Transcript 19 June 2017 Web viewAnd the New Zealand research ... I understand that legislation...

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-784701

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

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

DARWIN

9.32 AM, MONDAY, 19 JUNE 2017

Continued from 2.6.17

DAY 44

MR P.J. CALLAGHAN SC appears with MR P. MORRISSEY SC, MR T. McAVOY SC, MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN, MS S. McGEE and MS R. RODGER as Counsel AssistingMS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR G. O’MAHONEY and MR C. JACOBI for the Northern Territory of AustraliaDR P. DWYER appears for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR J.B. LAWRENCE SC appears for Danila Dilba Health Service and ADMR G. O’BRIEN-HARTCHER appears for DSMS McMASTER appears for Colleen Gwynne

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4383©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MR GOODWIN: Good morning, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good morning, Mr Goodwin.

MR GOODWIN: Commissioners, today we continue hearings into the protection of children in the Northern Territory. In the 10 months since the commencement of the Royal Commission, we have been gathering the experiences of those involved in the child protection system in the Northern Territory. The data we have about the system is confronting. In the Northern Territory there were 1,020 children and young people in out-of-home care as of 30 June 2016. 89 per cent of those children and young people were Aboriginal.

In the Northern Territory, it has the highest rate of children and young people receiving Child Protection Services, at 91.5 children per 1,000 compared to 28.6 children per thousand nationally. In 2015, 78 per cent of the 20,465 notifications received by Territory Families related to Aboriginal children and young people. Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are 5.6 times more likely to receive Child Protection Services as non-Aboriginal children.

In this context, we have sought information from both personal and professional perspectives on a number of issues, including the operation of the child protection system and any key failings, options on how failings in the child protection system might be addressed, and improvements or changes to the child protection system. What commission staff have heard over these past months is that children, families and communities face significant challenges when engaging with the protection system in the Northern Territory.

This week we will continue to hear some of the stories from those who have been placed in care, their families, and also those working in the system about their experiences. At the core of the child protection system in the Northern Territory are children and their families. Today, we open this week of hearings with the perspective of one former child in care under the pseudonym DO.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Goodwin, there are a number of vulnerable witnesses who we’re going to hear from this week and although there are not many non-commission people in the hearing room at the moment, there will be other people I know watching and listening online, so it’s probably appropriate to mention now that for those who feel that they need some assistance about the – any difficulties or they feel troubled by what they hear, the Commission has arranged for there to be counsellors or similar people from Relationships Australia and from Danila Dilba who are available, so I’m really making this as a general announcement for those who are watching and listening to the Commission’s proceedings, that if anyone feels distressed and would like some support, that it’s available from either of those organisations.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4384 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR GOODWIN: Yes. And in addition information about those services is also on the Commission’s website.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr Goodwin.

MR GOODWIN: Thank you, Commissioners.

RECORDING PLAYED

MR GOODWIN: Thank you Commissioners. Mr McAvoy will take the next witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Mr Goodwin.

MR McAVOY: Good morning, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good morning, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, the next witness is scheduled for 10 am, but he’s here and ready to proceed. And unless there’s any issue, I propose to call Professor Sven Robert Silburn now and he’s sitting in the witness box, raring to go.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We will – I don’t think anyone is disadvantaged by starting 10 minutes early. Mr Silburn, would you kindly rise and I’ll administer the oath. Thank you.

<SVEN ROBERT SILBURN, SWORN [9.51 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY

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

MR McAVOY: Professor Silburn, you’ve had two papers prepared for the purposes of this Royal Commission, yes?---Yeah, I have.

The first statement is dated the 20 – sorry – 12 December 2016?---Yeah.

And that statement has attached to it two annexures; that’s correct?---That’s correct.

And you can see the document on the screen in front of you?---That’s right.

Do you recognise that document as your statement from 12 December?---It is.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4385 S.R. SILBURN XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Are the contents of that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes.

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Professor Sven Silburn dated 12 December 2016.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 498.

EXHIBIT #510 STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR SVEN ROBERT SILBURN DATED 12/12/2016

MR McAVOY: Professor Silburn, you’ve also prepared a second statement dated 18 May 2017?---Yes.

You can see that on the screen in front of you?---Yes.

You recognise that as your statement?---Yes, it is.

And that statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---It is.

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Professor Silburn dated 18 May 2017.



MR McAVOY: Before we go on with your evidence, Professor Silburn, noted in the last page of your statement from 18 May 2017 there’s reference to three articles?---Yes.

And the linkages to find those articles is listed at paragraphs 13A, B and C respectively. They’re not attached – those articles aren’t attached to your statement though, are they?---No, they’re not.

Thank you. You’re currently a professor of child development and education at the Menzies School of Health Research?---Yes.

Just to make it easy in terms of dealing with the two statements I’ll refer to your statement of 12 December as the December statement?---Yes.

And your statement of 18 May 2017 as your May statement?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You’ve been in the position as the professor of child development and education at Menzies School of Health Research since 2009?---Yes, that’s correct.

Your employment history prior to that is set out in summary form of paragraphs 3 and 4 of your December statement?---Yes.

And as you’ve noted in paragraph 5, you have published widely in the areas of child and adolescent mental health, suicide prevention, early childhood development, child health, education and wellbeing?---Yes.

As a result of some discussions between the Royal Commission and the Menzies School of Health Research, a project has been funded by the Northern Territory Department of Families – Territory Families?---That’s correct.

And that project is to carry out some initial descriptive analysis of the – of certain factors within the Northern Territory child protection system?---Yes.

And the outcomes of that initial analysis are contained in the six page annexure which is the first annexure to your December statement, and the second annexure contains the hard data, if I can call it that, that supports the information in the first annexure?---That’s right.

Now, you have prepared to assist the Commission, a PowerPoint presentation based upon the first annexure to your statement?---Yes.

Which has – it’s comprised of graphs and some commentary. Are you able to speak to that annexure in a PowerPoint format now, just to explain the content of that document?---Yes, I can.

Are we able to proceed with that, operators? Commissioners, I’d ask Professor Silburn just to speak to his presentation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Yes. Thank you very much?---Thank you. The opportunity to examine the data that Menzies has been involved in collecting over several years now for a NHMRC data linkage partnership project was something that was thought to – could be of value to the Commission because it integrated data from a number of different data sources, administrative data sources held by the NT – different NT government departments. And because those data normally sit in separate – are held separately and are generally analysed separately, what the NH and NRC data linkage project did was to allow those – the relevant information to be brought together from those different data sources in a de-identified format so that a more holistic analysis could be done to investigate some of the early determinants and life course influences of key factors shaping children’s developmental outcomes in the Northern Territory. So it’s a very comprehensive dataset that includes detailed information about the socio-demographic circumstances of children, their child protection and juvenile justice involvement as well as their school attendance and academic outcomes. So it provides an opportunity to investigate the developmental


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

trajectories of children from the time that they were born. The cohort that’s included in this analysis is all children that are born in the Northern Territory since 1994, and so the – some but not all of the information in this presentation is based on data analysed from that – those datasets. Could I have the first slide, please. One of the first things we did was to really compile information that was available from a number of official reports looking at the actual numbers of children under the age of 17 who had had notifications, substantiations and out-of-home care on a year-by-year basis from the year 2000. The year 2000 is the year from which we have accurate and reliable child protection data in our analysis system. And there’s a lot of information packed into this slide but if I can just step you through your viewing of it; firstly, the yellow lines indicate notifications, the number of notifications per year. The red lines indicate substantiations, that’s substantiated maltreatment, and the blue lines are out-of-home care. The dotted lines are for the non-Indigenous population and the solid lines are for the Aboriginal population. And what you can see is that there’s been a steadily increasing and almost exponential increase in notifications, particularly since 2007, where we can see that there’s been an enormous increase in notifications. Now, there may be a number of reasons for that, a number of possible reasons which we’re not able to unpack with the analysis that we’ve done so far, but we will be in a position when we have more detailed information in a more comprehensive analysis that we hope to have completed by the end of the year. But essentially - - -

Can I just interrupt you there, Professor Silburn, is that the analysis that you’re referring to in paragraph 13 of your statement which – the research to practice monograph?---That’s correct.

I see in December it was hoped it might be July 2017. Has it been pushed out a bit since then?---Well, we – it’s – the first volume is on educational – the educational outcomes. That will be ready in July. The volume on child protection and juvenile justice involvement will be ready by December. But we are hoping we will have some preliminary analysis before September and perhaps be able to provide a report similar to this one.

That would be very useful for us if we could get it then. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: And for the benefit of those at the bar table and others, the graph that’s depicted on the screen at the moment is page 4 of annexure 1 to Professor Silburn’s statement, of the December statement?---So what we’ve superimposed on this chart is a – the blue lines at the top indicate the time line of, first of all, the Little Children Are Sacred report, at the end of 2006 and ’07; the commencement of the NT emergency response almost 10 years ago to the day. In 2007 there was the new NT child care and protection Act in 2007 that increased reporting requirements, and particularly mandatory reporting of family violence, and that’s where police investigate situations of family violence. They also make a note of children who may have been witnesses or subjects of those – that violence, and that is a particular point in this process. And then other investigations that have happened. But the – one of the features that I would point you to is that while there’s also been a doubling


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

of substantiations between 2007 and 2015, the gap between notifications and substantiations has continued to widen, and that the widening was much more pronounced from around 2012, and we suspect, but we can’t be certain, that that’s probably due to limitations in the operational capacity of the child protection system that followed a number of the recommendations of the – the bringing them strong – Growing Them Up Strong Together report and some fairly substantial cuts that were made in the public service at that time. The – if there are no questions about that chart, I’m ready to go on to the next chart.

I will have some questions, but I think it’s best to allow you to complete your presentation and then we’ll - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I just ask one question. Do you notice a spike in – I know we have got those arrows coming down, but when the issue of child protection becomes – is played out in the media, for instance. Does that coincide with ..... those spikes?---That’s – I think that point’s really followed the Little Children Are Sacred Report, and the very close follow-up with the Northern Territory emergency response; there was a huge spike in media attention and public discussion.

Topical .....?---It became very topical and - - -

..... more aware?--- - - - there was enormous community awareness.

Yes.

MR McAVOY: Yes. Please proceed?---Okay. Can I have the next slide? Now, one of the things that we’ve done is to give a bit of a breakdown of the types of substantiations by the type of abuse, and this is the most recent data that we had with some special – some special tables that Territory Families produced for us for the financial year 2014/15. And you can see, comparing the two pie charts, the Aboriginal children on the left, non-Aboriginal on the right, that the pattern of the type of abuse is quite different; that you’ve got very much – almost half the notifications for Aboriginal children concern neglect and whereas – almost double the rate in the non-Aboriginal population. You’ve got similar levels of emotional and physical – emotional abuse. Higher levels of physical abuse in – among non-Aboriginal children and higher levels of sexual abuse among non-Aboriginal children. That’s noteworthy given the very prominent attention that was given to the supposed prevalence of child sexual abuse as one of the triggering factors for the – for the Northern Territory emergency intervention. Next slide, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask you whether the data from the Department of Health about sexually transmitted infectious diseases is actually factored into the sexual abuse figures?---It’s one of the factors that we are looking at in the next monograph of findings and we do have those data. And it’s interesting that Dr Steven Guthridge analysed some data, analysed health department data and child protection data about four years ago and compared the trends in hospital


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

admissions for any form of child abuse, including sexual abuse or children with sexually transmitted diseases, and compared that with the rates of notification and substantiations. And that while that group is a relatively small proportion of all child protection concerns, it does represent the severe end of concerns. And what was interesting was that the trend was not nearly as great. The increases were quite modest compared to what looked like this tsunami of notifications and substantiations.

And that’s a relative - - -?---Which suggested that we were dealing with issues of – that the attention was focussed on the levels of reporting and which may not actually represent the real levels of children being vulnerable and at risk or having been harmed.

Yes. Yes. Right. Those figures will be interesting when they emerge. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Was it always the case that in the health system as a child presented with an STI they had to report them?---Sorry, I couldn’t hear.

If a child presented with an STI, there was a mandatory reporting of that?---Yes. Yes, that’s always the case.

Always been the case?---Yeah.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Please continue?---Okay. What this slide shows is the – a breakdown of the figures that were seen in the pie charts of the previous chart, and this is the actual numbers rather than the percentages, and what I draw your attention to is the left hand set of bars for the Aboriginal children and what you can see: this compares the number of children with substantiations in 2006 with the numbers in 2015. So this is actual numbers of children. And I’m very mindful, having listened to the story that was just presented, is that behind each one of these numbers there’s a human life and a story, and that the – but what you see here is that the very substantial increase among Aboriginal children between 2006 and 2017, the difference is mostly in the emotional and neglect substantiations. And those are predominantly notifications from health workers and from police. And again, if you look across to the non-Aboriginal set of charts – set of bars, you can see that there has also been an increase in absolute numbers for the non-Aboriginal population but not nearly the same increase as we’ve seen for the Aboriginal children in terms of emotional and neglect – emotional abuse and neglect.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Professor Silburn, have the figures been adjusted for population increase in any way in?---No. These are just the absolute numbers.

The absolute raw figures. It’s just that – at least for the non-Aboriginal children, one might think that that’s nothing remarkable if you think that the population is growing. It looks reasonably static?---Yeah. Well, if you take into account the increase in the number of – in the child population of – in the Aboriginal population,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I think that gives an indication of the increased workload and stress on the department in dealing with the sheer volume of notifications.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And I know this is a tough question, but 2006, 2015, there’s in between – and as you pointed out there’s been a lot of – a lot of publicity, I suppose?---Yes.

Awareness of - - -?---Yep.

How much do – in your estimation, is attributable to people reporting it to the actual sort of neglect, say ..... neglect occurring?---That’s a very difficult question to answer.

I know?---But I do have some thoughts about it. I think that on the one hand there is the – the requirement for mandatory reporting by police and – and the general public and professionals involved with children, is that I think that it’s very easy to, when a situation arises, to make a notification and then, as it were, wash your hands of it that you’ve done what needs to happen. It’s now up to the department to investigate and take responsibility for what needs to happen next. There’s also an issue that it may have been that there have been long-term issues of emotional abuse and neglect that have never been reported and should have been reported, but we’re going to have to triangulate that against other indicators of emotional abuse and neglect in order to establish to what extent each of those explanations might be a factor.

Because it’s always whether it’s domestic violence - - -?---Yes.

- - - or child issues, there’s always a spike, like I said before, a spike when people become more aware of an issue?---And I think a lot of the taboos about reporting and discussion of very difficult issues like family violence and sexual abuse, I think that the more open discussion has led to people realising that it is in children’s interests to make a notification so that there can be some sort of early intervention, and so I think that that – that comes into play as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Might it also be the case that the newer research about the effect on the development of the immature brain of exposure to violence, as opposed to being the victim of actual physical violence - - -?---Yes.

- - - has alerted people to think that the environment where, say, the mother and the father - - -?---Yep.

- - - are fighting and hitting each other, but not hitting their children - - -?---Yes.

- - - has – would lead to an increase as well?---I’m sure that is the case and I can think of many instances in, you know, previous decades where very similar situations would have arisen and not been reported.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. Because the children were thought not to be harmed by their parents, presumably?---And I think there was a kind of wilful blindness to what was going on.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Professor?---Okay. Next slide, please. Now, this slide shows the number of children with substantiations by their age and the type of abuse and neglect. And the reason that I’ve chosen to show this slide is that it illustrates how very different the pattern – the age distribution and the type of abuse is in the Northern Territory compared with other jurisdictions. It is fundamentally different, particularly for Aboriginal children. The non-Aboriginal pattern is very similar to what you see in other jurisdictions. But the Aboriginal circumstance in the Northern Territory is vastly more complex than other States and Territories, and the – and that what you – what the most noticeable thing about this is: on the left-hand side, in the years from nought to three, you can see that they’re very high rates of emotional and abuse and neglect. That’s the predominant substantiated concern. And that’s – tails off with age. There’s a steady reduction in age. And that the – the neglect notifications in earlier life come mostly from health services, but in – and they relate to issues like failure to thrive, maltreatment, children’s health care needs not being properly looked after, whereas in – once the children are aged 11 and over, it becomes much more about children being unsupervised and running around on the streets late at night or that kind of neglect.

And perhaps, Professor Silburn, you should point out the different scale used in relation to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal child?---Yeah. Look, that’s very important to note: that the – I mean, what you’re looking at, the non-Aboriginal chart has actually got a much – that the scale goes up to 35 children in each age, you know, for each age period, whereas the Aboriginal one goes to 180, so it’s a – if you put them on the same scale, the non-Aboriginal chart would be much flattened and towards the bottom.

Thank you?---Okay. Next slide, please. This does a breakdown of the main source of the report for children with substantiations in the financial year 2014 to ’15, and the top two pie charts look at abuse and neglect – abuse, any form of abuse, physical, sexual or emotional, and the bottom pie charts concern neglect. And again you can see that they’re different patterns for the type of abuse and whether for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. So we see more police reports for abuse, 54 per cent for Aboriginal children compared to 33 per cent for non-Aboriginal children. Whereas for – when we’re talking about neglect, Aboriginal children, 37 per cent of reports are from police, 22 per cent from community members and – sorry, that’s for the non-Aboriginal population. Whereas for Aboriginal children where concerns of neglect, you see that hospital health centres, NGOs and community members account for almost half of those reports; child protection staff, 13 per cent; and schools personnel, 12 per cent. Whereas the – if you’re looking at abuse in the non-Aboriginal population you’re looking at much higher percentage of those notifications coming from school personnel, the blue – blue chart.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you?---Okay. Next slide, please. Now, this – this pie chart is – needs a bit of explanation. With the data that we had, we had reliable data, child protection data from the year 2000. So in 2014 this was the first year where we had the complete child protection records of children aged 10. So from 2010 to 2014 there are approximately 1,524 Aboriginal and 1904 non-Aboriginal children who had reached the age of 10 years. For these years the average lifetime contact for 10-year-old children within the child protection system is shown below in those pie charts. So what you see on the left-hand side is that around half of all Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory will have had at least one notification for child protection concern by the time they reach the age of 10. That – that’s one in two children. That compares with one in five in the non-Aboriginal population and what you would see nationally. Of the 766 Aboriginal children that had at least one notification, one in four – well, 363, that is one in four of all Aboriginal children had at least one substantiation, which is almost five times that seen in the non-Aboriginal population, and 115 or one in 12 children – Aboriginal children – had at least one out-of-home care episode. Now, of course, children could have had multiple notifications and substantiations during that time. This is just an indication of them having at least one. We are going on to looking into, in more detail, what are the implications of multiple notifications, multiple substantiations, different types of abuse and particularly multiple out-of-home care placements on later risks that might be seen in education and juvenile justice. This cohort analysis I think is a particularly concerning chart and – which I’ll come back to in my summary remarks.

Thank you. Is that the last slide?---Next slide, please. Now, what I’ve got here is an initial examination of some of the factors that we’ve looked at that were available in the data, just as a first pass looking at some of the factors that were associated with increased likelihood of child protection involvement and different levels of child protection involvement. So the first set concerns prenatal information we had on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children, and that is mothers who drank and alcohol. I’ll just walk you through the first pictograph there.

Thank you?---What this shows that the green bar – the green little figures show that around one in 10 Aboriginal children had mothers who reported drinking alcohol in pregnancy and a similar proportion of non-Aboriginal mothers who had no involvement with the child protection system. Where there was a notification you see the two in 10 children in the child – had parents reporting alcohol use in pregnancy. Where there was a substantiation, also two in 10, but that increased to three in 10 where there was an out-of-home care. So what we’re looking at in each set of pictographs is whether there was a gradient of increased risk associated with that factor for a higher level of child protection involvement. In the next one, mothers smoking in pregnancy. We know that smoking does affect foetal development and that it can be almost as serious as what is now understood about alcohol in pregnancy. They’re very high percentage of Aboriginal mothers who smoke in pregnancy. Fortunately that figure is coming down. But you can see there is also a gradient – increased gradient of risk for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal mothers. And interesting looking at where mothers were teenage mothers, there are high rates of teenage motherhood, both for no involvement and child protection


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

involvement in the Aboriginal community. There’s a generally higher rate, and that doesn’t seem to be a factor on its own. Whereas being a teenage mother in the non-Aboriginal population: only three in – three in 100 mothers who – whose children were in the child protection – sorry, only – if you compare the three – 0.3 with the two in 10 for the non-Aboriginal mothers, you can see that that seems to be much more of a risk gradient.

Professor Silburn, with respect to these pictographs which are depicted on this slide and the next one, you’ve spent some time in your December statement - - -?---Yes.

- - - explaining what those pictographs show?---Yeah.

Is it possible to move along?---Look, that’s just an illustration. Could we skip – move on to slides – basically the – slide 12 I think it is.

Thank you?---Now, this is not our data, but it is data from a Department of Attorney-General and Justice report by Joe Yick, that was an – that looked at the association between criminal behaviour and experience of maltreatment as a child. And that as in every other jurisdiction in the world, there was known to be a strong association between childhood – child protection issues and risk of youth offending, particularly youth offending. So in the Northern Territory if you looked at that left hand bar – set of bars, so this is all youth offending by maltreatment history, you can see that there’s – that children with a child protection or who – with a history of maltreatment, confirmed maltreatment, were around five times more likely to have a maltreatment history and children with no maltreatment history were very much lower. And the interesting difference is that that effect seemed to be stronger for Aboriginal females as opposed to Aboriginal males. And also interestingly is the – the effect of childhood maltreatment on increasing risk for juvenile offending is – is almost 10 times greater in the non-Aboriginal population.

Thank you?---Okay.

Thank you. Now, Commissioners, that’s the completion of your - - -?---I’ve got a couple of concluding - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Conclusions would be useful, I think, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Yes. Please continue, Professor?---Yes. First point: this is just to summarise what I think are the implications of those data. Firstly, that the fact that notifications, substantiations and out-of-home placements have all doubled since 2007 I think is a very sobering indication of the continuing severity of this issue and the urgency of the need with which it needs to be addressed. Next, the fact that around half of all NT Aboriginal children have had at least one notification by the age of 10 years, one in four had a substantiated concern, again, I think, shows why it should be an issue of national concern. I think it also highlights why the department is clearly struggling and that with this rate and if this rate continues, if this trend continues, the current system is clearly not sustainable, and that some very radical


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

changes need to be made if this is to be – if the department and the government is able to meet its legislated responsibilities under the Care and Protection Act. Next point. The – this is the point that I made about the service model for responding to childhood vulnerability is not sustainable in its present form. And the next point. And this leads to what that might suggest in terms of – next point. Next slide – that the response requires a much broader across government response. Territory Families is simply not in a position to deal with everything that’s required to contain the levels of childhood vulnerability and unless the other departments, health, police and the other family services agencies can substantially increase the levels of support for those families that are experiencing greater vulnerability, I think we’re going to see this trend continue.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: From a practical perspective, have you got some idea of what that might look like?---Yes. If I could have the next slide, please. I think in practical terms, this sector has been bedevilled by policy churn, by changes of governments, by short-term funding contracts for many of the non-government and community sector services that are supporting families, and that there – it’s absolutely essential that there be long-term policy and funding certain as a prerequisite for any improvement. You need that if you’re going to build effective strategic partnerships that properly include Aboriginal community and NGO sectors, and both the NT and Australian Government services. The fragmentation in this area of service delivery has actually been working very contrary to the interests of children and families. There has to be a more cohesive and coordinated approach. And a much more - - -

We understand - - -?--- - - - rational approach to directing resources and services to where they make – there’s evidence that they would make the biggest difference.

The programs do seem to be being designed and delivered without much regard to what other programs are currently designed for a particular community, for example?---Yeah.

We have heard certainly many – on many occasions that there are countless service providers coming into a community who don’t know of the existence of the others?---Yes.

And it’s very difficult to get a list of what’s going into any community?---It is. I think there’s been some progress towards trying to map the – what’s actually happening in each community and there’s also a lot of very good international evidence about the efficacy of place-based interventions, rather than you know, some sort of top-down approach that has a sort of one-size-fits-all approach for a whole territory, you really – it does need to be a much more nuanced thing that builds on the local knowledge, the local resources, and the additional resources that some very small communities don’t have but which are taken for granted in almost every other Australian community. There have to be different ways of building that service capacity in the community and also the community capacity to utilise and reap the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

developmental benefits of good early childhood care, health, education, and what we call developmental prevention.

In New Zealand, they do have now developed – very recently, I think; really, just from the beginning of this year – a ministry for vulnerable children in which they’re drawing in all the services from health, education, police, child family protection, youth justice and so on into one ministry, in an effort, we were told, to address some of these problems?---Yeah.

Do you have any thoughts about that?---Look, I think – I think that New Zealand is seen as a global leader in – (a) because they’ve got very good longitudinal data.

Yes?---New Zealand is a much smaller jurisdiction where data linkage analysis is a much easier thing to do. And that I think they’re good lessons that could be learnt from New Zealand. I think the Northern Territory government, the current Northern Territory government is making a very serious effort to develop something similar, that they have rearranged their portfolio, their – all the relevant human service portfolios under a single Minister for Children, who’s the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, and all the department’s Ministers and departmental heads report to her through their ministers. I think that’s one mechanism to begin at the top level to get better coordination but that has to be matched by similar support for the local level integration, and – and the community development focus that really looks at building the local capacity, the local trained workers in communities who have the local knowledge, the local content, understand the local circumstances, and are not relying on, in the case of the emergency where they brought in, you know, recruited from overseas, brought people from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, are going out to remote communities and really having to deal with very – some of the most challenging child protection issues that you can possibly imagine and being totally dependent on the local Aboriginal workers. And as you heard in that story before, the issues about translation, understanding of the process both by the family and by the children, building the local Indigenous workforce and service capacity is going to be one of the essential building blocks in turning this around.

MR McAVOY: And that’s concluded your remarks?---Yes.

Commissioners, I think I will tender the PowerPoint presentation that’s been loaded. It contains material and that’s different to the annexure to Professor Silburn’s statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Not much, of course. It’s only just a little bit different. I thought I was using mine from the - - -

MR McAVOY: There are – there is a graph that doesn’t appear in the annexure.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. But, anyway, there’s no problem with tendering that separately. Thank you. Exhibit 500.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #512 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION USED BY PROFESSOR SVEN SILBURN

MR McAVOY: Thank you.

Now, thank you for that, Professor Silburn. If I can just take you back to the – the graph that you showed where there was a representation of and a conclusion that one in two Aboriginal children had a notification of child protection concern by the age of 10 and you – and you indicated that that was a matter of some concern, and in discussion you – I think you said it was a matter of some national concern. In public health terms, how would you describe circumstances where one in two of 10-year-olds of a particular group of people within society are subject to child protection notifications?---In public health terms, you would consider that to be of epidemic proportions. And as a public health concern, where you’ve got that – what we know about the detrimental long-term effects on health, behaviour and learning, we would see this as a public health – if not a humanitarian – crisis. And one which has been long in its creation and complex – highly complex in its nature.

That leads me to my next question, Professor. At the very least since 2009, when you commenced your current position, you have – have been aware of the way in which the government has responded to this growing problem?---Mmm.

If we look at the outcomes, standing here today in 2017, rather than the effort, is it fair to describe the Northern Territory Government to address the issue of child development, and particularly in Aboriginal communities, as an abysmal failure.

MS BROWNHILL: I object. Qualitative language, outcomes not defined or identified in any way by the question, so broad that it really doesn’t assist the Commission in – very much at all.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Mr McAvoy?

MR McAVOY: I can refine the question, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think that would be a good idea. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: If we look at the fact that there – one in two Aboriginal children by the age of 10 are the subject of a notification for a child care concern and one in four children is the subject of a substantiation and those figures are current figures, is it fair to describe the attempts of the Northern Territory Government since 2009 and particularly since 2010 when the Growing Them Strong Together report was published outlining the issues arising, is it fair to say that there has been a total failure in delivery of protection to those children?

MS BROWNHILL: I object. Same question, same problem, and a total failure is a meaningless - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is.

MS BROWNHILL: - - - adjective or series of adjectives. It doesn’t really assist in anything.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. The objection’s really upheld, Mr McAvoy. The figures speak for themselves.

MR McAVOY: They do.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We don’t really need to do much more. Professor Silburn has already described it from a public health perspective as being a humanitarian crisis. I think we’ve really got the answer. It’s a serious – a very serious problem. In terms of blame, well, governments, of course, are in charge from time to time. Some use methods of managing what they see is a crisis in different ways, and we will be tracking that in our report. I don’t know that we can take it much further than that. So we might leave the - - -

MR McAVOY: I won’t press the question in that case, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Professor Silburn, do you think that there has been a degree of acceptability – of social acceptability of this – the current situation in respect of the protection of children in the Northern Territory?---I think there’s been greater awareness and I think that there – I think historically, I think that people have been – the very high rates of these issues have desensitised peoples to the understanding of the potential harm this can do to people, and that – but at the same time I think that there has been an increased awareness of the need for high levels of support and intervention where that’s necessary. I think the department is faced with an enormous challenge and has been hampered by relying too much on the forensic approach to child protection and perhaps hasn’t followed through on some of the Bringing Them Strong Together Inquiry recommendations about the need for greater early investment in – in children and families, particularly early intervention and prevention opportunities that I think were not prioritised early in its response to the Bath inquiry but which would scheduled to be really picked up in later years, and then seem to have been dropped altogether when the government changed and a lot of the Bath inquiry directions were no longer followed.

Thank you. You’ve also made some observations in relation to the high number of substantiations of child protection concerns. Have you done any research to – to consider whether there are any systems defects that would result in a higher or lower number of substantiations with respect to Aboriginal children?---I haven’t personally. We do have data that we can investigate that might indicate whether there may be – you know, whether certain types of abuse result in similar outcomes or levels of intervention for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. Those analyses have not been done. There is some Australian research done in Queensland based on


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

a Queensland study, cohort study, which investigated the extent to which child maltreatment could account for the over representation of Aboriginal people in the Queensland justice system. Basically they found that, on their own, child protection notifications increased risk by about a factor of two, but that equally when socio-economic factors such as early childhood poverty and a number of other factors were taken into account, those increased risks, when properly adjusted for those confounding factors, reduced somewhat but there was still a somewhat higher level of Aboriginal representation that was not accounted for by the factors that they investigated. They concluded that that could be due to systemic factors in – such as exposure to racism, different policing and sentencing practices.

Various cultural biases?---That could be interpreted as a cultural bias, but, again, it’s an inference; it’s not a direct confirmation of that.

And do you know if there’s any work currently being done to identify those particular features?---Not at the moment. But as I said, it is an element that when we do our more comprehensive analysis we will look to see if there’s – if anything along those lines is evident.

