewed SAF,T and how it was progressing in the sort of work that it had to do, both as a peak body and in terms of picking up some actual service provision and caseload itself?---First of all, we went out and asked and talked to people and consulted people, that we want to do that one, is anybody interested. There was a lot of interest. We had to appoint certain people and, of course, people were disappointed because they wanted to appoint certain positions; to be expected. I had no illusions there were going to be some grudges, but I was determined to advance it. It became a peak body. Start talking with people. Start talking with other states, what they can do, how they do it in other states because why we want to rediscover the wheel if it’s already somewhere and works effectively. They spoke to people in Western Australia, very similar problems in the north-west of Western Australia. I live there. I’ve got personal experience. They talked to people in Sydney. So they start putting things together. They start putting some publication out, generating a significant interest. And the idea of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

having Indigenous people working with Indigenous people to provide child protection services was very, very attractive to a lot of people. As I said to you, it was the beginning. It was established in 2011 so in reality only had one year life span and it’s unfortunate it didn’t continue off the change of government because it’s my firm belief that that model would have worked and would have worked well.

Could I just pursue one aspect of that. One comment that has been made SAF,T had to juggle potentially conflicting responsibilities as a peak body and also as a service delivery body. We have also heard that there was a lack of other service delivery bodies on the ground so that it needed to pick up such work. Did you see a conflict in roles or did you see a way of resolving that conflict if there is a conflict?---Actually, I was very pleased they went themselves to find out what is happening out there. That’s the best way to learn, find out how what the problem is, how big the problem was because that’s the way they develop the delivery properly. There were not other services to provide child protection services in the Territory, none, apart from the government’s service. So it was impossible to engage anybody else. And my idea was we will start here. We can work with AMSANT together. We can actually train some people in the clinics in rural or remote areas or even in urban areas to become, not only Aboriginal health workers, but Aboriginal child protection workers, and that was come later. I think in AMSANT did a tremendous job to raise awareness of the problem. I think people who actually work in AMSANT, they’re starting to realise the magnitude of the problem. It’s very easy to make comments outside, but when you find out what really happen, then your perspective changes. As I said to you before, this is the model we have to follow. Nothing is going to change unless we actually get the community to own the problem and find community-based solutions.

Yes. But you saw the peak body as a crucial component of developing on the ground support services in .....?---It had to start somewhere. There was nothing before. You put the foundations and start building on that and that’s what we did.

Can I turn to another issue now; that’s the issue of the external monitoring committee. Could you just explain what was the role of the external monitoring committee and why was it you were so keen to have it as an external committee rather than one in the political fold?---I came with the idea because I thought, okay, with the Board of Inquiry they submitted all the recommendations, we accept them. We accept in Parliament, but again in Parliament you have to bear in mind it’s always opposition and government fighting. Who is going to actually assure me that what is being recommended is delivered and how well is delivered. Not I didn’t have trust, but sometimes you need an external opinion, somebody else who can see it from a different point of view, to tell you what happened. And I decided that I wanted this committee. I spoke to Howard, and I think Howard in the beginning was unhappy because he thought I didn’t trust him. But I sat down and explained to him why. And then when we decided to speak the people we got in, people from the Territory and outside the Territory, and then he told me he was quite happy we have this committee. The other thing is if I present to Parliament every time what the government said it achieved, the opposition has got grounds to attack us and they


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

will. I thought it would be very, very difficult for the opposition to attack an independent body that had significant people, like Dr Vimbani, Dr Sebern and others. I thought it would not happen. I was wrong, it did happen, but I’m pleased I had this committee in place because it gave me and the government assurance that things were going the way we wanted it to go.

May I ask you to tell the Commissioners about that. You indicated that there was, in fact, an attack made upon that external review committee. Can you just explain to the Commissioners what happened there, how the attack was made and what happened to it in the end?---The committee write reports and send the report to us, to government and I used to present them in Parliament. Of course, the reports were not bad. They were very well accepted reports, and they were highlighting what we did well, highlighted the things could have been done better, and sometimes they say this hasn’t been done, and there is the reason why we believe it hasn’t been done. That was not writing a report because we told them to do. The external monitoring committee actually travelled to – met with people in Darwin and travelled to Alice Springs, so what they actually reporting was things that came out through public consultation. Unfortunately, the opposition accused me that somehow had influenced the committee by wining them and dining them so they write a good report for us which I strongly objected, and I believed that the members of the committee were so angry about it that Dr Vimbani on their behalf wrote a letter to the then leader of the opposition expressing his disappointment for such an attack.

Very well. Can I move to some issues concerning the implementation of – sorry – the Board of Inquiry report then proceeded over time, and you’ve set out in your statement at various points the reports that you received. First of all, there was a child protection reform program report in April 2011, followed by other reports by the external review committee, one in May of 2011, another one in April of 2012. They performed another report, but there was an election in August of 2012, and at that point they ceased to report to you. But could I just ask, in terms of that, you’ve set out many of the changes, many of the steps that you took, that there was a large budget attributed to it of $182 million. But there are just some particular programs that I would ask you about, if I could. It seems that in your statement you set out three categories of, if you like, of changes to programs: one to Family Support Services, some to child protection services and some to out-of-home care. That’s really the way that you did it. Could I just ask you an about the changes that were made to Family Support Services in that period of time. The Remote Aboriginal Family and Community Program, what was done in that respect?---We’re trying to actually have people in remote communities addressing the issues. We’re trying to find people in communities to become foster parents because we want to make sure that children who came under the attention of the Department, they’re not just removed but they will maintain links with the community. That was difficult. People didn’t want to or they were had too many kids on their hands. We had grandmothers and aunties, that they had three, four, five kids under their care. We offer incentives, we offer training, we increased the allowance to the foster parents because it was very, very low, trying to engage more people. In some case we succeeded, in some case we didn’t. Again, you have to consider there’s so many


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

kids you can look after, and you can’t just keep – because, as you referred before to the young girl that died, she was given to foster parents was looking after another 11 children, and that was a recipe for disaster. So we try to do things to make sure that kids aren’t removed unnecessarily, or if they have to be removed, they stay within the community environment or the family environment as much as possible.

There’s a specific thing I would ask you about that. I appreciate you are operating at the high ministerial level, but we have heard a great deal about the desirability of kinship placements where kids are taken out of home care, but also in other situations. Kinship placement is a desirable outcome, a resource and one that needs to be augmented and improved. Now, at your – at the high ministerial level, what were the programs that you hoped might augment that goal, might help that to be brought about?---The first thing that was important was the safety of the child. That was paramount. If the child is not safe, it has to be removed. But if the child is safe and can live happily in a kinship relationship, we are quite happy about it. At the same time that was not a decision I made. That was a decision made by the department and the CEO of the Department. The Minister translates the government policy - - -

I understand you can’t make a decision on kinship placements?---And I never did it because I’m not an expert, I’m not a child protection expert. I’m an elected member of Parliament appointed as a minister. There were people there who had more expertise than me in child protection, and I respect their opinion and I also respect their decision.

I understand. But just as a policy goal, respect for kinship and foster placements at the expense of the other placements, such as residential placements in the out-of-home care space, that seems to be universally regarded as a desirable outcome, that there be less of the residential type placements, more of the kinship. Were you aware of or was it one of the goals that you were hoping to achieve that the programs that you were bringing into place would further that goal of increasing kinship and foster placements at the expense of the other more - - -?---That’s what we wanted, the community engagement, and we wanted support of the community, and that’s why we put the money to actually train people, not only the public servants, but community people that wanted to be part of the system as foster parents, to train and provide them with adequate funding. There’s not much of giving kids to family if you don’t give them money to support these kids because you create the same situation. Neglect was the biggest problem. Kids were not fed. Kids were not looked after. Kids were not sent to school for various reasons. Moving a kid and put to another family, you have exactly the same problems, it defies the purpose.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I ask you this: how did you envisage that you would actually fund the communities to do these things? One can envisage an enormous amount of paperwork associated, and these family groupings are fairly fluid, and we’ve heard evidence of the child who might move from an aunty to a grandmother, to a different aunty. That’s an entirely comfortable relationship within the larger family, but who gets the money? The difficulties of referring back to head


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

office all the time. You see the way I’m going with this question?---And this is the problems we had just about all the time, Commissioner. We want the kid to have a stable environment, and we want to provide the means for the kid to be looked after. I know community relations are difficult. I come from a cultural background that families are very similar ..... Aboriginal families, and in my community, the Greek community, if that kid, something happened to that this family and the kid is at risk, we will take it over and look after it, and sometimes it can go to stay with another aunty and another uncle and a grandmother. That’s how our relation works. The question is how do we support the kid, how do we find a way to support the kid, and that’s where we want to train the people and also make sure that everybody is getting only a certain number of kids which we know where they are, and if we had the people in the communities to look after children, then we had a better and safer environment and were better aware of what’s happen in the communities. There’s not much point of hearing somebody ..... four kids and here’s the money where nobody monitors what happen to that kid. If I’m going to do that in ..... Indigenous child protection worker there to help the family and monitor the situation, working with the Department, if what we want to achieve is achieved. It’s going to be a whole series of steps if we want to address the issue.

What about managing then, the recompense the families for taking on the children? How can you ensure that for people who are providing the care get the financial support that they need?---And that was where the SAF,T will come in, the Indigenous peak body, because they’re more aware of family and kinship relationships in communities than me, and having people there they will be able to address that issue better than somebody from Darwin or Katherine or Alice Springs. As I said to you before, it was the beginning of a very complex structure to address a very complex problem. And we just start the first steps, and we’re going to walk through every single thing, but, as I said to you, it will take time to do it. I didn’t have the time, unfortunately. If I had the time, we have progress a lot, and we find the solutions. The other thing we wanted to engage the Federal Government. Our commitment to child protection was shown by creating the Department, bringing more people, putting money. We want now to say to the Federal Government, “We did something. You have to come to the party because it’s not only a Territory problem, it’s an Australian problem.” The government put some money, the Federal Government put some money, but not as much as I hoped it would. We have to remember also, apart from the money that we were giving to foster parents, the Federal Government provide money through welfare, and ..... have work together to provide remuneration or support for children in a combined effort between Territory Government and Federal Government.

MR MORRISSEY: I just have one final question, and then I will invite representatives from other bodies to ask you some questions. In the lead-up to the 2012 election, it became apparent that the – you’ve indicated there was a measure of disapproval of your programs from the opposition. Were you aware in the lead-up to the 2012 election of any consultation from the opposition party, as they then were, with you or your Department to see what would be the impact of any significant cuts


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

to the child protection area, if they were elected and if they did make such cuts?---No, there was no approach, there was no consultation with me.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I go back to the bipartisan support issue. I think you probably explained the position fairly fully, but there are, it seems to Commissioner Gooda and I, at least a success story in New Zealand where they have had a very stable child care and protection and youth justice policy over 25 years, and we were told that they had established bipartisan support from early on that the child was too important to be a political football. No doubt you have given some thought because, obviously, from your answers, you care about this a great deal. Are there any ways in which one can get by from the opposition of whichever colour it is?---I don’t know how to answer this question because opposition purpose is to win government, and the government’s is not to lose government. And sometimes that gets in the way of thinking rationally, but I have to say at the same time when we had health problems and the problem with kidney disease, especially in central Australia is big – not big, it’s huge. I never had attacks by the opposition at the time for spending more money for renal dialysis clinics. And I have to say it was not only bipartisan support, but it was interstate support. I managed to negotiate an agreement with Western Australia that Western Australian Indigenous people living east of Warburton would be treated in Alice Springs, and Western Australian Government would pay the money. If it can happen between states, I think it can happen between parties in the same States in the same jurisdiction. We have to start thinking, as I said before, more than four years. We have to start thinking 10, 20 years, generation. I said before what is my problem today because I’m the government Minister. It might be your problem tomorrow because you win government and you’re going to be the same government Minister in the same portfolio. But sometimes personalities – I work very well with some people in the opposition, Geraldine Carney. She used to attack me in Parliament relentlessly on child protection. At the end she came to me and said she was wrong because she found out what the big problem was with neglect, and if she knew then, she wouldn’t – she would want to work with me and I appreciate that. But other people have got different personalities and are not prepared to come across the big divide and say, “Look, let’s work together.” I would be very happy if I had somebody tell me, “Can we work together.” I would say, “Yes, please.”

Do you think an all-party committee might assist in this way or would the same answers prevail?---I think it should be all parties coming together in Parliament and the community engage, creating a Commission and a Commissioner appointed by Parliament to oversee child protection rather than being a political appointment. It’s a big problem.

It is.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: ..... other counsel ..... I come back to – I really want to go to the point we have been asked many times how do we make a difference and how do recommendations implemented. So I will come back to that?---Certainly.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Lawrence, you are waiting patiently in the wings.

MR LAWRENCE: I’m listening, interestingly, at the central issue that this inquiry is about really, if we’re going to work. My name is Lawrence. I’m engaged as counsel to represent Ms Crawshaw, whom, as you are probably aware, was the first and only Chief Executive Officer of the SAF,T entity. I won’t keep you because you’ve spoken a lot about that aspect, but if I could just revisit – you did a statement on 27 May which is 14 pages and 54 paragraphs, and I will ask if that could be placed up on the board please. You did mention that your background before you entered politics, of course, was that you actually had quite an extensive background in health, public health, environmental health and so forth?---Yes.

And indeed the job that you had immediately before entering Parliament in 2001 was, in fact, working in Darwin as an Aboriginal – or as a health manager with Danila Dilba?---I was working as the clinic manager at Danila Dilba from 1999 to 2001.

So you have had hands-on experience how that organisation works and indeed with the clients that they serve?---Absolutely.

And it’s, you would agree, a very impressive organisation that has done great work on behalf of its clients?---I also had contact ..... and Congress and Katherine, so I was very familiar with the way the Indigenous controlled medical service operate.

Of course, your party was in power since 2001, but you didn’t get the poisoned chalice until December 2009 which was the Department, and virtually immediately you established that Board of Inquiry, which flowed on from the coronial findings as to that unfortunate death in 2008?---That was established in 2008 before I became a Minister. I came halfway through the Board of Inquiry.

