AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ACN 110 028 825

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

5 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N H-784704

THE HONOURABLE M. WHITE AO, Commissioner 10 MR M. GOODA, Commissioner

15

IN THE MATTER OF A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION AND YOUTH DETENTION SYSTEMS OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY 20

25 DARWIN

10.48 AM, THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2017

30 Continued from 21.6.17

DAY 47

MR P.J. CALLAGHAN SC appears with MR P. MORRISSEY SC, MR T. McAVOY 35 SC, MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN, MS S. McGEE and MS R. RODGER as Counsel Assisting MS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR G. O’MAHONEY for the Northern Territory of Australia DR P. DWYER appears for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency 40 MS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service MR J.B. LAWRENCE SC appears for Danila Dilba Health Service and Olga Havnen MR BELLACH appears for DD MR G. O’BRIEN-HARTCHER appears for DS

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4755 ©Commonwealth of Australia COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Dighton.

MR DIGHTON: Commissioners, today we have two personal stories. These recorded stories are the firsthand experiences and recollections of those who 5 experienced the child protection system in the Northern Territory. Yesterday we heard of the story of DT, her nephew and his partner, and their unsuccessful efforts to have two infants returned to their family. We also heard how DTs application to become a kinship carer was rejected. The first personal story of today is that of DM. DM was placed into care as a girl aged five years. She tells her story of various 10 placements during her years in care and recounts experiences of poor treatment from carers. She talks about her pathways from protection to detention and how she has now secured employment and is moving forward with her life.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Mr Dighton, just before that starts to be 15 played could I just mention again for the benefit, particularly of those who might be listening in the communities who may find the stories distressing, that the Commission has arranged for assistance for those who would like some help from counsellors, that they can get the services of Danila Dilba and Relationships Australia. The contents of available on our website, but if there is any available I’m 20 sure any of the ..... out on the communities other others associated with the Commission could assist. Thank you.

MR DIGHTON: Thank you, Commissioner. If we could please play DMs recorded story. 25

RECORDING PLAYED

30 MR DIGHTON: The second personal story is of that DV. DV is the mother of five children. She speaks about her experience as a victim of family violence. DV also tells about her problems with her two eldest children and how she sought herself, on many occasions, for assistance in matters of her behaviour and the impacts of it on her younger daughter ..... 35

RECORDING PLAYED

40 MR DIGHTON: Mr Callaghan will be taking the next witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Mr Callaghan, just before you take over, could I just mention that, for the benefit of those who are here in the hearing room and those who are watching livestream, that Commissioner Gooda and I and Commissioner Star will be attending at the Convention Centre this afternoon at 5 o’clock to hold a community forum, and all interested people are most welcome to

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4756 ©Commonwealth of Australia come, either to tell us things or just to hear what others might have to say. Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: I call Olga Havnen. 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Havnen, I think you were released from your previous summons when you gave evidence before, so I will just do the affirmation again.

10

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Kindly be seated?Thanks. 15

20 MR CALLAGHAN: And could you once again please put on the record our name and occupation?My name is Olga Havnen. I’m the chief executive officer for Danila Dilba Health Services based here in Darwin.

For the record you previously gave evidence, I believe on 21 March, and a statement 25 which became exhibit 115 was tendered. You have prepared a further statement for the purposes of this Commission. That’s the statement dated 21 June 2017; is that correct?That’s correct.

Yes. I tender that statement and annexures. 30

EXHIBIT #548 STATEMENT AND ANNEXURES OF OLGA HAVNEN DATED 21/06/2017

35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 548. Now, Mr Lawrence, you’re appearing for Ms Havnen? I know you appear for Danila Dilba but are you also appearing for Ms Havnen?

40 MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I just have a few questions for you about your statement, Ms 45 Havnen. Can I take you to paragraph 27 and the paragraphs thereunder through to paragraph 30. You set out assistance that you’ve provided to Territory Families; is that correct?Correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4757 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN And in paragraph 29 you outline the nature of some of the services that you are not contracted by Territory Families to provide; is that right?That’s correct.

In your view, does Danila Dilba have the capacity to assist with all or some of the 5 services listed there?I’d submit that not only Danila Dilba, but other Aboriginal medical services, and other Aboriginal organisations across the Territory, are extremely well placed to provide a lot of the services that are currently being contracted to non-Indigenous service providers.

10 Well, has there been communications with the Northern Territory Government about the potential provision of such services?Speaking from my experience during the time as CEO with Danila Dilba, we’ve made a number of attempts to engage with the Department of – the former Department of Children and Families, and more recently the current Department of Territory Families about being able provide a number of 15 services that we think we would probably be well placed to provide and assist with, in particular some of the early intervention and family support work that’s necessary when children and families are first notified or coming into contact with the child protection system.