And so the figures that you discussed this morning: they don’t either collectively or separately identify what the underlying causes of those particular factors might be, does it – or do they?---It doesn’t directly effect – identify them, but all of those are factors that are known to be very much more prevalent in highly disadvantaged populations, and that the Northern Territory Aboriginal population is – has some of the highest levels of disadvantage in the country, that the – the disadvantage is multigenerational in its effects and that it’s – you know, there are multiple areas of disadvantage in health, education, employment opportunities, housing – the list goes on. But one of the things that is true and what has been evident from other jurisdictions, such as Western Australia, where there’s good longitudinal data, is that clearly there are inter-generational effects where you’ve got young parents with – very young parents often with very limited education, living in highly disadvantaged community circumstances, their capacity to optimally care for their children’s needs, recognise their needs, promote their development is seriously compromised. The important thing is all of those factors are addressable and they’re preventable and that they’re elements of disadvantage that can be countered.

And you would expect to find similar elements present in the Northern Territory?---Absolutely.

You’re aware that the Growing Them Strong Together Report in 2010 recommended a public health primary prevention and early intervention model?---Yes.

I understand from your earlier comments that you have – you don’t – you’re of the view that that hasn’t been – that – the recommendations of that report haven’t been completely fulfilled?---Look, I think – I think that there have certainly been some efforts to look at developing community child safety and wellbeing officers to coordinate local action. I think there’s been investment in intensive early family


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

support. I think they’re huge logistical issues in that being delivered in an effective manner and I think there are enormous costs in delivering those particular programs. Some of that was funded through Australian Government funding, some of it through the Northern Territory Government funding, but I do think that in terms of the level of resourcing that was – or the proportion of the resourcing that was allocated to the upstream preventative elements was – was – you know, was not nearly adequate and the – I think the department struggled to get the level of commitment from health and education and other departments in addressing some of those primary health care needs. I think the department was very much on its own in trying to deal with all aspects of the implementation of the report.

And you’ve already spoken about the need for a multi-agency approach?---Yep.

You’ve made some observation at paragraph 52 and also in the PowerPoint presentation about – this is paragraph 52 of your December statement – about the observation that can be made about the recent drop in the number of substantiations since about 2012.

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that. There’s been no drop in substantiations.

MR McAVOY: The recent tapering off in substantiations.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought it was the widening of the gap between notifications and substantiations that was the cause of some – some comment as to what might be the reason for this.

MR McAVOY: There is a – I’ll rephrase it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can explore it that way. I thought Professor Silburn - - -

MR McAVOY: Certainly, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - had given some evidence about that; that there was the overloading of - - -

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner.

Professor Silburn, you made comments about the widening of the gap between notifications and substantiations. Is it your view that the number of substantiations should in some way reflect the number of notifications?---One would expect that they would follow similar trends; that you would see a proportional correspondence.

And you see, there’s a – the percentage of notifications which are substantiated dropped from 2011, where it was 34 per cent, to 20 per cent in 2015?---Mmm.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you’ve made the observation that that could reflect changes in the child protection system’s operational capacity. What do you mean by “operational capacity”?---Well, it’s – I suppose what I was referring to then is keeping pace with the number of demands, being able to keep – to manage the backlog of investigations, and given the staffing numbers and level of resourcing, I think the department was – and the workers, I think, were doing an extremely difficult job under extremely challenging circumstances, and I think that it reflects the strain on the system.

But the consequence of that observation is that there were cases in which children may have suffered or were at risk of harm but that wasn’t confirmed because there weren’t enough – there wasn’t enough capacity or there weren’t enough workers to undertake all of the investigations?---That’s possible.

We’ve heard some evidence from Mr Jonathon Lingood, who was a team manager in the central intake team, and his observation was that the number of employees in the central intake team had only very marginally increased over recent years and when asked that that increase didn’t match the increase in workload. Is this consistent with your view about a lack of operational capacity?---I think that would be consistent, that if notifications are going up but the staffing numbers to investigate those have remained static, that would suggest an increasing system strain.

The point at which the gap between notifications and substantiations starts to widen is in 2012. That’s also the point at which there was a change of government in the Northern Territory. Do you think that that had any particular influence on the ratio?---We know that there were quite substantial public sector cuts during that time and that – that the – the level of support for the Bath inquiry recommendations or the direction that the department took seemed to change over that period. So it may have been a factor.

In paragraph 54 of your December statement you make some observation about the need to monitor and analyse the process of triaging notifications at intake to ensure that that process is working as intended. Is there some evidentiary basis upon which you’ve made that observation, or does it come from somewhere else?---The – that – I made that comment on the basis of having some knowledge of the structured decision-making tool that’s used which was developed in a United States context. It is used in a number of other Australian jurisdictions as a standard risk assessment process but my view is that it’s not well matched to the pattern of child abuse and the age pattern of child abuse that you see in the Northern Territory. Particularly it doesn’t assign the level of priority to notifications of infants under the age of 12 months that I believe it should, that – we know that notifications in that age group, particularly for neglect, can sometimes be life-threatening, that children become ill very quickly, and that – that sometimes an – you know, a reduced capacity to understand the seriousness of a child’s health status or other circumstances does require an urgent investigation. And it is also a very important opportunity for early intervention that might be missed. So there are a number of - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that a defect from the use point of view of the tool? Does it not, in fact, identify a number of presenting symptoms that would suggest that things are a bit dramatically wrong here and need a quick response?---Yes, and also that it requires an assessment of a range of circumstances, of the family circumstances, things like housing and so on that the central intake team may not be in the best position to - - -

No, of course not?--- - - - rate.

You say that this assessment, or the decision-making tool is in relatively wide - - -?---Yes.

- - - use? Has it been adapted for remote communities?---Not as far - - -

There’s not necessarily - - -?---Not as far as I know.

Because it would be true for other jurisdictions would it not?---We have suggested to the department that looking at the ratings that have been made in conjunction with the other data that we have, with the data linkage project could be a useful way to actually evaluate how effectively it’s operating, whether it can be calibrated to provide greater positive prediction rates or sensitivity and specificity and identifying future concerns, and we can use that looking at the historical data. So that’s something which Menzies has been talking to the department about, doing this piece of work.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: If I just take you briefly to your May statement, you’ve been asked – you were asked in your May statement to look at four additional issues at the request of the Commission. I’m going to try and summarise the content of your responses to those requests. At paragraph 5 you expressed the view that child maltreatment increases the risk of depression, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, substance abuse and crime. That’s a fair - - -?---Yep.

- - - summarisation?---Again, that’s from US – a very large US longitudinal study.

And at paragraph 7, you expressed the view that:

Children the subject of maltreatment are much more likely to offend, but that other factors come into play when considering the disproportionate number of Indigenous young people in detention.

?---Yes.

You then go on to consider the effects of toxic stress and other factors. And that they can have severe lifelong effects on the neurodevelopment of young children, particularly those under five?---That’s right.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But you also expressed the view that lifelong consequences of early life trauma can be reduced with evidence-based interventions?---Yes. Correct.

But the greatest effect is achieved by early intervention?---Yes.

Can you just unpack that last point a little bit. Is it the case that the neuro cognitive damage or the development to the – the damage to the neuro development of a young child can be repaired through early intervention?---There are two aspects of it. I think – I think one is that these poverty-related factors of toxic stress, poor nutrition and – can – and exposure to multiple infections, those can have effects on delaying neurodevelopment, and toxic stress has a particular effect on delaying neurodevelopment, but it can also in extreme cases have effects not unlike what you see in post-traumatic stress disorder. The brain plasticity or the capacity of the brain to adapt and overcome those difficulties is greatest during the periods of maximum brain growth. That’s from conception to around age three or four, and there’s another period of very rapid brain growth in early adolescence, and particularly when the brain circuits that link the midbrain, emotional structures, with the forebrain, where you have more executive functioning, the ability to self-regulate emotion, attention and behaviour becomes much more hardwired during those experiences of early adolescence particularly. Both of those periods of rapid brain growth are the periods when early intervention can make a very big difference, and there’s good evidence from the New Zealand study that showed that children who showed these difficulties of self-regulation, which is what you – what most commonly see in children who’ve experienced maltreatment, children who show significant executive, or self-regulation difficulties at age three are at very much increased risk for going on to all these other problems. But, importantly, children whose self-regulation has improved, particularly in the early primary school years, those kids go on to have very much more healthy out – long-term outcomes. And the New Zealand research concludes that this is evidence of how types of early intervention tailored to the particular behaviours and issues that these kids have can help to literally rewire the brain to have a more functional outcome.

Yes. And so that – that knowledge underpins, I suspect, your – the last sentence in paragraph 55 of your December statement, in which you indicate that there’s a need to take strong action to prevent neglect and emotional abuse in very young children to avoid not only present risk but subsequent risk in the cost of society?---Mmm.

But your recommendation of strong action doesn’t necessarily mean statutory intervention?---No. The kind of thing that I had in mind is a program that the World Health Organisation has developed and is promoting for parents and children in countries experiencing high rates of violence, refugee camps and ..... sort of conflict situations that it’s recognised that very stressed parents, that a lot of that stress can adversely affect parenting, early attachment and the types of care that a child gets. And there’s this program called – World Health Organisation program called Care for Child Development. That was something that we recommended be rolled out in the Northern Territory for all front-line workers working with families and children. That would be midwives, child protection workers, community workers, Aboriginal


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

health workers, and it’s a very strong evidence-based program, very simple in its operation, deceptively simple but has shown very good results in a number of countries like South Africa, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and a number of countries where it is being used.

And when was that recommendation made?---That recommendation was made when the previous – the government prior to the Giles Government was developing an early childhood development strategy, and that was one of the recommendations that came from the Territory-wide community consultation and expert consultation process that went through.

And what happened to that recommendation?---The government changed and that wasn’t followed through on. But I do understand that this is a program that’s being considered in Western Australia at the moment for implementation in Western Australia, and it’s one – it’s a program that I would recommend be considered as one that can really benefit highly disadvantaged and stressed parents.

Thank you. In paragraph 56 of your December statement you refer to a number of other existing evidence-informed programs that could be strengthened. One of them is the Let’s Start parent and child program. Could you just briefly explain the nature of that program to the Commissioners?---Okay. The Let’s Start parent and child program is an evidence-based program that was developed – it was an adaptation of a program that was operating in Victoria. It was adapted and for use about 10 years ago on the Tiwi Islands. It’s been running continuously since then. Interestingly, it was the Tiwi Islands health board’s response to a suicide cluster that they had on the island, and that program has shown very good effects in improving children’s early education outcomes and child behaviour outcomes. It’s been rolled out to Maningrida and the Victoria Daly River area and it was being funded through Commonwealth and Lucia funding. The funding this year was cut back when we put in a submission to the Indigenous advancement strategy, and that has resulted in the implementation team moving its resources to support Papua New Guinea in the development of a similar program and which we’ve been asked to roll out to all communities across Papua New Guinea, which seemed to me a great opportunity lost for the Northern Territory.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Professor Silburn, earlier, when you were showing the slide which demonstrated the – the pie chart about neglect and so on for children, there seemed to be a very considerable amount of neglect for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory in the first three years demonstrated. Is there any consideration, apart from issues of poverty, to what might have been the underlying factors that would lead to that? Often babies are actually nurtured by other people in a group, even if the older children are a bit unmanageable, you know, once you get to, sort of, five, six and seven. So it seemed a little surprising that it does show consistently those high figures of neglect for the babies. Are you able to suggest any reason for that?---Look, I think it’s a very complex assessment that has to be made that – very often those referrals are made when there’s an issue about failure to thrive, when children are showing growth failures. And that can be equally due to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

malabsorption because of multiple gut infections as it can be due to parent – poor knowledge of feeding practices or poor feeding practices, or just simply that the parent may have their own issues and not able to ensure that the regular care of their child. So those – those are – that referrals for neglect of infants is a very – are some of the more complex decisions that need to be made.

Yes?---And they need a – they really do need to be made jointly by all parties. And sadly, previously there was a history of many, or a number of health workers not being confident that the department would follow-up on reports, and some of those reports which perhaps should have been made weren’t made, or because they were not confident that there would be a rapid response. These are all challenges. There are no easy answers to them and - - -

A lot of them might be primary infections that are the cause?---They certainly can be, and that needs to be ruled out and established.

Yes. And is – perhaps if I could just follow that up a little. There must be some specific expertise that is required for health workers in these remote communities which might be different from the training that you would get to deal with major population source needs. Does that happen in the training in the Northern Territory, for example, or do those who come from other places – you may not be able to answer this – get supplementary training to fit them to be useful?---Look, I think that there’s – that the – the health department has a lot of challenges in filling its nursing positions in remote communities and that they have had a history of giving precedence to generally trained nurses rather than nurses who’ve had an additional child health and community health training. In western – one of the things that struck me when I came to the Northern Territory as different from Western Australia is that in most remote communities in Western Australia nursing positions – there are always two positions: there’s a generally trained nurse and a child health community health nurse. That means they’re in a position to relieve each other. They provide each other support. You get much lower turnover of staff where you have that kind of appointment. But much more importantly, the child health trained nurses are much more proactive in the – the active fostering of good parenting and health care, and preventative health care for children. And that – I think that generally trained nurses are usually so overwhelmed by everything they are asked to do in chronic disease management and acute care that that aspect of the work tends to take second place. There’s also great opportunity for Aboriginal health workers being trained in preventative health care and that – I see that that’s another avenue where – for investment, and that would really build much stronger community capacity.

Yes, indeed. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Professor Silburn, can we take it from your discussion about the loss to the Northern Territory of the Let’s Start parent child program not proceeding - - -?---It is proceeding but only in two communities.

Not proceeding as proposed?---Three. Sorry. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is it the case that there isn’t that sort of program provided at a – in a broad enough form to meet all the need in the Northern Territory?---I absolutely believe that that is the case and that – that the – the way in which that program has been developed and is sustained is that – is that at least a two year effort is put into training the local community members in the delivery of the program. They take on children aged four and five, particularly in the years before they’re going to school. They get a lot of referrals of children who have child abuse concerns, and they involve the parents learning different ways of managing difficult behaviour, avoiding difficult behaviours emerging, and it also involves a group work activity for the children on their own, which they enjoy. They come with their parents. They have a time together. It involves a lot of traditional stuff. There’s a lot of singing and activities that parents enjoy. A number of parents have come back voluntarily to do the program a second or a third time because they found it beneficial or they have come back when they have another child that’s in that age range, and we see that as a good thing.

Thank you. That concludes my questions of Professor Silburn, Commissioners. I understand Ms Graham has some questions.

MS BROWNHILL: I would also seek leave, Commissioners, to ask Professor Silburn some questions out of the evidence he has given orally this morning. It will be very brief.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Would you like to do that now, Ms Brownhill?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BROWNHILL [11.13 am]

MS BROWNHILL: Yes. Thank you.

Professor, my name’s Brownhill and I act for the Northern Territory. You probably gathered that. I wanted to ask you some questions about your evidence in relation to the increasing gap between notifications and substantiations. You said orally that that increasing gap would be explained by a lack of capacity in the Child Protection Service and secondly by cuts to the public service. Do you remember giving that evidence?---I do.

Can I ask you for the purpose of my next few questions to assume that there have not actually been any cuts to the numbers of front-line staff in either receiving notifications or investing – investigating notifications since 2007. Just assume that in answering my questions, if you would, please?---Okay.

Firstly, are you aware of data that shows that the gap between the number of children that are the subject of notifications and the number of notifications received has also been widening?---I would – I would expect that to be the case.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4406 S.R. SILBURN XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS BROWNHILL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And the reason for that is that – so it’s not the number of children necessarily growing. It’s the number of notifications about children growing. That’s the way you would understand that data?---I would – you would have to look at the rates to see, but it’s both, I’m pretty sure.

Yes. But focussing on that, the increasing gap between the number of children, the subject of the notifications - - -?---Yes.

- - - and the notifications themselves, that suggests, doesn’t it, that there would be multiple notifications or multiple sources of notification about a particular child?---It does.

And that could be a partial explanation, couldn’t it, for the increasing gap between notifications and substantiations?---It’s – but the data that we showed is about the number of children, not the number of notifications.

So that graph that you took the Commissioners to in your PowerPoint presentation at page 4 of your appendix, which demonstrates the number of notifications at 7,365 in 2004, 117 in 2015: that’s the number of notifications or the number of children the subject of the notification?---Can I just check that I’m looking at the same? Is it this one?

No?---That one. Okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Which is the slide number, Ms Brownhill?

THE WITNESS: It was the - - -

MS BROWNHILL: It’s on page 4, Commissioners, of the - - -

THE WITNESS: Slide 2, I think it was, on this presentation.

MS BROWNHILL: Sorry. Yes. I don’t have the PowerPoint presentation myself.

MR McAVOY: If I might assist, Commissioners, if the operators could go to page 4 of annexure 1 to the December statement of Professor Silburn. Annexure 1. We’re looking at annexure 2 at the moment.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, could you repeat the question.

MS BROWNHILL: When I get the chance I will?---Okay.

Yes. That’s the graph that I was referring to?---Yes.

So my question was relating to whether what’s shown here is the number of notifications or the number of children, the subject of a notification?---It’s the number of children who have had at least one notification.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4407 S.R. SILBURN XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS BROWNHILL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. The other question I wanted to ask you about, the widening gap, is that your data itself doesn’t establish that the – the cause of the gap is a lack of capacity on the part of the department or the system; correct?---That’s correct.

So the – your view about that is a theory or an assumption that you’ve posited on the basis of, for example, your understanding about cuts to the public service and the like?---Yes, that’s correct.

You gave some oral evidence to the effect that you would expect a proportional correspondence between increases in notifications and increases in substantiations, but it’s the case, isn’t it, that the explanation for the gap could be due to numerous factors?---Yep. Unmeasured factors.

And so one shouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that the gap means that children at risk of harm or being harmed are not being addressed or dealt with by the system?---That would not – you know, I would – you would not rely on this graph as sole evidence for that. But if you were aware that there were a high number of, you know, large backlog of uninvestigated cases, then that would add weight to an interpretation that that could reflect - - -

Well - - -?--- - - - service capacity.

And in relation to the idea of a backlog of uninvestigated cases, one would have to dig deeper than that, and to inquire into exactly what it is that’s remaining in investigations that haven’t been closed off. You’d agree with that, wouldn’t you?---Yes.

So that if the investigation, part of the exercise had actually been undertaken and an administrative step hadn’t been followed such that the investigation could be closed - - -?---Yep.

- - - that might alleviate that concern. Would you agree?---It could.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Graham?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [11.19 am]

MS GRAHAM: Professor Silburn, my name is Felicity Graham, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Could I take to you paragraphs 8 to 11 of your May statement, please, and included in that passage you deal with the concept of toxic stress?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4408 S.R. SILBURN XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Could I ask you to consider these factors that a child might experience in their involvement with the child protection system: the removal from family and community and country, as an Aboriginal person; multiple placements with carers from a range of different backgrounds; a prohibition either express or effective in terms of the use of language or performance of other cultural activities. Just taking those three factors together, do you see those factors as the kind of factors that could contribute to toxic stress in a child?---Yes, they certainly could.

We’ve heard some evidence from Dr McFarlane about the experience of children in out-of-home care and evidence to the effect that there’s no presumption that a child will be safer or have improved wellbeing in an out-of-home care scenario compared to the scenario that they were removed from. Do you see that a child’s experience in out-of-home care could be the cause of toxic stress in a child?---It’s – it’s certainly possible that it could, but not necessarily so.

Is that an issue that you will be investigating in the data analysis that you foreshadowed throughout the rest of this year, the impact of an experience in out-of-home care on a child’s wellbeing and particularly this issue of toxic stress?---Well, we will be looking at the longer term outcomes of all children that have been in out-of-home care and looking at comparing their outcomes with other children’s outcomes. I think one of the factors that would suggest the likelihood of toxic stress effects is if there have been multiple out-of-home care placements, and I know that there is quite a bit of evidence from United States studies showing that the number of out-of-home care placements is strongly correlated with increased probability of involvement with the juvenile and adult justice systems.

And is that creating this link between experiences of trauma, the presentation of toxic stress and then behavioural difficulties that lead to or contribute to involvement in the criminal justice system?---Well, it can do and it really does depend on the situation that a child was being removed from. And whether removal was, in fact, the best option for that child, that – I think that what’s – what has – there’s a perception that because of the limited opportunities for other forms of intervention, that there’s a preponderance of out-of-home care as a – as a – as a response to a child abuse concern, which does result in disproportionally more Aboriginal children being placed out of home.

And you say at paragraph 53 of your December statement that there’s been a substantial increase of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, an increase of a factor by over seven between 2000 and 2015. Is this an issue that particularly needs attention in terms of data analysis and investigation, these issues of - - -?---I think it’s - - -

- - - how - - -?---I think it’s terribly important that that’s better understood. It’s not a simple association. There are many factors that come into play and I think you really do have to have a very careful look at that to properly understand what its effects might be in the aggregate.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You’ve mentioned the Queensland study where there’s perhaps an inference available that harsher sentencing by courts of Aboriginal children, over-policing of Aboriginal children, and experience of racism by Aboriginal children or institutional cultural or racial biases might explain the over-representation of Indigenous youth in terms of their involvement in the youth justice system which was still at a factor of 2.48 times their non-Indigenous peers having already balanced the data for social disadvantage and substantiated maltreatment. Is that an issue that is going to be investigated on the data available to the Menzies centre in the foreshadowed research this year?---We – again that will depend on – we don’t have any policing data yet. We hope to get policing data next year, but it’s – it’s something that I think is essential to – to investigate as far as it is possible.

What other data is necessary to fully investigate that issue?---Whole population administrative data may not be the best source of information. That might be better ascertained by doing a close case audit of a number of cases and looking at some – more of the qualitative information. It’s a different type of research methodology that I think would be needed.

You say in paragraph 28 of your December statement that eight out of 10 Aboriginal children 10 years or younger are from remote or very remote communities in the Northern Territory, but that remoteness as a factor was not on its own associated with an increased level of involvement in the child protection system. Has the data been analysed to consider the question of once a child is involved in the child protection system, how remoteness affects the outcomes for children and their families?---No. Not – not as yet.

Is the data available to do that analysis?---I believe that it is. I think one of the things we would be interested in investigating is when children are in out-of-home placements, for example, children like the story that was told before this, whether they were placed in Darwin as opposed to closer to their family and community. Those are some of the questions that might be looked at.

Mapping where children are from originally and then where their out-of-home care placements are: has that kind of research been done?---No, it hasn’t, as far as I know. And I think the department is in a position where it does have data, but I think that the department has been very handicapped by the limited analytic and information resources that are available for it to do that kind of reflexive investigation of its own data and I think that’s one of the reasons why they have become – they have engaged Menzies to assist in more of that type of research being done.

Finally, Dr Silburn, you proposed a greater emphasis on primary prevention and early intervention. This is at paragraph 56 of your December statement. Do you have any comments about how that approach can be pursued bearing in mind the remoteness that is a key factor in the Northern Territory in terms of policy implementation?---Well, I think it has to be – it has to be on a community by community basis, that – you know, that centres like Alice Springs, the health service


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

runs a very effective early childhood program and a lot of preventive – and very effective preventive early intervention work. They also have outreach to a number of remote communities through the nurse home-visiting program. So I think that provides a model for how similar services could be developed in other parts of the Territory.

And you’ve advocated for a long-term view and focus and funding. Over what time frame could successful outcomes be expected or measured? How long ought governments be allowed before there’s some expectation of the figures or the data demonstrating success?---What I’ve said there is you need at least 10 years to – to (a) build a capacity to deliver services properly, but also to evaluate the impact. The first three years are going to be just setting things up, then getting into service delivery and then looking at what are the ongoing supports and maintenance you need to – for it to function effectively. I think there’s a realisation in governments around the world that you do need these longer time frames to look at developmental outcomes. But I think that 10 years is probably the minimum. I think to – and again it depends what outcomes you’re looking at. You’re going to see early outcomes very soon. We know from the programs such as the mobile preschool program, which was an outreach to give preschool to very, very remote communities, that in the space of about three years you can see quite substantial early childhood development improvements from some of these very remote communities. 30 per cent of children who are – who would have been vulnerable prior to the program have been prevented. Families As First Teachers is a similar program that’s got similar capacity to show early benefits that flow through into better school attendance, better achievement in years one to three, but it’s the early outcomes that you will see first. It will take at least 10 years before you really start to see that flowing through into the justice system.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham.

MR McAVOY: No re-examination, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you very much, Professor Silburn. Your evidence has been of immense value to us and we’re very grateful to all the trouble you’ve taken to put together all that material for us?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.32 am]

We will adjourn now for 20 minutes and resume at 10 to 12.

ADJOURNED [11.32 am]


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

RESUMED [11.54 am]

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I call Joy Simpson.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. And she’s there?

MR McAVOY: She’s in the witness box. Yes, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Simpson, would you kindly rise while I administer the affirmation to you.

<JOY SIMPSON, AFFIRMED [11.55 am]


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks. Would you kindly be seated. Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Simpson, your current occupation is the manager of investigation and assessment at the Northern Territory Department of Territory Families; that’s correct?---Yes, in the greater Darwin region.

And you’ve provided two statements to the Commission?---That’s correct.

The first is dated 25 May 2017?---Yes? And you can see on the screen there a statement. Do you recognise that statement?---Yes, I do.

And that’s your statement?---Yes, it is.

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

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Joy Simpson dated 25 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 501.

EXHIBIT #513 STATEMENT OF JOY SIMPSON DATED 25/05/2017

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4412 J. SIMPSON XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Ms Simpson, you’ve also recently sworn a – prepared a further statement dated 18 June 2017?---Yes, that’s right.

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

And that statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, that’s correct.

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Joy Simpson dated 18 June 2017.


EXHIBIT #514 STATEMENT OF JOY SIMPSONS DATED 18/06/2017

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I also seek to tender a supplementary tender bundle index for the care and protection hearings.


MR McAVOY: It’s a convenient moment to do that as there may be some documents I need to refer to during the course of this examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. The supplementary tender bundle for the child and – child protection subject is exhibit 503.

EXHIBIT #515 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE FOR THE CHILD PROTECTION SUBJECT

MR McAVOY: Ms Simpson, your history as a child – in the child care sector started in the Nhulunbuy office of the Department of Children and Families in 2004; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

And you’ve remained in the sector since that time?---Yes, I have.

And it would be fair to say that you would notice some substantial changes in that period?---Yes.

And one of those might – would be the dramatically increased level of notifications?---Yes, that’s correct.

And also an increase in substantiations?---Over that period of time, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

After you left the Nhulunbuy office you worked in the Casuarina office of Children and Families as a child protection officer?---Yes, that’s right.

Although you were in a number of other positions you’re now the manager of the investigation and assessment team of the greater Darwin office of Territory Families and the manager of the northern child abuse team?---The Territory Families component of the Northern Child Abuse Task Force, yes.

And can you just explain what you mean by the Territory Families component of that unit?---The child abuse task force is located at the Peter McAulay centre with members from the Federal Police and the NT police. I manage the Territory Families component of that.

And just in terms of order, were you appoint to, as manager of both the task force and the greater Darwin office at the same time or did one come before the other?---I was already manager of the northern child abuse task force and then in two thousand – July 2015, I also took over the management of the greater Darwin investigation and assessment team.

Thank you. I just want to ask you some questions now about the greater Darwin investigation and assessment team. That team includes the Palmerston office; that’s correct?---It’s located at the Palmerston location, but the area covers all of the Casuarina, Darwin out to Batchelor, Elliot catchment area.

Thank you. The Arafura office is not part of greater Darwin?---No, it’s not.

And that means that the Tiwi Islands are not included in the greater Darwin?---No. That’s right.

And I know you’ve set this out in your statement, but I’ll try and summarise the role of the greater Darwin investigation and assessment team as being to receive referrals of notification of harm to children from the central intake team.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just remember, Mr McAvoy, it’s being transcribed. You’re going like a very fast train.

MR McAVOY: I must apologise to the transcriber. I will slow down, Commissioner.


MR McAVOY: The referrals of notifications are those that have been screened in?---By the central intake team, yes.

Yes. The investigation assessment team also undertakes safety assessments by applying one of the suite of structured decision-making tools?---Yes, that’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And I’ll refer to those tools as SDM tools from here on, if that’s okay?---That’s fine.

There’s also a responsibility on that team to determine whether matters the subject of notification or the subject of the notification or any other harm that has occurred or whether there’s any risk of harm; that’s correct?---Yes. We investigate matters on the primary harm type that’s reported in the intake, but we also look at all harm types and then we conduct a risk assessment.

And so that process is generally referred to as investigation and substantiations process?---The – so what we do is we do the investigation component and that’s what we substantiate on. We conduct a holistic assessment and then we determine the risk, so yes.

And once that has been completed there’s a write-up of an investigation report?---Investigation summary report is written up at the end of the conclusion of it.

And that has to be done before the file can be closed; is that correct?---That’s right.

And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask you about what appears at paragraph 10.3 of your first statement which is the work method for that greater Darwin investigation and assessment. That’s where you say:

The child protection practitioner is then responsible for interviewing all relevant parties.

Practically, how – what happens? There will be parents, wider family perhaps, other people who live in the house. Any number of other people. So how does it occur?---Okay. So once we receive an intake report from the central intake team, the case manager and the team leader will plan the investigation. The practitioners are required to respond within the time frame according to what’s screened in by the central intake team. For example, priority one, they’re required to respond within a 24 hour period to start the investigation. We – one of the teams within my work unit led by the practice leader sends out requests to service providers to share information under section 5.1A of the legislation. That’s a standard letter that goes out to the key service providers that are identified in that planning where we need information from. The practitioners are then required to contact the parents if it’s deemed safe to do so for the children, and organise a time to meet with them. In some cases, parents will not engage or are difficult to contact. We try and make three attempts: by phone, by mail delivery, email if we’ve got those details, or hand delivery to the house, and if that doesn’t occur then we don’t always engage with families. However, if that doesn’t occur, if we’re not able to engage with the parents, we do let them know that if the children are at school or at a child care centre, we will be accessing those children at that centre, which we do do. So we try and work with the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

parents and get them on – you know, to understand our process and what the allegations are and hopefully work with them throughout the process.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: How hard is that just – understand the legislation allows you to do that; talk to children without a - - -?---Sorry, I can’t hear you.

I understand that legislation allows you to interview children without an adult being present or a carer. How do the kids cope with that?---So if it’s done at school we contact the principal and ask them, just let them know that we’ve got – we’d like to come and interview the children. Based on their information of the child, do they think it’s in the child’s interests to provide a support person from the school. Then when we get to the school we also ask the child whether they would like someone to sit in with them.

What age group are we looking at that you do that for?---Any child age.

Like a year one?---Yes. That’s correct.

That must be difficult?---Yeah. Our practitioners, though, are however highly trained to adapt their tools and way of interviewing to meet the child’s developmental needs. So often the children, especially the children that I’ve worked directly with, they actually enjoy the work that we do with them because we use art, we use toys, we use, you know, all sorts of ways to actively engage and when we talk to the children we ask them open-ended questions about, can you tell us about, you know, who lives in your family, can you draw that for us, can you tell us who sleeps where and all that sort of stuff. So it’s really open ended narrative type story-telling, so it’s not intimidating to the children at all. If at any time the investigator determines that the child is not engaging for whatever reason or the support person then we cease that interview.