Yes. Or after it, right. And that was an avoidable death, of course, and you know the facts and circumstances of it which can be nothing but described as tragic and avoidable?---It was such a tragic event that I instructed verbally my CEO that every time they were visiting a child in care, there to be a child protection officer who is either trained in first aid, so he can recognise symptoms and problems, or a nurse. She told me that was too difficult and too expensive, but I insisted on that. That girl died unnecessarily. And I don’t know what happened. The coronial inquiry is out there for everybody to see. But sometimes we have to think outside the square and we have to actually say that – my duty statement says I’m a child protection officer, but I can look something further out and I think that’s important.

The Board of Inquiry made 147 recommendations which you’ve told us your government was committed to supporting even before they made them. And, of course, the ones that relate directly to safety were numbers 3 and 5, and I won’t take you to them. But you were well aware of what they consisted of. It wasn’t anything new. It was new to the Territory, but it wasn’t new to Australia. It had been do in other States and so forth which you were familiar with?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I take it from your evidence you were extremely committed to this, determined to advance it, I think you said, and it was a crucial component?---It was going to work and I know that one because I see it working with the health services. I couldn’t see why if it works in one area, in health, it can’t work in child protection. At the end of the day, you know, you can say that health arise from social problems. So child protection issues too. We addressing the social problems and we are addressing the health issues, training people to be to be in the coalface, people from the community who can do the same with the child protection. Further to that, Territory has constantly experienced inadequate number of doctors. And we employ doctors, we pay them a lot. We bring them from India, and it was then that actually I lobbied the Federal Government to establish a medical school in Darwin, to train doctors in Darwin, to train Indigenous doctors and the government will pay scholarship to them under the condition they will sign and they will stay in Darwin for four years. And ..... then Minister, to his credit, he agreed and gave us the money, and we established the first medical school in the Territory, and I’m pleased to say that quite a few Indigenous doctors have graduated from that school, working here in the Territory. So it works. It works. And the child protection system based in the community with appropriately trained people the community can work and will work if there’s commitment to support it.

And you were confident it would work, and, indeed, your statement tells us you were very pleased with the initial beginnings of it which were starting from the ground up?---Absolutely.

They got incorporated promptly and then they – in fact, one of the tasks was to actually create a board which would run it?---Yes.

And you were involved in that in the sense you attended that very first board meeting?---I did.

Would you agree it was a very positive day for everybody involved, including you as the Minister?---It was the first time ever in the Territory, and people saw what we were trying to create, and I say we, not the government, we as a community, and that’s the important thing.

All right. That’s good. Ms Crawshaw is going to give evidence later in the hearings, and I take it you will agree with this, but that she was expecting constant support as the thing developed organically, and you would have given that if you had retained the portfolio?---For the time I was the Minister she had my constant support and my solid support.

Okay. Thanks very much. Obviously, you’re very committed and you are a great believer in all of this and so forth, but it is the case, of course, that this was happening two years into the intervention, which had flowed from the Little Children are Sacred report, which isn’t irrelevant to the issues that we’re dealing with now and what you wrestled with, having taken up that poison chalice. Would it be fair to say that that had an impact on your motivation in really getting behind this?---I impacted


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

on all Territorians. The intervention impacted on all Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. But for me it was more than that. It was actually things that, as a father, I couldn’t accept. I couldn’t accept kids being taken away and rotated from foster parent to foster parent. Kids died in foster care. People struggling to deal with the problems that every family deals, some people more successful than others, with lack of support. And I was in the – in my mind is I’m not going to fix it, I can’t fix it, it’s too big, but at least if I can start now, somebody else will pick it up and continue, and eventually we see a reduction of the problems, or the social problems that arises from this kind of, you know, situation we’ve got now.

Alright. Thank you. Just one last point. I must ask this because it’s to do with bipartisan approach and you’re a former politician. Irrespective of anything that the Commission can make as a recommendation, one thing that will get bipartisan support is if the community, the voters want, for instance, what you are espousing now, that will ensure that the CLP and Labor will have those policies?---The community can have its own opinion sometimes formed by the media.

True?---And sometimes they might see the benefits of that one. At the same time, you know, when you’re first elected to Parliament you don’t know a lot. You learn. But having to spend one or two terms in Parliament, you become very well educated on what is happening and your political instinct start ticking and says, “Don’t do this, this is stupid or do this one it’s good.” And going out and talking to people, and I always went out and talked to my people for 14 years, every Saturday I would be out there door knocking, and I heard a lot from different people. I heard a lot about crime. I heard a lot about kids not going to school. I heard grandmothers telling me they’re really worried because the social problems now in the community is they’re afraid they’re going to finish with looking after the grandchildren. So that was my commitment that we have to do something. This is going to explode big time. If we don’t do nothing now, it will be too late to do it in 10 years time.

Thanks very much.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [12.53 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Mr Vatskalis, my name is Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Could I take you back to your evidence about mistrust in Aboriginal communities and ask you some questions about that. Would you agree that it is fundamental that all people working in the child protection space today acknowledge that historical context of the Stolen Generation and the long and powerful memories that persist in Aboriginal communities when they’re approaching their work?---Absolutely. And they should.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4258 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And if departmental workers or others in government are not aware of or are not hearing the distrust in the Aboriginal communities, would you agree they’re not listening?---Yes, but also I would say it is actually our responsibility that we provide the cultural awareness of what’s happening. I recall very well when I was – I worked in Perth for seven years and then I went to Port Headland. Now, Perth is a described as a white Anglo-Saxon city and I went to Port Headland and I didn’t know what hit me. When I saw the social divide – and I give you an example, I went to Port Headland for my interview, that was in 1999, walked down, drove down the street and there were this old railway carriages from the Marble Railway, and I thought, “Do they have a museum?”, no, they didn’t. That was an Aboriginal community and Aboriginal people were living in railway carriages in 1999, and I was astounded. Anyway, they built houses, they put the community in houses. And I’m driving down as environmental health officer and I realised that none of these houses had wheelie bins. I went back and I asked why. And the answer from the council officer was “They don’t pay rates.” And I took my book and I went up to the mayor, opened the door and said, “This is my Health Act, it says about provisional health services, it says nothing about rates.” Halls Creek Council has been taken to court and they lost the case because they didn’t provide health service to the Aboriginal community. Do you want to be next? So he pick up the phone and I never heard the mayor swear like that and order the engineer to provide bins already. Now, why people did not have cultural awareness? They thought, “They live there, we live here”, that’s fine. So that was my first exposure about the culture divide and pure racism in modern Australia. Then I came to Darwin. Darwin is a bit better but there was still social divide. But we had people here that came from Victoria, from New South Wales, never exposed to Indigenous community or Indigenous people. And at the time government departments never had cultural workshops. That came later. So these people ..... the people, we came ..... what did they know? They came here on Wednesday, Thursday they put in the office, Monday they’re told to drive to ..... and this is a big problem, we have to give people the skills and the knowledge how to deal with Indigenous people. 30 per cent of population is Indigenous. How are we going to deal with them, the ins and outs what we’re allowed to say, what we’re allowed to do, how to treat people, the elders and everything else, and that is a big problem.

And critical to that type of training that you’ve been talking about is building an understanding about how history and that built-up distrust can create barriers to engagement with government agencies for Aboriginal people?---Yep and that’s exactly what I insisted. We’re going to have to train Indigenous people to overcome this barriers and the difficulties. And also you have to remember it’s not only Indigenous and Indigenous, within the Indigenous communities where people in the Top End, in central Australia, in other areas, with their own traditions, you can’t get somebody from the Top End and ..... Australia and expect them to know everything about Indigenous communities in central Australia. Some of them differ significantly. Some may be similar but, again, you’ve got similar problems. Not cultural will create problems.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4259 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mr Vatskalis, you’ve spoken a lot about the importance of bipartisan support to ensure that reforms can be followed through?---Yes.

Would you also agree that in the Northern Territory context, it is critical that the Commonwealth Government, on a bipartisan basis, commit to long-term funding of targeted reforms to ensure their success?---Absolutely. At the end of the day, the Commonwealth has got the money and the Commonwealth has got the responsibility to its citizens and they have to be part of the solution rather than becoming part of the problem. We see that one. I give you an example. We hear a lot about developing the north and a lot of ..... think developing the north is building ports and building roads. No, developing the north is building capacity in the community, living better, living together, giving opportunities to communities, giving opportunities to children to grow healthy safe and educated and that’s a big role by the Commonwealth to be played.

Finally, I would like to ask you some questions about children in care who experience disability. And you say in your statement at paragraph 52.16:

We commenced a review of kids in care with disabilities with a view to improving service provision to this highly vulnerable group.

If I can then take you your annexure KV19 at WIT.0261.0001.1324, and this is part of the report that was tabled in May 2012 to Parliament reporting on what had been done following the Board of Inquiry, and you will see there at recommendation 70 in relation to children with a disability:

A project proposal has been developed, a senior policy officer will progress this work.

It seems that some preliminary steps were taken during your time as Minister. Do you know whether, after there was the change in government, there was any follow-through to this particular recommendation?---I said to you I retired from politics in 2014 and I was in opposition, so I was not privy to what the government but I understand that ..... all we have as a witness the then Minister for child protection would be a good question.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Graham. Mr Woodroffe.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE [1.01 pm]

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you, Commissioners. Mr Vatskalis, my name is Woodroffe, I appear for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. If I could just take you to discussion today in relation to the recruitment and retention of

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4260 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Aboriginal staff. It was the philosophy – it was actually the vision of your department in 2011 that the Department of Children and Families would be employer of choice for Territorians, committed to closing the gap in Aboriginal disadvantaged. What is the process to have Aboriginal Territorians to have child protection to be their choice of employment or work?--- ..... the biggest problem is the Department has put a lot of rhetoric in the papers. We want to employ as many Aboriginal people as we want. The problem we’ve got is are they people with the skills to be employed? If they aren’t, what are we doing about it? So what I want the Department to do is, yes, we want Indigenous Territorians to be employed in the Department but before we do that, and because I don’t think we could find many, at least in the Territory, how about we start a program to train Indigenous Territorians to become Indigenous child protection officers. That’s what the Department had to do and there were clear instructions to do so. You can either do it by formal qualification or do it on the job, like we did with Indigenous health workers. In Danila Dilba, we had our own training course that people come and train to become Indigenous health workers, starting and working at the same time and this was the plan. Now, I said to you before, because the Board of Inquiry came middle of 2010, by the time we split the Department to become independent was 2011, so we had only one year to implement it. Obviously, we didn’t go far enough with that one, because of the elections, but the intention was there and we knew what we wanted to do.

Do you see that as a process for the very important process of valuing Aboriginal people and Aboriginal staff, but also the important thing about retention of – given the nature of the cycle of departures in that department?---Yes, and I tell you why. We used to train Indigenous health workers at Danila Dilba, and they became such good professionals that the Department of Health then would come and offer them $10,000 to come and work for the Department of Health because they recognise the value. They recognised how good they were, the good interaction with the clients, the fact that the client will tell them thing they would not tell to the mainstream nursing staff. So that’s the way to do it. If you’re going to address problems, I said before, you have to engage people from the community where you’ve got problems to resolve them, otherwise you’re wasting your time.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Vatskalis – and I’m well of the ..... the Northern Territory started the recognition of Aboriginal health workers, but wouldn’t there be a corresponding change within the department to value what those Aboriginal people bring to the child protection? Like you mentioned communication, we’ve heard various examples of miscommunication or people assuming things happen and often get answers, you know, about Aboriginal employment but there’s actually a lot of strengths and skills that people bring because of things like their ability to communicate. We had a witness yesterday telling us in child protection there’s really hard conversations to be had. Should departments recognise that basic – it’s not just training as a child protection officer but there’s actually some value in having Aboriginal people working in there?---Absolutely, Commissioner, and that’s the reason why we are using Indigenous translators and interpreters. Or we’ve got the same problems in the court system, people come to the court system, they don’t understand what’s happening around them. It changed completely when we had

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4261 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Indigenous translators. People understood what happened because they could understand their own languages. As a Health Minister I provided money to counsel and counsel to translate information about breast cancer in Indigenous languages and they create a video, a DVD. You can select your dialect or your language, central Australia or Top End. I recognise the value having people that they know the traditions, they know the background and they speak the language, if you’re going to do some changes. Department of Families was progressing to that to develop this strategy, to engage people, Indigenous people, and start from somewhere and then train them to become fully-blown child protection people.

Yes. Because the converse is also true, a highly qualified child protection officer, if they can’t communicate with - - -?---You can have a person with a degree - - -

..... still going to end up with comprised results?---Yes. You’ve got a person with a degree in child protection, they go to the Indigenous family, the Indigenous family is not going to talk to them, they will talk to somebody from the same area or the same skin or same thing. There are some things, as you said, even my community will not tell to others outside the community.

MR WOODROFFE: Nothing further.

MR MORRISSEY: There’s an application to ask a single question without notice by Ms Roussos arising out of this morning’s proceedings and I support that being done.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you Ms Roussos.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ROUSSOS [1.06 pm]

MS ROUSSOS: Mr Vatskalis, I act for a young woman by the initial CK on instructions from the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Service. In her statement, CK talks about the number of case workers that she had to deal with over her time with FACS. In your experience, sir, it’s true that in the Northern Territory we have a high - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You need to stay in front of the mic if you don’t - - -

MR ROUSSOS: Thank you. A high transiency of professionals and a high turnover. In your experience, sir, could you share with us some of your views in arresting that turnover, particularly in child protection?---Train people locally, local people and you will arrest this transiency, because the local people will stay here. And also if local people are aware of the problem, they are aware of the problem, they are more likely to stay here to address the problem than someone who comes to for two years experience, three – to the Territory and then go back down south and in their CV, “I work as a child protection in the Northern Territory.” If we’re going to

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4262 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS ROUSSOS

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

resolve the local issues, we have to train local people to address the local issues and that’s the best way to do it.