20 Well, just to provide some context, yesterday afternoon there was a lawyers’ meeting in this room, and a lady by the name of Gabriel Brown whose title, from my notes, was managing lawyer of care and protection at Territory Families provided a statement, which will be tendered – may not be yet – but in part it read as follows:

25 Aboriginal representative organisations and communities and kinship groups should play a larger role in assisting families in the protection of Aboriginal children, including in the court process. I rarely see any involvement from such organisations other than the legal agencies in the court process.

30 Now, I don’t want to hang Ms Brown out. She’s not, as I understand, in a position necessarily to influence these things, but that’s her opinion. What would you say in response to the opinion in her view: the Aboriginal representative organisations should play a larger role in assisting .....?Well, I think that’s pleasing to hear that there is that view, and I would strongly encourage that. However, I guess I would be 35 interested to know from the Department, particularly around their procurement services, why it is that non-Aboriginal organisations are not being contracted to provide those services.

Well, that might be the answer to my next question: is what is required, in your view, to make this happen? Because there seems to be some sort of consensus about what should happen, but what is required .....?I think there’s got to be a fundamental change, both in the mind shift in terms of thinking, policy and practice, and that is to engage much more actively with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal organisations. The Aboriginal health sector, as I say is a well-established sort of network of primary health care providers across the length and the breadth of the Northern Territory, and in the past where I understand Congress had been contracted to provide some intensive family support work in Alice Springs, that contract was

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4758 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN subsequently either rescinded or not renewed because it was argued that it was too expensive. And yet, at the same time, we hear about the kinds of costs and investments in other providers, in things that I would argue simply aren’t producing the kind of outcomes and results in terms of improving the welfare and wellbeing of 5 kids and families. So there clearly is a role for the Aboriginal organisations across the Northern Territory to be involved.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: We’ve been made aware that there’s a set of principles, MOU with the NGO sector about – with APO NT about who actually 10 applies for money. Can you tell us how that’s working?I think a lot of these things like that, the APO NT principles and so on set out good guidance on what could potentially happen. However, where I think it breaks down in the actual practice. That is, people will all sign on and say, “Yes, you know, this is a good idea.” But it doesn’t actually work that way. 15 Can you Telecom come White and I what was intended to happen with those principles?Well, the intention behind those principles largely came about as a result of changes in the way in which Federal Government grant funding processes were opened up to non-Indigenous organisations to tender and apply for what was 20 specifically indigenous money. That had previously been quarantined only to Aboriginal organisations to be able to apply for. Once that opened up, that – non- Indigenous NGOs, for example, became fairly active competitors. And I think there was a belief, both on the part of the Federal Government and the Territory Government, that somehow those providers because they were bigger organisations 25 and had often been around for – you know, say 100 years or more or less were in a better place to be able to provide the kind of social support services that were being required. I think that approach, and that thinking, was completely naive because what it didn’t do was to assess the capabilities of those providers in terms of their cultural competence, whether or not they had existing relationships or knowledge of 30 Aboriginal people or communities, whether they had any capability of having a permanent presence, particularly in remote communities. So none of those things were taken into account when these contracts were – were made or entered into. There’s been no shift in those arrangements over the last 10 years.

35 Did the – my understanding is the NGOs said they would work with Aboriginal organisations – where there was a competitive process, they would defer to the Aboriginal – do they continue to apply for the money?They continue to apply for the money and quite often the extent of the arrangement, if you like, or the notional partnership is about asking us to provide letters of support when they make a funding 40 application.

So the principles really mean nothing?Have not been executed in practice, you know, in the way in which they were intended to do. To the best of my knowledge there is no genuine partnership joint funding agreements between an Aboriginal 45 organisations and any of those large NGOs.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4759 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN You’ve got a long history in the Northern Territory, and Aboriginal affairs generally. How do you feel when you see the amounts of dollars being – I won’t patronise you by asking about how Aboriginal organisations are always told there’s no money. Like, some of the figures you see – like, for instance, the one I raise yesterday was 5 $77,000 a month for four beds in Katherine. What do you think about that?I mean, these arrangements are absolutely stunning and I think it’s largely a legacy of the Intervention where there were large amounts of money committed to supposedly improving – you know, the situation in Aboriginal communities here in the Northern Territory, and by any measure you have to say the vast majority of that money has 10 been squandered. Now, I mean, the people who made those decisions need to be held to account, in my view. To the best of my knowledge there’s never been any robust evaluation of those arrangements, and you would have to suggest – just on the very cursory amount of information we have access to – you have to go, “What the hell is actually going on here and why does this continue to happen?” I mean, we get 15 held up to be accountable for what we do as Aboriginal service providers, and our level of accountability and transparency for every dollar that we spend and commit, including performance outcomes, is well and truly documented. But you go and have a look on the web site for a lot of these NGOs that are providing these out-of- home care services there’s no detail about their governance arrangements, there’s no 20 annual report, no financial transparency or accountability. You know, how is this – how is this good for anybody?