And how do the carers and parents react when they find out you have spoken to the child? Do they then engage?---On some occasions they do. On some occasions they will give us consent to interview their children at school but they won’t talk to us. On most occasions we do however work with parents in a positive way.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And presumably those front-line investigators are not permitted to ask leading questions of the children?---No, that’s right. It’s open-ended questions and it’s based at the cognitive and age of the – the cognitive ability and age of the child, the development at level. If there’s children that are presented with disabilities, then obviously we adapt our type and style of questioning.

Would all of the children have somebody apart from departmental people present while the questioning is taking place?---Some children choose not to have anyone from the school. Some children choose to have, like, their nana or pop with them in the interview. It really depend on every individual child. They’re all different. We


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

certainly do not interview children if they want somebody there and there’s nobody available for them.

Some little ones really wouldn’t even be able to understand what it meant to have a support person, presumably?---We try and identify with the child who they would feel comfortable, who they feel comfortable with in the school or within the family and just say, “We need to talk to you about some things that are going at home. Would you rather wait for Nanna or the school counsellor or whoever to be available?” So – keeping in mind our practitioners are very trained to use child friendly language and children are our focus of all the work that we do. So I think generally the outcomes for the way – the outcomes for the children through the process that we use is very, very empowering and positive from the feedback that I’ve received.

Thank you. Yes, Mr McAvoy.


And it’s the case, isn’t it, that when a parent doesn’t engage, or refuses to allow access, that’s a factor that can be taken into account in the SDM safety assessment?---Yes. So we try and say to parents that it’s in their best interests to engage because this is an allegation only which means that we would like to hear their side of the story. So if they choose not to and it’s usually for reasons when they’ve had involvement in the past with Territory Families or somebody in their family has had involvement with Territory Families, or they just believe that what goes on in their home is their business. So – but it is considered, whether the parent engages or doesn’t engage. It’s not often that the parents won’t engage in some capacity with us. It may be one parent that doesn’t, but normally we are able to talk with somebody, some significant family member.

But there’s a range of reasons why individual parents may not want to engage with the department and - - -?---Yes.

- - - if we turn to JS2, which is annexure to Ms Simpson’s statement, under the heading 1A, Safety Threats - - -?---Yep.

- - - we see at sub-paragraph 5:

The family does not provide access to the child young person.

You’re aware that in many Aboriginal communities there’s a distrust of government and in particular child welfare services?---Yes, that’s right.

And so there might be some quite valid reasons in the parent’s mind why they might not want to talk to someone from your agency?---Yes, but I’d just like to say that the percentage of families in remote communities that engage is very, very high compared to urban families. So we get a much greater positive working relationship


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

with families in remote communities. If we are not the best – if we assess that we are not the best people to initially engage with the family then we will consult with elders in the community to find out who would be best to work with us to try and engage with that family.

So in your role as manager of the investigation assessment team, you oversee the operation of the team; that’s correct?---I manage the operation. I’ve got team leaders that are directly involved in service delivery on a day-to-day basis with every case.

And through your team leaders you ensure that the work is being performed?---Yes, that’s correct.

You have the role of managing the staff, all of the staff?---I manage – I directly – the team leaders directly report to me. The staff – the other practitioners report directly to the team leader. So my primary responsibility is to manage the operations and the resources.

Who makes the decisions about recruitment? Who offers jobs to staff?---We have a – what we call a bulk recruitment that runs in the northern region. We normally try and run that every one to two months. Members from the management leadership team sit on that recruitment panels, and they determine who is suitable for the positions that are vacant and then the acting directors in consultation with the acting executive director decides what resources will go to what team.

And you must also have responsibility to report to your manager?---Yes, I do.

And who is that?---Acting director Anthony Barnes.

And you also have the important function of reviewing and overseeing – that may not be the correct term – overseeing the process of removal of children from families?---Yes. I’m the decision-maker in consultation with legal services and the team leaders and case managers and Aboriginal community workers about when a child is removed from their family.

And at present the greater Darwin office of the investigation assessment team has a full complement of staff?---Yes, we do at this point in time.

So you’ve set that out at paragraph 9 of your statement and it show that is there’s one manager which is yourself, one practice leader, three team leaders, 17 child protection practitioners and one senior Aboriginal community worker; that’s correct?---Yes.

And that hasn’t changed since your statement on 25 May?---No, that’s still accurate.

At paragraphs 18 to 20 of your statement you set out some issues relating to the workload of that team?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can you see those paragraphs on the screen?---Yes. I can.

At paragraph 18 you note that there are 1,025 open cases. Do you agree that that’s a large number of open cases for a front-line child protection staff of 17 child protection practitioners?---Yes, it is, but we’re a very large office. You will note however in paragraphs 19 and 20 it separates the two different types under the 1,025 open cases for greater Darwin investigation and assessment.

We’ll come to that in a second?---Yes.

Thank you. But that is a large number, isn’t it?---Yes, it is.

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, could she be allowed to complete that answer?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we’re getting there, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR McAVOY: So I’m moving on now to paragraph 19 and 20. You show that – you state there that there were 510 incomplete statements, sorry, investigations, and another 515 cases in which the investigation is complete but the report hasn’t yet been written; that’s correct? That’s what you put in your statement?---Yes. It – it depends on what type of report. It may not be just the investigation summary report. There could be a case closure document outstanding. It depends. I can’t guarantee that it’s just the ISR that is completed or hasn’t been completed. There’s a number of admin tasks that need to be completed prior to a case being closed.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So the investigation is done, there’s no further action needed?---That’s right.

Out of those 515?---It’s just an administrative process that we haven’t yet finalised for the case to be closed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That seems very high to me?---Yes.

I must say, you have half of your caseload still pending; it skews the data terribly, does it not?---Yes, unfortunately, due to various reasons identified in my statement, difficulties with recruitment, the high vacancy rates of last year, it’s resulted in us not being able to keep up with the number of reports that are coming into the office as well as complete the administrative tasks of the older investigations.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I was going to ask you a question earlier. You talk about, in paragraph 11, about the seven day time frame would be okay if you had full occupancy rates and the child protection practitioners have a nil backlog. Has that ever been – has that ever occurred, where you had a full occupancy and there’s been nil backlog?---No, not to my knowledge whilst I’ve been working in Territory Families.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The fact that there are so many administrative, as it’s put, but it does – I mean, if it was merely administrative, you would think that could be disposed of quite quickly. It’s obviously a relatively arduous task to sign off on these reports. Does that mean that numbers of staff have left without finishing their work?---Yes, that’s correct.

So it’s up then to somebody who’s not familiar with the work to reconstruct it in order to write the report up to close the file?---Yes. And because some of the cases that are – are open from administrative ..... relatively older within months, it requires the – a reviewer to review the case to ensure that we’ve got relevant information which may include contacting other service providers to get relevant information before we can make a decision to close.

If it’s much time has passed you may need to check up again to see that there are no issues in another notification, for example, presumably?---Yeah, if that occurs and we do receive a new notification then the older one is closed and we start working on the new notification.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: When you say closed does it become irrelevant to the new investigation, or is it part of it?---Yeah, it’s part of the new one, so rather than have five open investigations on one family, we try and work with one. But the other previous reports are captured in the current investigation. So for those cases that are still open for admin purposes it means that there’s no current reports being presented to Territory Families.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What’s the program for trying to close off those 510, Ms Simpson?---My understanding is, but I haven’t had – I haven’t cited this, but there is a project plan that’s being drafted by my acting executive director of the northern region, Mr Damian Wally, and he’s proposing that we get resources, two resources from my team and resources from other teams to actually review cases and with the time frame of closing those cases but also some of my other cases that are still open without an outcome within a three month period. I understand that’s being done in consultation with the Children’s Commissioner and the CEO but I’ve got no evidence to support that. That’s just what I’ve been advised. So the agency is trying to come up with strategies to address the backlog in reference to the ones that are still open for an administrative purpose in my team, but also to assist putting resources into review the ones that still don’t have a substantiation outcome recorded.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. And on that note at paragraphs 22 and 23 of your statement you discuss the issue of workload management and indicate that there have been some interim strategies that have been implemented by Territory Families to deal with backlogs?---Yes, that’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is it correct to say that there have been a number of interim workload strategies over the years to try and deal with the issue of backlogs?---At different times there has been a number, yes.

And you make the observation that those strategies have been short term – this is in paragraph 23 – short term and have not fully addressed the entirety of the backlog cases and have not resulted in sustainable change in managing the increasing workload.

And from that we understand from the workload continues to increase with the number of notifications and referrals from the central intake team?---Into my team, yes, it does.

And that the – that whilst you might have – from time to time reduce the backlog, it is not a sustainable reduction and you find that you – you get increases?---Yes. Unfortunately that is the case and it’s generally got to do with how many vacancy rates we have or what experienced staff we have in the office.

But nevertheless there’s a backlog in the – in the closure of cases; yes?---In my office, yes, there is.

And it’s correct that the largest area of backlog is at the Palmerston office; is that correct? Rather than at Casuarina?---Casuarina doesn’t – is no longer involved in investigation assessments. My office is responsible for all of greater Darwin.

One of the strategies which has been used in the past is one which involves a shortened process for – of investigation for children over – or review for children over six years of age. Are you aware of that particular workload management strategy?---No, I’m not.

Are you aware of a practice of – in dealing with the backlogs where there have been identified a number of matters which have been dealt with as part of a backlog remediation measure where the notification or the report has been substantiated but the notation “no action possible” is recorded against that substantiation?---The only thing that I can think of that you’re referring to is if a new report comes in and the older one is closed with the recording of “no action possible”. However the allegations of harm are factored into the recent report. I’m not aware of any other strategy that you’re suggesting.

Why would it be that no action is possible?---That’s a policy decision because the – on that actual intake we didn’t follow – we didn’t investigate because it’s been captured under the new intake report. I’m not sure why the agency has made a decision to record no action possible on a – on a, what we call a duplicate case that’s prior to the one that we’re working on.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s a curious form of words, isn’t it, for what’s actually happening?---We’re pretty limited to what we can actually record because


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it’s a drop-down box on a data system that is historically a health data system that we’ve piggybacked onto, so it’s not the best data system, and as a result we’re limited to what the options are.

MR McAVOY: In dealing with the backlog of cases, whether it be those requiring administrative closure or the active open cases, is it the case that in your experience that the – the increase in substantiations will result in a decrease – will match a decrease in the unfinalised investigations?---Sorry, I’m just going to try and understand that question a bit. So the increase in substantiation will - - -

If I can take you to a document, perhaps that might be easier?---Sure.

Can we go to the minutes of the executive leadership group meeting of Territory Families dated from May 2017. It’s STB150 DCF.006.067.001. That’s the document. Thank you. And at page 4 of that document – sorry, we’ll go back to the front page. You understand what the executive leadership group is?---Yes. I do.

And you see that the ELG sponsor is listed on the fourth line as Leonie Warburton?---Yes.

And you’re aware of who Leonie Warburton is in Territory Families?---Yes. I am.

If we can look at the heading Purpose of the Paper, it’s to present analysis from March and April monthly performance reports. You can see that?---Yes.

If we turn to page 4, you can see that at the first dot point it’s – the observation is made:

There was a large growth in the number of substantiations in quarter 3 with 706 substantiations of harm; a 94 per cent increase from the same quarter in 2015 to 2016 and 59 per cent more than the quarter 2 of the 2016/2017. Almost half of the 776 substantiated cases for made for February 2017.

Were you aware of those figures?---No, I wasn’t.

In looking at those figures, is it concerning to you that there’s a 94 per cent increase over the same quarter in the previous year?---I’m probably not the best person to comment on those stats. I can only really comment on the stats in my office and the trends that are in my office. I think it’s – if I relay that back to my office and my statistics, noting that my area of expertise is not analysing statistics either, if there’s a – if that was the case in my office, then, yes, it would be concerning to me.

Just so we can understand where precisely an investigation is at when it’s complete, does that mean the family risk assessment has been completed?---Yes. If I can just refer you to my first statement, annexure JS1, and then I’ll talk to that if that’s okay? It sort of determines, this is our preferred seven day framework that’s been implemented into the greater Darwin investigation assessment team to try and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

manage the workload. You will see here on certain days is what these – the case managers or investigators are required to complete where possible. So the recording of the outcome on CCIS which is in day six and seven occurs after the risk assessment.

Yes. And so in the – in the incomplete matters which you’re referring to and which there’s only administrative tasks for closure - - -?---Yes.

- - - are you able to say whether the family risk assessment has been undertaken in all of those matters?---Unfortunately, no, I’m not in a position to say that.

Are you able to say whether the family risk assessment has been undertaken in any of those 510 matters?---I would very much hope that majority of those cases a risk assessment has been completed but I can’t confirm or deny that.

Is there – the problem of the risk assessment not having been completed is that the family support services don’t flow back to the family until that risk assessment has been completed; is that correct?---Not necessarily. In some cases where we identify that the family needs priority support then we will refer earlier on in our process.

But in the normal course of events that’s when it occurs, isn’t it, after the family risk assessment is done?---Yes. But it doesn’t always occur, depending on the – each situation is assessed differently.

I’m not suggesting that occurs on every occasion but that’s ordinarily - - -?---Yes. That’s correct.

And so it might be that there are numerous matters which are contained within the 510 incomplete investigations which – in which families may be in need of support services but they are not yet being provided?---Yes. However, I would just like to say that we have got resources in our office that are going through and reviewing those cases based on under twos first, under fives and children with disabilities for the purpose of reassessing and linking those services to relevant – those cases to relevant support services.

It’s very important for particularly the younger people – younger children to receive those services as soon as possible; is that correct?---If there’s a need, yes, that’s correct.

And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that seven day work flow schedule which we’ve just been looking at, is that just for the – your area, the greater Darwin investment, or is it likely to be the flow that would occur in other assessment areas?---This strategy was implemented into my work unit with consultation with the acting executive director of the northern region for the purpose of increasing the – the throughput into our office. I can’t – I’m not sure if it’s going to be rolled out. Can I just go back to the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

previous point, however, is I think it needs to be clarified that in some cases not all families require services as such because they’re getting – because often family members will kick in and provide the supports. So I just want it noted that there’s a large percentage of families, especially Aboriginal families, where extended family members do actually provide intensive support to the family and therefore it’s not necessary or not a preferred way for us to do a referral to another NGO, for example.

Would you be able to – it’s probably difficult to pluck this out without notice – but would you hazard a guess, just from your own experience, the percentage of families that actually produce some outcomes that don’t require NGOs to go in to do services for them; in other words, a grandmother or an aunty or someone like that will come in?---It is very difficult to provide that, those stats, but based on my experience in the Child Abuse Task Force a large percentage of those families do intervene for matters that come to us. Obviously, because they’ve got the support networks in the remote communities. In urban matters, we find that families that are more linked to their traditional families in remote locations tend to put their hand up and say we can offer support to the family.

MR McAVOY: Just taking a step back, Ms Simpson, you referred to the process of reviewing the outstanding incomplete matters for the purpose of establishing a priority dealing with the youngest children first. How long has that process been in place?---I implemented that strategy around about October, November of last year.

Okay?---As our figures were starting to increase around the matters that weren’t having a regular contact from our service.

And so by “regular contact” you’re suggesting that some weeks or months may have gone by since they were spoken to?---Directly. However, we often receive third party information from schools, child care centres, health centres and police.

If – I just want to take you to the summary report for 27 October 2016 for the Palmerston service centre. It’s in the bundle – document 5 – sorry, 4, in the bundle, dated 27 October. Just wait a moment. I can give you – I can give the operator, Commissioners, the DCF, the ringtail number. It’s DCF.0065.0006.4322. Whilst the operator is working on that, I will ask you a couple of other questions and we will come back to it. Is it your role as the manager of the greater Darwin team to ensure that investigations are completed on time, or is that your team managers’ responsibility?---It lies initially with the team leader and then it’s my job to implement strategies to try and support the team leader for that to occur.

But – and you would agree that currently, and for a significant period prior to the present day, a situation has existed where child protection officers has commenced but have not finished their investigations and that those investigations have laid incomplete for sometimes months on end; that’s correct?---Without a substantiation recorded, yes, that’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you have – you don’t have to – but I suggest to you that’s an unsatisfactory outcome?---Yes, it is. I’ve raised this issue numerous times with more senior people than myself and also we get exceptions report weekly and so do the – yes, that’s it. One of those. And they’re also sent to the acting director and the acting executive director of the northern region, and we have put in strategies to address some of the outstanding reports which is attached to my supplementary statement, but, again, as mentioned in my first statement, it’s never ongoing strategies that totally gets on top of all the outstanding cases. It certainly assists for short periods of time.

Sorry. You mentioned raising the issue with somebody. Who have you raised it with?---Historically it was my acting – it was my director at the time which was Com Elliott, and also I’ve had conversations with the previous executive director which was Karen Broadfoot and more recently the acting executive director which is Damian Wally and also the acting director now which is Anthony Barnes.

And perhaps starting first with acting director Anthony Barnes, what is the response which you get to raising this issue?---The response, the current response is that the acting executive director Damian Wally has proposed, my understanding a project plan, under the project plan which I mentioned before there’s a workforce manage the strategy to try and address my older cases in my office, whether they’ve got a substantiation outcome or they’re open for administrative purposes.

If we can just go to that document that was on the screen, the exceptions report. You’ve – obviously you’re familiar with these reports?---Yes, I am.

There’s a description about the report under the first heading as providing a breakdown of the most outstanding exceptions for a work unit and it being – the report being based on data extracted directly from the CCIS. And that the report being a valid representation at the date of the report only. It notes then under the terms used in the report an urgency rating categories including priority 1, 24 hours, priority 2 within three days, priority 3 within five days, priority 4 within 10 days; correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

And then if we go over on to page 3 of that report, we see a list of exceptions identified firstly by work unit which is DCF Palmerston, which is your unit?---Not the – not the entirety of my unit. This report also captures 83Bs and 84As and some of it – my work unit does not respond to any 83Bs and doesn’t respond to all 84As, so it doesn’t separate those out. The reason it reports to DCF Palmerston is the long-term unit that sits in the Palmerston work unit but at the other end of the office covers the 83Bs and unfortunately the reporting doesn’t separate those out.

Are you able to give an estimate of what percentage of those would be 83 - - -?---Not an accurate estimate, no, I’m sorry.

Well, let’s just have a look at the – this report anyway. The first listing shows an urgency rating of priority 1: to 24 hours. So that’s up to 24 hours. That’s indicating that the investigation should have been completed within 24 hours?---No. It – it


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

means that the investigation should have commenced within 24 hours. We have a 100 per cent compliant rate of commencing our investigations within the priority rating times.

And the commencement of an investigation is signalled by having completed the safety assessments - - -?---No, it’s meaningful contact with the family which could mean talking to the parents about the allegations in the report. It could – it really depends. It’s a variety of tasks.

In any event, we look to the last column. We see the days since received. So that indicates that there’s – 29 days have passed since the referral was received; that’s correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

And the procedure which the department has adopted is that these investigations are to be completed within 28 days?---Yes. That’s the policy.

And so if we go down to the bottom of the page we see, still within the table, another priority 1 matter which has – was received 65 days before?---Can I just make a comment here. All matters are initially assessed, whether the child is safe, unsafe, or safe with plan, within the allocated time frame of the priority 1. I don’t think it’s accurate to look at the priority 1 because that’s what the – the central intake team has assessed based on the initial information they have received. My team then goes out and initiates the investigation within the 24 hours and receives additional information. That doesn’t necessarily mean once we’ve received additional information, if central intake had had that information, would it have been screened in as a priority 1.

But nevertheless, the – if we turn over the page, we see priority 1 matters which haven’t been finalised, 141 days, if you look at halfway down the page, there were one, two, three, four which haven’t been finalised 141 days after being received. I mean, that’s for priority 1 matters. Surely priority 1 matters would get priority and the closure of matters after they’ve been commenced is an important part of the process?---Again, I’d just like to say that just because central intake assess something as a priority 1, they’re often not privileged to all the information, so we do respond within the priority 1 response standard time for 100 per cent of all matters, and then we reassess. So a priority 1, once we’ve gathered further information, may not have been assessed as a priority 1 if they had received that information. However, noting the incomplete investigations outside of – well, reporting on 141 days, if I can use those figures, is not okay. I accept that. However, as a manager of a work unit we have implemented interim strategies to try and address those and one of those strategies is within the – within the resources I’ve got is continually reassessing the under 2s, under 5s, and the children with disabilities most at risk. And also the acting executive director in consultation with the CEO and deputy CEO are implementing strategies to address it as well. So hopefully that will mean additional resources to address my outstanding investigations. But no, it’s not okay. But in reality, that’s what we’re working with, with the resources that we have. And the fluctuating vacancy rates that occur in all child protection offices.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: When you do – when you do some further investigation ..... is it the case that, in fact, you can ..... priority 1 at all. Is there any capacity then to reassign it a classification to that.

MR McAVOY: Excuse me Commissioner. I’m sorry for interrupting. I have been just informed that there’s no live stream.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s stopped.

MR McAVOY: And perhaps we might take the opportunity to have an early lunch .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly. Be more useful to do that. Thank you. Could we be kept informed then of progress otherwise - - -

MR McAVOY: Certainly, Commissioner. I understand the microphones aren’t working either.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, they’re clearly not working.

MR McAVOY: So I’m happy to have a shorter lunchbreak if that’s what the Commissioners have in mind, bearing in mind the timetable for this afternoon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m certainly – we’re happy to resume at half past one, if that’s thought to be necessary.

MR McAVOY: I’m told yes, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Adjourn until half past one.

ADJOURNED [12.47 pm]

RESUMED [1.35 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, just before we get back to Ms Simpson’s evidence, I just need to do some adjustment to the exhibit numbers. This morning I inadvertently started after the last one we had when we were sitting in Alice Springs but, in fact, there have been a number of exhibits added administratively. So can I correct the record and Professor Silburn’s two statements should be exhibit 510 and 511, respectively. And the PowerPoint presentation should be exhibit 512. And – where are we up to? 513 for Ms Simpson’s first statement, 514 for her second, and 515 for the supplementary tender bundle. Have I got those right, Dani? Thank you, Mr McAvoy.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. Can I ask the operator to return to the document we had on the screen before the power outage.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. What’s the question you want to ask, Mr McAvoy?

MR McAVOY: I just wanted to take the witness to the top section of that document. If you could just zoom in?---Sorry, can I just get it up on my screen, if that’s okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it not on your screen at all?---No.

Could one of you go and check it, please.

MR McAVOY: Okay. Ms Simpson, could you just look at the asterisk note at the top of that page. Does that signify that these numbers are, in fact, the cases referred to at paragraph 19 of your statement, the approximately 510 incomplete child protection investigations?---Yes. That’s correct.

So this doesn’t include the cases where the investigation is complete and there’s just an outstanding administrative task?---No.

These are ones where an investigation has commenced, hasn’t been completed yet. Yes, that’s right.

And so to cut it short, if we turn to the third last page, you can see that – the bottom of the third last page, please. You can see there’s a priority 4 matter there. The next page, please. Priority 4 matter which was commenced on 10 May 2016, or received on 10 May 2016, the investigation started 13 May, and it’s 169 days since it was received, and if we go to the next page, there are 491 overdue cases; that’s correct?---Yes. As of 27 October 2016.

Yes. And do you know the present number is close to what you’ve got in your statement?---Close – yes. Close to that, yeah.

And is it the case that in respect of those cases where an investigation has commenced but not been completed that an officer has simply done the initial risk assessment and then moved on to the next matter?---Initial safety assessment.

Safety assessment, sorry?---Yes, that’s correct.

And so that’s a workload management tool that you use internally?---So what we try and do, all the new reports at – are allocated to our work unit we must do an initial safety assessment on those matters, so unfortunately if – depending on how many reports are coming into the office, if we don’t have the resources to continue on after an initial assessment after we assess the child is safe or safe with plan and finish off


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the rest of the process, then we will reallocate resources to respond to the new matters that are coming into the – into the work unit.

As you observed overall that doesn’t result in any sustainable change?---No. However, what we also have implemented into our team is resources within the office going through the matters that are unfinalised and basing that on the – as I said before, the most vulnerable which is the under twos, under fives and children with disabilities, and going back and reassessing those and progressing that work.

But that’s only been a recent prioritisation?---As of last year.

Now, the – is the absolute focus on priority response time directed at avoiding some tragedy occurring while the child is subjected to investigation, or is there some other issue at play?---The reason why we put the resources into doing an initial safety assessment is to determine what intervention we need to implement immediately, and in some cases it can be removal of the child, hence court applications. In other cases it can be bringing services or family members to support the family, or otherwise in some situations the information that we have received is not totally accurate. So that it reduces the – it identifies the level of safety to the child at that point in time.

But it is the case that there’s not enough staff to do the work that’s coming into the unit?---I wouldn’t say there’s not enough staff to do the work that’s coming into the work unit. I think if we consider the inexperience of some of the staff, the fluctuating vacancy rates, in addition to the cases that are still situated in our work unit, I think you need to consider those contextual factors that impact on the ability for us to respond to all the matters that are coming into our work unit at this point in time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So your establishment, you think, is actually satisfactory for the work .....?---Based on the number of intake reports that we receive, which is between 30 and 120 per month and the number of positions that I’ve got in my office, if we were just able to respond to those and we had experienced staff, then yes, we would have enough based on the number of reports coming at this point in time.

MR McAVOY: But at the moment, not completing the investigations as they come in and focussing just on the priority safety assessments, that seems to be a work process that is driven by the crisis that’s in front of you every day. Is that a fair assessment?---Yes, that’s one factor.

How does that affect your staff, working in that sort of environment?---The staff unfortunately hold a large caseload. It varies from our office from, depending on the experience of the staff, from approximately 30 cases – noting, however that in an investigation assessment team we try and look at family units, but as the Royal Commission is talking cases, I will talk cases. So it ranges from approximately 30 to less than – around about – between 100 and 120. So the pressure on the staff of having that many cases on their case list is huge, and it has an impact on them. So as


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

a result of that, that’s why when the staff are allocated new cases the team leader is responsible for prioritising the tasks that need to be done by that case manager within that seven day cycle. So - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think having that pressure on them must mean that it’s quite difficult for them to take on any new training, for example, or refreshment training in the course of .....?---Part – in our work unit we promote that we’re a supportive and developmental work unit and as a result we – not only do we offer placements for students regularly but also we encourage new graduates coming into the work unit. We don’t – we don’t not send staff to training. It’s a priority in our work unit but unfortunately as a result of that it does put extra pressure on the more experienced staff when those staff are out at training, but we ensure that all our staff are trained and if we identify through supervision that they’re needing additional training, then we do suggest they go to refresher training. So we don’t jeopardise their training.

MR McAVOY: But nevertheless, there must be an issue with staff burnout?---There – there can be. It’s historically been an issue in Territory Families. It’s – it’s reduced more now I think because in our investigation and assessment team and Child Abuse Task Force we have a mentoring framework that we’ve implemented into our work unit. We have a buddy system that we’ve implemented which means the less experienced staff are buddied up with the more experienced staff. The way that we’ve got our work unit set up, hence we’ve identified people to do specialist roles so they’re continually coaching and mentoring, e.g., for example, court preparation work. We’ve got an assignment officer within our work unit. We’ve got somebody responsible for doing the section 84As and the PA – the section 51 reports for the Youth Justice court, and those people become specialists in that area and then they start to train less experienced staff. So the level have support and the frameworks that we’ve implemented has reduced, from the information that I’ve received from the staff, the pressure on them. However, noting that they still do carry a considerable caseload.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Does the section 84A initiatives originate in your office or this area, or does somebody else decide that there should be an investigation?---Again, that’s done by the central intake team and often in consultation with our practice integrity unit which is based in central office, and then some of those section 84As will come into both of my work units depending on the matters presented.

MR McAVOY: Where – I asked you before about circumstances where there might be a spike in substantiations and you said that that would concern you. If we can just go to a moment, please, operators, to supplementary tender bundle 150. If we can just zoom in on the lower graph. You can see that in that graph it’s shown that in February 2017 there were 260 notifications in the northern region. Substantiations, sorry, in the northern region, and that stands out head and shoulders above the rest of the data, doesn’t it?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And if I suggested to you that that 200 – figure of 260 was comprised of 219 substantiations from the Palmerston office would that be something that you can recall being – occurring in February this year with that office?---No.

No?---But I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I just don’t – can’t recall or can confirm that.

If we go to the monthly performance report, please, for February 2017, and if we can – you can see that for the northern region we’re looking at the monthly performance report now for February 2017 and you look at the heading for Palmerston and the total substantiated matters is 219. Can you see that?---Yes.

And by way of comparison, we look at Arafura which is 31, Arnhem, two, I understand that Casuarina has now been closed but that was two. Does that figure concern you, that there were 219 substantiations in one month?---It depends on why that was. I will need some contextual information around why that was. So it could have been for a number of reasons. In February 2017 we filled a number of our vacancies which also we had a – which is attached to my supplementary statement, a workload management strategy that was implemented into our office, and some other offices. In addition to that, it could have been an increase in intake reports that were being attended to for that period of time because we had additional resources in the office. Noting, however, our work unit is the biggest in the northern region for investigation and assessments as well, so it’s hard to comment on exactly why that was.

Well, if we just take a moment and break it down a little bit, if – if you’ve got 17 staff, I’m assuming you had full complement at the time?---Of professionals - - -

Yes?--- - - - child protection practitioners, 17, yes.

That would mean that there would have been in excess of 10 substantiations for that month alone for each staff member that is professional officer; yes?---If it was only for my 17 staff it could have captured some of the workload management strategy staff that were working off site and it can also capture 83Bs which has been conducted by the long-term team that comes under my data.

But when you combine that with the 188 investigations commenced in that month, so that’s another 10 investigations per officer commenced, that’s a sizeable workload for one month, isn’t it?---Yes, it is. We are a large work unit. We cover a big region.

It raises questions, Ms Simpson, as to the extent to which in attempting to reduce the backlog there has been a lesser standard applied to the substantiations in order to get the backlog down. Is that a possibility?---Not to my knowledge, no.

So it could have occurred but you might not know about it?---It could have, but I doubt that would have occurred. But it’s – it’s responsibility of the team leaders to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

review the work done by the case managers. Matters come to me for – well, high risk and very high risk come to me. The other matters don’t come to my attention.

But it’s the case – you understand that a finding of substantiation of harm has serious consequences. You understand that?---Yes, that’s right.

And even if there’s no – even if it’s recorded that there’s no action possible, the existence of substantiation on a Territory Families file will be taken into account when determining the safety of a child or a sibling subject to a further notification, won’t it?---Yes. That’s correct.

And you can see that when you look at JS2, please, operator. And you can see at item 12, which is on the second page under the heading Safety Threats, item 12 says:

Current circumstances combined with historical information regarding harm suggest that the child, a young person’s safety may be of immediate concern.