Thank you, sir.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Roussos.

MS ROUSSOS: I’m sorry, it was a pseudonym and not initials that I was referring to?---That’s okay.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioner Gooda, I think – just – I’m not sure if you did ask the question that you meant to ask, that you - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I did. I was going to ask Mr Vatskalis, Commissioners White asked about bipartisanship and making sure, you know, recommendations are implemented or accountability of government, I was going to give you a chance to offer some insights on – maybe you can advise us how we could actually go about putting mechanisms in place to ensure the accountability of the implementation of our recommendations?---Well, one of the thing we see, Commissioner, is things change every four years because government change. New governments come in and it’s very common to blame the previous government for everything going wrong. Also the other thing is we have got this – people are fixated in budgets ..... balanced budget, you have to make a surplus rather than in deficit. There’s nothing wrong with a deficit, especially if it comes down to health and welfare. People have to accept today we live in debt. As long as we have money coming in to address it, you have to address it, you can’t say, “The budget the down so we’re going to get rid of the Child Protection Department because it will save us $130 million”, it won’t work. The other thing, also, is we have to find a way that make sure that institutions remain in place, even if a government change. Now, the Child Protection Commissioner, it’s appointment by the Minister. I think it’s wrong. It should be appointment by Parliament, because the Minister changes, new Minister comes in, somehow doesn’t like it, off it goes. If Parliament appoints, first of all it would be embarrassing to sack, unless he did something very wrong, if appointment by the Parliament it take the whole Parliament to remove a Child Commissioner, but I also provide more to the Commissioner ..... then if you got this mechanism in place and if you’ve got an agreement from beginning of governments that it’s going to address the problem and the allocation of money is going to be there, irrespective of change of government, you will see some results. I understand that government will try to cut money from everywhere. Sometimes it is very difficult to cut money from health because you can see it very quickly, longer waiting times, no treatment, people start screaming. But if you got a few million dollars out of child protection, what will happen? People don’t see it, out of sight, out of mind. But this is where the problem is, you creating problems for the future. A social bomb ticking away if you don’t address the problems now. We have to find a way to address it. It’s not only be a State – on a State level, it should be – it could be a combination of Commonwealth and State level. If the Commonwealth wants to take the load, so be it, it will see results. In the Commonwealth wants to appoint somebody by the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4263 K. VATSKALIS XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS ROUSSOS

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Federal Parliament to oversee child protection throughout Australia together with the States, so be it. Otherwise we are not going to see any changes in child protection. Another thing we have to do is we have to focus in prevention, not in treatment. We have to provide the means to support families, train families. I recall very well when my sister was born in 1962, my mother came home with a newborn, a week later a visiting nurse came to find out how the baby was, did my mum know how to sterilise the bottle, did my mum – it never happened here. When I suggested ..... they told me that it was an old fashioned idea, it won’t happen in Australia. Why? Because the accountants probably decided it was too expensive. But if we don’t provide the support in communities, both in urban and remote areas, we are not going to see any outcomes, we’re not going to see improvement, both in health and social well being, we have to do a lot of work in prevention rather than actually employing more youth detention workers or youth detention people in youth detention centres.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: One final comment, or question, what about the ability of if you have an external review community looking at it but reporting directly to Parliament rather than through a Minister?---That would be even better. The Ministers are political animals, sometimes they react to what the community says, but an external appointed – a Parliamentary appointed external ..... committee reporting to Parliament, there’s no fear, no favour and nobody can influence.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Anything arising?

MR MORRISSEY: I have no questions arising from that and it falls to us to thank Mr Vatskalis

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Indeed. Thank you, Mr Vatskalis, for your very positive contributions to our deliberations and your assistance. We are very grateful indeed?---Thank you, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I just have one administrative matter to raise – sorry, Mr Vatskalis is excused, I believe.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. You are excused from your .....?---Thanks very much.

Thank you?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.13 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: May I just raise one matter. This concerns the evidence to come of Ms Lambley. Back on 12 May 2017, statement request 45 was sent to the SFNT and there has been a series of pieces of correspondence which have gone


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

backwards and forwards between the parties. On 25 May, SFNT advised that Ms Lambley’s statement would not be completed until 30 May 2017. The SFNT advised at that time that the delay was caused because Ms Lambley required access to emails to appropriately respond to request 45, and that was the reason that was given. SFNT, on 31 May, advised, in response to a further email, that they did not expect Ms Lambley’s statement to be ready until the end of the week, being 2 June 2017. Now, the reason there was that recent access to Ms Lambley’s emails was one reason and the other was the fact that there were statements and evidence of other witnesses to be called by the Commission, which are critical of Ms Lambley, which need to be considered before the statement can be finalised. Now, we would like to indicate that, as Counsel Assisting, it is imperative that the statement be provided in a timely manner both to permit Ms Lambley to be properly questioned when she does come, but also to allow questions to be put to other witnesses which may bear upon that other issue, the recent witness being one such.

Now, I believe and I’m told by my learned friend that the instructions are now that Ms Lambley’s statement will not be available until next Tuesday. And, as Counsel Assisting, I simply draw that to the attention of the Commission with the note that it is extremely important to have this statement in a timely manner. It does occasion some inconvenience that it is coming next Tuesday. We appreciate that the construction of statements can be time-consuming. It is for everyone. And we reiterate that it is highly desirable that that occur. But we are instructed now – we are told that the instructions are that Ms Lambley’s statement will be provided on Tuesday and if that is the case, that would occasion no further difficulty from counsel.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I suppose your concern is that it won’t go the way the other times that it was promised to be available.

MR MORRISSEY: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps, Ms Brownhill, you can enlighten the Commission about the fate of this statement.

MS BROWNHILL: Well, in what sense, Commissioner? I’ve indicated to my friend, who has conveyed to the Commissioners that the statement will be available on Tuesday. If you want me to identify what the reasons are for the timeframe, they’ve already been identified, articulated.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, they have, but I think it’s in the circumstance where dates have been offered on a number of occasions now that it would be provided. Obviously, something has occurred which has not allowed your office to meet its own timeframes and that’s happened on a number of occasions. And so I think the concern is, is 6 June, something that could be anticipated as being the time when it will be delivered?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Well, that date, Tuesday, is the day that I’m instructed the statement can be available. There were difficulties – I can go back to the very beginning, if necessary. So on 12 May there was a request made for a statement from Ms Lambley. She was known, by virtue of publicly available information, to have been the Minister at a relevant period but we weren’t asked for a statement until 12 May. That was less than three weeks ago. We didn’t have instructions from Ms Lambley to act for her at that point because no one understood that she was to be a witness. We then sought those instructions and obtained them. That takes time. Ms Lambley is a sitting member of the legislative assembly and she is a member of the estimates committee and the Commission, I’m sure, appreciates that the estimates committee will be sitting in the week of 19 June. So Ms Lambley is very engaged in work for the purposes of estimates committee. So that causes difficulties of access, as between her and her legal advisers.

The Commission has been informed about the difficulty of accessing her email account from the period back in 2012 to ’13 when she was the Minister. That email account was not even accessible until 25 May. Then the emails had to be ring-tailed, because that is the system that the Commission uses. So that didn’t happen until 26 May. There then ensues a process of obtaining instructions and the preparation of and drafting of a statement in consultation with Ms Lambley and that has occurred on a number of occasions. But the other factor to bear in mind is, as indicated by SFNT to the solicitors assisting the Royal Commission, that there has been evidence heard by the Commission this week and contained in statements that were only provided to us last week, that indicate that Ms Lambley may be the subject of criticism by those witnesses and/or Counsel Assisting.

She is entitled to reflect upon that criticism and address it in a statement that she intends to provide of her evidence to the Commission. So part of the instruction-taking and statement-preparing process includes the ability and the capacity to reflect upon those adverse matters. My instructions are now that the statement will be available on Tuesday.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you for that fuller explanation, Ms Brownhill. I suspect part of the problem is the anticipation of a date that was offered, as the return date for the statement happening on a number of occasions, which is why it’s probably been raised here.

MS BROWNHILL: I understand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So we look forward to the 6 June. Thank you.

MS BROWNHILL: I’m not sure what – is that the right date for Tuesday?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps it’s 7 June.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes, sorry, it is the 6th, I beg your pardon.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: For those who are interested, Queensland date.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you, we will adjourn then until 2 o’clock. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [1.21 pm]

RESUMED [2.07 pm]

MR McAVOY: The next witness is Mr Jonathan Linggood. Mr Linggood is in the witness box.

<JONATHAN LINGGOOD, SWORN [2.07 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY

MR McAVOY: Mr Linggood, could you tell the Commissioners your full name?---My name is Jonathan Mark Linggood.

And your present occupation?---Team leader of the central intake team for Territory Families.

If you could just keep your voice up a little bit for me, Mr Linggood. You’ve prepared a statement for the Royal Commission?---Yes.

And if you look at the document in front of you, you can see a statement bearing your name with the date 9 May 2017?---Yes.

And that statement has a number of annexures attached to it?---Yes.

And I understand that there are two corrections you would like to make with respect to your statement?---Yes, there are.

So the first, I understand, is at paragraph 34. So if you can go over the page please, operator. You can see on the screen the second half of paragraph 34?---Yes. The investigation and assessment team is based in Palmerston, not Casuarina.

So you would like to change the reference to Casuarina, as it appears in the last line of 34, from Casuarina to Palmerston?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4267 J. LINGGOOD XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I understand you have a correction at 69?---Yes. Team leaders – team leaders have coverage from 8 am to 11.18 pm.

So in the second line of paragraph 69 where there’s a reference to 7 am, that should be 8 am?---Yes.

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Jonathan Linggood dated 9 May 2017, subject to those two amendments.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, exhibit 482.

EXHIBIT #482 STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LINGGOOD

MR McAVOY: Mr Linggood, you’re the team leader of the – a team leader with the central intake team of Territory Families; that’s correct. There are five team leaders?---Yes.

And in each team, there is a team leader and two case workers?---We don’t operate – all team leaders operate across the work unit.

Thank you. So that the roster for the case workers is a different roster to the team leaders?---Yes.

And you’ve been a team leader with the central intake team for three years?---Yes.

And during that time you’ve seen the number of notifications handled by the central intake team, which is its primary function, increase substantially?---Yes, they have.

Has the workforce at the centre intake team changed over that time?---We have had one extra team leader to assist with the outcoming, but that’s all.

You’ve also held many roles with Territory Families and its predecessors?---Yes.

And it’s fair to say that you have a reasonable understanding as to how Territory Families has run over a number of years?---Yes.

And at paragraph 19 of your statement, you have described what it is the central intake team does. I’m going to try and take you through it in a summarised fashion. It’s a 24-hour team?---Yes.

Serviced by four shifts?---Yes.

With some overlap between the day, afternoon, evening and night shifts?---Yes.

And that’s to accommodate workloads?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

With the evening shift, between 9 and 12, that’s the busiest period for calls, is it?---Yes, it is.

So between 9 pm and 12 am?---Yes.

The central intake team receives incoming reports about children from three sources, email, fax and telephone?---Yes, we do.

There’s a single email to which all reports are made?---There’s two email accounts that they can go to. There’s the child abuse report intake, which is where the police ones all go direct to. And then there’s the CIT team leaders email account, and we get some email ones through there. And they’re mainly the Family Court and youth justice section 51 report requests.

And when you say the CIT team leaders accounts, that’s a single email account which services each of the – all of the five team leaders?---Yes. And all case workers in the unit have access to that account.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How do you keep track of the responses if you’ve got so many people accessing it, Mr Linggood?---Once the matter has been dealt with, the workers will tick it to say that that matter is done.

So that will come on the screen?---Yes.

MR McAVOY: And are there coloured boxes into which the emails are moved once they’ve been dealt with?---Yes. Through the day, they’re often, the box is triaged, so a worker will look at the emails and see whether it needs to be assessed and passed out to an officer immediately for an immediate response. Otherwise, it may be left for later in the day. And for those that are left for later in the day, then they’re marked with, usually it’s orange colour. So any other workers know that that matter is being looked at, but it can wait.

And whose responsibility is it to monitor the email accounts?---That’s left with workers, but as team leaders we try and ensure, when you’re on the morning shift, you’re checking to ensure someone is doing that.

So there’s no established system as to whose task it is to keep an eye on the email accounts?---No. We’re in the process of formalising it so it’s more clear who’s doing it during the day.

And so I take it that because it’s not formalised, there will from time to time be gaps between when it’s checked and the email account not checked when it ought to be?---There can be.

What sort of length of time are the gaps between how often that email account is checked?---It could be a few hours. Usually it’s checked by the morning shift finish add 4.48. Usually by the end of that period, that email account is checked.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

By the end of the day shift?---By the end of the morning shift.

The morning shift, sorry?---Yes.

Which is at 4.48 in the afternoon?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It would be prior to that, presumably,

that’s when they finish; is that right, 4.48?---Yes.

So they would do it in the time just prior to that.

MR McAVOY: But it’s not the case that all the emails are received during that morning shift, during the day, will have been dealt with by 4.48 pm?---No. You put an orange mark next to it. It is often left to the night shift to - - -

If the night shift can’t deal with it, it’s picked up by the morning shift the following day?---Yes.

Is there any limit to how many days that might go on for?---If it becomes too long, then we look at trying to bring an extra person in to clear that backlog.

So how long is too long?---Well, like if the next day there’s still intake sitting there, then if I’m on as a team manager, I will ask the manager if we can look at someone coming in to clear it.

Then when would you expect someone to come in and help you with it?---That would be that day.

In addition to the email reports, there’s telephone calls to a single 1800 number?---Yes.

And that telephone line operates 24 hours a day?---Yes, it does.

That line receives calls, also receives called diverted from foster care support line and information sharing hotlines after-hours?---Yes, it does.

And is that telephone number able to handle multiple calls simultaneously?---Yes, it can.

So that you might have four case workers on shift in the afternoon and each of them could be on a phone call at the same time?---Yes.

Is that often the case?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And the situation is, isn’t it, that the central intake team currently operates according to a one piece work flow process?---Yes, during the day period it’s one piece work flow.