And by the mere term NGO – it suggests there’s some altruistic motivation but, you know, some of these are just businesses, aren’t they?Well, I think the idea of being a 25 not for profit organisation, particularly in the current economic climate has almost forced, if you like, a lot of these organisations to become – to adopt much more of a business model. Which, you know, at a basic level I don’t have a problem with that. But it’s also a question about whether or not they’re in there to generate profits and surpluses which, you know, many of those bigger not for profit organisations are 30 obliged to do and some would argue that’s probably sensible and it’s a good financial management strategy. But at the end of the day if the dollars aren’t actually hitting the ground in the most effective way possible why are we continuing with these arrangements? I mean my personal view is, Commissioner, with all due respect is that I think it actually warrants serious parliamentary scrutiny at the federal level and 35 those Ministers and senior bureaucrats who make these decisions and continue to make them, and to continue to allow those funding situations to occur, actually need to be held to account and to justify what they are doing. You know, we get blamed when things don’t seem to be improving, and it’s this constant pathologising of Aboriginal people, and yet we have no control and no say about any of this. I’m 40 sorry I sound so angry and upset, but I have seen it for decades and quite frankly we’re sick to death of it.

I think it’s understandable to be angry and upset, Ms Havnen.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I go back to where we starred this very interesting dialogue, because it is interesting and I can assure you it’s something that concerns Commissioner Gooda and I greatly. In your – when you’re talking about –

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4760 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN paragraph 27 through to 29, the relationship with Territory Families and the delivery of services which don’t come Danila Dilba’s way, or any other Aboriginal service provider, do Territory Families put their requirements out to tender so far as you know?My understanding is that a lot of those early intervention and prevention and 5 family support service contracts, if you like, were done probably both by – not just the Territory Government but also the Federal Government.

Yes?Where they enter into direct procurement arrangements, so almost as a preferred provider. 10 Yes?So that there’s no opportunity for us to even compete for those things and to put out, you know, an expression of interest or to submit a tender application.

Usually, there’s a Government process to be on a provider list, of course. You’ve 15 got to jump through the hoops before you can get to that status. Is that your understanding of the process in the Northern Territory?Look, I’m not entirely sure, so I wouldn’t like to make sort of detailed comment, but it would – from the way in which I understand contracts have been entered into, it would suggest that that is the arrangement. The thing that I find fascinating, particularly in this sort of child 20 protection space, is that the Aboriginal medical service or health services in every community across the length and breadth of the Territory will be asked by the Department to provide medical records and information about children or adults, as carers and clients, to the Department when there’s an investigation under way. And yet we seem to be completely invisible to them as being seen as a capable partner 25 and a potential resource that might actually work with Territory Families and with those children and vulnerable families. It, to me, just seems to be a bit ironic. And the thing that I strongly suggest is when you have a look at where the remote Aboriginal health services are located, many of them are in those communities where we know large numbers of children are being removed from. 30 COMMISSIONER GOODA: I know this is a general question, but I ask it because of your experience. Do you think the process of tendering, like we’re providing supply somewhere like widgets, is an idea way to deal with what we probably call complex human problems here?Look, I think tendering and transparent procurement 35 arrangements are desirable. I think they need to be done in a way that’s

I mean, I get the transparent part but is a tender in a paper, like building a bridge, the ideal way to deal with this?Look, I don’t have a problem with tendering as such, or putting in competitive tenders, but I would like a more genuinely open and transparent process. But I also think that we need to consider Aboriginal organisations, service organisations in the same way as the Federal Government thinks about supporting indigenous business. That is there’s a preferred provider status for indigenous businesses, and yet in the services sector we’re not seen in the same way. And I would argue that we have as much to offer in terms of value for money, opportunities for greater employment of Aboriginal people, and providing a

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4761 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN quality service to Aboriginal people, and yet that doesn’t seem to be the approach or the thinking.

Has anyone ever thought about using – I don’t know what it’s called these days – 5 used to be supply nation?Exactly.

Has Danila Dilba thought about entering that process as a preferred provider?Well, that’s right, but it’s not the way that governments conventionally think, so they’re happy to support indigenous businesses and enterprises, and they see that as a 10 valuable and worthwhile thing to do, and to give them preferred provider status, but what I’m saying is in the services sector we’re not seen in the same way, and we should be.