So immediate 12 of the SDM safety assessment requires the historical information which would include previous substantiations to be taken into account. You’re nodding your head?---Yes, that’s right.

Yes. Further than that, where there’s an existing substantiation, it’s the case, isn’t it, that a case worker would view the next notification that’s received through the lens of the fact that there’s an – there’s been a previous notification?---It depends on – depends on the situation. Can I just add though that substantiations are not recorded lightly. We have – in the policy and procedure manual it’s – it indicates what – well, it defines what behavioural indicators and physical indicators suggest that substantiation has occurred. So it’s not something recorded lightly. We’ve got a guide that assists staff to recommend whether a matter should be substantiated or not substantiated and the team leader makes that final decision. For high risk and – high risk and very high risk matters that come under – under me, then I also review that as part of my process. So - - -

But in cases where there’s no child protection order, so there’s not a high or very high risk, it doesn’t come to you and you’ve indicated that you may not know whether the substantiation process has been appropriately completed?---It does, however, at this point in time, go to the practice leader who’s one level under me.

.....?---So I don’t have capacity unfortunately to review all the matters that come into both my teams. So as a result we’ve – the practice leader reviews the low and moderate risks, who’s been assessed and approved by the acting executive director to have the delegation to do that, so that assists us to get the work through rather than having it stuck with me because I don’t have capacity to review all the cases.

The point I’m seeking to – I will withdraw that. Ms Simpson, in addition to the use of substantiations, previous substantiations in some way to – I’ll take it into account in the new – in the investigation with respect to new notifications, there’s also a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

further consequence – serious consequence of a substantiation and that is, in certain cases, certain circumstances, particularly with respect to neglect, there’s a referral to the CPMIM program?---That’s right.

So that what that means is that the parent of the child will get a – will get 70 per cent of their income quarantined by Centrelink; is that correct?---Yes. In total, but there’s already been – it’s only an increase of 20 per cent from what they’ve already had, if I use the word quarantined.

So it’s an increase so that - - -?---15 or 20 per cent, yep.

They may have already had 50 per cent?---That’s right. That’s right.

And now it will go up to 70 per cent?---That’s right.

Are you saying that that’s not a serious issue?---I think it can have a significant impact on families. However, can I just say a substantiation of neglect is not done lightly and it’s only – having a previous substantiation is only one – one factor that determines whether the children are currently unsafe and have – have resulted in harm or exploitation or neglect. It’s one factor of a previous substantiation. It’s not an entire factor.

But what you’re telling us is that the – that your unit, at least, takes a substantiation process very seriously and goes through a rigorous process that has as many aspects to it, and in February this year you happened to – your agency, your unit happened to put through 219 substantiations as well as commencing 188 cases?---219 is recorded, but, like I said, I’m not one-hundred-percent sure what is actually in my work unit because those figures relate to other teams as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How are we travelling with Ms Simpson’s evidence, Mr McAvoy?

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioners, not too much longer. I appreciate the time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We do have to make some – we have got other witnesses this afternoon.

MR McAVOY: I appreciate that.

In the IAT, you have one senior Aboriginal community worker?---In the what, sorry?

In the investigation and assessment team, you have one Aboriginal – senior Aboriginal community worker?---Yes. Funded for that work unit, yes.

And given the number of cases that you’ve got open, and given what we know about the percentage of Aboriginal children within the system, even if you took a percentage of, say, 80 per cent of that figure of 515 that would give us 412 cases that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

that single officer might need to be involved in. Do you think that’s an acceptable ratio?---No, and that’s why, as a strategy, the senior Aboriginal community workers from the Child Abuse Task Force works across both teams, because in the Child Abuse Task Force we’re able to access other remote Aboriginal workers that can provide assistance to the Child Abuse Task Force. So we actually have access to two senior Aboriginal community workers within investigation and assessment, plus we do have a child protection practitioner in investigation and assessment. We involve the senior Aboriginal community workers in matters that involve locating family, drafting up genograms, facilitating family meetings where there’s a strong need, and also to liaise with Aboriginal Corporations where we believe we’ll get better outcomes for children if there’s an Aboriginal worker leading that engagement with that organisation. At this point in time we use that – we use those resources very wisely, and the senior Aboriginal community worker also is a consultant to me in regard to matters that are put before me that may need to go to the court, and obviously those discussions with her include, “Are there any other options? Can you identify family?” I would always welcome more senior Aboriginal community workers. We manage the best we can with the resources that we’ve got. To follow best practice principles, I would welcome more Aboriginal staff.

But you don’t employ them directly yourself. That would have to be through the recruitment process?---I don’t have the funded positions in my team, so it would be additional funding for those positions.

Have you applied for additional funding for those positions?---I’m not responsible for that across Territory Families.

So you understand that a very significant area of complaint to this Commission from Aboriginal people is about the lack of communication or the communication failures between the community and Aboriginal people and Territory Families. I mean, it’s not an insignificant issue. You’re nodding your head. You’re signalling agreement with me?---Yes, I agree. I think it would be beneficial for Territory Families to have more senior Aboriginal community workers, in particular, in my office, which I can immediately comment on, and also if we’re able to attract Aboriginal people to apply for child protection practitioner positions would be greatly received in my office as well.

Who would be able to direct or ensure that that occurred?---The – to be a senior Aboriginal community worker that is just a funding – there’s – positions aren’t funded in my team other than - - -

Who makes the funding decisions about employees within your division?---That’s a very good question.

It’s not you?---It’s definitely not me. I’m not sure.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It might be your line manager?---No, it would be – it would come above that, outside the region. It would come from somebody in central office. Sorry. I don’t know that response.

Thank you Commissioners, they’re my questions of this witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR McAVOY: I understand Dr Dwyer has a few short questions and I don’t object.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Leave is given, Dr Dwyer.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [2.06 pm]

DR DWYER: And I think Ms Graham has five too, your Honour, so I’ll go quickly.

My name is Dwyer, I appear for NAAJA, the Aboriginal legal service. In response to questions of learned Senior Counsel you said that your office has 100 per cent achievement of the commencement of investigation within appropriate time. Have I got that right?---That’s right.

And you, I think, said that commencement is defined as meaningful contact - - -?---That’s right.

- - - with the family. So is it possible to complete the commencement phase without finishing the safety assessment report?---Yes. It is.

So in relation to your paragraph 19 and the 510 cases with incomplete child protection investigations, is it the case that some of those cases – with respect to some of those cases there may not be a safety assessment report?---I would hope not.

But there might not be a safety assessment report. You can’t say that, can you?---Without getting the data in front of me, no, I can’t.

Do you know what that data is?---It would be in the data from around whether safety assessments have been completed on what cases.

Do you have access to that data if necessary?---No. It would need to be obtained from the performance reporting team.

So could it be obtained? Does it actually exist in real life?---I don’t know, to be honest.

In relation to those 510 cases, can I clarify that that refers to 510 individual children where the investigations are incomplete?---Yes, that’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4435 J. SIMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So 510 children for whom the Department may not be responding to a risky situation?---We’ve already – we’ve done an initial assessment on it and we may still be working with those families.

But I just need to clarify. You’ve done an initial assessment. You’re not able to tell the Commission whether an initial safety assessment has been done for each of those 510 cases, are you?---No.

In relation to the table of cases not finalised, you – there’s an initial category rating listed. You were at pains to tell Mr McAvoy that that’s the initial category rating but it’s possible that that category rating was refined after the initial contact with the family member; correct?---Are you talking about the priority rating?

Yes?---Okay. So the priority rating is done, is assessed by the central intake team based on the information that they’ve got at hand which at times is limited and then we may go out and engage with family and we may gather some more current up to date further information that may actually change the status of the allegations.

In relation to those 510 cases that are outstanding, are you able to tell the Commission what priority rating each of those cases has on reassessment?---No, but if we have not – if we assess a matter and at that point in time it’s assessed as safe or safe with plan, which either means a support service has been implemented immediately or the family have intervened then – then we will – we may need to reallocate those resources.

Okay. But of those 510 cases the child protection investigation has not completed so you’re not able to say that those children are safe, are you?---At the point of the initial assessment within the response within the response standard time they were either assessed as safe, safe with plan or unsafe. If they were unsafe then they would have started court proceedings.

But there’s no complete investigation that enable to say you to say whether those children are safe or unsafe?---At the time of getting this information, like I said, we’ve got a team of people in, with the current resources that are actually reassessing those children under twos, under fives, children with disabilities, so not only have we got a front end team responding to the new intakes coming in but we’ve also got resources assigned to look at the older ones to continually reassess and progress those investigations to ensure that the most vulnerable children are re-assessed, even if we haven’t been able to complete the full investigation.

But, Ms Simpson, I know - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just intervene, sorry, Dr Dwyer, just to ask this question.

DR DWYER: Sorry.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If the child is characterised by the central intake team and continues with the first investigation by your people as unsafe, is that an immediate application to the court for an order?---Not necessarily. At times we – we obviously try and engage extended family. So it can be or it depends. Every situation is different. But it certainly comes to my attention and then I do some consultation in particular with the Aboriginal – the senior Aboriginal community worker about whether – how quickly she can identify family if there is family, if she’s aware of family. My senior Aboriginal community workers have been working in the industry for a very long time and they often know most of our families. So if there’s possibility of family intervention, that’s what we try and do. If not then we need to put an application before the court.

DR DWYER: Just to make it clear, Ms Simpson, of those 510 cases you’re not in a position to tell the Commissioners whether they are category 1, 2, 3 or 4 as currently stands?---I think – okay. So the screening priority 1, 2, 3 or 4 is an assessment done at central intake only.

I understand that. My question is – I’m sorry, I’ve got to press you because I’m pressed for time. Are you able to tell the Commissioners of any update on the priority rating or not?---We don’t use the priority rating the minute that it comes into our team, so you’re actually talking about two different things. The priority rating is an assessment done by central intake which you can gather that information which were assessed originally as priority 1s from that report that was up on that screen. Once we’ve done an assessment the priority rating is no longer valid. It’s an assessment tool done by one team. We use different assessment tools in our team.

Are you able to tell the Commissioners any level of urgency of those 510 cases put into different categories or not?---Yes. As I’ve said, the new intake reports are the priority that are coming through. I’ve got resources assigned in my office to look at under twos, under fives, children with disabilities and then the oldest ones, first.

Are you tell the Commissioners how many of those are 510 are under twos, under fives, or children with a disability?---The information I’ve received is they are current; we’ve got no current twos, under fives or children with disabilities that haven’t been re-assessed.

So of that 510 are there under twos, under five or children with a disability?---Not from the older cases.

Of the 510?---From my – from the information I’ve received from my team that are looking at those cases, they’ve reviewed all the under twos, under fives and children with disabilities.

But the investigations in relation to those children are not yet complete?---They are finalising them now.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The – your Honour, might I just have three more minutes. Has that backlog of 510 cases been present for a number of years? I appreciate your backlog dates back to September 2016, but as far as you’re aware has there always been a substantial backlog in cases?---From my knowledge and the areas that I’ve worked in, the offices that I’ve worked in, yes, there’s been a backlog of some degree.

Are you able to say whether that’s in the nature of around 500, 400, 500 cases?---No. I’m sorry.

You don’t know the answer to that?---No, I don’t know the answer.

In paragraph 19 you say resources have been assigned to review those older cases, and you tell the Commissioners that they were assigned last year?---That’s right.

Are you able to say when they were assigned last year?---On or around November 2016, I believe.

In October 2016, which is where we get those – the table of cases not finalised, there were 491 cases. There are at the time of you finalising this statement 510 cases. That suggests that the trend in the backlog is up slightly, so that you haven’t been able to make much of a dint on it since October last year; is that fair?---That’s fair, but that’s not unusual when I’ve had such a large increase in vacancy rates and inexperience in IT.

I understand that’s not a criticism of you but doesn’t it suggest unless you get substantial resources now to address that backlog you’re going to be behind?---That is why my understanding is that the acting executive director is putting in a project plan to the CEO which covers a new workload management strategy.

But your message to this Commission, isn’t it, is that urgent resources, urgent and substantial resources are needed for your office to try and address that backlog and get back on track in terms of meeting the appropriate time frames?---The backlog – the word backlog that I’ve used in my statement indicates administrative tasks only. The other 510 are ones that we’re actively working on. Yes, more resources would be greatly appreciated into my office to address both the 515 that are open that I’m calling backlog because they’re open for administrative purposes only, in addition to greater resources always welcome to address the 510 incomplete investigations.

In relation to the incomplete investigations, unless you get – there were 491 in October last year. There are 510 at the time of you completing your statement. Unless your office gets a substantial injection of resources you will not be able to address that incomplete child protection investigation number and keep track of the oncoming flow of cases?---Which has been identified by the acting executive director, acting director and myself, hence why a project plan which captures workload management strategy for those older cases will be addressed.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So the answer to my question is yes, you’re going to need those additional resources .....?---Yes. Any additional resources into my work unit would be greatly appreciated.

Final question: where you say resources have been assigned to review the older cases, were they additional resources or did you just have to draw them from your current resources?---Okay, so there’s two strategies, one was signed off by the CEO, which is attached to my supplementary statement, which was one that was – resources that were assigned external to my work unit. However I also have assigned resources from within my work unit.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [2.17 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Ms Simpson, my name’s Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. If we can have up on the screen, please, DCF.0065.0006.5356. This is the Territory Families monthly performance report for April 2017, Ms Simpson, and I’m going to take you to page 3 of that report, please. Do you see under child protection totals in the second box, the second last line, unfinalised investigations outside of 28 days?---What figure are you quoting?

510, can you see that figure there?---Yeah.

That’s – if we zoom out again, that’s the 510 for the northern region. Does that correspond to the 510 cases that have been unfinalised that you’ve been talking about today?---No. This report is for the northern region which captures other work units, Arafura, Arnhem, plus the 83Bs managed by other offices and 84As.

And then if we look at the southern region which includes Alice Springs, Barkly and a range of regions around southern - - -?---That’s right.

- - - Northern Territory, there were 352 unfinalised investigations outside of 28 days?---According to the report, yes.

And in the final column, Northern Territory total difference to previous month an increase of 291. Is that what that means?---Yes. That’s right.

Are you aware that there has been a longstanding issue with backlogs also in the southern region of the Northern Territory in relation to unfinalised investigations?---I’m aware because I received this report but I – it’s a totally different region, work unit. I’m not privileged to any other information about why that is or what they’ve done to address that.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4439 J. SIMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There was some efforts to address that issue in the northern region by using unspent funds due to vacancies in the southern region. Do you recall that - - -?---No.

- - - effort?---No. I don’t, sorry.

It’s referred to in one of the annexures to your most recent statement. In JS5 on page 5, the southern region is underspent by $592,000 related primarily to position vacancies from July to November 2016, and it was proposed that that unspent money be applied to the northern region to deal with a backlog in the northern region and assist in quickly closing files that had been inactive for 30 days or more. Are you familiar with that?---I’m familiar with this memo. I don’t know how it was enacted or if it was enacted.

It was certainly approved by Jeanette Kerr on 16 January 2017. Are you aware at all whether that was implemented?---I can’t comment on where the money came from to fund these resources.

Were the resources expended, to your knowledge?---The – this – this workload management strategy is a northern workload management strategy. I’m only privileged to resources that were applied to my work unit, not the other work units within the northern region. So in reference to my work unit, some – my practice leader was one of the key people that were overseeing the – this project within my teams. There was additional resources assigned from the executive budget. From my understanding they were the northern executive budget but I’m – I can’t confirm or deny. That was my understanding.

Could I take you then to JS4, please, and this is a table that you annexed to your statement setting out the investigations older than 28 days by work unit. And it starts with CAT north. There’s a work unit which is CAT south, that’s right?---Yes, that’s right.

That’s not included in the data, is that right?---It is. It is. It’s reported under CAT north, unfortunately.

I see, so the first item in the table includes both CAT south and north?---From my understanding, yes, it does. Unfortunately, unless it’s manually separated, which it has been in another annexure to my statement, it’s automatically just comes out as CAT north.

Is that a systemic issue in terms of the counting of data that CAT south is usually rolled into CAT north?---It has been a historical issue. Recently what we’ve done on the exception reports is they’re now separating it out on the left-hand side, but it still comes under the total. So we’re able to identify quicker what’s CAT north and what’s CAT south, but it’s still an ongoing issue, yes.

So, for example, if we go to JS6, which is the investigations finalised by financial year, we see there that for CAT north there are figures for every year between 2011


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and 2017. For CAT south there are figures up to 2013/14, but then the figures are zero for each of the years thereafter. Can you explain to the Commission whether that means that, in fact, there were no investigations finalised and no substantiations made by the CAT south between two thousand – sometime in 2014 and today, or whether this is an example of where figures have been rolled in together and they all feature in CAT north?---I would find it hard to believe that there’s zero investigations finalised or substantiated in southern. However, I’m not the best person to ask of that. My assumption would be that it’s been rolled into one.

Who’s the best person to ask about that?---Sven.

Sven who?---Thorman? He’s the – he’s the one that’s provided this information to the task force for the Royal Commission. Sorry, I don’t know his exact title. He works in the performance reporting team in our central office.

You mention in your statement at paragraph 16 this issue of there being a tension between confidentiality concerns and perhaps having meaningful family consultation or involvement of family in decision-making – I’m paraphrasing. What are the extent of the confidentiality constraints on the investigation and assessment team?---It – okay. So when we talk to parents, we try and encourage parents to obtain family support if they’ve got family support and therefore they invite them to meetings etcetera. If family members don’t have any current involvement in the children’s life, then we don’t consult with those without the consent of the parents. So it depends on the involvement of extended family in – in regard to how much information we can obtain and provide to them.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Would you be able to – I understand the position you’re in, it not being able to comment on particular families, but wouldn’t there be a way of explaining generally what you do in the case of removals? Like - - -?---Sure.

- - - Sven Silburn put out a whole lot of data this morning. I don’t – I can’t remember whether you were in the room when he came?---No.

He actually talked about neglect and abuse, and, you know, these are the sort of things you’ve got to take into consideration when you make a decision about removing a child?---Yeah.

Do you think that would help deal with that negative perception of the removal of children?---So – so what – we initially do a – we initially assess the safety of the child. If it’s – just, for example, if the child is assessed as unsafe and the risk is very high or high, what we – we consult with the senior Aboriginal community workers within our team and ask them to come up with a – to try and identify appropriate family members within the genogram that they’ve already produced for us.

I mean that, but I mean in a way dealing with it in the public, you talk in paragraph 16 about the inability to deal because of confidentiality to deal with the negative perceptions of removing kids?---Yep.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you think more information about there about those processes you go through would help alleviate some of that negative perception?---Absolutely. I think the media, due to various inquiries, coronials, etcetera, has perhaps promoted that the work that we do that is perhaps needed adapting and improved, however we do do a lot of great work. So I think if we could promote that in a more positive way, it would not only retain staff but it would also assist people to understand that we are a valuable service in protecting young people and children and trying to strengthen families to be able to do that. So absolutely.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Simpson, is there a specific policy in the investigation and assessment team in relation to the constraints on the team in terms of confidentiality?---We go by the legislation. So what we try and do is we try and work in partnership with families, so if they’re telling us not to talk to grandma down the street, we won’t, unless we really have to, unless the child says grandma down the street is a key person in my world. So we have to balance up the best interests of the child and what the child is wanting but also the best interests of the family because, as you can appreciate, working with Aboriginal families, it can be quite complex at times and we have to respect what families are wanting from us.

In your view, could greater use of Aboriginal staff in your team assist to address the barriers that might exist or the tension between honouring some confidentiality and making sure that you’re engaging with all the key family members or kin members?---More Aboriginal staff but also what we tend to do is we use some of the Aboriginal funded organisations to assist with that and we try and use our Aboriginal staff to engage with those Aboriginal organisations to be that link to families that has proved successful. We’ve still got a lot of work to do to working stronger in partnership with Aboriginal organisations.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: There is some cross-examination from Mr Lawrence, I understand; is that correct?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: On what topic? I just don’t recall for the minute.

MR McAVOY: I understand he’s appearing in his role as .....

MR LAWRENCE: Yeah. I appear - - -


MR LAWRENCE: Sorry, Commissioner. I don’t - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’re appearing for Danila Dilba for this purpose.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR LAWRENCE: That’s right. On the instructions of Mr Siba from HBL Epsworth in Melbourne - - -


MR LAWRENCE: - - - for their client, Danila Dilba.


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE [2.31 pm]

MR LAWRENCE: Thanks very much.

My name’s Lawrence, with a W. Ms Simpson, I gather from your statement that you came up to Darwin in 2004; is that correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

Can you tell us where you were working before that?---Bunbury, Western Australia.

What was your job?---I was in a private practice. I was in a counselling support role and doing assessments for the Family Court but also doing – working with children who have been sexually abused through the local family and children’s services.

Right. And you’ve been working for the different Northern Territory Government departments in the child protection area, if I can use that term, since then, 2004 when you first came up?---Excluding six months when I was on maternity leave I’ve been employed by Territory Families, yes.

Right. And from your statement I gather that in April 2007 you were working in the Casuarina office as a professional 2 advance practitioner?---That’s right.

And then shortly after that you became a team leader?---That’s right.

That was in 2007?---I believe so.

And then in 2009 you informed that you became the acting manager of the Casuarina office?---That’s right.

And then you became permanent manager, Casuarina, that’s right.

And then if I can skip, in March 2014 you became the manager of the Child Aboriginal task force?---Child Abuse Task Force.

Abuse task force. Sorry. Forgive me. And that’s at the Peter McAulay centre, which is a police station?---Yes, it is. Yes. It is.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4443 J. SIMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you worked as a joint operation with the Federal Police and the Northern Territory Police?---And still do, yes.

And have you ever worked or lived – have you ever lived in an Aboriginal community?---No.

Have you been to many Aboriginal communities?---Yes, when I was out in East Arnhem.

Where?---When I lived in East Arnhem.

Where did you live?---In Nhulunbuy.

You lived in Nhulunbuy. How long were you in Nhulunbuy?---Three years.

Three years. What years?---2004 to 2007.

’07. So it was after that that you came in to get that position in Casuarina?---Yes. I moved to Darwin for personal reasons.

Okay. In the middle of all this, and I don’t think it’s mentioned at all in your statement, we cover, of course, June 21, 2007 the federal intervention. You would remember that?---Yes.

It’s the tenth anniversary on Wednesday?---That’s right.

And that must have made a significant impact on the department that you were working in and indeed the area that you were working in?---When that commenced I was in a urban – urban office.

Yes?---So it had less of an impact than – than on the remote.

Yes?---Offices.

But you must have been aware of it?---I was aware of it.

And you would have been aware that it flowed from the report from Ms Anderson and Rex Wye QC, the Little Children Are Sacred Report?---That’s right.

And you would have read that report, I take it, in the position that you were in?---Back then, yes.

Yes. Because it was directly relevant to the area that you worked in?---In child protection, yes, that’s right.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Absolutely. And that report, of course, flowed from the Lateline program the year before where Dr Nanette Rogers, the Crown Prosecutor, was interviewed and revealed a whole lot of stories that she remembers - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: ..... Commissioner. And I have let the last four questions go, but it’s really not cross-examination of this witness on any evidence .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, it’s not, Mr O’Mahoney. I accept your objection. Mr Lawrence, you’ve got a limited time for asking questions. Please, please, focus and address the questions. We’re running so behind already this afternoon.

MR LAWRENCE: I know, but this is necessary to get to the area that I want to get, which your Honour – the Commission has given me leave for.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Why don’t you go there a little more directly. I’m sure that – Ms Simpson, if she needs assistance, you can backtrack a bit.

MR LAWRENCE: Now, that was great.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Now, we’ve taken you off your stride. I understand.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. Again.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’re not a bit contrite, Mr Lawrence, as you aren’t either, so - - -

MR LAWRENCE: In your area of work, the majority of families that you investigate are Aboriginal?---Yes, they are.

The vast majority?---Yes.

What is the actual percentage, can you say?---I’m not 100 per cent sure in my office and I’m not 100 per cent sure currently in Territory Families, but it sits around 80 per cent, I believe.

Right. And in your statement you tell us that at paragraph – this is the first statement dated 25 May this year, you talk about the structures and the positions, which include 17 child protection practitioners, one senior Aboriginal community worker, two senior Aboriginal community workers - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’ve read all of that, Mr Lawrence, several times.

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you.

And throughout this period, that has basically been the proportion of Aboriginal workers to non-Aboriginal workers, would that be right?---Throughout the period from when, sorry?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Say from the intervention?---When I first commenced in the – in – as the manager of the Territory Families side of the child abuse task force, we had more Aboriginal community workers because I also managed the Child Abuse Task Force the southern region. When the southern region – the Child Abuse Task Force, CAT south, moved to a different management, I also lost some of the resources at that time. In reference to July – in reference to the investigation and assessment team when that commenced in July 2015 as is – as of today, I was only provided one senior Aboriginal community worker as I have got now.

Right. And I suggest to you directly that’s not enough for the job that you’re doing, bearing in mind 80 per cent of it’s Aboriginal?---I would welcome more senior Aboriginal community worker staff.

Does that mean you agree with it? I know you say you welcome it - - -?---Yes.

And I think you said you appreciate it, but do you actually agree with that? Do you think, on principle, your department should have a significantly larger number of trained Aboriginal people working in it?---I can only comment on my teams.

Yes?---As I said before, we utilise the resources from different areas. So I utilise the resources from the Child Abuse Task Force for the Palmerston Work Unit that I manage and for the Child Abuse Task Force we utilised the resources – community based resources in remote locations when we’re – if appropriate to do so. So we’re clever with the use of Aboriginal resources but, yes, I would welcome more senior Aboriginal community workers.

It’s good being clever, but had you ever advocated from your position within your department to the powers that be that if this thing’s going to really work we really need to have far more Aboriginal workers with us doing the job?---Unfortunately, that’s not my role. I manage a work unit which is the investigation and assessment and the Child Abuse Task Force. I can have opinion on that, but my role is to manage the resources that I’m given within my teams.

Well, surely, it must involve making clever suggestions to the powers that be that if we’re going to do this properly – if we’re going to take children from communities on Groote Eylandt or East Arnhem Land, we really need to have Aboriginal people either from there or trained in Aboriginal family structures and kinship to assist us?---I can only talk from my teams. I do consult with staff from Territory Families remote services and other relevant service providers before any removals occur from those remote locations. Can I just please note that removals from those remote locations from my team, Child Abuse Task Force, is very infrequent.

Alright. Well, you say also that you’re clever because you harness, I gather, Aboriginal organisations. Can I take you to your statement first one.

MR O’MAHONEY: I object to the commentary. And I’m getting concerned about my friend’s commentary before and after questions, Commissioner. My friend really


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

should restrain the way in which he’s addressing the witness. If he’s got a question to put, put it. But the last two or three questions have been accompanied by some comments in the lead-up that are really quite combative and, in my submission, not necessary.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Noted. Thank you, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR LAWRENCE: Combative? That’s interesting for a cross-examiner. They’re not combative. I was merely summarising what her evidence was. That was all it was.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, just bear in mind that – apart from everything else, the time limitations.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So let’s not have too big a script leading up to the questions and, of course, you might have heard that the question of resourcing was dealt with by Ms Simpson earlier in her questioning by Mr McAvoy. She explained where the powers for those sorts of resources should be directed, those questions. It’s not for her.

MR LAWRENCE: Right. Well, I just really wanted to complete my questioning by asking you about the – I think it’s paragraph 10, if you could be shown – and if that can go up. I think – have we got this working? It’s actually – yes, thank you – 10.10, that paragraph, if you can just quickly look at that, your paragraph. Now, this is dealing with the family support panel.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that the one you wanted?

MR LAWRENCE: Yes, it is. Thank you.


MR LAWRENCE: Now, we’ve read that, you’ve read it; correct?---Yes.

You wrote it?---Yes, that’s correct.

And that is the paragraph, it would appear, where you talk about harnessing other agencies to assist your department, your section?---Yes, that’s right.

And that being CatholicCare, Save The Children, Somerville, Relationships Australia, Anglicare, YWCA and team - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Lawrence, there’s no need to – look, they’re all there set out in 10.10.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR LAWRENCE: Right. None of them are Aboriginal organisations; correct?---If Danila Dilba would like to join our panel, we would welcome that.

Alright. But in all the years that you’ve been doing this job, which includes harnessing other agencies, it would appear that you haven’t chosen to harness Aboriginal organisations, including Danila Dilba and others?---The family support panel is a new panel that has just been implemented to assist families that are assessed as low or moderate risk in regard to the work that we do. That’s – it’s in its infancy and when we – when we do do referrals to that – that panel, then it’s up to the agency representatives on that panel to identify gaps. Can I just say that we do try and work with Danila Dilba in numerous ways including getting information from them and including our Aboriginal staff taking our clientele and supporting our clientele to access that service. So there might not be representatives on our panel, but we do work closely with Danila Dilba. We recently met with Greg Broadfoot, who I understand is the CEO of that organisation, to see how we can work better in reference to sharing information. So again, please feel free or take it back to your client that if they would like to join our panel we would welcome that.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But isn’t that – that’s not a good look, is it? We know – you’ve said 80 per cent of people – of kids in care are Aboriginal and there’s not one Aboriginal organisation on that list?---We - - -

And can I also add: it’s not really up – shouldn’t it be up to the agency, looking for that information, to go out and get the people, not for them to come and apply?---Yeah, and look – and it’s noted. However, again, I’d like to say it’s a new panel. It’s in its really early days - - -

It’s not a good start - - -?--- - - - and - - -

It’s not a good start not involving Aboriginal people in there?---No. Noted. And I will take that back to our representative to contact the agency. However, like I said, we do work very closely with Danila Dilba in other ways, in particular our Aboriginal staff that regularly take clients to that service and we try and refer clients through the services that they offer.

But you can understand, you know, Aboriginal people - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - like, you know, having a role in decision-making around their children not only having that role but seen to have that role is pretty important in some of those issues I mentioned before about addressing the negative connotations of removing kids?---I agree. I agree with you.

MR LAWRENCE: You see, this intervention has been going on for 10 years, right ..... is going to give evidence here on Wednesday and she will confirm what you say and more in that your organisation has asked for and been given assistance between 300 and 350 files, records, etcetera, on Aboriginal people families, to assist you in


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

your work, but you’ve never – went to them and harnessed them effectively and got them in to help you?---Look, I can’t - - -

In all these 10 years?---I can’t comment on offices and practices that were outside my management historically or currently. I’m happy to comment on things that I have – I can comment on what I’m directly involved in, which is the Child Abuse Task Force and the investigation assessment team in the greater Darwin region. I’m sorry, I can’t comment on that. I just don’t know.

Do you believe that your department and your specific section should directly request the organisations, such as Danila Dilba, should be directly involved in the work you do?---I believe in regard to my two teams that Danila Dilba should be actively working with us in partnership as with other organisations such as doors, etcetera, yes, but I cannot comment on other teams. I don’t know their work management structures, I don’t – I’m not privileged to that information.