And can you just explain for the Commissioners what one piece work flow?---One piece work flow is that the workers take a phone call. They will write up the information provided by the notifier. They will check our computer system and write up the background history. They will do any follow-up with other services that’s required. They will make their assessment through SDM as to whether it needs to proceed or not and write it you will up to the point of being finished before they go on to another phone call.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that gives continuity to the matter rather than – I take it from reading your statement that it was often dispersed at different levels previously; is that the case, that one worker might take the call and then somebody else will take it on to the next stage?---That can happen at times.

It can still happen?---If it is the end of a shift, at times we will ask a worker to write up the current situation and then somebody on the next shift may then do the history and assessment. That’s if that worker can’t stay longer to finish it.

MR McAVOY: And in general terms how long does the assessment of a notification take?---In general terms for them to write up an intake, it depends on many factors of how many kids are involved, how much history there is, how much follow-up is needed. In general terms, about an hour, depending, give or take, on all of those factors.

So if you are receiving something like 50 or 60 notifications in a day that require assessment intake, then that will keep the workforce that you have presently in the central intake team very busy?---Yes, it does.

And there will be days when, at the end of the day shift, you haven’t completed all of the intakes?---Yes.

Is that a regular occurrence?---Well, by the ends of their shifts, they will finish what the workers have and what the workers have done. There are at times calls which because we have a call-back system – and there are times when we – some of those calls get put back for the following day because we’ve tried to ring the person and we can’t get hold of them. As for intakes to be written up, generally they’re done that day.

And just on the call-back system, it’s a call-back system where the person rings the 1800 number and is offered to be called back at a later stage?---Yes.

And, generally, how long is it that they are called back?---In general, probably a couple of hours.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But it does, as you’ve just said, flow over to the next day on occasions?---That does at times, yes.

Are there occasions when it goes longer than a day before a person is called back?---Sometimes it can because it can also depend on their availability as well as ours. The number of times workers have rung and notifiers have said, “Now is not a good time. Can you ring me in a few hours, can you ring me at this time”. So as well as our workers being busy, it’s also dependent on the notifiers and their availability.

But in terms of the commencement of the intake, the commencement doesn’t start when they request the call-back; the commencement starts when you make contact, does it?---Yes.

The central intake team is located in Palmerston?---Yes, it is.

And it’s the case that the team also runs an after-hours call-out service for priority one matters?---Yes, it does.

That’s still operating?---Yes.

Can you just explain what the circumstances in which you might be called out to a matter after-hours?---The after-hours stuff can be, if there’s something – if there’s a 24-hour matter that requires a crisis response before the next working day, we will respond to that in the Darwin region, so we’re the after-hours call out service for Darwin. We also will respond for young children in care who are at the Darwin watch-house, and workers will go there for any interviews and charging and talking to the magistrates.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would be it, I noticed that seemed to be a little bit outside the scope of central intake’s work to go to the watch-house. It’s not really what you tend to do as your mainstream work. Would it work better if you had some other sector just devoting themselves to that sort of work?---It would certainly assist centre intake if there was another part of the department that dealt with that side of the work.

Dealt with the watch-house and youth, the youth justice issues?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Linggood, what sort of issues would require an immediate response like that? Obviously, it’s very high risk?---Yes. The high risk stuff, it could be there’s a domestic violence – I will give you some examples is probably the easiest. Domestic violence situation where mum and dad are both at home. The child has become involved in it and being hit maybe. For whatever reason mum and dad are still in the house, the child is in the house. Therefore, a 24-hour response is required. Or it could be the child has been hit by a parent. The school has found out, told us, the child may have some injuries, may not. But it requires a 24-hour response. If the child is in immediate danger overnight, then we will respond after-hours.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: When the case workers in the central intake team are not on telephone calls, what other work do they do?---They will be writing up their intakes or they will be writing up the progress notes from something – contact they’ve had. Their main role is the intakes from phone calls or emails, that sort of thing.

While they’re on the phone, they will be gathering the information; is that correct?---Yes.

And do I take it then that they are not on the phone necessarily for the whole hour they’re conducting the intake?---No, a lot of that – and with the hour, it’s probably an hour of – once the phone call has finished, some phone calls can be five minutes, some could be half an hour or longer. But the writing-up process is generally about an hour.

And once the intake has been completed, they all come then to the team leader for review and sign-off?---Yes, they do.

And so I think in your statement you’ve referred to having as many as 39 in one shift; is that correct?---Yes, I’ve had 38 in one shift.

That was a very busy day?---That was an extremely busy day.

And so that would mean that you’re having to process them in terms of – and do your other work at a fairly rapid rate. You would only have 10 or 20 minutes on each, wouldn’t you?---Yes.

Does the team leader ever answer the 1800 calls?---No.

And is there a person allocated with the task of ensuring the call-backs are undertaken?---That’s the responsibility of the workers for the call-backs. At 4.21, 4.30, when they’re finished their intake that they’re doing at that time then workers come off one piece work flow, and they will take multiple calls. And usually that gets through most of the call-backs for that day.

So the range of callers that you receive to the 1800 number includes professional notifiers?---Yes.

The children themselves?---They can, yes.

Parents?---Yes.

Neighbours?---Yes.

Carers, residential care?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Last year it was reported that there were 20,465 notifications. Are you aware of that?---I’ve seen that in a report.

Are we to assume that that was the number of notifications to which the structured decision-making screening tool was applied?---If they’re child protection reports and they’re detailed as a child protection report, my understanding is that the SDM structure decision-making tool is applied.

Are you aware of the number of notifications that were received by the central intake team yourself or is it just something that you’ve read?---It’s only something I’ve read.

Are you aware of the total number of calls to the central intake team?---No, I’m not.

If I suggested to you that the total number of calls received last year was 28,078, would that sound - - -?---It’s probably a reasonable figure.

It’s a reasonable figure. So on top of the 20,000 notifications, there’s another 8000 calls which have not been the subject of assessment or screening. Does that sound to you as though that’s an appropriate figure?---Is the 28,000 calls – does that include the emails?

No, just the telephone calls?---Because in the 20,000 figure, you would have some that are from the email account and some from the phone calls because, yes, the difference to me doesn’t seem enough.

And so of the calls that are received and the emails, there’s some assessment that’s made by the case workers before they move to applying the screening tool, the SDM screening tool; is that correct?---Yes, there’s an initial assessment, yes.

So you have to satisfy yourself that there’s harm to a child as sort of a threshold?---Yes. For the screening tool it’s familial harm.

Sorry?---It’s harm within the family, like by a parent, caregiver.

And you don’t start that until you’re satisfied that there’s harm within the family?---Yes.

So by speaking to someone somebody on the phone or looking at the email, you might satisfy yourself that it’s something other than harm within the family. It might be a child calling to get a lift home?---Yes. Yes, those ones we certainly do not do as a CP.

So there’s a whole range of instances where a call is made to the central intake team that don’t result in the screening tool being applied because there’s a pre-assessment made by case workers as to whether it’s a matter involving harm within the family?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you hazard roughly, if you don’t have the precise percentage, how many notification calls you get by email, as opposed to telephone calls? It just seems that email is a relatively unusual way to send a message if you’ve got an immediate concern about safety of a child?---We can get – and it’s just roughly – 15 to 20 a day.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Emails?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But that relates to a child safety concern?---Yes.

MR McAVOY: If the witness could be shown annexure JL7, page 17, please. I’m just taking you to the PWC report, Mr Linggood. You are aware of the report. It’s annexed to your statement?---Yes.

It’s in draft form but I understand that there’s – it has been recently finalised?---Yes, it has.

I can indicate, Commissioners, that I intend to tender the finalised report in due course.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Now, Mr Linggood, are you familiar with this page of the report?---I have seen it.

Just following on from the Commissioner’s question, you will see there are – it’s a bar graph and at the top of each of the bars there’s an area outlined by red dotted line with a question mark. You can see that?---Yep.

And over to the right-hand side, note number 2 says:

However, the reports made through the team leaders inbox and phones are not currently tracked official reporting data, therefore, underestimates the volume of the centre intake services.

That’s correct, that that’s not currently tracked?---Yes, it is.

Sorry?---Yes, it’s not tracked.

Is there any reason that you can – that you know of why it’s not tracked?---I know the support links can be tracked through – most of the emails are support links, so that can be tracked through their system.

But it’s not tracked by central intake team?---No.

So there’s no way of saying categorically through each quarter how many reports were made through the team leaders inbox?---No, there’s not.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And in the statistics that we’ve seen reported, therefore, it hasn’t been possible to include those numbers; that’s correct?---Yes.

So in the number of 20,000, which I referred you to earlier, 20,465, that number wouldn’t include the numbers captured by those boxes?---Yes, it would.

It would?---If we’ve done a report on ..... on our computer system, and then it has come out as a child protection report, then I would think it is captured by those numbers.

So – but the – I think that the number, 20,465, is the number of notifications, not the number of reports. So you would agree with me that if this report from PWC is correct - - -?---Yes.

- - - then that number of 20,465 doesn’t capture all of the notifications?---No.

Thank you. Now, on undertaking the structured decision-making assessment, it is correct to say that there’s four possible results from that assessment. No further action, family support, protective services or child protection report?---If you’re doing SDM, it’s either a – if you’re doing SDM it becomes a child protection report.

Sorry, there’s a screening process prior to applying the SDM screening tool?---Yes.

And from which there are four actions, four possible outcomes?---Yes.

Okay. Sorry. And then once you apply the SDM screening tool, if the tool responds that a child protection report is to be under taken then you go to the priority child protection tool?---If the tool shows the intake screens in for a child protection investigation, then you go to the priority response tool.

And that sets out the number of days within which the investigation is to commence?---Yes.

And the options are priority one is 24 hours?---Priority one is 24 hours. Priority two is three days, and they’re for the children under two. Then there’s five days and 10 days.

Thank you. With respect to the decision as to whether a child protection report is undertaken in the first place, and/or alternatively the notification is dealt with by family support or protective services, do you have any sense of what the numbers are as between the two?---No, I don’t. I haven’t seen any.

If I were to suggest to you that with respect to the – I will withdraw that. I will come back to that in a moment, Mr Linggood. And the team leader has a capacity or a discretion to screen decisions in or out after the screening tool has been applied?---Yes, we do.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that’s undertaken when you do the review of the assessment at the end the caseworker’s work?---Yes, it is.

Okay. I just want to ask you some questions about mandatory reporting. You’re aware that under section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, people in the Northern Territory are to require to notify if they are of the view or belief that a child is in - - -?---Yes, I am.

- - - in harm or likely to be harmed. In addition to that, health practitioners have an added responsibility with respect to sexual offences?---Yes.

Is it correct that all the reports received from professional notifiers are required by policy to be treated as child protection reports?---Yes, they are.

So that – that means there’s no discretion to screen them out before you go to the structured decision-making tool?---Yes.

And the majority of reports from the police are in written form?---Yes, they are.

So they come in by email?---Yes.

And it’s fair to say that a reasonable percentage of those reports have insufficient information to then complete the report, the intake?---Many of them do, yes.

Are you able to estimate what proportion of those would require further follow-up back from the notifier?---It’s often not the initial notifier. We often might go to say a school or clinic for more information.

Sorry?---Sometimes we go back to them. We don’t go back to them a lot. We may go to, say, the local school or we will go to the local health centre for more information.

But there’s - - -?---There are certainly times when we have to go back to the notifier.

And is it the case that in almost all of the notifications you fled to obtain additional information from other sources?---No, not all of them.

More than half?---No, probably not.

Of the potential notifiers and police and residential, it’s correct that a significant number that fall short of the definition of harm, isn’t that the case?---Yes.

So they might provide information and sometimes you need to follow-up with other agencies or back with the original notifier but after you’ve done that there’s a lot of them that falls short of the definition of harm?---Yes.

Are you familiar with the Tolhurst Report?---Yes, I’ve read it.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Tolhurst refers to those, I think, those types of notifications as marginal reports. You are familiar with his use of that term?---Yep.

Is it possible to estimate how much time is spent each day in respect of marginal reports?---In regards to reports that require more follow up?

Well, out of the working day, what percentage do you think would be involved in following up marginal reports and completing the assessment?---There can be a worker for each day that does follow up from intake from the overnight support links and other ones. And that can take, I have seen it where the takes the worker all day to get through all the ones requiring more information.

And so that might be every day somebody is required to do the follow-ups; is that the case?---Yes. Every week day. It’s difficult to do follow-up on the weekends. So every week day there would be one worker who is allocated the follow-ups.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And I note from your statement, Mr Linggood, that you suggest at least in some instances, it’s a want of training in taking enough information from the source that’s passed on to you by this category of professional notifiers that bring them to you?---Yes.

And has your central intake body taken this up with your professional notifiers, suggesting that really it would be much more helpful if they could make sure they had all of these things on a list?---We had raised it with management. I’m of the understanding some discussions have happened with some of the professional notifying bodies. I’m not aware of what the outcome of those discussions are.

Clearly you would like to, for the more efficient running of your teams, you would prefer to see something like this happen because it must be taking hours out of, you know, your frontline working day to run up these other inquiries?---Yes, it can take a worker all day.

So who would be the person in Territory Families that would be responsible for following that up, if it’s not you, about the professional notifiers doing a better job for you?---Liaising with them in relation to their training, could be – we’ve certainly fed it through our manager. I’m of the understanding it has been fed to the director. As to for who at what level, it may be somebody at the executive director or executive director or above.

Who could take it up with the opposite number in police, for example?---Yes.

Or the various agencies that do the out-of-home care and foster caring?---Yes. With the police, we do have a regular monthly meeting with the police now around the support links and that’s starting to improve some of the information we’re getting from the police.

When did that monthly meetings start, Mr Linggood?---The last couple of months.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So it’s a pretty recent initiative?---Yes.

But you’re seeing fruit from it?---We are starting to, yes.

Might that also happen if you selected a few others of the professional notifiers, they actually hear what the issues are from you?---Potentially. Yes.