Thank you. 15 MR CALLAGHAN: Those exchanges have allowed me to truncate my questioning considerably, and indeed fast-forward to the very end of your statement to paragraph 66H, where you recommend a suite of accountability and integrity functions, and this might build upon what you’ve said about openness and transparency to some extent, but can I perhaps approach it this way: what is it about the existing situation that concerns you most? Are you able to give us an overview of your concerns in that regard?Sure. Having had some opportunity to have a look at the sort of policies and procedures and so on and guidelines that the Department of Territory Families and the former Department of Children and Family Services have, there is a at least some sort of attempt to embed cultural imperatives if you like in consideration of all sorts of things. So whether it’s assessments and risk assessments and so on, and about looking at what services are required and procured, but that seems to be they’re more in a spirit of intent and yet what happens is that it doesn’t happen in practice. So it has not happened – it doesn’t happen in reality. And if we’re going to make this fundamental shift about improving the outcomes for Aboriginal children and families in the Northern Territory then I think we have to have much greater weight and capacity to genuinely ensure that those ways of working happen in practice at every level and at every step along the way, whether it’s in the youth justice system or whether it’s in the child protection system. And to my way of thinking is that what we’ve got at the moment is a completely inappropriate and outdated set of legislation, you know, ineffective implementation of policies, procedures and programs and so on, that the system as a whole needs a complete overhaul. I also strongly believe that it’s probably going to be necessary to have a much stronger involvement on the part of the Federal Government given that the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction is so heavily reliant on that investment out of the Commonwealth, whether it be through general sort of GST distributions and the like, the fiscal arrangements here in the Territory here are such – is we’re a small jurisdiction, we just genuinely don’t have the money to do this on our own, and it would be an ideal time, I suppose, to do maybe mark two of what was attempted previously under the Intervention but do this completely differently. And I would suggest something like a 10 year ..... plan that involved not just the Federal Government, the Territory Government, but more importantly having Aboriginal people there as expert advisors

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4762 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN on some sort of planning and oversight committee. It is not enough anymore simply to pay us the cursory privilege of being consulted, where our voices are not listened to, where we have no role in decision-making, and that we set up proper mechanisms here that absolutely scrutinises every dollar that gets invested. 5 Is that harking back to what you mentioned before about partly scrutiny at a federal level?Yes, I think there needs to be proper scrutiny and accountable mechanisms, but for goodness sake, get us involved in the beginning in materials of the planning and design of this and let’s get it right. 10 Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you suggesting that apart from writing the cheques and placing PM and C people in T-shirts around the Territory, that the 15 Commonwealth should be actively involved in the delivery of these initiatives?I’m not suggesting that they need to be directly involved as service providers, absolutely not. I think, you know, the experience of the Intervention was such a debacle you would never want that repeated, but I do think there is a role for the Federal Government in here, in the Northern Territory. They’re clearly big investors in all 20 sorts of levels, you know, directly and indirectly, but I think we could be a little bit more innovative in terms of our thinking about how you would put together a long- term 10 year plan that is jointly meaningfully, you know, developed by Aboriginal people and that we have an ongoing role in the oversight, monitoring and implementation. I mean, we couldn’t do it any worse than what’s already been done 25 to date, surely.

And spend the money more meaningfully, no doubt you would ?I would hope so.

suggest. 30 MR CALLAGHAN: Just finally, you’ve indicated in your statement that a detailed written submission is forthcoming from Danila Dilba; is that correct?That’s correct.

And, of course, if any party wishes to make submissions in response or in 35 furtherance to such a thing then, subject to our increasingly alarming time constraints, that can happen, but I anticipate that on behalf of CAALAS, certain submissions are going to be made, and in that regard we’ve been provided with some material that you have had the opportunity to have a look at, namely the Tuituia assessment framework implemented by the New Zealand Department for Vulnerable 40 Children; is that correct?That’s correct.

You’ve had a chance at least to have a brief review of that material and you’re familiar with principles and the concepts involved?Yes.

45 That document appears on the screen now and I will tender that.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4763 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: And ask you to just give us a brief comment.

5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: That document is exhibit 549.

EXHIBIT #549 TUITUIA ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTED BY THE NEW ZEALAND DEPARTMENT FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN 10

MR CALLAGHAN: And if you could just give us a brief comment on that, Ms Havnen?These particular tools I think are a good example of a more informed way of thinking about how you conduct assessments, particularly of vulnerable children and 15 families, taking a genuine account of cultural considerations. But more importantly, it’s a mechanism to give much greater voice and say to, in this case to Maori families, the iwi, the band, the tribe, the group which is very much along the lines of all the things that I guess many of the Aboriginal people giving evidence to this Royal Commission over the last week or so have been strongly asking for. So what 20 people – Aboriginal people say at a local and regional level is that we have existing mechanisms there of people with senior authority, the right kinship groups, people who actually know what would be in the best interests of that child, and that I think we would be well advised to take account of these kinds of tools and adapt them for use and implementation here in the Northern Territory. I think it would go a long 25 way to addressing the current deficiencies that we see and have heard about over the last couple of weeks.