Have you believed that over the last 10 years?---I believe that we should - - -

Over the last 10 years?---I believe that we should - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: I object. The 10 year timeframe, it’s very unclear where that’s come from, Commissioner, given how recent the task force is and how recent their witness’ current role is. I’m not sure if 10 years is supposed to go back to the beginning of the intervention. I really don’t think it’s a question that’s properly directed at this witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s right.

MR LAWRENCE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think, perhaps, we’ve exhausted that topic really.

MR LAWRENCE: No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: Many thanks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Now, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher, do you have some questions?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER [2.47 pm]

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: If it please the Court, I have a few quick questions.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4449 J. SIMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you identify then for Ms Simpson your name and for whom you appear.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioner. I will do that. Ms Simpson, I act for an Aboriginal lady with the pseudonym DS. I’m not sure whether you know who she is, but if you don’t it probably doesn’t make a great deal of difference. My name’s O’Brien-Hartcher and I’m instructed by NAAJA. When the department work team is considering a case, they can’t do everything themselves, they need to rely on contacts in communities for information; would that be fair?---For the Child Abuse Task Force are you - - -

In the case where you’re looking at a child who’s been in the notification – the department has been given notification, you need to use contacts in communities to work out what’s going on on the ground; would that be fair?---We do contact relevant people, yes.

Okay. And that would be – include police, remote area nurses, remote area family community workers, those sort of people?---Yes, that’s correct.

And they would be crucial to the information you gather. They’re your eyes and ears on the ground; would that be fair?---Yes, that’s correct. In addition to family members and - - -

Absolute, yes?---Yes.

And their opinions are important in determining the direction of the matter?---They’re – in my teams, they’re – the information they provide leads us into what type of intervention we – we respond for that family.

So in cases where the department’s considering removing a child, would you place great weight on the view of a remote area family community worker, for example?---I can’t comment on other officers. I can only comment on the Child Abuse Task Force. It depends on the information that is before us. Sometimes those service providers aren’t privileged to all of the information that we are.

Okay. Police and remote area nurses, you’d place great weight on what they - - -?---Again, they provide information that they can and we use that – that information as one component of our assessment.

Thank you. If all of those people were speaking with one voice, you would have to have something pretty big to suggest otherwise; would that be fair – or suggest that you act otherwise; would that be fair?---In the Child Abuse Task Force, I can only comment on what we do in that team, because that’s the only team that I manage that works remotely. We do consider what the relevant stakeholders in the community are proposing. However, again, they may not be privileged to all the information that we have in front of us.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Sure. At paragraph 10 of your statement, you outline the greater Darwin investigation assessment work method. At what point are kinship carers assessed within that process that are outlined in paragraph 10?---Okay. Kinship carers are assessed once the child is – and, again, I’m talking from greater Darwin perspective – kinship carers are assessed once the child is removed from a family. So a kinship carer is – is identified after a court application is put in.

Perhaps I could – perhaps my question isn’t quite directed well enough. If there was a notification, would the child being placed with a family before court case, before kinship care, a child being placed with the extended family, at what point would that be considered in the work method that you’ve outlined?---If the parents – if the child is with parents and they acknowledge that they’ve got some challenges that they need to work through, whether it’s alcohol and drug misuse, domestic violence, etcetera, and they place the child with extended family, that is supported. If the parents identify and say that there’s no family that they want their children placed with, then we – and there’s no other options, then we will put a court application in.

Okay, but you - - -?---And we don’t – we don’t place children with families unless we have – unless a kinship assessment has been done. However, the parents – we encourage parents to identify family members although can support them whilst they’re addressing some of the issues that they’re facing at the time.

And provided those decent carers, you would expect the child to be placed with them; would that be fair?---If the family placed the child - - -

Yes. Well, you would support that placement; is that right?---Yes.

Should families, in those circumstances – I withdraw that. Would you agree that being placed with family offers significant benefits to children in the Aboriginal context, I’m talking. I’m including language, culture, family connections, those sorts of things?---If there’s safe family, absolutely.

That obviously would offer much of a benefit. But if the kinship carer can deliver benefits and safety to a child, then, giving considerations of language, culture, family connection, even departmental resources, that would be the best thing if a parent couldn’t look after a child; would that be fair?---Yes.

And senior Aboriginal community workers and remote area family community workers are crucial to the process of determining where someone might be placed; would that be fair?---No.

Okay?---Okay. So I think we’re talking about two different things. When you use the word “kinship assessment” and “kinship placement”, that occurs after a child has – after we’ve applied to the court. If parents identify that they would like their child to go to Aunty Lily down the road, then that’s a parent decision to do that. Okay. So we only get involved in consulting – you know, doing a formal kinship assessment once the child’s in the care of the CEO.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But you make decisions to take children away from their families; is that correct?---In reference to the Child Abuse Task Force, it is very, very infrequent that we remove children from their families. Very, very infrequent. Noting that the Child Abuse Task Force works with the most complex sexual and physical abuse in the Northern Territory.

Sure. In circumstances where the department, or in your case the Child Abuse Task Force, would be considering removing a child, would you expect that the investigation might look at other family members first?---Again, like I said, we encourage parents to identify family where they would like their child to be cared for by, whilst they’re addressing some of the issues that are presented before Territory Families.

Would it follow then - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you - - -

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Might I ask one further question?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, but that’s the third time you’ve asked that question and got the same answer, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioner, I appreciate that.

Ms Simpson, is your position that unless family say “we’d like” – sorry, unless parents say, “We’d like our child placed with this family member”, the department will take the child from the parents?---Again, I can only respond on the Child Abuse Task Force, we put in significant time to try and work with family to identify – and that might not necessarily be parents. It could be other significant extended family – to identify a suitable family member or members that can take care of the child. It’s a last resort to bring a child from – for the Child Abuse Task Force out of the family based in a remote location. And in the whole time I’ve been in the – in that role, managing the Child Abuse Task Force, I can recall – I think we’ve done it on two occasions since I’ve been managing that work – that work unit.

Thank you very much, Ms Simpson. Thank you Commissioners.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. I have no re-examination but there are a couple of documents to tender quickly. Do you want me to do that now?


COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’ve got one question, Ms Simpson. Why – it goes way back to the beginning of your evidence, why is the Federal Police involved in the Child Abuse Task Force?---That’s a good question. I think it’s a carry over from – it could be from the Intervention, I’m not sure, but ever since I’ve been managing that work unit there’s been Federal Police members. It has got less.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What do they input?---They – they basically – I can’t determine what the difference is between Federal Police and NT Police. I can’t answer that. I’m not sure what their additional input is into the way we work.

I suspect you might be right about the Intervention.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The Intervention. Yes. You might ask them what they ..... add next time you’re in a meeting.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I know the National Crime Commission has a special reference up here ..... the Intervention, but I wasn’t aware of the Federal Police?---Yeah.

We might ask the question somewhere else.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Simpson.

MR McAVOY: I understand that my learned friend Mr O’Mahoney has a question of his witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Right, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m so sorry to assume you didn’t have any.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY [2.57 pm]

MR O’MAHONEY: No problem at all Commissioner and I’ll be very brief. Very quickly, Ms Simpson, a number of times today in giving evidence you’ve made reference to vacancies, staff-wise, as well as staff changes and the impact that’s had on work flow and output in your team; do you remember giving that evidence today?---Yes.

Could I just ask you, I know you touched on this in your statement, but could you say a little bit about the difficulties that are faced by your team and, indeed, more generally, if you could comment on that, in attracting and retaining staff to work in this space?---Yes. It’s been difficult to attract experienced child protection workers or experienced social workers or psychologists who have a similar-type professional background. We tend to attract new graduates into the role. And I think that’s a – that’s a national challenge that child protection faces. I think, in addition to – I think some – some practitioners are wanting to come to the Northern Territory for a period of time from the southern States to experience remote practice, but their families and supports are all down south, so they tend to return after a period of time.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4453 J. SIMPSON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And is one of the reasons, one of the difficulties encountered in terms of attracting and retaining staff, what you touched on in paragraph 16 of your statement, just the challenging nature of frontline work dealing with such complex situations and families?---Yes. You’re either – yep, so if I can just put it very bluntly, you either love the role or you don’t love the role and if you love the role you’ll continue on, if you don’t love the role you will leave. It’s hard work.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: No doubt.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And, presumably, some young graduates, they haven’t found their place in doing this kind of work and they realise it’s not for them?---And some of the situations they face and the stories they hear, they’re just not ready for that.

MR O’MAHONEY: No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney. I can release Ms Simpson from her summons?

MR McAVOY: Yes. Yes, we can, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We can deal with the exhibits when she goes. Thank you, Ms Simpson - - -?---Thank you.

- - - very much for your assistance - - -


COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - to the Commission?---I appreciate it.

You’re released from your summons now. Thank you.

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [3.00 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I tender supplementary tender bundle 150.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that’s exhibit 515.150.

EXHIBIT #515.150 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 150


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you just identify briefly what that is, please, as we go.

MR McAVOY: It’s the executive leadership group meeting agenda paper.


MR McAVOY: Commissioner, I also tender the summary report with the work unit exception document dated 27 October 2016.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that from the supplementary tender bundle as well?

MR McAVOY: No, it’s not.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that’s exhibit 516.

EXHIBIT #516 SUMMARY REPORT WITH THE WORK UNIT EXCEPTION DOCUMENT DATED 27/10/2016

MR McAVOY: The monthly performance report from the department of Territory Families dated 20 February 2017.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Again, is that the original document, not from supplementary tender bundle?

MR McAVOY: My understanding it’s not in the supplementary tender bundle.


EXHIBIT #517 THE MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORY FAMILIES DATED 20/02/2017

MR McAVOY: And the monthly performance report dated April 2017 which is the document referred to by Ms Graham.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Will be exhibit 518.

EXHIBIT #518 MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BY MS GRAHAM DATED 04/2017



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: They’re the completion of the tenders.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Huddleston, I think, is waiting in the wings.

MR McAVOY: She has been very patient, Commissioners, I call Sarah Huddleston.

<SARAH HUDDLESTON, AFFIRMED [3.02 pm]


MR McAVOY: Can you just tell the Commissioners your full name, please?---Sarah Huddleston.

And you have you’re currently employed in the Child Abuse Task Force?---That’s correct.

And you’re a child protection practitioner?---Yes.

And you’ve prepared a statement dated 7 May 2017?---Yep.

And that statement appears on the screen in front of you; do you recognise that statement?---Yep.

That statement’s true and correct to the best of your knowledge, save for some clarifications or corrections you’d like to make?---Yes.

The - - -?---A correction in paragraph 19.5.

If we might actually start from paragraph 12?---Sure.

And work our way forward?---Yes.

And if I can be of assistance, on the third line, the first letters are AFP, after the P there should be a full stop rather than a comma?---That’s correct, to insinuate that I’m not involved if it’s a police only investigation.

Thank you?---That’s correct.

The next clarification is at paragraph 19.3, and it’s a matter of clarification that the intent of 19.3 is to say that you attended ..... with police but that’s not always the case?---That’s correct.

And then at paragraph 19.5 in the fourth line it reads:

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4456 S. HUDDLESTON XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Children are at high or very high risk.

That should be low or moderate risk?---Correct.

With those changes, is the – is your statement true and correct?---To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Thank you. Commissioner, I tender the statement of Ms Huddleston.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 519, the statement as amended.

EXHIBIT #519 AMENDED STATEMENT OF SARAH HUDDLESTON DATED 07/05/2017

MR McAVOY: Ms Huddleston, you’ve been working in the Northern Territory for a short period of time, relatively speaking?---Yep.

You came to Australia on a work visa?---Working holiday visa. Yeah.

Working holiday visa and you obtained employment in the Northern Territory and over a period of time you’ve reached a position now where you’re employed in the Child Abuse Task Force?---Correct.

Between September 2016 and October 2016 you spent a short period in the greater Darwin investigation and assessment team?---Yep.

You – prior to that you weren’t working in the front line?---I had a break from the front line for a period of about three months, yep.

And then you came into the front line and the IAT, if I can call it that. You were only there for a month or so. How long were you there? How many weeks?---Approximately six, from memory.

And is there a reason you were only there six weeks?---Well, because I moved into the Child Abuse Task Force.

Yes. And did you – was the investigation assessment team a stepping stone, as it were, into the Child Abuse Task Force?---It was a means to learn the processes of an investigation, yeah.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I can’t quite hear your answers, Ms Huddleston?---Sorry, I’ll move closer.

Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Spending that six weeks – six week period in the IAT, in the Investigation and Assessment Team gave you some experience that then allowed you to move to the Child Abuse Task Force; is that right?---Yes.

And what was that experience?---Gaining practical knowledge of the processes of the investigations, I guess.

And prior to that you had not had any investigation experience?---Not in a child protection investigation. I have had experience doing 83B investigations or inquiries through working with the long-term care team.

And you say it was a challenging role. Was that because of the stress involved about making decisions about removal of children?---I think the – it’s a challenging role in many ways. I think the work that we do is challenging, the people that we work with can have challenges.

You mean your colleagues at work or the clients?---The clients. Sometimes – the clients mainly.

Were there any other challenges relating to that role? The volume of work, was that a challenge for you?---I don’t know about a challenge but I guesses the – the feelings of the pressure of a large workload are ever present in an area like that. The pressure of wanting to do a good job, wanting to achieve timeframes is a pressure, I suppose, I put on myself at that time to be able to do that work.

And so you were assigned investigations – investigation work when you arrived in the IAT?---Correct.

And were you assigned new matters or were they existing investigations that were incomplete?---Both.

And when you left, had you completed all the investigations you had commenced or been allocated or were there incomplete matters left behind?---It’s difficult to say for sure given that it was a while ago. Certainly they wouldn’t have been finalised to the point where case documents and ISRs had been completed for all of those cases. There potentially was a number of cases where administrative tasks were outstanding.

So you have no clear recollection, but is it – it’s possible or is it likely that somebody had to complete the work that you – some of the work that you had commenced?---It’s likely there may have been administrative tasks that were still outstanding.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Huddleston, you mention in paragraph 6.2.1 that you developed skills to work effectively with persons of – or you were responsible for developing and maintaining effective personal professional working relationships, including how to work with people of Indigenous and culturally


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

linguistically diverse backgrounds. Now, where did you yourself get your training in order to deliver that kind of training?---I wasn’t delivering training in that area.

Weren’t delivering it? They were your responsibilities including developing?---My professional responsibilities were about developing working relationships for myself and maintaining those professional relationships with those key stakeholders.

I see. You weren’t actually delivering them to anyone else, you were just delivering them to yourself?---Developing, yes.

And how did you go about doing that with respect to working with Indigenous people, given that that’s the bulk of the clientele, because you just – you really hadn’t long arrived from the United Kingdom, I think; is that correct?---So the paragraph 6.2.1, is that the one that you’re referring to? So that was when I was working for a non-government organisation, that wasn’t in this arena.

Yes?---That wasn’t in the current role.

And, nonetheless, how did you become aware of issues of dealing with Indigenous people?---Through my own research, through conversations with other people, through client contact with Indigenous clients at that time. Yeah.

Sort of learnt it on the way.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: On the job?---Yeah, I guess so, at that time. Yeah. I have since then been given formal training through Territory Families for the cultural awareness training, the mandatory training.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How long did that take?---From memory, I think that’s two day training.


When you were at the IAT, was there any practice whereby you were encouraged to focus on getting the initial safety assessment completed for each of the incoming new reports or cases?---Just ask that again, sorry.

Were you encouraged to undertake the safety assessment for any new matters that you were allocated as a matter of priority over other work that you might have to do?---We were certainly encouraged to adhere to our framework, which includes completing safety assessments, yeah.

In October 2016 you commenced work at the northern region Child Abuse Task Force; that’s correct?---Yes.

You’ve been there for eight months. Is that the longest you’ve been in any position in the Northern Territory Families?---No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Where else have you been prior to that for a longer period?---With the – so prior to the restructure in 2015, whenever it was, I started work at the Casuarina office which, at the time, was out-of-home care which included short-term orders and long-term orders. Following that restructure in June 2015, I moved to the Palmerston office with the long-term care unit and I was there until May of 2016.

And now that you’re working in the Child Abuse Task Force, is it possible to compare the workload stresses of working in that unit to the workload stresses of working in the investigation and assessment team?---Sorry, ask that again.

Is it possible to compare the workload pressures of working where you are now with the workload pressures of being in the investigation and assessment team?---So from the Child Abuse Task Force and Investigation and Assessment, is that what you’re saying?

Yes?---Yes. I think the stresses are different and I – given that the nature of the work is also entirely different I think it’s – would be inaccurate of me to make direct comparisons in the stresses between the two teams.

The Northern Child Abuse Task Force has two positions for Aboriginal community workers?---In the funding, I understand that’s true, yes.

Are there two Aboriginal community workers employed at present?---Currently got one that’s attached to our team.

In your statement you don’t seem to mention any communication or any working relationship with those Aboriginal community workers. Do they play a significant role in your work?---The senior Aboriginal community worker attached to our team certainly plays a role in the work that we do. She’s across the intakes that come in. We consult with her around – sorry, I can only speak for myself. I consult with her around any knowledge that she may have around the family, around the community that the intake has come from. She more often than not would travel with me out to those remote communities. She also assists with the preparation of genograms and family finding for those families.

It would be difficult to attend without an Aboriginal community worker, wouldn’t it?---It depends on the community that we’re going to and the other options. So in some communities we’ve got Remote Family Support Services, who we may be able to draw on with our Aboriginal workers, who are based in community, who sometimes help. We’ve also got workers from the health clinic or the school that we may be able to enlist for some help and guidance, if it’s appropriate. But certainly ideally – it’s ideal that we travel with our Aboriginal community workers where possible.

So I take it that you have travelled to remote communities without the Aboriginal community worker in your company?---There has been occasions where that has


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

occurred, where I’ve had pre-existing contact with particular families and I guess initial relationship building or rapport building with those families has occurred.

In those circumstances, I understand you’re saying you’ve got a pre-existing relationship, but isn’t it nevertheless still difficult to ensure that people understand what the process is and the questions that you’re asking them?---Is it – sorry, say that again.

It’s still difficult, even though you might have a rapport with people, it would still be difficult for them to understand what you’re saying to them, what the process that you’re engaged in on that particular visit; there’s still a communication difficulties, aren’t there?---I feel reasonably confident to say that, any engagement I’ve had, I ensure is well understood prior to leaving. Whether that’s, you know, through follow-up, having them repeat back to me what it is that they understand, or touching base with them the following day after I’ve returned back to Darwin via the phone or having an Aboriginal worker speak to them following our engagement, or having a support person who they’ve identified to be there for them, or - - -

How do you protect though against gratuitous concurrence?---Sorry?

How do you protect against gratuitous concurrence?

MR O’MAHONEY: I think that might be an expression that’s familiar to many lawyers but perhaps not to the witness, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Social work field, perhaps not. Perhaps you could explain it.

MR McAVOY: How do you protect against people just agreeing with you because they’re trying to be polite or not wanting to disagree with you?---So, me, personally, I would try and rephrase the questions that I’ve asked or the points that I’ve made in various different ways to ensure that there’s some level of understanding there.

When you attend in a community, are any of the young people or families that you’re meeting with, do they have any legal representation while you’re there with them?---Not usually, no.

What about when you attend with police, do they have legal representation with them then?---Not usually, not for our investigations.

And I take it then that you don’t encourage people, that you’re investigating, to get legal representation?---We can speak to them and let them know what their options are, which in some cases we do.

That’s not a – it’s not a standard practice of yours?---Not always, no.

It’s not something you were taught to do in your training?---Not that I can recall.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But the matters that you’re going to speak to people about are very serious matters, aren’t they?---Quite often, yeah.

Do you recall whether any of the young people that you’ve been investigating or interviewing, where they are perpetrators, whether they’ve had legal representation with them while you’re talking to them?---If young people are perpetrators?

Yes. As perpetrators. Have you ever had circumstances where one of those young people has had a lawyer with them?---No.

At paragraph 26.9 you discuss the high risk for case workers of having a child die or be seriously injured where there hasn’t been a safety assessment; that’s correct?---That would be a risk.

Well, is that a primary concern for case workers, to get that safety assessment done and then prioritise the investigation?---I think it’s only fair to speak for myself in this instance but I would certainly prioritise making sure that those children are safe.

And is the prioritisation of the investigation done by the case worker or the manager, or the team leader?---Sorry. Just ask that again.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think you have to repeat the question, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Yes. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think Ms Huddleston understood it.

MR McAVOY: Yes. I’m just – I won’t press the question. Commissioners. They’re my questions in-chief for this witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Huddleston, in paragraph 26.2 of your statement, you refer to the lack of therapeutic service provision for young people who are demonstrating sexually predatory conduct and that they may need to be dealt with. I just wondered whether the work that’s being done at Griffiths University in Queensland in their youth forensic service had been drawn to your attention. It’s true that they deal with young people who have been convicted of sexual offences, but nonetheless they’ve been in operation for 10 years and they deal with the very highly specialised field of therapy for juvenile sex offenders which we understand from visiting, and that is Commissioner Gooda and I, that it is a completely different way of treatment than you would treat adult sex offenders. It’s quite different. I wonder if you had heard of any of their work?---It’s not something that I’m familiar with.

Hasn’t been drawn to your attention. We’ve heard from one of the directors of that service in this Commission and perhaps that might be something that you could consider looking at?---Sure.

Thank you, Mr McAvoy.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Nothing arising. I understand that there are a number of cross-examination applications which have been granted, for which leave has been granted. I understand Dr Dwyer is opening.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Out of the blocks, Dr Dwyer.


DR DWYER: Yes. Thank you.

Ms Huddleston, my name’s Dwyer. I appear for NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Can I just pick up on a question that was asked to you by Senior Counsel Assisting by mandatory culture awareness training. When were you provided with that training?---Within the first six months that I joined the department.

Joined the Territory Families; is that right?---Territory Families. Yep.

Okay. And that’s a two day course, to the best of your memory?---From memory, yeah.

Who delivered that course?---I can’t remember. If it comes to me I’ll let you know.

Alright. And that’s the only time you’ve had cultural awareness training; is that right?---Formal cultural awareness training. Correct.

The other access you might have is to ask your Aboriginal fellow worker; is that right?---Yes.

During that mandatory training, were you schooled about the importance of the use of interpreters?---We did talk about interpreters, I do believe, yes.

In your role for the Department of Children and Families, have you ever used an interpreter?---Yes.

And did you also receive training during that two day course about the significance of the Aboriginal placement principle?---Yes.

And the significance of kinship care?---Yes.

Were you trained in how to conduct culturally appropriate assessments?---Spoken about that, yes.

Because at the time you did that initial training you had a completely different job to the one that you have now; correct?---Yes. Prior to joining Territory Families.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4463 S. HUDDLESTON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No. When you first started with Territory Families you had a particular role and your role’s changed over the course of time?---Correct.

Is that right? And what you’re required to do in that particular role, the types of assessments that you undertake has changed; correct?---Yes.

And you haven’t received any updated training about specific cultural issues related to the new work that you take on?---Not formalised training, no.

Well, what training, if not formalised?---On-the-job training.

Who’s that provided by?---Fellow colleagues.

So non-Indigenous colleagues?---And Indigenous.

So in your current role as acting senior child protection practitioner, you conduct particular assessments of children and families, including children at risk of sex abuse; is that right?---Yes.

Okay. And within that, that involves talking potentially to sex offenders?---Yes.

And you’ve had no specific formal training in how to conduct those assessments in a way that’s culturally appropriate; is that correct?---Yes.

At paragraph 19.6 you run through aspects of the protective assessments for children that are conducted in households where there’s registered sex offenders. At 19.6.6 you mention that during the course of that you provide trauma behaviour education to external stakeholders and assisting in the production of behaviour management plans. What external stakeholders are you referring to there?---So that would be organisations like schools. Sorry, I’ve just lost that there. Yes, probably mainly education.

Do you provide any training or counselling to parents which is relying a trauma informed response?---Do I provide training to parents?

I withdraw that. I just refer to another one of these bullet points. At 19.6.2, you provide protective behaviour education and sexual health education to children, young people and their caregivers. Is that one-off education, or ongoing?---So given the nature of our work - - -

Yes?--- - - - and the – given the fact that when we’re talking to those children it’s usually for a protective assessment or an investigation, given the timeframes that those need to be completed, it’s usually a one-off contact.

Okay. So how do you ensure that during that one-off contact – I withdraw that. Where does that one-off contact take place?---In a variety of places. Sometimes at the SARC building. Sometimes it can be if we’ve interviewed at school. Sometimes


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it can be if we’ve interviewed at home. Sometimes children choose to go for a walk somewhere that’s a familiar place to them in their community.

How do you ensure that you provide protective behaviour education and sexual health education to Indigenous children in a culturally appropriate way?---I think the education that we do is as culturally appropriate as we’re able to do it and that I’m able to do it with the resources that I’ve got. That’s through the use of pictures, conversations, that’s talking to the young people about the words that they use for the parts of the body that we’re discussing. And certainly I ask for feedback once I’ve done that education and that conversation with those young people.

From the Aboriginal families and - - -?---To ask how they feel about that, to ask if that’s been appropriate for them, and I’m yet to receive negative feedback on that.

Ms Huddleston, this is not a criticism of you personally. Aren’t you worried that in the absence of specific training about how to provide protective behaviour education to Aboriginal children at risk in those circumstances, you aren’t providing culturally safe programs, or assessments?---So the protective behaviour, sort of, package and education tools that I’ve been provided have been provided to me by our senior Aboriginal community worker. I’ve travelled with her and watched her deliver the similar conversations that I have with those young people and I’ve tried to mirror her in the best way possible.

Do you – what you refer to in 19.6.2 is you providing sexual health education to children?---Correct.

Included within that. And you have – your evidence is you’ve had no formal training in how to deliver that in a culturally appropriate way; correct?---Correct.

And the only – and the feedback you rely on is from families themselves complaining?---And our senior Aboriginal community worker.

Do you think it would be – I withdraw that. Do you provide sexual health education to young male – or to male children?---I think I’ve had that conversation once with a male, and that was in the presence of his mother who I asked if it would be appropriate for me to speak to him about that.

Do you think it would be helpful for people in your position who might come from a range of backgrounds, including overseas, to have formal sexual – formal culturally appropriate education themselves before they speak to young people?---If there’s training out there that’s available and there’s a package that’s available, then I think any further training for anybody who wants to develop on a professional level is a great idea.

Paragraph 19.6: you refer to providing a holistic assessment when you go out. It’s 19.6.8. Or conducting, completing holistic assessments?---Mmm.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s important so that you get a complete picture of any issues that are significant in the children’s life, significant to risk; correct?---Correct.

Do you agree that it’s not enough just to assess what they are. You then need to have other agencies, if you can’t do it yourself, to actually address those individual needs?---Sorry, just ask that question again.

I’ll start again, at 19.6.8 you say you:

…complete holistic assessments of children’s safety and wellbeing, to include all aspects of the child’s life, not just the reported concerns.

Correct?---Correct.

That might include aspects relating to schooling?---Education, yes.

And poor housing?---Yes.

Limited employment opportunities?---Yes.

Specific health care issues, including mental health?---Yep.

And that’s important so that you can get an understanding of how you address risk properly; correct?---That’s important to understand the impact on the child of all of those things, yeah.

And do you agree that if the community is serious about improving the situation for young people and addressing risk you need to be able to provide services for – in a holistic fashion to address those different concerns?---I think our concern is the care and protection of children.

Sure?---Involving other service providers that can help to assist with those holistic things would certainly be beneficial.

Well, it’s important, isn’t it, to address the risk that you do provide other services, that you do get in touch with other service providers; correct?---To make other service providers aware if there’s risks that – that are held in their remit. Yes.

So is it part of your role then to contact the Department of Housing or the Department of Education or other departments that are responsible for those other risk areas?---If it’s appropriate, yes.

Have you done that - - -?---Yes.

- - - in your role. Have you had a case where you’re assessing whether a child is safe to stay in a household, same household as a registered sex offender, and it would be


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

safe to leave the child in community if better housing was available?---I think they’re two unrelated things. Just ask that question again.

Have you ever had a situation where you raise concerns about the appropriate housing available to keep a child safe in a community?---Issues of overcrowding are a problem in communities for sure.

Do you raise them?---I have written support letters in the past to assist families who are waiting on a priority waiting list for housing in support that they are prioritised, yes.

And how often has that been successful in ensuring that family can receive housing?---That’s not something that I get oversight of.

Is it fair to say that in your experience overcrowding is a crisis in many Aboriginal communities?---Overcrowding - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps you need to establish - - -

THE WITNESS: - - - is certainly an issue.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just a moment. You might need to establish - - -

DR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - how many communities and so on.

DR DWYER: Thank you, your Honour.

How many Indigenous communities outside of the greater Darwin area have you been to?---Maybe 12.

Has overcrowding been an issue in housing in those 12 communities?---Overcrowding has been present in those communities.

In relation to – what percentage of the cases that you’re involved in, where you’re assessing risk to children, is overcrowding an issue?---I wouldn’t know – I wouldn’t know the percentage.

Are you able to say is it over 50 per cent, over 80 per cent, something else?---It’s a difficult question to answer, because overcrowding is also not something that’s ever-present. It may be overcrowded on the day that I visit with family visiting from other communities or family staying that don’t usually reside there and it’s quite difficult to capture who is actually resident at that house on a permanent basis.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Bearing that in mind are you still able to give an assessment on average how often overcrowding is an issue at the time you attend?---No, I’m not able to give a percentage on that.

The last questions relate to comments that you make at paragraph 26.5 in terms of the cultural differences in staff that can be extremely challenging. Many front-line staff you say have come from overseas, including yourself, and they bring with them, do I take it from your evidence, their own standards, attitudes and values?---I think everybody has a cultural background and identity that brings with them their own values, yeah.

Do we take it from your paragraph 26.5 that you have been surprised by some of the attitudes that you’ve heard expressed in terms of child rearing and varying acceptance levels of domestic violence, for example?---I think through conversations that I have heard during my time in the office, yes, some comments are made off the cuff that I am surprised by.

Are you concerned about levels of racism that you have heard or racist examples that you’ve heard?---No.

What about cultural incompetency, have you been surprised yourself at the – at ignorance or lack of cultural awareness amongst your colleagues?---Of cultural incompetence?

Have you been concerned with whether – with the varying standards of cultural competency of your colleagues?---Are you talking about specifically in relation to Aboriginal clients?

Yes?---No. That’s not something that stands out.

Alright. In paragraph 26.6, you say you witnessed distrust resulting from previous workers making perceived threats to family or not engaging positively with families?---Yes.

How often – or that message has been delivered to you more than once, hasn’t it, by Aboriginal families?---I think once is enough.