They could be included?---Yes, have a separate meeting or something.

MR McAVOY: Mr Linggood, it’s not a new issue, though, is it, it’s something that has been reported upon by various reviewers, starting with Tolhurst in 2009?---Yes.

Do you have any view as to why it’s not been resolved at this point?---Sometimes we hear from some. Like sometimes we will talk to some professional notifiers and say, “Look, can you go in and ask a bit more information?”. I think some of its misunderstanding maybe of what we need in relation to get it over the threshold for investigation. Some of it may be a bit of reluctance to ask kids too many questions around child abuse and so forth.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And I think you also suggest somewhere in your statement too that there’s a misunderstanding of the mutual roles that you play here; that they think it is enough that something is simply just raised with you and you’re going on to the investigation?---Yes.

Is that the case?---Yep. In some respects, I personally wouldn’t mind central intake having a role in the training of professional notifiers. We’re the ones that take the phone calls.

Exactly?---So - - -

You know what you need?---We know – yep.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. It’s the case, isn’t it, that those notifications in particular and a number of others often result in incomplete assessment?---They can result in being screened out.

And is it the case that you’re aware that there are a reasonably large number of incomplete child investigation reports?---By incomplete, you’re meaning not screened in?

Well, child investigation reports that are not finalised?---All intakes have to be finalised within 24 hour periods.

After the child intake process, once the matter has been referred for investigation?---So once they go to the office?

Yes?---I - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You’re not aware of those numbers?---I’m not anywhere near – no.

I referred earlier to calls from, for example, children seeking a lift home and other calls which aren’t identified as harm within the family. Are those calls logged at the centre intake team?---In regards to numbers they’re probably not, but the information is certainly recorded and put on the computer system and on the child’s case.

Yes. So you don’t have – if asked to give a number, as to how many of those calls relate to a request for a ride home, you wouldn’t be able to say?---I wouldn’t be able to say, no.

If I can just ask you about protective assessments. A protective assessment can cover the situation where a child is engaging in behaviour that puts him or her at risk and the parents are unable to control the child; is that right?---If the parents are doing all they can and making reasonable efforts, but the child is still placing them at risk, then, yes, we can outcome as a protective assessment.

And the family support procedure allows for referrals to other services or provision of support to families to deal with the risks of harm which are raised?---In relation to family support?

Yes, the family support intervention?---Yes, I will be honest we don’t do many family support.

But it’s a response that is available to you, isn’t it?---It’s available to us. At the moment the way it works is the family have to – we have to have a clear agreeance from the family to – for the family support intake to proceed.

But it is one of the mechanisms that allows the Department of Territory Families to provide assistance to families in need?---Yes, it is.

Sorry?---The family support, yes, we can assist families for it.

The figures that we have available to us, including the Children’s Commissioner reports, indicate that in the 2015-2016 year there are a total of 69 protective assessments; does that sound about right to you?---I would have thought that sounds low to me but - - -

And 76 family support interventions. At the same time there were 7800 child protection reports. I suggest to you that the access to those alternate services works out at about one to every 54 child protection reports. I don’t expect you to do the math in your head, but even as a rough estimate, you would agree that that is a little low comparative number?---Yes.

And where family support is intended to be provided to families in order to give support before there needs to be a child protection report, has there been any – or is there any policy that you’re aware of, that instructs the how to use the child


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

protection support or – I’m sorry, support intervention mechanism?---Family support?

Sorry, family support intervention?---There’s certainly department policy around family support.

Is it the case that because the workload is so high and I understand the limitations on the staff numbers at the central intake team and the fact that the child protection aspect is a statutory responsibility, do you think that those three things in combination may result in a much higher focus on dealing with the statutory responsibilities and not focusing on the access to the family support interventions.

MS BROWNHILL: I object to the question. It builds in a premise that hasn’t been explored with the witness. The exploration should be around how it is, or on what basis notifications that come in are referred to the family support service or the other alternative, the protective assessment case, rather than to the statutory response, as my learned friend has put it. Without exploring those things with the witness, his view about the combination of factors leading to a certain conclusion really doesn’t have a foundation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, I thought Mr Linggood had been given an opportunity to make some comment about the figures that were proposed to him, but perhaps if you think that he needs to have a further opportunity, then he can do that now.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes. The figures, which he himself acknowledged he is not familiar with, don’t really establish the reasons for allocation to a particular course.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That is true and that could be done. Mr Linggood, perhaps you could, perhaps, if you can, explain the criteria which the intake team would use for creating a family – a case of a family support in the first instance or for the protective mechanism?---For family support, we need a clear – for it to go straight to family support, we need a clear information that the family, the parents are in agreement and wanting the support.

Will you go out to them first, because they’re unlikely to come to you to tell you these things?---And that’s the issue. We know as central intake we don’t go out. We can ask the notifier to ask the family.

So there’s a real barrier, isn’t there, to it. One can see that?---Yes.

Could it come in a different way? Could you ask another part of the Department that actually goes out to the families and does the case working to look into these things or do you just simply not cross over at all?---There’s certainly not much cross-over. We could – and once or twice we have with a remote Aboriginal family support, Aboriginal workers out on communities. We have asked them to go and ask the family at times.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s the exception, though, I take it, from the way you’re answering?---Yes, it is. Usually it’s up to – usually we ask the notifier, “Look, if you’re wanting the family to have family support, can you ask them whether they’re in agreeance to receive it”.

One can imagine the professional notifiers might know what you’re talking about if you say that but you would also get a lot of notifications from people who are neighbours, for example, or familiar with the child and/or the family in question. They’re unlikely to understand what that really means?---For those ones, if we thought of family support for them, we would probably ask the local school or clinic and see if they could possibly ask the family.

Right. What would prompt the person who takes the intake call, whether it’s by telephone or by email, to actually ask a question about whether family support might be suitable in this particular instance?---First of all, they would be looking through SDM, does this meet the threshold for a child protection investigation? That’s probably a start point. And then if it doesn’t, then they might look at whether family support would be appropriate and is there any way we – I will be honest, we don’t use family support much.

No. Because of these barriers, your answers; is that correct?---Yes.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: And it’s the case, isn’t it, Mr Linggood, that the manual that the CIT operates according to, the policy and procedures intake manual and the screening criteria don’t, of themselves, require the inquiry as to whether the family has made a request for support?---No.

So I just want to ask you some questions now about the structured decision-making tool and that’s annexed to your statement at JL4. That document is the manual for screening notifications to determine whether harm is likely – whether there is harm or likely to be harm. And the tool requires some qualitative assessment by the caseworker?---Yes.

If we turn to that document and turn to page 6 for a moment. It will come up on the screen. You can see two-thirds of the way down the page there’s a heading Neglect?---Yes.

And you’re aware that neglect comprises the largest percentage of the basis for removals of children?---I’m aware if it’s involved in it, yes.

Now, this section under the heading Neglect, covers, as we can see, there’s a sub-heading Child Reportedly Harmed and then further down underneath that a further sub-heading Serious Injury Due To Neglect. And on page 7, A Serious Illness Due To Neglect; can you see that?---Yep.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And at the bottom, there’s a report of other harmful incident or condition and then the sub-heading Inadequate Supervision; you can see that?---Yes.

You’re familiar with that section?---Yes.

You use this document fairly regularly?---Every day.

Okay and so that provision is about assessing circumstances where a child’s needs for supervision are unmet?---Yes.

And there’s a number of dot points, including reference to a child being left at home for any length of time, a child is of a vulnerable age, is vulnerable due to age, the child’s parents or caregiver is present but the child’s basic needs go unnoticed or unmet and the child is becoming involved in offending behaviour or the child is left in the care of another person, including a sibling. You can see all of those; yes?---Yes.

And then below that is a box tiled Cultural Considerations?---Yes.

That lists some considerations and on the last line, suggest consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff should occur. I just want to ask you, if a caseworker is satisfied that on the material that they’ve received in the notification, that there is inadequate supervision, but then cannot establish whether the specified cultural considerations exist, does the caseworker proceed to complete the assessment on the assumption those cultural considerations don’t exist?---They will consider them in their assessment and if they ..... yes. They will .....

It has got to be processed within 24 hours?---Yes.

So there’s a call received on a Friday afternoon. The caseworker tries to call somebody at a remote community. There’s no answer. You’ve got no responses. A decision has to be made. If there’s no information about the cultural considerations, it’s assumed that they’re not taken into account and an investigation report is recommended. Is that the case?---We would consider these from the information we’ve got but make an assessment.

And so if there’s no information in the material you’ve got about the cultural considerations, then you assume it doesn’t exist?---Yes.

There’s nothing you can take into account, in any event. How often do you get to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff about cultural considerations?---We don’t have an Aboriginal worker on the team. We can try and access Aboriginal workers within the offices. That can all depend on their availability. So, unfortunately, we don’t get to consult very much.

No. And the remote family support service, those workers don’t deal with child protection matters, do they?---No, they don’t.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

If you can just turn to page 10 for me. The lower box on page 10 sets out cultural considerations in relation to inadequate basic care. Inadequate basic care goes to food and nutrition and other shelter, and the cultural considerations include determining whether a house full of visiting relatives provides a threat to the safety of the child and whether the conditions are long-term or ongoing and that has harm or is likely to harm a child. Is it the case that, for instance, when a notification is received of harm or potential harm in a remote Aboriginal community, due to overcrowding, and you can’t find or you haven’t got an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff member, and you can’t locate anybody locally to comment, you end up having to make a value judgment about whether that exists yourself, don’t you?---Yes.

How equipped are you to make that assessment?---A number of us have worked on Aboriginal communities.

But if it’s an Aboriginal community that you haven’t worked at, these are very discrete questions, aren’t they?---They are.

So is it the case that you’re not equipped to make those value judgments with respect to communities about which you have no knowledge?---Probably. That’s why we try and access, where we can, some of the ACWs in offices.

So the answer is yes. Does that occur often that you are put in the position of having to make decisions without enough information about the Aboriginal family or community involved?---We get the information from the school, the clinic in the communities and people who are on the ground in the communities, and then we make an assessment.

Are you aware of circumstances in which Aboriginal or children are removed from their parents at the hospital immediately following birth?---I’m aware of some – where babies are placed into care from the hospital.

And for that decision to be made, there has to be a notification process through the central intake team at some point?---Yes, there does.

So a caseworker, knowing the pregnant mother would have to make a notification and then have to be assessed through the central intake team and then go somewhere else?---The notification happens once the baby is born. And then we will assess it on information we’re given.

And is there any requirement to speak to the – well, I will put it this way. I’m sorry, I will withdraw that. The structured decision-making tool doesn’t require you to speak to other family members of the parent, does it?---In the intake process, no.

No further questions, Commissioners.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Just on that, Mr Linggood, it would have to be - - -?---Excuse me.

Again, almost reflecting the last question.

MR McAVOY: Excuse me. Sorry, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: About being a fairly drastic move to remove a newborn baby?---Yes, it would.

What sort of things?---Potentially all the siblings are in care for a variety of issues involving alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, whatever is involving that family for a baby to be removed at there, it’s probably because the siblings are in care, would be the big one.

But I would imagine that the Department would have known about the pregnancy before it got to the stage of hospital?---Yes. Usually, the case manager for the siblings should be aware of it.

Are there any other things you can think of why a baby, a newborn would be removed?---It depends on the situation. It could well be parental abuse, alcohol, domestic violence, even if the siblings are in care, we’ve still got to assess it, based on the information we have. It’s not always automatic that the baby comes into just because the siblings are in care.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And could there be medical reasons why that might happen? In other words a baby might be born with some disability that requires - - -?---Potentially.

Does that happen from time to time, to your knowledge?---Not a lot because they remain in hospital and get the care they need.

MR McAVOY: They’re my questions. There are some cross-examination, I understand. Ms Graham.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I understand that. Ms Graham, is first off the blocks.


MS GRAHAM: Mr Linggood, my name is Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Does the central intake team record data about the time that a call is first made until the time it takes for the call to be answered by someone on the central intake team?---We – when we write up the intake, we include the time and date of the conversation. If needed, potentially, it

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4285 J. LINGGOOD XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

could be obtained from the phone system, that period of how long it took for the call-backs to be – but I honestly – I don’t know how to do that but some may.

Just so we are not at cross-purposes, I’m talking about a call which is made and someone stays on the line until it’s answered rather than the call-back scenario. So if we can focus on - - -?---Yes, when we record the intake, we would record the time that we start the conversation.

And do you have, at that time, access to information about when the person first called the central intake team and how long they had been on hold for?---Yes, the worker, when they receive the phone call would be aware that that person has been on hold for some time.

And it’s not uncommon for someone to be on hold for many hours before a worker is able to answer their call. Do you agree with that?---Generally, nowadays, most of the calls are going to call-back. So if it’s over an hour or two, I don’t see that very often.

Are you aware of - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m just wondering if you are going to ask about the past, then, because a lot of these initiatives are quite recent. We do have a 10-year timeframe. You can ask that question, otherwise I will.

MS GRAHAM: Go ahead, Commissioner. We can set the timeframe.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’ve said, well, that won’t happen now because, of course, you have the call-back system, and I discerned from the way you were answering it that’s, relatively speaking, recent. But if we go back some years, would the callers be in a queue waiting, like when you call Telstra, for example?---I’ve been in centre intake for three years, and I know it has been the call-back system in that time.

You haven’t heard about prior to that time?---I was there for a few months in 2011. I’m honestly trying to get my memory banks, and I can’t - - -

You can’t remember?---I can’t remember what the phone system was.

Thank you.

MS GRAHAM: If I were to suggest to you, Mr Linggood, that as recently as about February of this year, someone was on hold for close to five hours before being able to speak to someone from the central intake team, would that surprise you?---It would surprise me, but I would say it is possible.