Thank you. That’s all I have.

30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR LAWRENCE: Ms Havnen

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just – was there anyone else – because usually 35 MR LAWRENCE: I’m sorry. I don’t believe there is.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Nobody else. Thank you. Sorry, Mr Lawrence, go right ahead. 40

45 MR LAWRENCE: No. That’s all right. Speed is the watch word in this Royal Commission, as everybody appreciates.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4764 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE Ms Havnen, your suggestion of a 10 year approach, a plan. We just went through one – it’s still going. Do you perceive that as involving the Prime Minister of Australia?I absolutely think there’s an opportunity and a need to have leadership at the highest possible levels. If we’re to take advantage, I suppose – and I don’t mean 5 advantage in an opportunistic way, but if we’re to actually sort of be informed by the lessons and the experiences of what have happened, you know, both in child protection and youth justice, this is once in a lifetime opportunity for us as Aboriginal people to make sure we get this right and we actually turn this around in the right way. I think if we don’t do that not only will this opportunity be 10 squandered, but you have to bear in mind I just don’t think what we’re doing at the moment is sustainable for the Northern Territory in into the long term. So it’s imperative that we get it right, that we reallocate and redirect resources into those areas where things we know will work and make a difference, but that requires leadership at the highest level and I would have to say as an Aboriginal person, born 15 and bred in the Territory, lived here for most of my life, I think we need all the help we can get, but you see how quickly the tide of public opinion and political decisions get made. You know, in the changes of an election cycle. I just don’t think we can be at risk of those sorts of things happening to us, because if we don’t find a way of fireproofing us from those sorts of whims if you like and ideological agendas, then 20 we’re never going to get it right.

Your long history in Aboriginal affairs, as Commissioner Gooda pointed out – do you stand here today with a genuine belief that this Royal Commission can, in fact, be the breakthrough moment?I absolutely do. You know, we would not have put in 25 the time and the effort and the thinking and the level of research and analysis into seriously thinking about these things and trying to put forward what we believe to be reasonable and practical ways forward.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I just go to that. Do you think part of that is 30 actually sorting out this financial – these arrangements? Like, the amount of money we’ve seen in the system, there’s probably – it’s arguable whether we need any more money, but it’s an area that we really have to address in this Royal Commission, do you think?I absolutely agree with you, Commissioner. I mean, the history of Aboriginal affairs has been littered with failure. There have been – you know, tens 35 of millions and billions of dollars squandered and wasted, and I would hate to think that we are going to go down that path again. You know, this is the time to get it right. I think there’s enough knowledge and expertise and capability to do that properly. It’s a question of political will and putting in place those sorts of mechanisms that absolutely safeguard us from slipping backwards and I think, you 40 know, we’ve just got to do it.

How important then is the involvement of the community in this?Community is front and centre, but let me tell you it’s not actually the voices of the non-Aboriginal people, who are largely transients in the Territory to have the louder say. We’ve been subjected to majoritarian rule here for the last 20 or 30 years, for goodness sake. This is about, you know, having a voice of the people who are long-term permanent residents who are not going anywhere. The Aboriginal population in the Northern

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4765 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE Territory is growing at a rate far greater than almost anywhere else in the country. The jurisdiction really has some serious problems to address and we cannot afford not to get it right.

5 But we’ve heard lots of evidence around the involvement of the community in the child protection system. What about in deciding what services they need, in the sense of how we apply those dollars?Well, I think this idea of you know, the suggestion I suppose that I’m putting forward is comprehensive planning approach, almost doing that on a regional basis. We’ve got a lot of good data and information 10 about population, about needs, about service gaps. I think it’s about real waiting and refocusing existing funding away from that crisis and tertiary end into the early intervention focus. I mean, it costs us $400,000 a year to have one kid locked up in Don Dale for a year. I mean, really? You know, what an absurd waste of money.

15 I’m thinking of the more fundamental level when we’ve been to communities and service providers have been there and communities don’t know anything about it? Well, that’s right, because a lot of it is done on a fly-in fly-out basis. What we’ve not done in Aboriginal Australia, and certainly not in the Northern Territory, is what I would describe as genuine development work. That is building the capacity and 20 capability of local people and local organisations. Why do we think we’re going to continue to rely on fly-in fly-out services, by people who are non-Aboriginal who for the most know nothing about us or how things work? You know, this is ridiculous.

And we just had a case worker in a closed session tell us about one feature – like you 25 said, the Aboriginal community, they’re not going anywhere. They’re going to be here?It’s growing.

There’s a workforce issue?Yeah.