When it was delivered to you, what did you do about it to restore trust?---I guess tried to engage the families around the reasons that were involved, our preferred outcomes for those children, trying to empower families to, you know, make complaints if they’re not happy with the service that they’ve received, talking to them around that complaints process and how they can go about that. And, I guess, you know, trying to reaffirm to them my involvement with them at the present time that I’m speaking to them and to try and, you know, sort of, resolve those issues and to try and speak to them about what our preferred outcomes are for that family .....


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I’m not asking you for the name of the previous worker, but did you speak to the previous worker about what the family had told you?---It wasn’t a name that was given to me.

So did you raise it with your supervisor, the concerns of the previous family with the previous worker?---I didn’t know who the previous worker was.

But you didn’t make any effort to find that out and raise it at a level with your supervisor?---The family weren’t able provide it with me – me with it.

You didn’t make inquiries yourself, with your team leader, about who that was?---Not that I can recall.

No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. I know you’ve had leave, of course, Ms Graham, but you will keep in mind, won’t you, that we have two more witnesses this afternoon? Thank you.


MS GRAHAM: Thanks, Commissioners.

Ms Huddleston, my name’s Felicity Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Can I pick up on that topic you were dealing with in relation to the distrust of Aboriginal families and communities in relation to the department. That’s something that you are aware of as a widespread concern, is it?---I can only speak for my own understanding of that issue.

Are you – is the effect of your evidence that there’s only one family where you have been aware that distrust with the department has been an issue?---There’s only one family that has outright said that to me, but it’s a feeling that I get when engaging at times with families that there is a feeling of – there’s a feeling of fear, I suppose, that, you know, that a removal will occur.

Is that something that you’ve received any training about?---Addressing fear?

And distrust in the department?---So we received training on effective engagement tools and conversation building and engaging – engaging families and young people.

So have you received any training about what might cause Aboriginal families and communities to feel distrust for the department, or fear of the department?---Yes. Well, that’s covered in, sort of, cultural awareness training and, you know, I’ve done lots of my own research around the stolen generation and things like that, if that’s what you’re referring to.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4469 S. HUDDLESTON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

In terms of taking steps to rebuild trust, is it your view that it would be useful for the department to have greater community engagement, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities outside of crisis situations, outside of turning up because something traumatic or problematic has occurred?---Sorry, just ask that again.

In terms of step that is could be taken to rebuild trust in Aboriginal families and communities, particularly remote communities, is it your view that engagement with those communities outside of crisis situations is a way of rebuilding trust?---Potentially, but I think that Joy raised a good point earlier about, you know, publicising the good work that we do and the good outcomes that we have for our clients. And, you know, we’ve seen lots of things in the media over time, for want of a better word, sensationalising the bad stuff that happens or the negative outcomes or, you know, sort of focussing solely on children in out-of-home care or children being removed, but, you know, as Joy mentioned previously, there are some good outcomes for children and there are some great work that is being done by Territory Families. So I think I try my best one step at a time to try and have those positive conversations and, you know, to leave those families feeling empowered and feeling like they’re able to access their resources to be able to improve their situation.

Are you aware of a practice that used to exist within the department where there was a proactive referral by a departmental officer to an Aboriginal legal service like CAALAS at an early stage of the involvement with a family?---No.

Is that – it’s certainly not a practice that currently exists: proactive referral to an Aboriginal legal aid organisation for families for legal representation?---Not that I’m aware of.

Do you have any concerns about the families and children that you are engaging with not accessing legal representation and legal advice in relation to their engagement with the child protection system?---Am I concerned that they’re not seeking legal advice?

Not accessing it. Do you have any concerns about that?---No.

You’ve mentioned at paragraph 26.1 of your statement an issue in terms of confidentiality constraints being a barrier, a logistical difficulty with remote work. What is the confidentiality constraint on you in dealing with a remote communities?---I guess the confidentiality constraint within our legislation is the same across the greater Darwin region and the remote context. It’s – I guess the remote context just adds a little bit more complexity because of the logistics of it, in terms of sharing information, locating families, that sort of thing.

Do you see that a way of overcoming that barrier in remote communities would be for there to be greater use of Aboriginal staff in communities?---The staff that we do have in remote communities are utilised to try and overcome those barriers.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4470 S. HUDDLESTON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is it your view that there are sufficient numbers of Aboriginal staff workers in remote communities to deal with that issue of meaningful engagement with families in remote communities and overcoming any confidentiality issues, or would you like to see more resources?---Not all communities have permanently based Aboriginal communities – community workers out there and certainly if there was somebody that was a point of reference in those communities that we could access for information, that could potentially help.

Thanks, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. I think you have some questions to ask, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes, if I may. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I know that you will be really mindful of the fact that we have - - -

MR LAWRENCE: Two witnesses.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We do. Ms Gwynne and Ms Hancock.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And it’s a quarter to 4, so I do hope you’ll bear in mind that in mind. Thank you, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: Of course, your Honour. Well, the good news is I’ve been given all of five minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Use it wisely then, Mr Lawrence.


MR LAWRENCE: Now, you’ve been working in this department since January 2015?---Correct.

And I gather the first year that you worked, or more, in fact, was when you were looking after children that had been taken from families and were in the care of the department?---Correct.

Alright. And then after that, you were involved in actually making sure there was quality placements and making assessments of potential new carers?---I did – I did new carer application assessments, yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4471 S. HUDDLESTON XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. But then you went briefly for an investigator and assessment and now you’re in the Child Abuse Task Force?---Yes.

And you’ve been in there for eight months. Since October 2016.

And I think you said earlier you’ve been involved in 12 Aboriginal communities?---Approximately.

Approximately?---Off the top of my head.

And that’s all up here in the Top End?---Yes.

We’re talking about Yolngu in Arnhem Land?---Mmm.

Groote Eylandt?---Yep.

Andindilyakwa? That’s a language in Groote Eylandt?---Okay. Yes.

Right. Have you been to Groote Eylandt?---Yes.

Have you been involved in children being taken from families on Groote Eylandt?---No.

The Tiwi islands?---Yes.

You’re involved in investigating situations on the Tiwi island?---I’ve been to the Tiwi Islands, yeah.

Alright. Now, you’ve told us about your training and you also say you learnt things through conversations; that’s with your colleagues, I take it?---Yes.

Alright?---And families.

Now, five minutes isn’t long. Do you really consider yourself as a professional that you’ve got enough grounding, enough training in the intricacies of Aboriginal culture, society, kinship, families to be making assessments that you are tasked to do in your job?---Just rephrase that question.

Do you really think that you are in a position, you have got sufficient training and knowledge to do the job you do involving Aboriginal communities out in the bush, whether it be Groote Eylandt, Tiwi Island, and the complexities of their culture, the kinship, the family set-ups? Do you feel confident that you have sufficient - - -?---To assess the risk of harm? Yes.

Yes. To assess the risk of harm?---Yes.

And is your assessment based on just physical observations?---No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Are you able to communicate with Tiwi people in Tiwi?---Yes.

You can speak Tiwi?---No. I can’t speak Tiwi but I can speak to – I have communicated with people on the island.

In English?---Yes.

Which is probably their second language?---And with an interpreter.

With – all the time?---In the case that I had an investigation on Tiwi, we had an interpreter.

A case?---Yep.

Does that mean every case you’ve done in the Tiwi Islands you have used an interpreter?---The one case in the last eight months that I completed with a family from the Tiwi Islands has had a Tiwi interpreter.

Alright. Groote Eylandt?---That was a non-Indigenous family.

Alright. Arnhem Land: have you been out to communities there?---Again, that was a non-Indigenous family.

Alright. So have you had much dealings with Aboriginal people in the year that you’ve been in this task force?---Yes.

And are you comfortable at a you have effective communication with the families that are involved, all the relevant people?---Yes.

Even although English is their second language?---Sometimes fourth or fifth language, yes.

Alright. So how are you comfortable in communications being effective?---How am I comfortable to those communications are effective?

Yes. When you ask questions of the direct parents, the other family members, the child itself, how are you comfortable in that those people understand what you are asking and they’re comfortable answering you effectively.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, this was covered in-chief. I object to revisiting this issue at this time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps not quite so strongly, but the clock’s ticking, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: I know, but it’s a direct – and I think it’s central.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well it is. It’s been canvassed by each of the people who have spoken, as well as myself with this witness and we know what her view it, learning a little more with each answer, of course.

MR LAWRENCE: Sorry?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Learning a little more with each answer, even though it’s to the same question.

MR LAWRENCE: Alright.

I’m just trying to be fair to you, witness. Do you understand that?---That’s fine.

I mean, your responsibilities are very grave here, aren’t they, when you make these decisions?---I understand that.

And you wouldn’t want to get it wrong, would you?---It’s not my intention.

No. And you could get it wrong if there wasn’t effective communication.

MR O’MAHONEY: Really, I must object.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Yes.

MR O’MAHONEY: This is just speculation on speculation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I’m not thinking of it in that way. It’s just – “yes, of course,” is the answer to that, Mr Lawrence, isn’t it? But have you got something more specific. The questions that you were given leave to ask – I don’t think we’ve had very many of them asked actually.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. I’ll go to that then.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, you’ve just about run out of time. so - - -

MR LAWRENCE: Well, I’d better go to that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The third one that you would – might be interesting to hear about. Particularly as it relates to your client, about which Aboriginal community controlled organisations are approached.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

You’ve said in your statement – and if that could be shown to the witness; I think it’s paragraph 19.5.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: She has her statement with her.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR LAWRENCE: Right.

It’s – you refer things to the family support panel which then includes these non-government agencies, right, and you name them: Teen Health.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And the question – yes. Ask your question.

MR LAWRENCE: Do you consult with Aboriginal-run organisations which hold expertise in this area?---So this is the same family support panel that Joy referred to.

That’s right. I gather. Yes?---So the same answer applies.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The answer is no; is that correct? So you haven’t – as you know, Mr Lawrence appears for Danila Dilba, which has a lot of experience in this field?---Who, I understand, don’t sit on that family support panel.

And have you had experience with Danila Dilba in your professional capacity?---Yes.

How have you used them? Perhaps that would cut across some of the questions that Mr Lawrence might want to ask?---So a request for information of supported clients to attend that service. Had on one occasion a – used Danila Dilba as a support for a new mother. That was her request, that she was spoken to at that service with that support person who knew her through the provision of health care.

MR LAWRENCE: Just at paragraph 6.5 also, I want to ask you about – you say that you tried to assist families. Have you got that, 6.5.1. Strengthening their capacity?---Mmm.

What actual – are your methods to pursue this in trying to assist families, strengthen themselves?---So speaking to them about their understanding of children’s development, the development ages and stages of children so they can relate to those children, speaking to them about the impact of trauma on the developing brain for those children, you know, speaking to them about what external resources they might be able to use to be able to strengthen their capacity, the use of extended family, the use of friends, the use of courses that play be of interest to them run by external organisations. That sort of thing.

Does it involve involving directly Aboriginal organisations that work in areas that could help strengthen the family?---Not necessarily directly in all of those cases.

And just finally, the – can you explain to us more fully, if you can, the methods that you employ in assessing thoroughly the people that become carers for children that are taken from families?---Can I do what, sorry?

Can you explain more fully the – you say it’s a thorough assessment. You know, you’ve got a child that’s taken from its mum and dad, let’s just say it’s from the Tiwi


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Islands, a Tiwi child. That child is in the care of the department as a consequence of an order and it goes to the care, the foster care. What scrutiny do you apply to those adopting new parents?---I don’t apply any. I don’t do kinship care assessments.

Well, didn’t you do it earlier when you first started work there? Wasn’t that your task, to look after the kids that were in those care?---When I worked in the long term care unit; is that what you’re referring to?

Yes?---I didn’t do kinship caring assessments.

Well, not necessarily kinship caring. Any scrutiny of any potential carer?---Whilst working in the long-term care unit I wasn’t responsible for that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Well, I think that it was probably thought that this witness could deal with those questions, but clearly could not.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. Thank you.


MR LAWRENCE: Thank you, Ms Huddleston?---Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have any, Mr O’Mahoney?

MR McAVOY: I understand Mr O’Mahoney doesn’t have any questions.


MR McAVOY: I have no re-examination, and perhaps the witness could be excused.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Huddleston for your assistance to the commission?---Thank you.

You’re released from your summons.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.56 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Now, Mr McAvoy, we’re going to take a break now, because we’re clearly going to be sitting on rather longer than we had anticipated, and so our transcriber can have a break from running her wrists ragged - - -

MR McAVOY: Certainly. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - we will do that before Ms Gwynne comes to give her evidence.

MR McAVOY: Yes. And Mr Dighton will be at the bar table at that point.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Well, Mr Dighton, we will just adjourn so that we can just have a short break.

MR DIGHTON: Thank you.


ADJOURNED [3.57 pm]

RESUMED [4.06 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Dighton.

<COLLEEN GWYNNE, AFFIRMED [4.07 pm]

MS McMASTER: If it please the Commission, McMaster, I appear on behalf of Ms Gwynne.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms McMaster.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DIGHTON

MR DIGHTON: Could you state your full name and position?---Colleen Mary Gwynne, Children’s Commissioner, Northern Territory.

And you’ve prepared a number of statements for the Commission. The last two of which concern the Child Protection System, one is dated 29 May 2017?---That’s correct.

I tender that statement, Commissioners.


.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4477 C. GWYNNE XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR DIGHTON

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #520 STATEMENT OF COLLEEN MARY GWYNNE DATED 29/05/2017

MR DIGHTON: You also prepared a further statement that clarifies some of the issues in that 29 May 2017 statement, and that’s dated Tuesday, 19 June 2017?---That’s correct.

Commissioners, I tender that statement, but can I do so with the request that it not be published for seven days to give the parties an opportunity to consider it first.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly. I receive it and give it the exhibit number 521 with the direction that it be not available for seven days.



COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. If there’s any earlier release time for it, then that can happen.

MR DIGHTON: Thank you, Commissioner.

Ms Gwynne, if we can start at the early steps of the Child Protection System, in statutory response terms at least, and look at the notifications to Territory Families. You set out in your statement and the most recently annual report of your office that there has been year-on-year growth for notifications and that last year over 20,000 were received. What are the key observations or conclusions of your office in relation to that trend?---Yeah. I think the fact that we’ve more than doubled the notifications over the last five years tells us we’ve got a significant issue that needs an urgent response. I guess if you look at the notifications there is – over 50 per cent are in relation to neglect and that certainly tells you something. The other, I guess, point that I should make is that the large percentage of the notifications are made by professional notifiers.

What’s the – what inferences do you draw from that?---Well, I guess, neglect. I see that is directly related to a lot of the social determinants, such as poverty and drug and alcohol abuse, mental health, overcrowding and, I guess, a range of the cognitive issues that exist also.

And just to clarify, in terms of neglect in this context, that encompasses things like failure to provide basic physical necessities like food, clothing, housing, failure to thrive, access to medical care, those sort of things?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And the figure in your report, you said around 50 per cent before but the figure in your report is 43 per cent of all substantiated notifications relate to neglect. In addressing that issue, you mentioned before social determinants but is it your view that if you are looking at measures of early intervention that you also then need to be looking at underlying socio-economic issues as well?---Yeah, absolutely. That’s where – that’s definitely where you have to start.

And as Children’s Commissioner, do you have any particular views as to what measures you would like to see implemented to address those things in conjunction with each other?---Look, I think, traditionally, our response to child abuse, neglect, has been really around systems and we’ve based it on systems for many years and then we keep refining systems and it doesn’t really get us anywhere. My view is that unless we take an approach akin to a public health approach, if I can go back, if we think about child abuse neglect, the same as we think about public health, like cancer and the range of public health issues and apply the same rigor and regard to child abuse and neglect, then it’s going to lead us to a different response, and the public health response, it looks at, I guess, those social determinants as the starting point. If we look at – examine strategies to prevent and respond to things like alcohol abuse and drug abuse and domestic violence and all violence in totality, unmanaged mental illness, severe cognitive impairment and overcrowding, which is a significant issue, then that should lead us to some better outcomes and certainly by focussing more on early childhood, that is going to stop, I guess, the cycle of welfare that we see now. So yeah, I think it’s got to be a completely different approach based on a tried – you know, public health model and if we treat child abuse and neglect as a public health issue then that should then assume a different approach, a holistic approach as opposed to a process that we keep trying to exchange and manipulate.

And just working - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: This necessarily involves to a lot of on the ground education for people about really basic things about, you know, cleanliness, washing hands, how to avoid infection and so on, a little bit – you know, it is very basic, a lot of difference can be made by doing very simple things, is it not the case?---Commissioner, that’s a really good point. The – what we see in communities is young children who are – who do fall within the neglect category, and it is those – those basic needs that they require, particularly around health. Education is certainly a huge key too, but the response has got to be – we’ve got to start at antenatal and work our way through early childhood. It can’t be later on. And we often talk about putting family support as the solution in reducing, and I see that as akin to almost a secondary or tertiary response. It has to be those basic needs that are required by every child.

And presumably your experience would suggest that young parents, mothers and fathers, really do want what’s best for their babies and so on. Often they don’t know how to go about it?---Certainly, the level of support and education required for young – very young mothers in some circumstances is significant, but it’s a key to ensuring that the outcomes for their children and themselves as parents are much


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

greater, and they say that the two biggest triggers for young people either ending up in child protection or the youth justice system is poor parenting and lack of education. So that they have to be key.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But, Commissioner, there’s also another aspect to the public health model and that’s the public health model has already proven that early intervention is the way to go?---Yeah.

But there’s still another comparison to that?---Yes. Absolutely, and - - -

That’s useful here?---And, Commissioner Gooda, as you say, it’s been proven to work.

Yes?---So that’s the key.

MR DIGHTON: And just working those issues through, do you have a view on whether the organisations or the people able to provide that even basic level of support or education exist or do not exist at the moment in the Northern Territory?---I think – I think there’s pockets of them and I think we have champions all over the Northern Territory who do remarkable – remarkable things. I think we have organisations in different communities who do remarkable work, but I think what we’re missing is the coordination of services and that ad hoc nature we have of when removing the financial support for services at work, and not then, I guess, increasing the capacity to run similar services throughout the Northern Territory, and that’s happened in the past. Yeah, I – probably – that’s probably my answer in relation to that, but it’s the ad hoc nature of the way we do things that we have to change.

Thank you. You referred in your answer before or earlier to professional notifiers and at paragraph 22 of your statement you state that there is a tendency for relevant people to rely on notifying a concern rather than responding to it or investigating it. Could you provide some practical or current examples of that, to your knowledge?---Yeah. I guess if we look at notifications and the high number of notifications that are screened out. So if you think about the administrative burden that that places on any organisation, my view is that we’ve become a very reliant on reporting it’s someone else’s problem, rather than responding at the time. And so ideally what you then get is a backup of notifications and they increase and so does the time taken to respond to those complaints increase. And if you’re talking about child protection and you have a child protection notification sitting in amongst nearly 21,000, that is so serious in nature that a young child’s life may be in danger and you can’t get to that, the system’s got to change. My view is that the – if we – if the notifications to the department were, I guess, more holistic, more information, then it would give the department a better starting point in terms of being able to respond rather than them getting mixed up in the thousands of notifications and eventually screened out. The response to any concern about a child has to be immediate, has to be at the time, whether it be 1 or 2 in the morning, it’s got to start then and not the next day or in some cases a number of weeks time when the department can get to it.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you note in your statement that, in particular, police are by far the largest notifiers. Do you have a view on how their role bears upon what you just mentioned then?---Yeah, I guess you would naturally think police would be the largest notifiers. They are out there 24/7. They’re in most areas of the Northern Territory and usually if something goes wrong the police are called. So young people get themselves into situations where someone will call the police because either they are – they are concerned about them being out at night and extremely vulnerable or they are or likely to start committing offences. So therefore the police respond. I think what’s changed over the years is the response by police at that time. I understand that a number of years ago there was a directive by the Commissioner at the time that it wasn’t the role of police to deal with children, and therefore that manifests itself in a lot more reports going through to the Department of Children and Families, as it was then, as opposed to a response occurring at that time when it’s needed the most, and you start to begin what is the beginnings of a case that the department can then start building from and understanding what is the best most timely and holistic response to the needs of that particular child.

Are you aware if that directive is still in force or whether the spirit of it persists?---Look, I’m not aware, but I was certainly there when it was put in place, but I would be very surprised if that’s the – that’s the mandate now.

Okay. You have referred, at a number of points in your statement, to the fact and effect of heavy case loads on frontline staff in Territory Families and we know from Territory Families statistics that, as at 30 June 2016, the average case load for Territory Families case worker was 33 cases. In your view, objectively, do the case loads suggested by that statistic, is it too high for case workers to effectively carry out their duties and functions?---Absolutely.

And the – have you received feedback or reports from Territory Families case workers about the effect of high caseloads on their work and the consequences of it?---Yes. I guess what we look at often is when a complaint comes to us about the care of a vulnerable child and often that instigates us to undertake a preliminary inquiry and often talk to staff within the now Territory Families, they are inundated with caseloads that really do prevent them from undertaking a intensive response to the needs of that child and family, and that includes good and constant face-to-face contact that’s really important when you’re managing and to get sight of a child to understand, I guess, how they’re tracking and how the family’s tracking. So yes, absolutely, it has a direct – direct correlation to their inability to be able to satisfy the legislative requirements and the policy requirements to be able to case manage that particular child.

Let’s take that example of face-to-face contact and follow it through. The – in your annual report, the most recent annual report, 2015 to ’16, it’s noted at page 83 that a part of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of a child for whom the department has statutory responsibility is case worker contact and it’s the case, isn’t it, that it is Territory Families policy that a case worker must have face-to-face contact with a child at least once every four weeks?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It’s the case also, isn’t it, that merely sighting the child is not enough in terms of that face-to-face contact, it has to be sufficient so that the child can voice any concerns or problems or any opinions to the case worker?---Yes. I think that goes without saying. To sight a child is one thing, and certainly better than nothing, but you would want to have some dialogue and make certain observations about that child and what’s most important here is what the child says to you, the voice of the child. And we often forget that that’s probably the most important voice regardless of the age of the child, that the child will be the first to tell you if something’s not right.

And do you agree that the vital importance of that face-to-face contact is emphasised by the reference in the annual report to a coronial inquest from 2010?---That’s correct.

And that’s a – that was an inquest in which a young girl, in the care of the department, died in circumstances where they had, amongst other things, been inadequate oversight of the placement by case workers?---Correct.

And it’s the case there that there was a repeated failure by case workers to personally visit the child to a minimum standard?---Yeah. In that particular case, the case worker did attend the premises but didn’t enter into any dialogue with the child, although the child, you could see, was in some grief and trauma at the time. So yeah, it was a very sad case.

And it’s not a memory test, but you may recall that there is a specific reference in the judgment to one of the other case workers who had a caseload at the time of 25 to 30 children and who could not find the time to make a home visits?---That’s correct. Yeah.

If we can turn then, bearing that in mind to – and if I could have exhibit 518 brought up on the screen, and turning to the page where the final – thank you. Sorry, and one further page over – and one more, my apologies. I’ll find the number for you, with the digits ending 5364. Thank you. If we could focus in on the section entitled Case Management. You will see there, if you can see it clearly enough, under the heading Case Management, the statistics suggest that as at April 2017 that in that month half of all children in care had not had face-to-face contact with a case worker within the last month; do you see that line?---Yes I can.

And then 27 per cent of children had not had face-to-face contact within the last two months?---Yes. Got that.

And then the next line, 17 per cent or that equates to about 186 children, had not been seen for a period of three months or more?---That’s correct, yes.

On those figures, and the issues raised in your annual report, do you have a view as to whether the inability of Territory Families to do something as fundamental as visit the children in their care in accordance with their own policy is exposing those


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

children to further or increased risks of harm?---Yeah, you’re certainly exposing the children and you’re exposing the staff as well.

And, in particular, what are the types of risks or where do you see the risks arising?---If you’re not sighting the child regularly enough, then you have no understanding of what’s occurring with that child in the circumstances or any risk, additional risks. We already know that these are children that are highly vulnerable and to – to not sight them, let alone have a discussion with them, is highly problematic and risky.

If I can leave that up on the screen but turn to possibly a related issue and that is of care plans and leaving care plans, you will see on the top line under that same heading there is a statistic that indicates 28.9 per cent of children in the department’s care do not have a current care plan – sorry, actually that might be different, 29.4, my apologies. It’s not the case, is it – sorry, do you see that line?---No, can you just - - -

Sorry, directly under Case Management.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The first line under case management?---Okay. Yes, I’ve got it. Thank you, Commissioner.

MR DIGHTON: My apologies, we might actually be on the wrong page. I’ll just – if we can just go to the total. I think it’s the following page. Thank you. Sorry, 5362 is the final four digits, my apologies. Under Case Management the first line, percentage of children without a current care plan, 28.9 per cent?---Yes, I have that.

It’s not case, is it, that care plans for children are just a policy setting. The law requires, as at section 70 of the Care and Protection of Children Act that Territory Families must prepare and implement a care plan for every child in their care?---That’s correct.

Why are care plans so significant?---I guess they articulate the current gaps in the child’s care and a framework for their continued care. And to ensure that, I guess, both the child and the department understand to what the plan is.

And in your view are the best interests of the children potentially compromised by the absence of a care plan while the child is under a statutory order?---Yeah, that’s correct.

And in a similar vein, your office did a review of leaving care plans – and that’s set out at 79 of the annual report from last year, and it might come up on the screen in front of you in a second. Before we get to it, what is the purpose and importance of a leaving care plan?---I guess the – it ensures that young people transition out of care in the best way possible. So those things that are important is their financial stability, housing, health, we want to give them the best opportunity and chance to succeed once they leave what is quite a controlled environment that they’ve been in, and in some cases for many years. It’s important that the child – the child understands what


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

opportunities there are and they’re given every support after they leave care in every aspect of their life. So it’s a very important document in terms of their ongoing management and support.

And again there is a connected legal, as opposed to policy obligation here, to the extent that section 86 of the Care and Protection of Children Act states Territory Families must ensure that the person is provided with child related services and other services the CEO considers appropriate upon leaving care?---That’s correct, yes.

For that review, you took a sample of 25 per cent of all of the case files of the young people in care aged between 15 and 17 years?---That’s right.

And your review found that 73 per cent of the sampled case files had no specific leaving care plans. If we go over a further page on the report, that might become evident?---Yeah, okay.

73 per cent?---Yep. That’s correct.

In your view, does the absence of a leaving care plan for a child suggest that appropriate or necessary child related services, in relation to things like housing, training, employment, health services may not be in place when the child turns 18?---Yeah, that’s correct.

This is the fourth time that the office of the Children’s Commissioner has reviewed the department’s compliance with its legal and policy obligations in this respect, and yet significant numbers remain of children on the cusp of levering care without appropriate support or assistance. Why is this still happening, in your view, given those previous findings of your office?---I think there’s a number of reasons. One is that – again, I think it’s the capacity of those working within the now Territory Families to be able to undertake that work while balancing a number of other tasks. There’s also the broader issues around the unavailability of things like housing. I know the department does place children on housing lists to ensure that they receive public housing once they leave care and often they are on the list for years, as are a number of people because of the distinct shortage of public housing. So there’s the capacity. There’s also the services that are available. There is another point: often, these young people are very challenging to manage. So they’ve been in care for some time and it’s very – it can be difficult to continue to engage with them. I think there’s particular skill required around that and when you think of the ages of young people leaving care who, in some circumstances, have been there since they were a child, I think it requires a different sort of management to be able to deal with these young people and work with them more akin to what some really good youth workers can do with children on the streets. I think it’s a different skillset to what a lot of the workers in Territory Families are trained and set up to do.

And in relation to the fact of that finding in your annual report, have Territory Families provided to you any specific feedback as to how they intend to address that issue?---Look, they – we have been in constant communication with Territory


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Families since the change in the machinery government changes and the formation of the department, and these areas are a real priority for the department. They are looking at ways to try and reduce workloads and I can’t quote figures but I’ve been told – I’ve been informed by Jeanette Kerr they have had some success in that area. They are going through a significant transition in trying to professionalise their workforce and provide them the support and training they need to undertake a range of roles. I also am very alive to the fact that this is not something they can turn around in 12 months. This is not something that probably turn around in two years. It will take some time. And that’s why I say there’s got to be a dual approach here. One is in the front end, the tertiary end, and one is very much in that universal space around that prevention that we spoke about before.

Thank you. Turning to recordkeeping and document management as you raised in your statement, at paragraph 55 you note that the growing strong together report in 2010 identified problems with recordkeeping in the department and that it remains a fundamental problem now. What are some of the consequences of these problems as they relate to effective case work with children by the department?---Are you talking about - - -

Paragraph 55?--- - - - 55? Yeah, what I’ve seen in the last two years is certainly ongoing problems with recordkeeping in different areas on a range of levels. There are times when the kicker system – remind me what it’s called again? The - - -

Central – we know what you mean, I’ll get it in a moment?---Children’s Care and Investigation System or something like that. Their main case management system often – well, not often, but there are times when we’re reviewing cases when all of the notes pertaining to that relevant child do not appear on the system. They may appear somewhere, but they are often behind in terms of trying to put those details on the system. It’s like double handling. And in my next paragraph I talk about perhaps using technology a bit better in the department to be able to have a single entry point using technology in the field to be able to put the notes straight onto what is their main case management system. I do think that they are trapped with the – having too much information to try and manage – and the systems that they have, I just don’t think have been able to keep pace with the increase in the workload that that department has been tasked with. So records management is an issue there.

And as it relates to the work of your office, it’s the case that as a matter of statute and policy, Territory Families in a number of areas is required to provide certain types of information to your office?---That’s correct.

For instance, section 35 of the Children’s Commissioner Act confers upon you the power to issue a notice requiring the provision of specified information within a certain timeframe?---Correct.

And have you issued such notices to Territory Families in the course of your duties?---Yes, a number.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Have they been complied with in the time set in the notice?---Not always.

Where it’s not been complied with, are you able to give an indication of typical or average length of delay?---Look, there’s certainly been improvement. We – there have been times where the delays have been up to a number of months. There are still some delays. There was a settling period between the – when the machinery government changes came into effect and the – the new Territory Families department was settling their own structures. I think the difference is now is when we do have – where correspondence is late, that we are able to engage pretty quickly with the department and get a relatively quick resolution, but it has been a problem in the past.

And a further example, section 84C of the Care and Protection of Children Act which requires the CEO of Territory Families to disclose to you a report from any investigation where a child has suffered harm or exploitation while in care, is that an example – sorry, are you receiving that information in what you would think is as quickly as practicable?---That one’s very hard, because we only get what’s substantiated abuse in care, and often to substantiate the abuse can take months. However, we do find that near the end of the financial year we do receive a number of reports in line with the statutory requirement to report to the Children’s Commissioner. So I do see that it’s probably another one of their functions that does suffer because of the load that they undertake.