If we could turn to JL7, please, and page 16 of that document. We have here a table which is a snapshot of calls to the central intake team from April of this year. That


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

appears to reveal that in a week, 423 calls were answered by staff from the central intake team, and 118 calls were abandoned by the notifier. Do you see as a real barrier to notifiers remaining on the line the delay that it takes for a phone call to be answered?---All notifiers have the option of a call-back. They can take that option and we will call them back. And that’s what we encourage them to do. If their phone call isn’t answered, we encourage them to take – leave a call-back, and then we will ring them when the next available worker is available.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s the message you give, is it. Well, not you, but that’s the message that is given to a caller when they dial that 1800 number?---Yes, they can leave a call-back, yes.

MS GRAHAM: Are you able to say what proportion of calls involves someone who requires the assistance of an interpreter to make the notification?---No, I couldn’t.

Does the central intake team use the assistance of telephone interpreters to assist notifiers in their communications with staff members?---There are times, and if we do need an interpreter, that we can try and arrange it through the telephone service. It doesn’t happen very often.

Are any of the messages available to people who are on hold waiting to speak to a team member in languages other than English?---Not to my knowledge.

Do you see that language is a barrier to people being able to access the central intake team notification service?---It certainly could be.

Can you suggest any solutions to that problem?---We can use interpreters, but that may well be a barrier for them to ring up in the initial process.

Are your team trained on how to communicate with someone with the assistance of an interpreter?---There’s not regular training within the work unit on that, no.

Could I ask you now some questions, and, taking you back to that time in 2009 when you were working in a different role for about 12 to 18 months, assisting with the preparation of court documents and so on, at that time was it the common practice for documents to be served on respondent parents by post?---The ideal was to serve them in person, but if we couldn’t locate them, then, yes, the advice was to serve them by post.

But it was certainly at that time a preference on personal service to ensure receipt of the documents?---Yes.

And you would certainly suggest that that is a priority that should continue today?---In my personal view, yes.

At that time, you were also involved in assisting parents to access legal advice so that they could have representation and participate in care and protection proceedings


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

relating to their children more fully; is that right?---Yes. We would – if they turned up to the Darwin Court, we would either show them to the Aboriginal lawyer or the NT Legal Aid lawyer and so forth. And I would often say to workers encourage them to go get legal advice, even before they get to court.

So were you aware that there were proactive steps being taken early in a process to assist respondent parents to access legal advice?---As courts officer, I personally didn’t have much contact with the parents. I would be talking to the workers and the team leaders, and, yes, early on in the process we would be saying to them, “Tell the parents to go get legal advice.”

And did you see that at that time there was a significant proportion of parents that were participating in the proceedings with legal advice, with legal representation, rather?---Yes, most of the parents had legal representation.

It’s certainly important for the participation of parents that as early as possible they’re referred to a legal assistance service provider so that they can get that advice and representation. Do you agree with that?---Yes.

And it’s preferable that there’s a warm referral process that occurs where there’s assistance provided to Aboriginal parents, in particular, to make an appointment with NAAJA or CAALAS or NT Legal Aid and the Department staff making that contact to join up the Aboriginal person with the – or other person with the legal service. Do you agree with that?---Yes.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you Ms Graham. Mr Woodroffe.


MR WOODROFFE: Thank you, Commissioners. Mr Linggood, I appear for North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. If I could just follow on some questions in relation to the calls that you get from residential care providers surrounding children being absent from those facilities and breaches of bails and curfews. In your statement you make reference to that, that on some nights you would have 30 to 50 calls of that nature?---Yes, we do.

And as a result of that, that’s from the residential care provider’s perspective, that’s a policy requirement of their business?---That’s what we’re often told, yes.

And what flows from that, depending on the child’s age and circumstances, that case workers have to make mandatory notifications to the police about a missing person or a missing child?---Yes. Depending on their age, you know, the younger ones, if

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4288 J. LINGGOOD XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they’re 10, 11, 12, there will be an immediate report to police that the child is missing and not in placement. If they’re older, it can be left to 24 hours.

And it’s not unknown in your experience that you then will have situations of a child returning within a few minutes or so?---Yes.

Of that notification?---Yes.

And that’s an, obviously, issue around time and taking away availability for other matters. I think that was an issue you raised about, with other managers, if I could take you annexure JL7, and page number 5 or 0185. Do you recognise that as the central intake functional analysis? But on that, in relation to residential and foster care services, that there’s actually a process being undertaken presently about providing a risk matrix to those care providers about when to call or when not to call?---I’ve heard that’s in process, yes.

But you see that as a positive step?---Yes, I do.

And also some of the issues that you’ve indicated earlier today about professional reporters, about the creation of online reporting for professional reporters, and also appropriate quality reports and training and guidance, you see that also as a positive step?---Yes.

Thank you, Commissioners, nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Woodroffe.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY [3.23 pm]

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, one matter arising.

Mr Linggood, could you have a look at paragraph 46 of your statement, please. You will see in paragraph 46 about five lines down, with respect to the report of J Tolhurst from 2009 you say:

I’ve considered that report, and in my experience in central intake team I believe that the recommendations arising from that report have been trialled and implemented.

Yes?---Yes.

If I can just take you to JL1, please, and page 53 of that report. That’s Mr Tolhurst’s report, and at the bottom of page is recommendation 27. It’s recommended that intake explore liaison opportunities with remote staff to discuss assessments of remote area cases and significant local community issues as preferred – alternative

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4289 J. LINGGOOD RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

setting up a special remote advisory role at intake. Has that been trialled and considered by the central intake team, to your knowledge?---There have been discussions. The workers out there can be available for us to just to discuss and get some information. And there are some communities in which we do – which we are more successful than others in getting information from the staff.

In the modern day with all the communication capacity we have, it would seem that it’s not impossible to have remote officers of the central intake team with people with specialist language capacity?---Yes.

And that would meet the concerns raised by Ms Graham in her questions of you?---Yep.

Thank you. Thank you Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

MS BROWNHILL: Before this witness ceases, it may assist the Commissioners in understanding Mr Linggood’s evidence, particularly about the way that the central intake team works. In Mr Twyford’s statement of 10 May, at annexure LT62 page 9, is a flow chart, which shows how the notification system works down through to whether an investigation proceeds and then whether it’s substantiated or not. I am assuming that might assist the Commissioners in understanding the process. I’ve actually got some hard copies that I could hand up if that would also assist.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. It might be useful, Mr McAvoy, to tender one as an exhibit here. I did try, when I was reading Mr Linggood’s statement, to do a little graph and I sort of gave up after a bit.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Well, that was the reason for my request as well, Commissioner. I found it a little bit baffling.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We are being saved by the Solicitor-General. So if you would have a look at it and if you feel comfortable, show it to Mr Linggood, just for him to feel comfortable with it and then perhaps tender it.

MR McAVOY: Well, Commissioners, there is one on the screen. It’s a page from the annexure to Luke Twyford’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s the one that Ms Brownhill has handed to us.

MR McAVOY: The one that Ms Brownhill has handed to Mr Linggood has the figures in the right-hand column removed, just for, I suppose, ease of reference.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4290 J. LINGGOOD RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Because it’s just being used as a flow chart rather than giving information of that kind.

MR McAVOY: Certainly and I have no objection to it being tendered.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I will get Mr Linggood to have a look at see if he is comfortable. Does that look about right to you?---Yes, it looks about right to me.

Can you get the copies, Ms Associate and we will have a look at it. That’s exhibit 483.

EXHIBIT #483

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, very much, Mr Linggood. for your assistance to the Commission. We are grateful to the trouble you took in preparing your statement. It’s very detailed and it does help us to understand how the process works?---Thank you.

Thank you, you are released now from your summons?---Thank you.


MR McAVOY: Commissioners, Mr Goodwin is taking the next witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR GOODWIN: Good afternoon, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good afternoon, Mr Goodwin.

MR GOODWIN: I call Will McGregor.

<WILLIAM JAMES McGREGOR, AFFIRMED [3.30 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GOODWIN

MR GOODWIN: Could you please state your full name?---William James McGregor.

And you’re the CEO of BushMob Aboriginal Corporation?---Yes, I am.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4291 W.J. McGREGOR XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR GOODWIN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you’ve provided a statement to the Royal Commission signed 9 May 2017?---Yes, I did.

And you can see that on the screen in front of you?---Yep.

And you’ve also got a hard copy with you this afternoon; is that right?---Yep.

And are the contents of that statement true and correct?---Yes.

I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 484.

EXHIBIT #484 WILLIAM JAMES MCGREGOR DATED 09/05/2017

MR GOODWIN: Now, so there are no surprises, Mr McGregor, I just want to quickly run through with you what I propose to discuss with you. Your statement has already comprehensive in regard to the background of BushMob and its activities. But I want to discuss four topics. One, the philosophy behind the operation of BushMob; two, to examine in more detail two of the programs that BushMob run, the 16-week residential program at the facility here in Alice Springs, as well as the Apmere Mwerre program at Loves Creek. I’m probably going to offend a traditional owner by mispronouncing that name. How do you pronounce the program at Love Creek?---Apmere Mwerre.

Apmere Mwerre. I will call it the AM program to ensure that I do not consistently get it wrong. And that program is a bush camp program for sentenced young people between the ages of 14 and 17. And I just want to discuss some of the strengths and challenges associated with those programs. And then, third, I will ask some questions about the outcomes you have witnessed from young people who participate in the program. And then, finally, to ask you about your recommendations for change. It’s true that a number of your staff and supporters of BushMob have also attended today in support?---Yes.

I just wanted to acknowledge that, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We noted them. We certainly did note them, yes, and they’re very welcome here to the Commission. Thank you for coming.

MR GOODWIN: First, on the philosophy of BushMob, it’s right to say that BushMob is a therapeutic community-based service for high-risk young people, many of whom are involved in the youth justice system or misuse alcohol or drugs; is that correct?---That’s right.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And BushMob is sometimes described as a diversion program or a youth alcohol or other drug service. How would you best describe the type of service BushMob is, and the underlying philosophy of its work with young people?---Community driven and young people driven. The reason we’re there is because the young people are in crisis, you know. The way that our world is, is that funding agreements and policy tends to be square. So you’ve got a square box. And what you’re meant to be doing is inside the box. So we look at it as though maybe there’s an Akubra hat in there which is a good thing and we’ve found out about what size it is, what colour it is, whether it has got a good headband or whatever from local people and asked them if they like it as well. So the funding part is the box. What we tried to do is listen to people and then take the lid off the box, take the hat out and put it on. In the meantime, fitting it into that square structure stuff. So funding agreements, policy initiatives, are all square, nicely sewn up. But the contents are often not what they’re meant to be, sort of thing. Maybe my analogy is going a bit haywire here.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s colourful, I must say?---Yes. So that the boxes can be stacked up and probably never opened unless there’s a problem. You know, crisis, suicide, all those things. And, unfortunately, that’s the system that we have to work in and there’s not too much looking inside the boxes. So from day one, it was going around to elders in Alice Springs and communities in that time, the Four Corners council from Tangentyere Council, family groups living in what is called the town camps, 18 or whatever of them. People that were visiting town and, importantly, sitting where ever with young people and going “Well, what do you reckon? What do you want to do?”

MR GOODWIN: And this was in reaction to a problem associated with young people at high risk?---Yes.

Particularly of misuse of alcohol and drugs?---Petrol sniffing was really bad then. The roll out of opal was just being discussed with BP and all the rest of it. We were only able to get enough funding to get a second-hand troop carrier and, with permission from everyone, take young people out of town to get away from sniffing. CAYLUS sort of kicked off around then as well and Mount Theo had begun at Yuendumu. So it was a direct response because there was nowhere particular for young people under 16, if they went, “I want to dry out, I want to clean up”, there is nowhere to go apart from in a swag out with us. And then for the older 16 and above, we would try to get them into a Drug and Alcohol Services, ..... here, but because of the age range it could only be 16 and above. So we tried to just take bush trips, bush trips, bush trips so you can get clean and safe and a bit of sobriety in a swag and eat good food and be surrounded by people that didn’t want to harm you and were willing to listen to your issues. To do that, we couldn’t have gone anywhere unless we had had permission from the appropriate people.

And can I pick up on your description of the problem and the young people who you are attempting to engage, can you describe to the Commissioners the major issues that young people present with when they commence a BushMob program, what


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

some of those major and common issues are for young people at risk?---Yes. It’s all – can I look at my notes?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sure?---It’s all tied in with an ongoing systems failure. Right. So the responses to young people in crisis are inadequate. Primarily because there’s so many splits in whose responsible for what. And departmental silo stuff happening, whether it’s Department of Corrections or Department of Children and Families, whoever it is, nobody goes, “There is a whole person coming here. There’s this whole young person. We need to deal with their whole issues as far as we can, medically, mentally, socially, damage-wise, trauma-wise. We need to look at the whole package”. There’s no central agency that’s capable of coordinating that response either in government or through into NGOs that are funded to do this type of work. So - - -

MR GOODWIN: And is that why – to pick up on that point, is that why BushMob – and this is in a number – mentioned in your statement and in a number of annexures, is that why BushMob takes a particularly youth centric approach to dealing with young people so the young person is at the centre of your interventions?---Yes, absolutely.

Can you break down what that means in practical terms?---Okay, I’m powerless. I’m a young person, I’m powerless. I might have problems at home. I’m probably having problems with the legal system. I’m probably having problems with my girlfriend – whatever. I feel powerless, I am using something to ameliorate the feeling of powerlessness and despair. On top of that, there’s whatever is happening in our world. What we try to do as a fundamental and what we were told to do by the first groups of young people and by their family, was to go even if you’re court-ordered bail volatile substance abuse prevention act sent, we had like to know if you want to come. That’s your choice. Because if you don’t, there’s no point, really. And that is giving back a modicum of power to that young person to be able to start some sort of a process around healing, which is like, “Somebody actually asked me whether it matters whether I participate or not”. It’s incremental, small steps and it’s part of the process of trauma recovery. Do you know what I mean?

And that forms an important part of what you’ve termed the BushMob model. If I can take you to annexure B to your statement on page 5, you’ve set out a number of design adaptations which appear to be the principles upon which BushMob operates, both as an organisation and in terms of its programs. If I can briefly go through each. You’ve already mentioned the importance of choice?---Yes.