30 The Aboriginal community is always going to be here.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can we draw any parallels from the great success of the health services, the clinics that are in all the communities wherever we went on our Commission visits. That was – that always seemed to be the heart and soul of the communities. It was the place too, I think, where people really felt safe. What kind of – what can we learn from how they were developed?I thank you for that question, Commissioner, because I think it’s a really important observation that you make, and I think the Aboriginal health sector has a lot to offer by way of a model and an example of how you can build capability to deliver high quality, very complex services to vulnerable people. There surely isn’t anything more complex perhaps than looking after people’s health care needs, and the fact that we’re able to do this, and to engage with a whole range of people from different areas within the held services, so it’s not just GPs and doctors, it’s nurses, it’s Aboriginal health workers, it’s the outreach and family support workers. So it’s a really good model of where you’ve got a multidisciplinary approach where the whole ethos of the organisation and the services that we provide is very much embedded around cultural

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4766 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE safety. That is working in ways that ensures the trust and respect and the cultural imperatives, if you like, in being able to provide those services in a way that delivers good outcomes for people. And I think that model could be used both in the child protection system, it can certainly be used in the justice system. I could think of a 5 similar kind of model, day I say it, in education. You know, the continued failure of educational outcomes in the Territory I think is deeply worrying, but again it’s that lack of willingness to look at more innovative approaches that actually might deliver better outcomes.

10 What concerns me a little, and I’m certainly not attempting to speak for Commissioner Gooda here, is that we also were made aware of the fact that communities don’t speak with one voice. There’s a lot of dissent, and it’s probably in the nature of living in a small community together, and it concerns me as to how communities will reach decisions about child protection issues, but that if the health 15 care model could be expanded to include child protection it may, in fact, remove some of those problems. Is that a possibility?I think that is a possibility. I think it’s really, too, a question about whether or not it would be appropriate for health services to broaden its scope, if you like, so it might be in – as a short-term measure a good vehicle for helping to establish some of these child protection services but 20 with a longer term view of actually separating that off over a period of say five or seven years so that that child protection area, because it is again extremely complex and requires a particular kind of expertise

Yes, it does? that I think it would be wise not to try to roll them in long-term but as 25 a sort of a vehicle for perhaps initiating, seeding, establishing, getting some of that to grow and then to kind of separate it off. I think the same thing should happen possibly in the early childhood space.

So it could be a transition?Transition model, yes. 30 Thank you.

MR LAWRENCE: Ms Havnen, we’ve had a tsunami evidence direct in this Royal Commission from Aboriginal people like yourself. I’m thinking of yesterday Josie Crawshaw, Dr Fejo-King, Patricia Anderson. It’s quite clear that there is no shortage of Aboriginal expertise and ability in these areas. From your experience, can you please explain what you perceive as to why, in all the years that we’ve got to now, they haven’t been truly and effectively harnessed?I think there are a number of reasons for that. One is the perception that somehow we don’t have the capability or the expertise or that we’re not sophisticated enough, that we have poor governance, that we’re not – you know, financial, good, prudent financial managers, so there’s many of those reasons. But really at the heart of it I think it’s what I will describe as wilful cultural blindness. So we get lots of lip-service about saying, “Yes, the Territory’s different, we all recognise that – you know, Aboriginal culture is different, there’s enormous cultural diversity.” And you get that mantra all the time. But when you actually get below that in practice it’s studiously ignored. So I don’t understand, for example, why in a place where there is such diversity and complexity

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4767 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE that there’s not much stronger investment in better preparing and supporting particularly non-Indigenous professionals to give them the skills to quip them to work in really effective and meaningful ways, particularly in the Territory. And if I would just draw as an example or a comparison, I worked for a short time with 5 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and in my time it was absolutely evident how much was invested in personnel, all personnel – from, you know, clerks right through to senior diplomats in preparation before they are deployed overseas. Pre- posting training in the department, at a bare minimum, is probably about 12 months so you get to learn about the history, the culture, the language, the protocols and the 10 etiquette of those countries, before you even get posted there. We do that in recognition that if you don’t give people those basic skills their ability to work effectively are seriously diminished. And yet here we have people who are going to attempt to do this really complex work in indigenous Australia, and particularly in northern Australia, where we don’t even pay lip-service to that. You know, it’s 15 madness. I mean, I don’t know how long we have to say, you know, English is not a first language, people are not literate. That, you know, there are different cultural rules and norms and protocols right across the length and breadth of the territory. Doing an ongoing cross-cultural training course that has come out of New South Wales is completely hideous. I’m sorry, you know, it’s appalling. It’s obviously an 20 attempt, and I think probably a genuine one by somebody who thought, “Well, something is better than nothing.” But I can tell you, it would be like teaching you Chinese and sending you to, you know, France. It doesn’t do you a lot of good.

Australia, mainstream, has more empathy and respect for other cultures than it does 25 for its first Australian culture?

MR O’MAHONEY: I object. My friend is once again masquerading as a witness. That’s just not a proper .....