Is there – what’s the effect on your – sorry, I withdraw that. Looking at both of those issues, and then more generally about the provision of information, how does that affect you and your staff in the ability to carry out your statutory functions?---Well, I’ve got a statutory role to report on abuse in care, which is an important part of my role. In terms of being able to review that regularly and look at whether there’s any trends around reports of abuse in care, it can be difficult when reports come in late. We have had times where we’ve looked at a – undertaken a preliminary investigation and it has revealed abuse in care and it – it is one that didn’t come to us under the abuse in care provisions. So we were concerned that we weren’t getting all substantiated cases. My view is that we probably should get all cases, whether they’re substantiated or not, just by virtue of the fact that any abuse in care, I think, needs to be looked at independently.

Turning to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You would need to have considerably more resources in your office, wouldn’t you, Commissioner, if that were to be the case?---Well, yeah, I guesses with my role there should be more analysis and we should be able to explore a lot of the issues and, in some ways, it’s providing support to Territory Families to give them that independence and that ability to look at those systemic issues that arise, but my ability to do that is very limited with my current resources.

Presumably, if the Territory Families systems are strengthened that would make the job a little easier as well, wouldn’t it?---Yes. Certainly. If they had better


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

technology, better systems, better recordkeeping processes, that would certainly make it easy. When you can do one touch reporting and you can get reports at your fingertips it makes it easy for all managers to understand what’s going on in the workplace and ensure that some of those trends are certainly – particularly if you look at – you get a distinct increase in notifications over a month, you would want to know why and what area that’s coming from and what are the complaints. Therefore, there you can take a really quick response to ensure that you don’t continue to get those reports and understand what the underlying issue is. So it might be from a particular community, it might be from one of the urban centres. So at the moment, we really are behind the eight ball, because we’re reviewing things so late in the piece and it’s difficult then to be able to provide really good recommendations to government and the department around, you know, those areas they need to really put a microscope on.

I mean, I know this is plucking a figure out of the air but too do that kind of investigative review work, how many more personnel – skilled personnel would you need to be able to manage that?---Well, I guess it depends on, you know, the extent of the inspectorate-type of role that you want us to undertake, but if we were to provide that independent oversight of child protection and youth justice across the Territory, we would look at a minimum of four extra staff who had expertise in that ability to be able to audit and provide the analytical type of advice that would then – and, you know, that independent advice that we could provide, not only the chief executive officers but government, and if we can bring the non-government sector into this space then it would certainly give them a really good understanding of, I guess, their service provision and where we’re just getting it wrong.

Yes?---As opposed to every year we put out an annual report, it’s just – it’s too late. What I would like to be doing is putting out quarterly reports that provides a more timely snapshot of how we’re performing around service provision to vulnerable children.

MR DIGHTON: I’m informed that your reference to CCIS before: Community Care Information Systems. Does that sound right?---That’s wonderful. Thank you.

Moving on to this point of the operations and functions of your office, you set out in your statement of 7 October 2016 at paragraph 8 the scope of your statutory function includes things like or ranges from individual complaint investigations, own initiative investigations, monitoring implementation of inquiries and responses to harm as well as reviewing the effectiveness and operation of statutes. In your view now, does the – does your office have the budget, staff, and resources at the moment to properly carry out all of the statutory functions set out in the Children’s Commissioner’s Act?---Not to properly carry them out.

And where – in terms of priority and then where things are being missed out, what’s your assessment of that?---Look, there was – historically there was a big focus on complaints management and investigations, and the office was pretty much dedicated


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

to that. What I’ve done recently is try to change the focus in a more proactive area so we are forward looking and looking at – so we’re undertaking more education and consultation and we’re starting to set up focus groups with children as recently as last week. So we have brought a new education and comms officer on who’s doing a lot of good work in the field to understand how children are feeling in this space, and already, in a space of about five weeks, we’ve done so much work. So what I – my role is changing significantly in – we want to be not in the chaos like the system is, but more in a – in the early intervention proactive space where we understand where the gaps of service delivery are by analysing the data, monitoring what’s going on, coupled with talking to the children who are subject to the services, and working across the sector to understand what their issues are so we can provide government the best advice which is evidence based and I would really like if we could undertake a lot more research in this area so, you know, because in child protection there’s been very little research, believe it or not, and you understanding what the holistic data is. There’s snapshots of it, but there’s really not a lot that’s occurred here for us to fully understand the evidence and understand what the underlying issues are.

And looking at the – how that is working in practice, that shift in emphases, the – as at October, your office comprised eight people, this is from your statement, of whom three were investigators who were working to a complaints manager and an investigations manager?---That’s correct.

And your office has helpfully produced an organisational chart of your current structure. That’s at tab 3 of the supplementary tender bundle, if I could have that brought up on the screen. And as you noted in your evidence there is the community engagement and education officer over to the left, but the change has been also that a reduction from three investigations officers to one and a removal of one of the managers. Can you just explain those exchanges?---Well, there’s actually two investigators, so the coordinator complaints and investigations is also an investigator.

Right?---So the manager of strategic engagement and monitoring started today, and his role will be to look at the broader high level issues that arise from our monitoring and auditing of the system, coupled with recent research, and also you will see in both the community engagement and the manager of strategic, I’ve got engagement, because that’s important. We need to get out and talk to people to understand, not just relying on what we see through complaints and our investigations to understand where the problems lie in terms of vulnerable children. So the complaints management is a – is still in a very important function, but the distinction or the change I’ve made is between Territory Families and our office, we’ve set up a minor complaints resolution process which has been going now for about four months and what – what we’re able to achieve now is some really timely resolution of matters that would historically take sometimes months and years to resolve. Now, the focus of both our office and Territory Families is the child at the centre of those decisions. So if we take our eye off the ball and we start talking about the process or the system and we forget about the child then we quickly bring ourselves back to earth and start talking about the child but what we’ve been able to achieve is the department self-managing those complaints in consultation with my office and getting better and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

quicker resolutions to matters that historically could have taken some time, and the environment of which we’re doing that is one of mutual respect and one where the – all parties around the table are looking for the best outcome for that child.

Just before I continue, I tender that document, Commissioners, the organisational chart of the office of the Children’s Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. That’s exhibit – get this right – see if I can get it right this time. Tender bundle is - - -

MR DIGHTON: It’s not in the tender bundle.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s not in the supplementary - - -

MR DIGHTON: It’s a free standing – my apologies. It is. I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought you said it was in the tender bundle. Right. Is that 515 point - - -

MR DIGHTON: Three.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - three. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #515.004 ORGANISATIONAL CHART OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER

MR DIGHTON: Thank you. The - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it’s actually .003, if one is going to be pedantic about it, Mr Dighton.



MR DIGHTON: Following on from what you’ve said, at page 30 of your annual report you noted that your office referred 50 complaints to other investigative bodies, and that page might come up on the screen, and including – amongst those investigative bodies was the internal complaints unit of Territory Families. Does taking that course of referring the complaint to the body about which the complaint is made require you to have the necessary confidence in the internal review mechanisms of Territory Families?---It doesn’t take my responsibility away from the oversight. The intent was – number one intent was to bring back the child as the centrepiece of any discussion as opposed to it being caught up in the administration between my office and Territory Families, which often happened, and it was – a lot


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

of it was done through formal correspondence, and it would take time. And my concern was while we were pushing letters back and forward, disputing parts of responses or the obligations of the department, it was the child that was being let down in this process. So my view was if we start to try and work with the department much earlier on, the outcomes for the child would be much better. And this is – what’s occurred out of this – it’s been a better education process for the department. And as opposed to waiting one week, two weeks, sending a letter, there being a lag time and the outcome just, I guess, taking longer than is necessary. So my responsibility is to also ensure that the department has a complaints and investigation area that is able to administer the complaints which it receives. And I could take the view that they don’t yet have the ability to do that, or I could work with them to try and get that office to upskill them so we’re better placed to be able to deal with some of these matters. And I think it’s working and I think it’s certainly changed some of the relationships and it’s changed our ability to resolve matters to the satisfaction of the complainants and better outcomes for young people. It’s not perfect, but we’re in a much better place now than what we were six months ago.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And, Commissioner, does that mean they would go back to an internal complaints mechanism specifically within the relevant department? For example, in, say, if you’re dealing with imprisonment, complaints of youth in Don Dale, for example, which we’re now quite familiar with, would you then ask them to have a look at it again within the Don Dale management structure, or would you go somewhere differently in Territory Families?---It’s actually better than that. So there is – within the department of families they have a practice integrity unit that is separate from the service delivery arm.

Yes?---And so they have – they have internal oversight through that area. What this has enabled to us do is if we have a complaint that says – if I give an example; it’s not a real complaint – that my child is in care and I’ve been unable to have any contact with her and even though the agreement was that I would spend an hour or two hours every week, we now go straight to the department in that weekly meeting and say, “This is the complaint. Can we resolve it?” And so what’s occurring is they look at it and say I don’t know how this has occurred, but let me have a look at it and get back to you, and we’re resolving matters quicker for the benefit of the child.

Yes. So you have a weekly meeting where you can bring ..... up?---Every Tuesday we meet. We didn’t meet today, Commissioner, because I was preparing for some very important evidence before you. But every Tuesday we meet and sometimes that meeting can go for one to two hours. We think it’s important to be transparent and honest in the process. It’s not about apportioning blame, but it’s about getting better outcomes, better timely outcomes. And then that doesn’t mean that I still don’t look at those systemic issues that keep coming up. That’s absolutely a part of my role to then say, “This keeps coming up. Why is it that we continue to prevent kin from accessing children who are in other placements? This has become an issue; we need to resolve it. What are you doing to resolve it?” And then those discussions are had at chief executive level and deputy CE level.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Now, what relationship does your office have with the ministry for children? We’ve – it sort of doesn’t really play any part much in our - - -?---No.

- - - inquiries to date, and it seems to be focussed entirely in Territory Families and peripherally in health and education?---I have had some contact. So the Minister for children, which is the current deputy Chief Minister, Nicole Madison, I have briefed her. The Department of Chief Minister, who are responsible for the early childhood reform, I’ve had regular meetings with. I’ve been invited to meetings. I’ve been part of discussions. So there has been contact with my office around the future strategic direction of government on matters that relate to children. It is – the lines of communication are very open.

Thank you.

MR DIGHTON: Following on from what we were discussing, do you agree that some individual complaints necessarily, by their nature, would have to be dealt with by your office as an independent statutory agency rather than being referred to Territory Families?---Absolutely. And I think that will probably never go away. I think that’s just the nature of the work. So there’s two investigations I see that we would be undertaking. One would be in relation to a matter where it is so significant it requires an independent investigation, findings, and recommendations to deal with it. The other is where we have those systemic issues that keep coming up, as I’ve just mentioned to the Commissioner. If it keeps raising through complaints or through our discussions that we’re now having during our engagement sessions, we will then undertake an investigation.

And perhaps following on from that, are there complaint investigations or own initiative investigations that you would like your office to commence but simply because of lack of staff or resources at the moment you can’t?---Yes.

And in what sort of areas do they arise in?---In the child protection area, certainly around – we would like to look at care plans more holistically; be able to go through and actually be able to unpack that a bit on a range of different levels. I would also like to look at notifications and be able to delve in and have a look at what makes up those 20 – 20 and 400 – 20,400 notifications, what’s in there. I think it’s important taking into consideration the Nyland inquiry in South Australia. When they went through and unpacked their notifications what they found, and quite a similar theme where there was a great percentage that were screened out, when they went and looked, what they found was those matters that was screened out, they couldn’t distinguish what was screened in and screened out. They were equally as important in terms of the risk to the child.

Thank you. Turning to a final issue, and that is another of your positions, and that is convenor of the child deaths review and prevention committee. It’s the case that your office has also acted as the secretariat for that committee?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But neither your position as convenor nor your office as acting as a secretariat are specific obligations of the Children’s Commissioner under the Act?---No. My appointment, it’s a – it’s passed on. The history is that when the legislation was first created around the child death review and prevention function, it went to Howard Bath at the time to set it up and then on my appointment it was passed over to me but my role as the convenor is by statutory instrument through government, but by virtue of the fact that I sit within the office of the Children’s Commissioner is – my staff play a support role. There’s no staff attributed to the function.

And that arrangement or an arrangement has been made to now transfer the responsibilities for the secretariat?---Yeah, that’s a recent decision by the Attorney-General to transfer the function to the Coroner’s office.

And what was the rationale for that change?---I guess it was prompted by me for a number of reasons. One is that we saw it was a better fit with the Coroner’s office. I felt at times I was conflicted as – in that role, also the Children’s Commissioner; there could be matters that come before that committee that I may have had some dealing with as the Children’s Commissioner. The – yeah, I guess it’s a capacity issue for me, but we were able to negotiate a full-time person to undertake the administration and I undertook that to get it to where it’s gone. So – where it’s going. So that will go at the end of the year, so I’ll be able to divest myself of that responsibility.

And you mentioned it was going to the Coroner’s office. Was there any consideration given to a body such as the ombudsman’s office taking over the duties which is the case in New South Wales?---I think there was a range of options looked at at the time. The responsibility for the equivalents in Australia sit with various departments: some health, some Ombudsman, Justice departments. You’ll see the models are quite different. The – the decision was made really by the Attorney-General’s department; that was the best place for it.

Have there been limitations to what the committee could do to achieve its functions?---Yeah. So the committee is – it’s made up of a number of specialists in the child death area. I think that to have now some capacity to be able to look into the causes of child deaths would be helpful. Also with some research in the preventative space, but the committee has done a remarkable job under Howard Bath and then more recently in issuing, or putting together a number of literature reviews, a number of reports around youth suicide, co-sleeping, a whole range of areas that committee members have just done in – pretty much in their own time, because they have an active interest and passion for preventing child deaths.

You mentioned the issue of resources. Has the committee been able to provide any or many recommendations, formal recommendations in the last couple of years?---Yeah, there have been some recommendations attached to some reports that have been tabled.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And has the committee then adopted the recommendation contained in the report or has it been a separate process?---Can you repeat that, please.

Sure. So as part of your functions you’ve received the results of research or literature review?---That’s correct.

And then has the committee adopted a recommendation made in that review or has there been a separate process?---It’s been a separate process. So the recommendations have been tabled in Parliament on various reports over the years.

Thank you. Just one moment. Sorry. The – if I could have put up on the screen the 2015/16 annual report. Sorry. If I could just – that’s the most recent report of the committee?---Yes, it is.

Commissioners, I tender that report.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 522.

EXHIBIT #522 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 2015/2016

MR DIGHTON: And on the subject of tendering, I’m also – I understand my fearless assertion about 515.003 was wrong and it’s 515.004. My apologies.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it’s been amended then. Thank you, Mr Dighton.

MR DIGHTON: Thank you. Those are my questions, Commissioners. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Thank you, Dr Dwyer.


DR DWYER: Thank you.

Ms Gwynne, you understand my name is Dwyer - - -?---Yes.

- - - and I appear for the Aboriginal legal service. Can I just start by taking you back to the questions you were asked about the 2010 inquest into the death of a 12-year-old child. That’s a – the case name of that child is reported as Deborah Melville; correct?---That’s correct.

And the issues involved, if I can summarise some of them and see if you recall: overcrowding of the child in the house? Secondly, an increased turnover or a high

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4493 C. GWYNNE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

turnover of case workers involved for Deborah? Thirdly, two heavy caseloads for the individual workers? Fourthly, lack of adequate face-to-face contact with the child? And fifth, an absence of an adequate case plan? There are other issues too, but just taking those five, I’m not suggesting there’s been no improvement since that time, but those five issues are still present in some of the cases you review; correct?---Yes.

And you referred earlier to underlying social and economic issues like health, education and housing that need to be addressed?---Yes.

And that require early intervention; correct?---Correct.

Do you agree that it’s fair to say that unless those fundamental issues are addressed, health, education and housing, holistically and early, the problems identified in the Melville case will continue to plague the system?---Yeah. Potentially they will continue, yes.

So it just underscores, doesn’t it, that really if we’re serious about improving child safety in this jurisdiction, we’ve got to address those underlying areas?---Yes.

Turning now to a separate issue: in your role as Children’s Commissioner you obviously have a great interest in the implementation of key recommendations from the 2012 Growing Them Stronger Report?---Yes.

And is it fair to say that you have been frustrated or disappointed by the failure to implement some of those key recommendations?---Yeah. I don’t know if I’ve ever voiced that. I have my own views around the Board of Inquiry recommendations and why perhaps some of them didn’t get – didn’t get implemented, and I think the fact they didn’t was probably predictable, considering the number of recommendations that were made at the time. And I think in hindsight – and I think Professor Fiona Arne will appear before the Commission. She had some – she worked on that inquiry, and has also spoken about some of the flaws in putting together the recommendations and why she believes they weren’t recommended and it’s all to do with implementation science, which is a new buzz word around that. But I think that – I don’t know if I’m frustrated about that, personally. I think that my frustration probably lies in the fact that we continue to review and often I think that we’re reviewing the wrong thing. We keep reviewing the system and I don’t think that’s where we should be.

So can I put it this way, you no doubt are on top of some key recommendations from that 2010 report?---I am, yes.

And there are some key recommendations that you want to see implemented because you want to see the change?---Yes. It depends on which recommendations you’re referring to.

I’ll move from the abstract into the specific ones then?---Yes. Okay.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Recommendation 13.3 was that the Office of Children’s Commissioner be funded to employ an Aboriginal person dedicated to investigating issues raised by and affecting children in particular. You would welcome that reform or change?---We’ve had an Aboriginal investigator there for a number of years.

Do you – is that somebody who is dedicated to investigating issues for Aboriginal children?---Well, when you look at the – the over-representation of Aboriginal children who are quite vulnerable and disadvantaged, that I would say most of her role is taken up in dealing with Aboriginal children.

And you’re aware of John Burton from SNAICC?---Yes, I am.

And he noted that in Victoria they witnessed the recent success of the Victorian Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner, who brought sustained attention to the systemic failings impacting Aboriginal children. Would you welcome an Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner in the Northern Territory to work alongside you?---Yeah. Absolutely.

And no doubt your office tries as hard as it can to work in a culturally competent way. Taking that for granted, you would agree that that position of Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner in the Northern Territory would assist the office of Children’s Commissioner to operate culturally competently?---Look, I think a quarter of our staff are indigenous, so of the eight, or now seven to – the deputy Commissioner is an indigenous woman; so is one of our investigators. I – look, we should be a make-up of the client group that we serve. So you know, I wouldn’t dispute that, and I wouldn’t argue with that point, no.

And you wouldn’t argue with the idea that it’s important to have Aboriginal leadership at those very senior levels?---Absolutely. I agree with that.

Recommendation 13.5 was that the Northern Territory families and children establishes mechanisms for regularly listening to the voices of children and young people in terms of their experience in the care system. Are you familiar with the Queensland model which has a child advocate function within the public guardian?---Yes, I am.

And would you welcome legislation that provided for a child advocate function within the office of Children’s Commissioner?---Yes, I would.

That would improve the ability that children have to make complaints.

Sorry, you’re nodding. You agree?---Sorry, yes.

And improve accountability for the action that’s taken in response?---Yes.

And you’re familiar with those provisions in the Public Guardian Act that, for example, would then grant the person who is the child advocate the ability to enter


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

sites like residential facilities, detention centres, mental health facilities randomly, without notice, and check up what’s happening with the child?---Yes.

And that would be an excellent power for your office to have?---Yeah, it would be.

It would need to be accompanied obviously with the requisite resources?---That’s correct.

Representation 13.6 from the 2010 report was a community visitor model be implemented to involve a sampling of children in out-of-home care. Do you welcome that recommendation or did you think that that’s an important reform?---Community visitor model is essential.

And it needs to be tailored for the NT with community based visitors performing a function of checking on children and reporting to your office?---That’s correct.

So is it fair to say, just taking that as an example, that that’s one recommendation which hasn’t been implemented that you are disappointed in terms of the failure of implementation?---Look, I think my disappointment is the lack of models that deal directly with children and listen to children and get their views and that ability to be able to be accessible. It’s really lacking.

And that particular recommendation that I took you to would be one way of facilitating listening to the voice of children?---Correct, yes.

13.7 and 13.8 of the between report recommendations were that the Northern Territory families and children develops an effective complaints mechanism that allow for speedy resolution of complaints, and then 13.8, an appeals process for that complaints. Do you agree that that’s an important way of improving response to complaints?---Well, I think if they did 13.7 better then they probably wouldn’t need 13.8 but yeah, I think there’s got to be an ability to be able to seek a review.

And you would agree then that – your experience has proven that government departments are unable to perform the review and appeals function adequately?---I think it’s got to be separate. I think it’s got to be independent.

So decisions relating to out-of-home care including placement, continuing connection to culture and community, they all require an independent appeal mechanism?---Correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But you – in order to avoid the minutiae of argument rather than true appeal, you would need to limit the subject matter of the possibilities of appeal, wouldn’t you?---I think you would have to carefully think about how that’s targeted, otherwise you would probably get caught – caught up in the appeal process rather than the fixing.

Yes. That’s right. Every step along the way - - -?---Yeah.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - might be the subject of an appeal which is – which we know from the wider .....?---You would hope you would be able to get the systems in place to ensure that – so if you had a complaints process that had a real customer service focus and an appreciation of the issues, then that should have a flow-on effect and therefore the number of matters that would want to be appealed would be reduced. So it’s about getting it right in the front end.

And would – consistently with making it child centric, the whole decision-making - - -?---Yes.

- - - would you envisage that the child would be entitled to seek review of the decision about a placement?---Absolutely.

DR DWYER: And just following up from that, Ms Gwynne, consistent with the practice, you want a situation consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions where there can be an appeal to an administrative appeals tribunal or a body of that nature?---On matters to do - - -

Independent appeals?---There’s got to be an avenue for an appeal. Where it sits, I don’t know. But there’s got to be the able to be able to do that.

And the NT needs to come in line with other Australian jurisdictions and implement that?---Correct. Yes.

Okay. Recommendation 13.9 finally relates to the NT government funding the development of an advice and support program for vulnerable families coming into contact with the services. Do you agree that that’s an important reform that needs to be implemented?---Yeah. Look, I think it can be quite daunting for families to be dealing with any sort of statutory service. In the Territory, often it’s built on relationships and who you know, and who’s got a reputation of being fair and open and, particularly, culturally competent. So yeah, I would think that’s a – there needs to be the ability for families to have a support in those circumstances. It is – it’s extremely daunting. It may not be for us in the room here, but you can – it is for those families.

And a support service that operates similarly to the NAAJA Throughcare service that links in with existing legal and health care services is what’s appropriate?---Yeah, that’s a great service.

Finally, you accept, don’t you, the evidence, international and in Australia, that shows that where indigenous leadership drives the response the outcomes will be better?---Yeah, I agree with that.

And do you support the submission made by SNAICC that Aboriginal communities should be supported and empowered to lead the response to the challenges facing their own children and families?---I – my view is that everyone needs to be at the table. So I – the only concern I have is if we – we make those statements that – I


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

would hate to see communities left on their own. So if you’re saying that a community or an organisation will lead it, we need to ensure that the supports are in place and still all the relevant services are there, they’re linked and they work in a really respectful open environment where the child is at the centre of those discussions, child-centric discussions.

And provided those safeguards are in place you support Aboriginal run and owned services?---With support and safeguards. Ensure – I think we’ve got to make sure that we’re not just putting all our eggs in one basket and I think that any – any response to vulnerable children has got to have a whole range of, it can’t be one response, there’s got to be a range of responses and they’ve got to be interconnected.

Do you - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ultimately, government can’t step out of - - -?---No.

- - - looking after its citizens, whoever they are?---No. They need to work alongside Aboriginal organisations, but it’s got to be – we’ve got to find the right mix and we’ve got to do it in an environment where we all understand and appreciate the important roles each of us play.

DR DWYER: Within that system, with different people playing different roles, do you support a role for an Aboriginal community controlled child and family welfare system?---Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Dr Dwyer.


MS GRAHAM: Commissioner, my name is Graham. I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. In relation to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just – Ms Graham, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but we do need to take some breaks so that our transcriber can take a rest, and Commissioner Gooda has reminded me that there are actually quite a few people coming to do cross-examination for Ms Gwynne. So just let me check to see how she is travelling and if she would like a break right now. After Ms Graham? After you. Thank you.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner.

In relation to harm or exploitation experienced by children in the care of Territory Families, you’re concerned that there is an underreporting of that by Territory

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4498 C. GWYNNE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Families to your office; is that right?---I’m concerned that those matters aren’t thoroughly investigated in the first place.

Are you also concerned that matters that are investigated or part of a process through either section 84A or section 83B of the Care and Protection of Children Act may not reflect the extent of children in care suffering harm or exploitation?---Yes.

So that’s one aspect of your concern in relation to the full picture of harm not being presented to your office?---Yes.

Could I take you also to LW7 which is annexure to Leonie Warburton’s statement. This is the half year report in relation to a time period July 2016 to December 2016 dealing with, amongst other things, harm or exploitation of children in care, and could we go to page 2, please. There’s a heading there, you see Other Considerations. The third paragraph below that heading:

For a section 84A or 83B investigation to be substantiated the investigation has to assess that the child has suffered, is suffering, or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation.

And it goes on. There is a general understanding amongst front-line workers informed by current child protection policy that in order to substantiate that harm has occurred to a child the person believed responsible for harming the child must be either a parent or caregiver.

And ultimately the conclusion is that:

Harm caused to a child by someone other than a parent or carer may have the outcome no abuse or neglect found.

And so while the data is accurate it does not provide an accurate reflection of harm experienced by children in the care of the CEO.

Were you aware of this issue of underreporting of harm or exploitation of children in care in terms of the way that Territory Families data is then presented to your office?---Yes. That’s why, as I said before, I think my office should receive all reports of abuse.

And without receiving all reports of abuse, you’re not able to identify this - - -?---No.

- - - scope of the problem. So if we could go then to table 8, which is the concerns for the safety of children in care investigations, and this is for the period July to December 2016, you see that there was a total of 340 outcomes where there was no abuse or neglect found. That’s a potential 340 children who did, in fact, suffer harm or exploitation in the care of Territory Families but whose cases were never sent to your office for review; is that right?---That’s right.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that’s in just a six month period?---That’s correct.

Do you require additional powers for that data to make it to your office?---I do. The CEO could provide me with it. I’ve certainly asked for it, for this reporting – for the purpose of reporting for this year’s annual report.

And do you understand that the material is going to be provided or not?---I haven’t heard yet.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But that depend on a cooperative relationship, does it?---Yes.

What you wanted is embedded in your Act?---Yeah. Well, for us to be able to mandate them to provide that, there certainly needs to be some changes to the Act.

MS GRAHAM: You have a concern about the content of cultural care plans or the aspect of a care plan that addresses or seeks to address the cultural needs of a child in care. Is it your experience that there is a cookie cutter approach to the content of those cultural care plans?---There – we have seen examples of that. It’s not across the board, but there are examples where the – there’s either insufficient information, the information is identical to that on another child’s – in another child’s care plan. I think maybe there is a tendency to cut and paste similar comments or information into other care plans.

Unless there’s an individualised approach to the cultural needs of an Aboriginal child, any content of a cultural care plan is essentially meaningless. Do you agree?---It’s definitely got to be individualised and there’s got to be the cultural competency by those people that are assessing and providing their details in that care plan.

Are you able to say whether you observed that particular regions of the Northern Territory in relation to these cultural care plans were better or worse performers?---No. I can’t, not off the top of my head.

You’ve also given some evidence about the leaving care plans. Do you have any information for the Commission about whether there’s poorer performance by the department in some regions - - -?---No, I don’t.

- - - compared to others?---Again, I think there’s a capacity issue for us to be able to drill down to those levels.

The data would be available, but it’s a matter of being - - -?---Yeah.

- - - able to analyse it?---A lot of it is manual, to be able to go through and then look at individual cases, and as you’re aware it’s pretty timely.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You raised concerns about family way placements. In your first statement and also in your supplementary statement you draw particular attention to concern around the practice in the Alice Springs region and there are 30 cases that your office I think is interested in investigating at the moment, three of which Territory Families acknowledge involve a family way placement. Is one of your concerns about this process that it’s a cause of distrust in the department about their processes?---So the – that – those 30 cases that were identified in Alice Springs: that came out of some recommendations made in an investigation – I can’t say the name, can I, in here? Right. So that investigation found that with two siblings, one child was managed through the child protection system; the other child went through a different process and, basically, to cut a long story short, ended up in a family way placement. And the outcome has been quite dire in terms of their – the situation for that child. As a result of that, we asked the department to look into whether there were other – what we termed to be family way placements and as a result they found 30 cases of similar nature that existed. So we are not investigating those. Department is looking into those.

Do you have any oversight into that departmental investigation?---Yeah. That’s part of the recommendations that came out of that particular investigation so we have oversight of their review of those cases.

Do you see family way placements as a source of confusion, particularly in Aboriginal communities, about the status of care arrangements for children, the rights of parents and families in relation to their care?---I think they are – it’s confusing. Family often don’t understand what the current status is of their child and may then take that child back into their care. My concern is the child could return to the environment of which they were initially taken from and an order given and put that child under further risk.

You say in relation to children that are both in the child protection system and in the criminal justice system that you have a concern about detention being used as a de facto placement, and you mention that you’re aware of that as being a historical practice. Are you aware of that being a continued problem?---No. I haven’t seen any evidence of that recently.

Is that something that your office has particularly reviewed?---We – we review the – the numbers and the circumstances of young people in detention often. We would like to do it daily. We – my staff are pretty familiar with most of the names of the young people. We – we do know what their status is and I – we also sit in the Youth Court on a regular basis and listen to the goings on there. I’m pretty confident that it’s not a practice that’s used any longer.

Thanks, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. We will take an adjournment now. Probably five minutes or so, Mr Dighton.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR DIGHTON: Thank you, Commissioners.


ADJOURNED [5.29 pm]

RESUMED [5.41 pm]



MR LAWRENCE: Thank you, Commissioners.

My name is Lawrence, I represent the juvenile AD. I understand, Ms Gwynne, you know who AD is. Your lawyers advised you of his actual identity?---Yes, I do.

Thank you. I want to take you out of child protection briefly to talk about the report that you finalised in August of 2015 which was into that incident on 21 August 2014, which involved lots of things, including the deployment of CS gas. Mr Bath gave evidence about a month ago in Alice Springs saying that he did gather some of the evidence concerning the report. Would that be correct?---That’s correct.

And I think he resigned in the December, the incident happened in the August, and the final report came out in the August of 2015. So you picked up, would that be fair to say, the investigation and completed it?---Yes.

And that was – and the process involved gathering evidence through interviews with the relevant players?---That’s correct.

And that would have been Youth Justice Officers, prison officers?---Yes.

Some of the juveniles involved?---Yes.

Some of the senior members, Ken Middlebrook, the Commissioner for corrections?---No, he wasn’t – he wasn’t interviewed. He was given the full report.

I see. Thank you. The officer in charge of the Don Dale, Superintendent Caldwell. He was interviewed?---Yes.