And you mention there that all admissions in the document, all admissions are predicated on informed consent regardless of the referral pathway. Why is the element of choice for a young person – and you’ve started answering this question – why is that element an important philosophical foundation for BushMob’s work with young people?---One, because that’s what young people told us, when we had had discussions around – do you remember what a choice is? A lot of people don’t. So you have the discussion and you go, “This is meant to be a program for you guys.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It’s our job to do the money and staffing and all the rest of it, but you still need to have the capacity to be able to have a choice about whether you want to participate at any level, you know”. So to me, it’s about a different mindset. It’s about a beginning of a perception of “I can heal, I don’t have to keep going off the rails”. That’s sort of one of the main reasons it’s in there. It’s the same when we do horse work and walks in the bush and whatever. Nobody has to do anything. None of us go, “You need to get on that horse”. It’s a choice. You can either do it or not. But by being in that environment surrounded by those things, by default it’s sort of beginning a healing process anyway. You know? It’s also the beginning of a thing – we do lots of what we call circles and we discuss every issue under the sun. Mobile phones, domestic violence, bullying, who is leaving, who is winning, who has got a job; all those sort of things. Right. In that circle, you have a choice whether you want to talk or not. Initially for a lot of more cultural young people, they’re a bit shy about that and part of the growth is going, “This is about making you strong so that when you talk to lawyers or judges or whatever it is, you feel confident because you’ve done it within a safe space. It’s your choice. But if you’re going to make that choice, do it strongly”. Similarly, we don’t have bars – we’ve got fences around our residential in Alice. There’s locked gates to keep people from coming in, not from going out. So I arrived there, I go, “Stuff you, I’m out of here”, our staff will spend a long time trying to talk you not out of it, around the reasons why it might not be a good choice. But at the end of the day, you go, “I’m out of here”, we will unlock the gate. We prefer you to walk through than jump over. That doesn’t happen very often.

That’s part of the multiple entry and exit points, which is the next principle, isn’t it?---The multiple entry and exit is in direct response to programs for young people in crisis, trauma need to be long-term intergenerational. Because of our funding and political cycles, we can’t guarantee that. All we can try to do is keep getting the money to be able to provide a bed and a safe space. Right. So you are welcome to come into our service, we do 12 to 25 years old. At 12, 12 and a half, 14, 16, whatever, and hopefully each time you come in for the very limited time of 16 weeks, you can take away a bit of bankable good time that will help you in life elsewhere and maybe a capacity to make better choices around offending or whatever it is. So the multiple entry and exit is a lot of services that we had seen, whether it’s a medical detox, AID place attached to, you know, some hospital in Sydney, you’ve got a time limited space there. The waiting lists are huge. You finish and you probably never go there again. Whereas we can actually actively engage and offer that, because over the long period of time, we have been able to – like, we know everyone. Family knows everyone. You know like, Don Dale, Owen Springs, wherever. “How are you going?”, “It has been a couple of years, it has been a week”. If someone had absconded, we will say to the judges we are happy to have that person back within 24 hours. Young people are meant to make mistakes and stuff up. The thing with the punishing mentality that’s around is that there’s no recognition of being able to make a mistake and come back.

And on the third point, why is a – in terms of positive models, why is a non-verbal practice a positive role modelling important for the type of young people who access


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

BushMob’s services?---Staff – a lot of staff have got lived experience. That’s not a job requirement but I’m talking about drug and alcohol, prison, car crashes, all the rest of it. Pretty much anyone that has been an addict can tell you when there’s another addict around. It’s just like a sixth sense thing. What we encourage among staff and older young people at your facilities, whether it’s town or bush, is the capacity to be quiet and that is something that we’ve learnt directly from old people around the place, because it’s a quiet strength is what I’m trying to say. And it doesn’t matter what you have or haven’t done, you don’t need to tell us about it, we probably already know through the paperwork. But it’s about giving you – building a space where you can begin to deal with some of those issues in your own time. I think that’s the basis that goes with the choice stuff.

And a vast majority of the young people that you work with are Aboriginal people; that’s right?---Yes and that’s a shame job on Australia.

That so many Aboriginal people require the type of service that you offer?---No. Over the years, we used to have about five per cent white kids and other. Now, it’s probably point five or one per cent. We have always been open to any young person. We have constant requests from interstate and NT for placements. I mean, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, I’ve forgotten the other States, Western Australia, etcetera. Constant. And I think it’s because of the lack of programs around the country for young people in crisis with drug and alcohol and associated issues.

And so turning directly to the services that BushMob offer, you’ve described in your statement those programs, in particular, the two that I identified earlier. In terms of the six week residential program that you run in Alice Springs - - -?---16.

16. Sorry. The 16-week residential program at Alice Springs at the house, where do a majority of the referrals come from for that program?---Department of Corrections. It used to be early days self-referral and through family. Most of them now come from the Department of Corrections. And another percentage come from clinicians under the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act and limited placements direct from Department of Children and Families, although most of the young people have significant interactions with Department of Children and Families and Department of Corrections.

And in terms of the type of activities that you run for those young people, is there a component that involves bush adventure therapy?---Yes, there is.

What’s the benefit of that? What is it and what’s the benefit of that for young people?---We use bush events therapy because when we were setting up that particular program, we sort of stole all the policy and procedures around bush adventure therapy from South Australia and other States because in the NT, even though people have been doing it for 40,000 and 60,000 years, there was no sort of formally adventure therapy base. So the program became called Bush Events Therapy because of that. Right. What it actually is, is what we did for the first six


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

years of our existence, seven years or whatever it was, is taking young people out bush. Quite often it would be on their country, quite often it would be someone else’s country with the appropriate permissions to be there, whether or not it was a national park, etcetera. What we all know is anyone can go for a picnic with their family to the ocean, to the park, telegraph station and feel better. Kick a footy around, etcetera. That’s the basis of it. It’s also allowing young people that have been treated abominably to be children again. Throw rocks, you know, pick up sticks, build things. That sort of thing. We add to that with more hands-on stuff like the horse work, like rock climbing, like the pinnacle of terror climbing machine thing we had, like walking up to the top of Mount Gillian and going, “This is where you live”. So there’s the residential component, 20 beds. There’s Bush Adventure Therapy outreach. There’s a small media program. In between that, we have other agencies running little projects around the place which young people can get involved in. And in the last year or so Apmere Mwerre AM camp.

Before I get to that program, one last question about the residential program. You have, you’ve taken about 110 young people on average a year for the past few years in that program and about an even number of boys and girls. Why is that issue of gender equality in terms of the numbers that you take important?---Because we’re all growing up here, whether it’s Alice Springs, Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, etcetera. Everyone has brothers, sisters, young aunties, young uncles and so on. Provided to the best of your ability and your infrastructure, the cultural norms are taken into account. We think it’s an extremely healthy thing to do. That’s why we’ve always pushed for it. The other reason is it appears that young women are becoming more and more in trouble. For their camp part we would have liked that to be for young women as well. It gives a balance. I have male/female staff, why shouldn’t there be male/female young people.

And turning to the Apmere Mwerre program, is that run on the basis of the same program logic as your residential program in Alice Springs?---Yes.

And - - -?---There is a program logic that went with the funding for it, but it’s not workable. So we used our own.

So rather than use the guidelines that you are expected to use, you brought in your own program logic to run – to operate - - -?---Yes, with consent, not written but verbal, yes.

Because this is a program run for the government at a facility at Loves Creek that was created for early intervention for youths boot camp?---Yes. This all began under the CLP government, although they’ve been talking about what they call boot camps for many years prior to that. They set up the early intervention youth boot camps initially with Tangentyere Council and a lot of the work was done with a man called Dennis Ore at walk about bore and it was a good program. He didn’t have the support.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

He didn’t have the adequate support outside of the review that was written out of that was devastating to Dennis and Tangentyere and it was a million dollar, 1.5 million a year, or something, they ripped that out. And in the meantime, Elferink had been down to South Australia and Queensland and they looked at a program down there called Operation Flinders, which is a completely different ball game. The camp at Loves Creek was built for operation Flinders staff to run early intervention youth boot camps. We had been asked earlier to put in a submission for a tented camp, sentence camp where young person would be sentenced to go three months in tents.

And you’ve been running that program since July last year?---Yes, but before we get there, sorry.

No, go?---In the meantime, they changed ship and they went could you use the facility that’s being used for the early intervention one and we went, “Yes, okay, no drama”. But the facility was built for short-term use. That’s – there’s no water there, diesel has to be – everything has to be brought in and out.

And you list some of those, the infrastructure challenges that you faced in running that facility in your statement at paragraph 55. Could you just go through what the impact of some of those infrastructure problems have been on BushMob’s ability to run the program?---Yes. There’s no water there. There’s water nearby, we know where the water is. And it would have been a great job for young people and us to run water from black poly from us, in terms the learning. So water has to be trucked in from Alice Springs which is an issue, (a), because Rostrevor homestead don’t like the water truck going through their property; and, secondly, during this, not so much today but it’s weekly, has to come weekly. There’s storage capacity of three 22,000 literature tanks. So they run toilet, showers, the whole caboodle. Because the camp is only designed for short-term use, staff living in conditions, which, in my view, no fly in fly out worker would agree to, or union, but because they’re all committed to working with young people and from traditional owner families for that land, where the camp is, they’ve just given everything, to be able to try to set up a place for those young people to go. Power generation is often a generator. That’s not a big deal. A lot of us have that experience. But the generation of power is not designed for the actual structural integrity of the place. It was meant to be backed up by battery bank solar panels. They were pulled out of the initial budget, which is not our budget. So we’ve had quite a lot of issues with power generation. We have to take in 44 gallon drums of diesel pretty much weekly to be able to maintain that because there’s no mechanism for setting up appropriate fuel orders and storage at this point. There’s a different key for every single door at the place. It’s demountables and stuff. So today, 1 June, we started last June, the 1st, there’s no secure master key system.

What does that mean in practical terms for the challenge - - -?---What it means is we had four times young people stole vehicles from there. Three of them were because it’s so easy to break into any of the rooms with a bit of – you know, with a bit of plastic card or kick it open, grab the safe, trash the safe and bolt. It’s – we didn’t have money to pay staff to do awake shifts at night. That has been fixed now.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And another issue you identified was the lack of a vehicle compound so that further exacerbates the problem?---Yes, no vehicle compound. So one of the times, it was through our own fault, staff had got back from an overnight long ride and they forgot to take the keys out. Government – you know, we report all this stuff. So what we’ve done is we’ve welded chain to the buildings, to the demountables, and each night staff padlock the vehicles with the chain to the building. Like tethering a horse. So we’ve done everything in our power to mitigate risk. We’ve upped our – because now we have funding for night shift, our structural policy stuff around that, training.

So have you raised these concerns with Territory Families through the life of running the program?---We began raising these issues to Ken Middlebrook well before any of this mob.

So even before you started operating the program there, when it was - - -?---No.

When it was the discussion phase that you might?---No. So there’s no cool room. So there’s inadequate food storage. We can’t run any more fridges and little freezers off the power supply right now, which means staff member has to drive in and out 200 ks every three days and yet the family staff that are living there go, “Yes, no drama, as long as we can provide a space to get low-risk young offenders out of remand situation or provide a bail option”.

How often have you raised these concerns with previously the Department of Corrections and now Territory Families?---We found 35 emails since day one, which sort of are very clear.

And what type of response have you received typically to those emails?---What happened recently was we got a letter from Territory Families saying that we were in breach of contract and to show cause, because we accepted young people with vehicle offences. Whereas the selection criteria make no mention of that. Because the vehicles weren’t secure, we had failed in our occupational health and safety and work health safety standards, and somehow our insurance wasn’t okay. And please respond in three days. Then we had a follow-up letter saying, “Please respond in two weeks”. And we have responded and we’re waiting to find out what we’re meant to show cause for.

And how do you feel that that impacts on your ability to run the program successfully?---I think it’s a smokescreen. I think that the camp was a goer before Four Corners, etcetera. We were out there. I think it’s a cynical move to set a local initiative up to fail – a community-led initiative up to fail, tick the box, and as soon as this all blows over, it will be shut down. We’re ropeable. Staff are ropeable. And people that own that country there are ropeable, because throughout the Commonwealth and NT, you know, narrow the gap and all that stuff, it’s meant to be community-led initiatives are meant to be driving the agenda, not in the box government stuff. I can’t change policy in the Northern Territory Government but I do know what’s okay for young people because family tell us. We’ve been doing this for 18 years. There’s apparently going to be a tender process coming up by


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

December where all agencies will have to tender for funding not only around the camp, if that’s an option going forward, I have no idea, but around the residential stuff in town as well. That’s a good thing. We all need to be, you know, on our ball and hopefully they will be five-year funding contracts so that you can do the work. And provide certainty to the staff. The Apmere Mwerre staff, we get six months funding, we are in our second lot of six months funding. We may or may not get funding after June. People don’t know if they’re going to be paid or not. I don’t know.

So that makes it difficult to retain staff, I assume?---Yes. But in between that, the young people that have been through there, you see them grow and – BushMob - - -

And can we move to that issue about some of the outcomes that you see in terms of the young people that participate in BushMob programs? What are some of the key outcomes that you see for those young people?---If I can, can I go back a bit?

Sure?---We were told that Owen Springs is being shut down for refurbishment - - -

This is the facility at the house?--- - - - By Territory Families, right. And the person said “Where are we going to put these young people?” There’s 12, I think, at the moment, in there.

This is Alice Springs youth detention centre, is it?---Where are we going to put people while that happens? The camp – we haven’t received a referral for the camp since February this year.

So you’ve received no referral since February from Territory Families?---No.