30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s not much of a masquerade. That’s not a question that I will allow to be put.

MR LAWRENCE: Okay.

35 Just from your experience, you just mentioned you were in foreign affairs, how long did you work there?Probably about three years.

And you’re from Tennant Creek originally?Yes.

40 Schooled there?Partly. Some in Alice Springs, spent some time in Townsville and Charters Towers for high school.

And your mother’s Aboriginal from Tennant Creek?Yes.

45 She’s here today ?Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4768 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE watching you give evidence, and your father was, in fact, from – he was a Norwegian?Yeah. He would probably be described as an illegal boat person today. Jumped ship in Adelaide back in the – I don’t know, early 50s I think. Ended up in Tennant Creek, he worked as a miner, lived here all his life. 5 And you’ve worked basically your whole adult life at grassroots level, and now you’ve been at Danila Dilba – how long is it you’ve been there now?This will be my fifth Year.

10 And your position as coordinator general for remote services would have been very directly related to the issues that this is Royal Commission are looking at now?That’s absolutely correct.

And how long were you there?That was a very short-term appointment, but it was 15 intended to be for a three year contract. With the change of Government that appointment was terminated and those positions haven’t ever been re-established by either the Federal Government or the Territory Government. But just to touch quickly on that role, because I think it is

20 Please do ? an important one. The role was essentially to monitor and report on service delivery arrangements, particularly as they applied in the remote communities, and it was really an attempt to try to analyse where the dollars were going, how much of that funding was actually hitting the ground in terms of direct service provision and I would have to say that in the analysis that I did in that work, 25 to be really honest about it, I think you would be very lucky if 50, 60 cents in the dollar ever hit the ground. I think it was probably closer to about 40 cents in the dollar.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’ve seen some figure that is suggest 27 cents in some 30 places?I think that might well be right but, you know, I was being generous. And there’s no way of definitively knowing. I think it’s very difficult.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: ..... remember the Wadeye race case?Yes.

35 I think there was an economic analysis done then and I think it started to around 30 cents in the dollar given to Wadeye. That was for education?That’s correct.

There was a ..... wasn’t a bad indication?Yes.

40 I think they’re doing okay now, it’s up to about 49 cents?And this is part of the problem. I think we talk about efficiencies and better ways of working and yet it’s incredibly difficult I think for the bureaucracy and Government to change the way in which they go about doing things, but with some – you know, critical thinking and critiquing and analysis and proper planning I think we can change that. 45 MR LAWRENCE: You’ve researched extensively as a consequence of this Royal Commission – the substance of which will be in your submissions, some of which is

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4769 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE in your statement now, some of which includes international comparisons with legislation and so forth of which some you commend, you touched on just – and I won’t be much longer – but you did touch on what I gather is an important issue which you picked up in recent years and that’s to do with education and the schools 5 and the Department of Education, is that to do with suspensions and expulsions?It has been very difficult to get from the Department of Education any data about school suspension rates or, in fact, what happens to those children who are suspended, particularly those on repeat suspensions, and one – cases where I’ve known anecdotally kids have been suspended for poor behaviour. We’ve attempted 10 to sort of have that child reengaged at school, the school said, “Sorry, we’re full up, we can’t take that child.” And then subsequently other schools have declined to take that child. It’s probably not a formal departmental position that these things should happen but that’s the practice of what does take place. But coming back to that example of schools, I think there are things that could be done with children who are 15 displaying behavioural problems, if you like, within the school system. I’ve mentioned in my submission and in my statement an example of a behavioural change program called SNAP which comes out of Canada. It’s designed for under 12,s older boys and for girls. It’s really about giving children a better understanding of emotions, how you regulate and manage those emotions and behaviours and 20 reactions. But getting kids basically to stop and think before they act. And I think if we were to be able to resource and introduce some of those sorts of things as early intervention measures we might go a long way to reducing the kind of offending behaviour for even for kids to be ending up in places like Don Dale. So I think there are very practical things that can be done, they should be done. I don’t think the 25 investment in those things is an enormous cost. It would probably be far cheaper to do them today than to be – you know, have more kids ending up in the justice system.

Danila Dilba has been involved with Don Dale as – subsequent to the Royal 30 Commission being called?Correct.

You’ve got people out there working with the children in a health capacity, in a mental health capacity?Yes.

35 Can I ask you: were you in Darwin when the young boy suicided at Don Dale?Yes.

That was in 2000. We’ve heard evidence – in recent years have you seen a deterioration in the way things have been going for Aboriginal people in the justice system? 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s a pretty ?It would be a general observation I would make.

Well, just a moment. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4770 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE MR O’MAHONEY: Can I submit that that question is so broad ..... that any answer can’t assist.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s almost meaningless. 5 MR LAWRENCE: Alright. I will reframe it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But can you keep an eye on the time please.