And his 2IC, Jimmy Sizeland?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4502 C. GWYNNE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And also you had real evidence or direct evidence or better evidence, if you like, which was film and audio attachment to the film of the actual incident itself?---Correct.

And that came from the internal CCTV, but also handy cams, which are cameras attached to some of the persons, either prison officers or Youth Justice Officers, which film the incident that’s in front of them?---That’s correct. I think they were holding the handy cam.

They hold it, do they?---Mmm.

Alright. Now, the evidence that you gathered in that format allows you to compile a narrative of what you understand on that happened that evening?---Correct.

And that narrative is reflected in your report?---Yes.

And my client, 14-year-old AD, of course, is right in the middle of it?---Correct.

His evidence here is once he heard the dog barking he became scared and he gave up and said that he gave up?---Yes.

And that is consistent with the evidence which you gathered that, in relation to all that, including the youth justice – some of the Youth Justice Officers which, in fact, heard that?---Yes.

I just want to ask you now, if the technicians could assist me, please, to go to page 4 of this report. Wrong. Maybe it’s page 5. Bear with me. Sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you know what topic you wish to address?

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. It’s – I don’t know – Commissioners, anybody can help me if they’re in the mood. It’s the quote that was given to the media from the Corrections department?---Page 4, I think. Page 4.

Is it there? Page 4? Is it there? You’re quite right. I took you to the right page at the beginning. These events were widely reported: local, national, international news. Some of the comments made by the Commissioner of Correctional Services appeared in the media as follows. Now, you’ve read that?---Yes.

And it’s accurate?---Yes.

As in at least that’s – that report was made. I would suggest that the actual comments are not accurate.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you mean they have not been accurately reported in this report by the Children’s Commissioner’s office or that the substance of them was inaccurate.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR LAWRENCE: Yeah, the substance of them made by the Commissioner of Correctional Services. I mean, maybe not all of them, but, say, for instance, the youths threatened staff with weapons, smashed dinner plates, light fittings and windows.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What question do you want to ask Ms – the Commissioner.

MR LAWRENCE: Yeah. You gathered all the evidence and you came to a narrative. It’s not consistent with that, is it?---I think there is some exaggeration in a couple of those - - -

Yeah?--- - - - but this was made at the time. Most of it is relatively accurate about the events that took place. If some – he says in there that - - -

What about at least one detainee had armed himself with a fire extinguisher. That would be a good example of, it would appear, an exaggeration because there was never any doubt as to the fact that there was only one and it was AD?---I think where, you know, they say youths, as in plural, threatened staff with weapons fashioned out of smashed dinner plates, and, you know, it was one youth, if that’s what you’re asking me.

Yes?---Alright.

There’s been a bit of a gripe from my client that the description of it as being a riot is an overstatement. Would you agree with that?---I can’t see the word “riot” there.

No. It’s not in there, but it has been used subsequent in the media by other officials from Corrections, including the Minister?---I think initially after the event the word riot was used by a senior police officer.

Right. Anyway, it’s a disturbance, not a riot. Would you agree with that?---Yeah, I would – I would categorise it as a disturbance.

Okay. That’s a bit semantic so we’ll move on. Now, before this report was finalised by your good self in August, consistent with policy for these things, you sent the draft report out to the Commissioner of Corrections to make comment on what your draft report was at that stage?---That’s correct.

And you sent that out in May which was a couple of months at least before you finalised it?---Correct.

And that draft report and the invitation to comment on anything that they wanted to was sent back to you and it’s revealed – his comment, Mr Middlebrook’s comment is revealed in the very last page of the report. Perhaps if that could please be put up. And it’s page 52 of the report. And apart from one point which he takes issue with, there was nothing else argued about or disagreed with or contradicted?---No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And so that’s – that allowed you to finalise the report and sign off on it on 20 August?---Yes. That’s right.

Now, after you did that, did you have dealings – no, I withdraw that. That was in August 2015. The report contained seven recommendations?---Yes, that’s correct.

And the first three of them were all on staffing. And number four was on operational practices. Number five involved the phone. But let me ask you this. Were those recommendations implemented promptly by the Department of Corrections?---No.

Were they slow in the uptake?---I guess – in terms of some of the recommendations they were slow. Others were done quicker.

Did you consider that they were done at a satisfactory speed?---No, not initially.

Were you disappointed by that?---Yes.

That’s all I have to ask. Thanks very much.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Mr Lawrence, we haven’t had to rush you at all.

MR LAWRENCE: No. I know. It’s wonderful, isn’t it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Very cordial. Thank you, Ms Goodhand.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GOODHAND [5.50 pm]

MS GOODHAND: My name’s Goodhand, I appear for Mr Voller. You will be relieved I only have two small topics. Just in terms of your statement of 27 May 2017, at paragraph 78 you state there should be greater family involvement for all children involved in the care and protection system. Just focussing on children that are in detention and also subject to an order, are there – are you able to identify from your observations as Commissioner some of those barriers and how they might be overcome?---So you’re talking about young people who are in – subject of a child protection order.

That’s right?---And also in detention.

That’s right?---A number of reasons – or a number of barriers. The – the availability of the parents to, or those that have responsibility for the young people to attend at the Don Dale Detention Centre. The ability to get to the Don Dale Detention Centre. The – or the case worker’s current workload and their ability to be able to have constant or frequent contact with the young person who’s in detention. The – if the young person has been the subject of any internal action their – their – in the past

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4505 C. GWYNNE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GOODHAND

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they have been isolated and therefore time to be able to see family and friends has been restricted. A number of reasons. Yeah, I – look, I do know from – from previous times that – that young people in detention often are – don’t have anyone to visit them, whether it be family or support people, and they’re often left on their own. And services such as NAAJA are their only contact, and that was often the case. I can’t speak more recently whether that’s changed a great deal. It’s not something I’ve looked into, but there have been times where young people haven’t had anyone visit them other than a legal advocate.

Do you have any sort of recommendations that come to mind that might easily resolve some of those barriers?---Yeah, I think a visitor program for all young people in detention. That’s culture – again, culturally appropriate, has a good representation of Aboriginal visitors, and done in an environment where they feel – in a non-threatening environment where they’re able to express themselves. Yeah, I guess that’s - - -

Now, just on my final topic, you state in the same statement:

Up until recently there’s been a lack of appropriate placement options for children under a care order and leaving detention.

So in terms of more recently you describe one of the Yirra House – you’ve described Yirra House as something that’s happened more recently. Are there any other additional placement options that have happened more recently?---So are you talking about leaving care, because Yirra - - -

Leaving detention, sorry?---Right. Okay.

So you’re under a care order but leaving detention so either on bail or at the end of your sentence?---So Yirra House is – has been modified as a bail support property premises. We went out and had a look at that. There are a lot of things to like about it but with any infrastructure it’s about how it’s run and how the programs operate, the environment that you create in there and whether it’s culturally appropriate. However, from what I’ve seen in the briefing I’ve received, it’s a much better alternative to being in detention. But the – the – we’ll wait and evaluate as time goes on but I think there’s a lot of goodwill around how that centre can reduce detention time and a component - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How many beds has it got, Commissioner? Can you recall?---That’s a very good question. 16 rings a bell. I might be wrong.

That probably is not sufficient for all the needs if we just go by the remand numbers?---Yeah.

But still it’s a great start?---Look, it is a great start, and the work they’ve done is commendable. We went out and had a look, and they’re thinking about all the right

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4506 C. GWYNNE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GOODHAND

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

things in terms of making it a very therapeutic environment, the fact that young people will be out during the day, so it’s a safe place for them at night as well.

Thank you.

MS GOODHAND: And apart from Yirra House, is there any other measure that has been undertaken recently to address the lack of appropriated placements for youth coming out of detention?---Look, it’s – I know it’s a challenge for the department to find suitable placements for youth who have spent time in detention. They’re often those youth who have the greatest challenges, who have the greatest needs, and those placements are few and far between. It requires an element of expertise and with it you need a whole range of wrap around services and supports for those young people. And I think that will take time to build capacity in that area and certainly build capacity within individuals who manage young people, who have – who present with a whole range of – of issues that are really difficult to manage.

Thank you. Commissioners, I’ve been told my time is up, right on time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How are you travelling with your questions, Ms Goodhand?

MS GOODHAND: Thank you.

MR DIGHTON: That’s the evidence for Ms Gwynne. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Well, Commissioner, thank you very much indeed for coming yet again to assist us. You’ve given us lots of valuable evidence today which we’ll be able to work with?---Thanks, Commissioners.

Thank you.


MR DIGHTON: Ms Roger will take the next witness. Thank you.

MS ROGER: Thank you, Commissioners. The next witness is Tracy Hancock. I call Ms Hancock.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you just remain standing for a moment, Ms Hancock. Thank you.

<TRACY HANCOCK, AFFIRMED [5.58 pm]

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4507 T. HANCOCK ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ROGERS

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Would you kindly be seated. And may I apologise that you have been kept so long waiting to give your evidence today---No worries. Thank you.

MS ROGER: Ms Hancock, you made a statement dated 25 May 2017; is that right?---That’s correct.

If you could just look at the screen there, is that your signature?---It is.

And was the contents of that statement true and correct?---That’s correct.

I tender that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 523. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #523 STATEMENT OF TRACY HANCOCK DATED 25/05/2017

MS ROGER: Now, it’s the case that you’ve recently resigned as the manager of Safe Pathways residential house in Katherine?---Yes.

And what are you doing at the moment instead?---I’m in the third process of the police force.

So does that mean you’ve applied for the police force and you’re part way through the application?---That’s right.

And just going back to Safe Pathways, how long were you there as the manager?---14 months.

And over what period, roughly, was that?---From 13 May 2016 until three weeks ago.

Now, prior to that, you were also the manager of Anglicare residential house in Katherine for around one and a half years?---That’s correct.

Can you give us an idea of what years they were?---From 2012, in between 2014.

Your statement sets out that you have a degree of psychology, and that you also have experience in Adelaide in child protection prisons and child and adolescent mental health services?---That’s correct.

And you’re a Koori Wurundjeri woman?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 19.6.17 P-4508 T. HANCOCK XN©Commonwealth of Australia MS ROGERS

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I’d firstly like to ask you, given that experience at those two residential care facilities, do you believe it’s important for those types of facilities to be Aboriginal-run?---In some means of ways, yes, especially for here in the Northern Territory because it is a lot of – the majority of them are of our young Aboriginal people.

But if I ask you then specifically for Katherine, do you think it’s important in Katherine for those centres - - -?---Absolutely.

And why is that?---It is very – like, it is remote but there is a – a real phenomenal amount of remote areas around in that region through within the child protection where most of the children that are removed are from eight hours or 10 hours away from those communities. And to be brought back into that community and have that cultural-appropriate setting.

So are you saying that ideally residential facilities would exist at the remote communities as well?---That is something that is trying to be implemented but whether that can actually be a strong follow through, I’m not sure. But in Katherine it is a big – a big need and it would be really great for – to be Aboriginal specific operational.

If I can move then to the issue of what do you do, or what did you do when you’re managing Safe Pathways if a child damaged some property, broke a chair or something like that. What did you do?---You would have that discussion. Obviously if there was other children that was in that environment, you would move them out for their – for their safety. So that they wouldn’t be affected from that. And then also just follow through with like, okay, so, how come that happened, why did that happen, and having that negotiation of, like, that conversation, of “Okay, so why did this happen?”

So you’re talking about what you do in terms of engaging with the child yourself at the centre?---Yep.

But was there any protocol in place that required you to call the police or anything like that?---Yes. There is. But, I mean, common sense, like, if it’s throwing a chair or that, I mean, that’s children’s tantrums and behaviour, so they’re things that you should be able to actually manage without getting the police and that involved.

So you made a judgment call about which matters had to be referred to police?---Yes, certainly.

And was it – the issue of whether the police were contacted was that relevant to if the child was on bail?---In those types – kind of circumstances, yes. Depending on what it was, whether it was actually a breach or in regards around like their aggression and stuff like that, yes, that was something to be – to be notified and all that through to the police.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So are you saying if it was a condition of their bail for instance not to damage property, you might call the police?---Yes.

But if it was no condition like that of their bail it wouldn’t necessarily be reported to police?---Yeah, unless it was serious damage or they were at risk or somebody else was actually going to be – another child or a worker was at risk, yes, I would make the contact, not with the police, but, I mean - - -

Sorry to interrupt. In terms of having any official agreement with police about how to proceed, there wasn’t one; is that right?---That’s right.

Now, you say in your statement at paragraph 13 that you had a major issue at Safe Pathways with young people absconding?---Yes.

What percentage of residents absconded?---Probably 90 per cent of those residents.

And was that absconding rate in that area, was that similar for Anglicare?---That’s correct.

And why is it, do you think, that young people were absconding?---Well, mostly Aboriginal children that are removed, which is the majority, high percentage of the clients that would be at the residential placements. They don’t want to be there. They would like to be with their families or their parents. And also just the different life – life ..... structure. Like, with how a house and a family environment and that is is completely a different view of how our young Aboriginal people, especially out in the community-based actually sees it, and it can be overwhelming and it can be something that – where they don’t want to be. And also shame.

When you talk about that – sorry, just to go back to what you were saying?---Yeah.

Are you saying that there’s quite a lot of structure at the facility and sometimes the kids aren’t used to so much structure?---Absolutely. I mean, there’s – it’s like a normal household. There’s – there’s rules, there’s, you know, as you would with your own children. So it’s like you know, you need to go to school, need to be, you know, teatime’s this time, off the streets, and have routine, have structure. Some of those kids don’t have or are aware of how that actually runs because some of them actually are parents to their younger siblings. So like that’s where those things are missed for them as well.

I interrupted you before and, sorry, I think you had started to say there’s a shame job aspect to them and why they abscond. Could you explain that a little bit more?---Most of the kids say, like, you know, it’s shame that you have to come and live in a place like this, like, through the department and they telling you what to do and how to do things and, “They don’t know nothing about me.”

The first thing you said in relation to absconding is that the children understandably just want to be back with families. You said earlier that the possibility of having


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

residential care run by Aboriginal people in the remote communities, do you think that would impact on the absconding rates?---I think it will improve with the support and that around with some of those families or their kinship members that – that is a big thing that I think that will be – and is lost. And that would be a good thing and that in the community. So get them involved and putting that all in and around of how to actually make it a better community and a stronger community for them as well as the children.

I’ll be touching on early intervention there and I’ll come back to that later, if that’s alright. When a child does abscond you’re required to complete a missing person report and provide it to the police integrity unit and Territory Families?---So that’s done on a daily basis or pretty much after a 24 hour period if we have not sighted or had any contact or that with the child in that 24 hours. So yes, that is done and sent through to the practice integrity which is a part of the Territory Families to, then, my manager. Then through to the case worker and the team leader and the actual placement which is also from Territory Families.

Just to take you back through that, when you report it to your manager, that’s somebody higher up in Safe Pathways. You also report it to Territory Families’ case worker?---That’s correct.

And is it the case that you also report it to the police when a child has absconded?---If it is, which most of them have been, in Katherine, we do have a house which is – we do have a lot of youths that are under – have got bail conditions or have previously been released from Don Dale, so then those ones do go to the police because of the bail conditions that are actually applied through them.

In your statement at paragraph 14 you say that in your experience when you report a child having absconded sometimes the police say, and this is a quote:

Okay, so which one is it? There are about 50 out there right now.

?---That’s correct.

That’s not an ideal response by police to a missing child, is it?---No, but it is a – you know, a big common thing in Katherine, even just like for myself, just driving through town, there is a lot of young children that are roaming around on the streets.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that’s why they need you to tell them they were wearing a red jumper?---Yes.

Or something like that, so they can - - -?---Yes. And because we have – like I said before, there is a lot of communities that – you know, that are outside of Katherine, and, you know, they could be coming in, they could be in for three or four days, so that’s extra big different mobs and all that in the community. So that’s why we do actually make sure that we do actually identify what clothing, what we actually last


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

had visual – had sighted the children in, so it is an easier response and that for the police to then return the child back to the placement.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Would you have to – like, when you make the report, who – is there any onus on you and Safe Pathways to look for the child or - - -?---Yes. We do. In – so, I mean, Katherine’s not a very big town so, you know, you can drive around and through that. When you’re actually – like, for myself or my staff, if they’re going to pick up children from school or going to appointments, it is obviously to keep an observation and that out for sighting of the other children and then if that is we can actually ask them to get into the car and return back to placement. We cannot physically force them - - -

Make them? Yes?---To make them. So, yes, we can get some response in them returning back. Sometimes, like, no. There has been some times where the department has pretty much told us that we need to go round to families’ houses and at certain periods of time, it’s like, “Well, no.” I wouldn’t put myself at that risk, otherwise some other staff, to go be knocking on a family member’s door looking for a child and actually demanding him to get into the car at 10 o’clock at night, 10 or 11 o’clock.

So whose responsibility, I think the police maybe, but would the Territory Families have a responsibility there?---In ways. For them, yes, they should. Especially when you’re doing a missing person’s report on a daily basis, where you might not know where this child is for several days, then they can also then inform me to advise me, “Well, we heard that she’s at her mum’s. Her mum’s made a contact. But that’s okay. We know where she is.” Not really a good response of – from them. But yeah. And then also like through the police. Police can then actually go around but then the police have made the contact with me to advise me that they have sighted that person. That person’s wellbeing seems to be okay and that placement where they are, the property where they are, it seems to be okay, so then they will then take that person off that missing persons because they’re sighted.

Is that something like we’ve heard the term before here, like self-placing?---Yes.

Is that self-placing?---Absolutely.

They have gone out of – okay?---Yeah, it’s massive.

MS ROGER: And if I might just clarify that further, Commissioner, that when you said before that’s not really a good response by Territory Families to have found out where the child is, that they have self-placed?---Yes.

The reason, and correct me if I’m wrong, it’s not a good thing is because they have self-placed at the premises where have been removed by Territory Families?---That’s exactly right. Yes. And under an order.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And so Territory Families, in your evidence, is allowing children to return to places that have been deemed unsuitable for the child to live with their knowledge and being left there?---Yes.

In your statement at paragraph 15 you say you’ve been frustrated when reporting to case workers missing children or children that have absconded. You’ve been frustrated by the lack of timely responses by case workers. Can you give examples of what’s occurred and why you think it hasn’t been adequate?---Sometimes you might not hear from them in several days. Also, then if there has – an incident has occurred, especially with the turnover the children that we have had in our placement with regards to criminal activities, then when the Territory Families have been informed that they need to do a police investigation through a crime for that child, well, then, it’s, well, how come, because and why and it’s like, well, those have been provided to you, that information of that child, I have rang you several – I do ring on a daily basis when I do my missing persons or absconding reports.

Do you get a response on a daily basis from Territory Families case workers?---No. Some I do. Some I will have, like, contact through. It might be after I’ve really humbugged and rang that – the Territory Families three or four times. And then I’ve asked, okay, now I need to speak to that team leader. “No. Sorry, they’re not there.” I need to speak to that person. “No, they’re not there either.” It’s like, well, I’ve just flicked them an email and I’ve – they have just opened it and just sent it back that they’ve read it and now you’re telling me, like, they’re not there. And, yes, I will get frustrated and I will say “Does anybody work there?” And so it’s like, well, I’ll make the decision, and I will make some of those decisions myself. Then I will provide them with that and then they will ring back and say that’s not a decision for you to make, well, too bad ..... that’s a decision, and the safety decision I have made. I did try to make that contact.

These interactions you describe with Territory Families, or, rather, lack of interactions: does that cause you concern about whether they’re fulfilling their duty of care to the children?---Absolutely.

You mention in your statement at paragraph 18 that there is apparently a new afterhours initiative of Territory Families. Do you know what’s proposed?---It has been proposed from a meeting that we did attend that they were looking at four workers that will – because one of the main issues, I suppose, from myself and other organisations is the lack of contact and connection that we have with Territory Families after 4.21, because that’s their cut-off line. The after-hours.

Are you talking about PM, sorry, 4.21 pm?---Yes. So 8 o’clock in the morning to 4.21 pm. A lot of these – a lot issues happen after 4.21. So, like, at night to try and get any response and all that from the department, I mean, for us in Katherine, it has to be through phone call through central intake in Darwin. So that was an issue in Katherine and also that a lot – majority of children absconding - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you know if that initiative has actually commenced?---I think it’s in the process now. They have gone across into the youth and justice system, which last two weeks - - -

And you think it will be - - -?---In Katherine.

Sorry?---That has been operational. So obviously once they find the rest of their staff and have their whole team with them, where will that go from there. That could be – it is in place, so could be probably three months, three years down the track, not sure.

If it comes to fruition, do you think it will assist?---Absolutely, and I think it is a great idea for Territory Families and all that to get involved and do an outreach service in there, because the crime rate, the young children that are roaming around on the streets are children that are under the child protection, majority of them are. So good to see what actually happens and what sort of lifestyle these kids do have and look at, like, after – after dark.

Yes. Can I ask you some questions now about the capacity of both Anglicare and Safe Pathways. So it’s my understanding that each has two houses in Katherine?---That’s correct.

And each house, being four in total, can accommodate four children each?---Yes.

So it’s only a total of 16 beds for the whole of Katherine and all the surrounding communities?---Yes.

You obviously have your own position to have the experience to give an indication of how close that comes to meeting demand?---We’ve had to turn down lots of children where the department has really kind of wanting to us take on more, but we only have the facility for four – for four beds.

Given there’s 16 in total for the area, are you able to give an idea of how many beds you think Katherine would need, and the surrounding areas?---God. Easy, 60 – massive amount.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That accommodates the surrounding remoter communities as well, not just Katherine?---No. You’d have to go - - -

You’d have to go higher, would you, for the .....?---Absolutely.

So that’s just Katherine?---Yep. That would be just within Katherine itself; would be approximately 60. Which was – with your smaller communities that are about 20 minutes out, which – yep. But the ones that are ours, you would need a lot more.

A lot more. Thank you?---And that’s the reason why some of these children, the process and that through the child protection is so long because some of them, like,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

through the wet season, we can’t access, or the department can’t go out to those remote communities because of the wet season, they’re washed in; a lot of issues happen then. But, I mean, that’s anywhere to four to six months of the year that a crisis could be happening out there and how is that then – those child and that removed and back into ......

MS ROGER: So is it the case that in those remote communities during the wet the department may receive notifications but no action is taken due to the isolation of the community?---Yes. And sometimes just the access, like, you’re unable to get him through the roads or through the weather, like, some of them are fly-in fly-out but even that’s a risk, depending on the rain and all that, for a plane to land.

And I assume that would also have the impact on the capacity to reunify a child that had been taken out prior to the wet; there’s not going to be much opportunity for that during the wet season?---Yes. I do find a bit of a – I had found a bit of a pattern, that we always – some of them have been – can have a two week placement, which has been approved, which has just been before the wet, so then it’s – that child is not – they’re not being able to have any access or through with families or family members to either come in or come out, so they – then their placement been extended for a couple of more months because they’ve got no way of finding whether it’s a kinship carer, like, back out into the community because of the process that you have to go through to investigate whether they can and be a good – so whether they can be the person to look after that child.

Yes?---So then that process takes so much longer and then after that, then they can go to court and go and get a two year protection order.

Can I ask you, while you’re speaking about that change from short-term placements to longer-term placements, leaving aside the remote communities issue, is it the case that it appears that Territory Families has a practice of commencing with a short placement which almost automatically turns into a longer placement request for your services?---Yes. Yes. As I said, we can get one for two weeks, can get one for emergency for one or two days, could be a week, could be two weeks, could be a month, but there’s – we always find that it is – especially, like, with the four that we – we had at one time, they were all through the youth justice, and all had severe criminal charges and then, so nobody – and like – and that teenager that nobody, no family members or kinships or that are available for – for them to return back to. So that does get extended on a big thing through court. They might have the court adjourn for a month so then they will put the proposal back through to the court that – they’ll extend it and return them back to that placement till the next date of court.

I might come back to that topic again, but for the moment can I ask you more about Safe Pathways and in particular the staffing of the residences. How many staff are at each residence each day?---If it’s a full capacity of the four, for two in the morning, two in the afternoon, which then one actually stays for a sleep over, and then an active night. So 24/7.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And can I just clarify: 24/7, there are two workers there if there are four children there?---Yes.

And you’re also on call 24 hours a day; is that right?---Pretty much, yes.

Now, you mention in the statement at paragraphs 7 and 8 that young people that use the service often have complex needs due to trauma experienced. You also mention in the statement at paragraph 24 that there’s no specific child adolescent mental health service available in Katherine?---No. That is – we have a mental health worker from Darwin that comes down once between four to six weeks and they can stay in Katherine for a week to two weeks at a time.

In your opinion, is a local permanent practitioner of that type needed in Katherine?---Absolutely.

What other support services are needed in Katherine? For instance, is there drug and alcohol services for young people? Is there residential rehabilitation for young people in Katherine?---No rehabilitation, but, yes, there is some drug and alcohol counsellors that are available. But, once again, that has to be – be like referrals. So – which I can advise their case workers and all that that I think that is something that could be – be offered for the child. They actually make the referrals and they do the referrals and provide that information that they need to.

So you’re dependent on Territory Families actually making the referral?---Yes.

And have there been instances where you’ve suggested it and it hasn’t – a referral hasn’t occurred?---Yes.

How frequently would that occur?---Pretty frequently.

And I guess, to be fair, is that because there’s a limit of the services available in Katherine to provide it?---Yes. In – for that, and then also there has been some where they have made those appointments and the child then will deny to actually go. We – it’s – again, we can’t physically make them actually go. We can have that conversation and say, like, this is what – the best opportunity, and this is what we need to – to go and do to make a better outcome of choices or whatever.

But is your evidence that sometimes a recommendation from you for the need for drug and alcohol counselling is unheeded by Territory Families?---Yes. I have had some of those.

Now, in relation to the complex needs of the client base of Safe Pathways, what training do your staff members get prior to commencing work there?---It is supposed to be some training in that for the staff but that has not happened since I’ve been in Safe Pathways.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So since May 2016, there’s been no training provided from - - -?---Sorry. Yes. We did have one which was for one day which was TCI. But I think there’s two staff members that are left out of that, and it is supposed to be on a regular basis, up to three to a six months period, like, refreshers.

Yes?---But no, that has not – has not happened.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And who delivers that training. Is that through Territory Families?---No, that was actually through one of our CEOs.

Of Safe Pathways?---Yes.

Is that the same with your experience with Anglicare as well?---That’s exactly right. Yep. And Territory Families – we have had – I have had that discussion with some of their case managers in regards to – like, in meetings where we have talked about some really complex ..... clients and really high needs and they were – stated also and informed that we will be putting in this training and, you know, we can get your staff to come through but that’s never happened either.

MS ROGER: Returning for a moment just to Safe Pathways, did you ask management at Safe Pathways for training for your staff?---Absolutely.

And did they say that they would provide it?---Yes, that is a topic that has been in through discussion, like, yes, we – we need to get somebody down there to get your staff some training.

But in the almost – it’s roughly one year period that you were there, that didn’t occur?---That did not occur.

Is that one of the reasons you left Safe Pathways?---Yes.

On a slightly different topic, and this may be all we have time for today. You – do you find it difficult at Safe Pathways to engage and retain staff of any training?---Yes. It is – it’s not an easy job, but it can be a good rewarding job. You can make a difference for some of these children if you’ve got the passion and also a bit of that training and that around it on how you can actually improve and put a good family structured life and that around these children. But there is some difficulties obviously from their absconding and how do you actually maintain that, you know, to have the children in the home, to actually work to do that. And then also - - -

Those difficulties – sorry to interrupt. Those difficulties with getting good staff and retaining them: did they also apply at Anglicare?---Yes. A lot of people don’t like – which is unfortunate. I have had a couple of interviews with people. I let them know what the job actually entails and where it is, then it is actually them, you know, put across and that to them, it’s, like, teenagers and, “No. I’m not interested.” And - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And would it be fair to say that staff continuity at a residential facility like that, that’s really important for the welfare of the children?---Yep. Yep.

Could the same be said of staff continuity of case workers from Territory Families?---Yes.

Commissioners, I don’t know if there’s more time available today. I probably have another 15 minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it’s 6.30, and I think for the ancillary staff, as well as our capacity to give Ms Hancock the attention her evidence deserves – I think we’ve had a long day. So what the proposal is – and thank you for being prepared to come back tomorrow, Ms Hancock?---No worries.

That’s good of you. The proposal is that we’ll start tomorrow in closed court at 9 am. After we’ve dealt with that witness, then we’ll resume your evidence. So I suspect that would be by about half past 9 tomorrow?---No worries.

If it should be a different time then perhaps someone will be in touch with you, if you - - -?---Certainly.

- - - need to be communicated with?---No worries.

Right. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for staying so late this evening and we’ll adjourn in closed court – the hearing room session at 9 o’clock tomorrow.


MATTER ADJOURNED at 6.32 pm UNTIL TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2017


5

10

15

20

25

30

Index of Witness Events

SVEN ROBERT SILBURN, SWORN P-4385EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-4385CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BROWNHILL P-4406CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4408

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4411

JOY SIMPSON, AFFIRMED P-4412EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-4412CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4435CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4439CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4443CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER P-4449CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY P-4453

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-4454

SARAH HUDDLESTON, AFFIRMED P-4456EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-4456CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4463CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4469CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4471


COLLEEN MARY GWYNNE, AFFIRMED P-4477EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DIGHTON P-4477CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4493CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4498CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4502CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GOODHAND P-4505


TRACY HANCOCK, AFFIRMED P-4507EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ROGERS P-4508


Index of Exhibits and MFIs


P-4386


P-4386

EXHIBIT #512 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION USED BY PROFESSOR SVEN SILBURN

P-4397


5

EXHIBIT #513 STATEMENT OF JOY SIMPSON DATED 25/05/2017

P-4412

EXHIBIT #514 STATEMENT OF JOY SIMPSONS DATED 18/06/2017

P-4413

EXHIBIT #515 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE FOR THE CHILD PROTECTION SUBJECT

P-4413

EXHIBIT #515.150 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 150 P-4454

EXHIBIT #516 SUMMARY REPORT WITH THE WORK UNIT EXCEPTION DOCUMENT DATED 27/10/2016

P-4455

EXHIBIT #517 THE MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORY FAMILIES DATED 20/02/2017

P-4455

EXHIBIT #518 MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BY MS GRAHAM DATED 04/2017

P-4455

EXHIBIT #519 AMENDED STATEMENT OF SARAH HUDDLESTON DATED 07/05/2017

P-4457


P-4478


P-4478

EXHIBIT #515.004 ORGANISATIONAL CHART OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER

P-4489

EXHIBIT #522 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 2015/2016

P-4493

EXHIBIT #523 STATEMENT OF TRACY HANCOCK DATED 25/05/2017

P-4508


Transcript 19 June 2017 Web viewAnd the New Zealand research ... I understand that legislation...

Documents

Transcript of Transcript 19 June 2017 Web viewAnd the New Zealand research ... I understand that legislation...