Even though you’re funded to run that until at least 1 July?---Yes. And staff are going crazy. Like, this is a waste of bloody resources – excuse me, sorry – resources, time, effort, and cultural local knowledge. What a farce. You know, the reason that – a couple of weeks back, we got requested to provide figures for the camp, partially filled by us in town, not through referral. Government is meant to refer to us, not the other way. We’ve said we will go and talk to CAALAS and anyone about how to do it and they’ve gone, “No, it’s a highly Government communication strategy, you’re not part of it. Sit back and expect referrals.” Okay. Four times that’s happened. So Owen Springs is close to getting refurbished. We were told, “Where are we going to put these young people while that happens?” And we go, “You’ve got a camp out there.” So today staff went to a meeting around bail options. Apparently they’re going to refurbish other buildings in Alice Springs to place young people on remand in during the refurbishment process. The other thing that was said, at another meeting yesterday to introduce the new youth reintegrate – you know the blue shirt guys, youth officers, youth - - -

Youth diversion officers?---Yes, them. They – and it’s what I’ve been saying for years, is like, “We’re going to build bigger and better prisons. We’re going to gild the cage. We’re going to have more.” I don’t see much hope for programs like ours.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Local people that work at a place like Loves Creek, they’re going what the hell is going on, nobody wants to listen to this. Excuse my frustration, your Honours, I’m – young people miss out, and their families. All the good things that have happened, the family group conferencing, shut one year. Nobody has ever seen the review. That was families actively engaged in dealing with that young person that was – that had come to the attention of children and families. This is about young people. Not about BushMob, it’s not about money, this is about young people. Nothing has changed in 18 years. I don’t know how many reviews there has been. Alice transformation plan, Alice in 10, youth justice reviews, it just goes on and on. It’s cyclic. There’s no leadership around these issues. Consumerist short-term politics. There’s a lack of bipartisanship. These problems aren’t going to go away. The more kids that lock up, contain, we face containment at BushMob. We get young people from Yakala, we get young people from Katherine, Darwin, Palmerston, Nukka, Papunya, wherever. Containment – geographical containment, out of sight out of mind. People talk about ongoing Stolen Generation stuff. It happens. You know, there is limited services. The money is being put into building cells. Behind the camp, we did eight years of horse culture healing ..... Santa Teresa community, at their request, it was marrying two types of thing: cultural and programmatic. Drug and alcohol, family violence, on country, in their land, horses, culture ladies, and it was brilliant. Mentoring, you know, the whole lot. We couldn’t attract funding. Part of the possible outcomes from that work was that Santa Teresa, or Yuendumu, or Papunya, or whatever community could tender to run a sentence camp, because they knew what – you know, they had done stuff, they knew what they were – wanted.

And can I pick up on two points from that. The first one being do you believe – from your comments I take it you believe that instead of detention, a real alternative is these types of residential or bush adventure therapy programs for young people to deal with group courses of offending. Would that be a correct summary?---I think it’s one of many programs. It’s like there’s a lot of really good programs, not a lot around ..... in WA ..... down in Adelaide, Mount Theo, the CAALAS mob, you know, there’s good stuff. There’s people that have been shut down over the years I’m sure will bounce back. There’s no conversations about those experiences to drive an agenda going forward. Do you know what I mean?

Yes?---So, yes, I think it’s a good community-led initiative out there. The only issue is that, because it doesn’t fit with current policy agendas, is it’s not supported. We can work 24 hours a day, but unless you are supported, you’ve got Buckley’s, you know.

And the second point, if I can pick up from your previous answer was – and you mentioned this a number of times in both your statement and the annexures regarding the BushMob model, but you’ve identified the importance of Indigenous community involvement and ownership over the programs. How do you see that as an important part of BushMob’s operations, and why is it so important to BushMob’s programs?---Because the children we’re working with are all our children, but they’re Indigenous children and young adults. Families are having a hard time. It’s


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

all very well to sit back and go, “You’re not doing anything, you’re useless, you’re whatever,” when there’s no support structure for them. So one way that they contribute is tell us, “This is what we think you should be doing.” I don’t know about the effects of petrol sniffing. You know, I’m not a clinician or a theoretical genius. You do. You do that part. We can give you access to that place, which is the healing place. We can give you access to a lot of healing from our people. You do the white side. We will do that side, you know.

And over a third of your staff are Aboriginal and, in terms of the program at Loves Creek, a majority of the staff are traditional owners from that area?---Family, yes.

And what type of impact does that have on the young people themselves who participate in the programs?---Huge. And it doesn’t matter whether they come from Top End or here. Like, it’s – you can’t measure that stuff, you know.

And is there a – is there a difference between how, say, a young urban Aboriginal kid will react to that connection as opposed to someone who might live in a remote community?---No. Because it’s welcoming, strong, safe, the right permission to be there. And, “Who are you, where are you from?” People know each other, it doesn’t matter where you live. There’s always someone that knows someone, that knows someone, sort of thing. It drives me nuts that these men and women are giving up quite a lot to be out there. We don’t pay all that well. We don’t have enough bucks, you know, particularly for the conditions that you live in. It just makes me proud, as being part of an organisation that fosters that stuff, you know? So, yes, it’s hugely important. The more Indigenous people are employed the better, you know. But the barriers to that are, for the camp, schedule C, recruitment, program manager, case worker, minimum certificate III whatever, instead of an acknowledgement of kinship ties, country, growing up in this situation, and then come on board and learn the other stuff while you’re working.

So you believe there’s value in being able to upskill Aboriginal workers as well as valuing the skills that they might bring in terms of kinship?---I mean take away the barriers, you know? As long as you’ve got an Ochre card and your licence, and we know you and we’ve interviewed you and gone through a normal HR process, what’s the problem? You can start learning day 1 on site. So already you have an immediate affinity for the young people you’re working with, right? Maybe language. You can learn the other stuff, the case management, how to do a case file after, because we are supported from town by the rest of us. But it shouldn’t preclude, in a funding contract, this person cannot be employed in that place, which is meant to be community-led, because they don’t have a commensurate qualification. I think both things should happen simultaneously.

Those were my questions, Commissioners. I believe there’s some cross-examination by both NAAJA and CAALAS.


.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4302 W.J. McGREGOR XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioners.

Mr McGregor, as you know, my name is Felicity Graham and I act for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service?---Yes.

Mr McGregor, could I ask you some questions about the way that young people are talked about in the public sphere, particularly in the media, and the way that impacts on their chances of rehabilitating or getting back on the right path. You would be aware, particularly in a small place like Alice Springs, the impact that the local newspaper can have on perceptions of young people in the community. Would that be fair to say?---Absolutely.

And what’s your view about the damaging impact that can be caused by the way that young people are portrayed in the local media?---It’s awful. Like, the work that we’re doing with that young person and the young person doing on their own behalf with us, is set back days, weeks sometimes, because nobody likes to be slagged in the paper. You know, this is not new. This is ongoing, it’s regular, and it’s tied in with the sort of cycle of who, you know, law and order, election. “Law and order, who are we going to blame.” Primarily Aboriginal people and young people. It’s a sort of a mindset that’s sort of inculcated into the NTY thinking, I think. It’s rare there are good news stories, particularly around young people that have been in crisis that are coming out of crisis, and trying to change their life and move on.

Would you like to see a greater level of responsibility taken by editors and those responsible for the content of media around the way that their messaging impacts on young people and social cohesion?---Yes, I would. But I’m not sure how that could happen. Yes.

Mr McGregor, you’ve talked about how the in town program is a 16 week program. Do you have a through-care aspect to that program where children or young people are followed out into the community through and outreach program after they leave?---Yes. Yes, that’s part of the one I was talking about earlier about outreach and pretty much any worker there sees people around. We – if you leave, if you want to come back for a feed or wash your clothes or drop in or go, “What’s this warrant thing?” You’re welcome. So yes. And the other side of that is to try to set up other agencies that we work closely with to keep an eye as well. So it’s sort of ongoing case management. Through-care has been discussed in the NT – I don’t know how many times. As far as I’m aware, there’s no formally – through-care set-up. There never has been. Part of the camp BushMob town is to have a through-care process so that you can spend time at camp, time in town to get both sides of the picture, and that should be the responsibility of our case managers, the young person, their lawyers and so on, to be able to do that.

And so you see as critical that there’s planning, even from the first day that a child arrives or a young person arrives on the program, about what’s going to happen when they ultimately finish and leave the program, that there’s that tracking through and following up with them?---Yes. Now, that’s something that doesn’t happen. We

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4303 W.J. McGREGOR XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

instigate exit planning from day 1, pretty much. Generally speaking, most of the action from departments happens in the last week, day or hours, which means that the young person succeeded in that period of time. They’ve regained some sort of confidence and resilience. All of a sudden, “Where am I going? I don’t know.” That’s happened – I don’t know how many times. So going back to this sort of systemic failure where nobody talks to each other. There’s no central point of reference for at-risk young people in Government.

You’re aware that in Alice Springs there’s currently no specialist and separate Youth Court operating?---Yes.

Do you see the implementation of that kind of specialist Youth Court where you’ve got specialist practitioners and wrap-around services and a facility, in terms of its physical space, that accommodates all of that, as being a critical – a critical need in central Australia?---Yes, I do. And we discussed that, and made representation through Central Australian Youth Justice Group around those issues, and everyone thought that part of the new Supreme Court would be that, but it never came to fruition. And, in particular for young people, court is traumatising. Sure, you have to go answer for your sins. But at the same token, when there’s a million other things going on, it’s really difficult to acknowledge that, “Yes, I’ve done something wrong, maybe,” and to be supported by professional – you know, us and family, in an appropriate setting which is relevant to that young person’s confidentiality and everything else.

And finally, Mr McGregor, just to clear up some terms, you mentioned earlier – or a number of times in your evidence CAYLUS, that’s the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service?---Yes, it is.

And CAAAPU, that’s Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programmes Unit?---Yes, it is. And Owen Springs is the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---Yes, it is.

Thank you, Commissioners.


MR WOODROFFE: Thank you, Commissioners.

Mr McGregor, my name is Woodroffe, I appear for the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency, at the Top End. Now, we are pleased to hear – I understand that there are a lot of children that are coming from the Top End – have been part of BushMob?---Yes.

And it has equally been as successful for them in engaging in that process?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4304 W.J. McGREGOR XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And also with their families. And you see that’s a very important part of the process that – the family involvement in the initial phase in the setting up as well. Could you talk us through how families are involved in the settling in of the child?---From the Top End?

From the Top End?---Yes. We have, in our facility, one family unit. Two bedrooms, kitchen and a shower and stuff. So generally speaking, if someone is coming from Yakala, for example, they will come with gran, aunty, grandad, whoever. They will fly to Alice, stop in the unit one or two nights, help the young person move into the accommodation part. Eat meals and stuff with all the young people there, and then fly back. We can’t have any longer term, because we never know when people are coming and going. And similarly, some of our staff that work at the camp have to come from remote communities to be able to go to work on their shift and they stay in that unit overnight. So we would love to have, like ..... outside of Katherine, cottages and a central location, men’s side, women’s side, etcetera. But that’s not anywhere on the cards today. The other thing, is in terms of Top End, is quite often on our board of management we have had Top End men or women who speak language.

Alright. Now, you would love to see sort of support services that help not only strengthen the child but also the family when they return back on their communities in the Top End?---Yes. We’ve got given – for years, we advocated for a return home funding and primarily that was around vehicle, fuel, tyres and maintenance, because we are already paid to do what we do. We didn’t need additional. So one of the health bosses went, “Yup, we will give you $80,000 one off.” And the bush adventure therapy outreach guys –say four girls from Yakala finished the program all around the same time, would drive them home, unless it was the wet season. What happened was you could visit young people and families in Ti Tree, Tennant Creek, Nukka, all the way through, and all the way back. You could also pick up other young people, say goodbye to family or bring one family member with us, and come home. It was really cost effective in many ways, if you consider airfares, bus tickets, ancillary staff escorting people, like DCF, or Corrections and so on. That funding got cut after 12 months.

Alright. Now, Mr McGregor – now, in the Top End, unfortunately there’s nothing similar to BushMob, but it’s the type of model of involving custodians and Aboriginal land and Aboriginal authority and learnings. You would love to see something similar in the Top End?---Yes.

Thank you?---I think it would be replicable anywhere, provided the community wanted to own it, and there was a driver. And we were approached, with the Yakala people, by a private contractor-type set-up, Many Rivers I think it was called, to investigate the base funding and whatever around that sort of a process, last year. We’ve also been approached by Kimberley. They’re the two main ones.

Thank you, Mr McGregor, for your time.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4305 W.J. McGREGOR XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe.

MR GOODWIN: No further questions, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks so much, Mr McGregor, for coming to talk to us again today. We enjoyed your company at the round table, of course, a little time ago now. And we know that so many people around the country have been inspired by the work of BushMob, and the people who work for it, and so we are very grateful that you are able to give us some more of your time?---Thank you, your Honour. Thank you, your Honour.

You are released from your summons now---Thank you.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Mr Goodwin, I believe we will have to have a 9.30 hearing tomorrow in closed court.

MR GOODWIN: Yes, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Closed hearing, I’m sorry. I’m slipping a bit.

MR GOODWIN: Yes. Yes, that is correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Aright. Anything else we need to discuss?

MR GOODWIN: No. Nothing from me, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright then. Thank you. We will adjourn, then, to 9.30 tomorrow in closed hearing.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.32 pm UNTIL FRIDAY, 2 JUNE 2017


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Index of Witness Events

KONSTANTINE VATSKALIS, SWORN P-4240EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4240CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4258CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE P-4260CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ROUSSOS P-4262

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4264

JONATHAN LINGGOOD, SWORN P-4267EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-4267CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4285CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE P-4288RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY P-4289


WILLIAM JAMES McGREGOR, AFFIRMED P-4291EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GOODWIN P-4291CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4302CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE P-4304


Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #481 STATEMENT OF KON VATSKALIS DATED 26/05/2017

P-4241

EXHIBIT #482 STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LINGGOOD P-4268

EXHIBIT #483 P-4291

EXHIBIT #484 WILLIAM JAMES MCGREGOR DATED 09/05/2017

P-4292

.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17 P-4307©Commonwealth of Australia

5

Documents

Web view.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17P-4288J. LINGGOOD XXN ©Commonwealth of AustraliaMR WOODROFFE.ROYAL COMMISSION 1.6.17P-4240K. VATSKALIS XN