10 MR LAWRENCE: I know, I am.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Because we are really very behind now.

MR LAWRENCE: I appreciate that. This will be my last question, if 15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: It’s just I want to get your observations, if you have any, in relation to in recent years. Say in the last 10 years, how have you seen things in the 20 last 10 years, say in the health situation?In terms of community attitudes, relationships, and engagement and so on, I think it has not been marked by positive improvements, perhaps if I can put that in that way. It’s a very general observation, it’s a personal one, but I was quite shocked and surprised when I was first approached and we went out to visit the Don Dale Detention Centre and I was – had 25 a lawyer accompany me. And to be fair to the staff that work out there, I mean, this is difficult stuff and it’s a very degraded facility, as people know. But for somebody that had not been out into that prison before, I was completely shocked. This is where we thought it was okay to lock up very young children, but what surprised me even more than that was just how normal it was for the people that worked out there, 30 including some of the lawyers, and I can remember coming back into town on that drive back into town with steam coming out of my ears going, “My God what on earth is going on here? And how has it got to the stage where people can see this stuff and it’s become so normalised that we actually accept it?” And I still can’t get over that. I would have thought in this day and age, with all the knowledge we have 35 to children, about wellbeing, about the impacts of trauma on kids, that people have been learning about this every day of their lives out there. But it seems to have sort of dissipated. Now, I don’t know whether it dissipates because you become so inured to it, or whether people give up trying to change the system. I think there’s probably a whole range of things for it, but to me I think this should never have been 40 acceptable.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR LAWRENCE: That’s very much. That’s all I have for my client. 45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Anything, Mr Callaghan?

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4771 O. HAVNEN XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE MR CALLAGHAN: No, Commissioners, may Ms Havnen be excused.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you very much Ms Havnen, yet again, for coming and sharing your experience and ideas in this very important area. We look 5 forward to the submission from Danila Dilba, of course?Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks so much. 10

15 MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I recall – I’m not sure if the Commissioners wanted to have a break, but if not I recall Leonie Wharburton.

25 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. As I recall, Ms Wharburton, you weren’t released ?That’s correct.

from your summons in Alice Springs so you’re still under your previous affirmation so would you kindly be seated. Thank you. 30 MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, may I just mention a couple of things. It may be necessary, I’m not sure, I can’t remember at the end of the process but I think it may be necessary to reiterate the oath. I think we may have terminated the – because it was to Alice Springs. 35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: It was, but because Ms Wharburton was partway through

MR MORRISSEY: She was. 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: her evidence, she wasn’t released from her summons so I would take the view that she’s still under her previous affirmation obligations, and

45 MR MORRISSEY: I’ve raised the issue and I will be guided completely by what the Commissioners say.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4772 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it’s

MR MORRISSEY: May I mention one administrative matter. In this case I appreciate that – Ms Wharburton appreciates too that we are pressed for time. There 5 have been some significant requests for leave to cross-examine. I mean to canvass a number of those, and so it may be appropriate to review the nature and extent of those at the end.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. 10 MR MORRISSEY: The other issue is that we are aware of the time pressures and Ms Wharburton has been once before, so it’s appropriate for everyone to recall .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is and, perhaps for those who are minded to ask 15 questions, listen carefully to see whether in fact they are already covered. The other thing is Commissioner Gooda and I have a commitment at the Convention Centre at 5 o’clock. There is no possibility of us sitting the kinds of hours we’ve been sitting Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. We really will have to leave at the latest by quarter to 5. So we must get through the work. 20 MR MORRISSEY: I’m grateful for the indication. Can we please have on the screen tender bundle 150. That is a graph.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that from exhibit 515? Is that the tender bundle that 25 we got earlier in the week?

MR MORRISSEY: It is not that document. Set that aside for now, sorry. I will proceed without that.

30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: What’s the document that you were

MR MORRISSEY: Sorry, did I – it’s my fault, supplementary tender bundle is the issue.

35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: Sorry, I said tender.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 150, in tender bundle – the care and protection 40 hearings, exhibit 515, is the executive leadership group meeting. Is that the document that you wanted?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. So I’m going to take you to that, to components of that in a moment. Could I just start with the issue of backlog. That will be the topic that we deal with for the first 20 minutes or so here. Bearing in mind that the term backlog has a number of possible shades of meaning. I’m not seeking to use it in a pejorative manner, but you can point out what the nuances are as it arises. Now, the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4773 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Commission has heard evidence of – or evidence of significant pressure on case workers who have got an increasing flow of case – an increasing flow new cases, and on the other hand they’ve got an increasing case load on an individual worker basis. Heard evidence from Mr Fletcher yesterday that the Katherine office was finding it 5 very difficult, arguably impossible, to deal with the caseload without an increase in staffing. As a general proposition you’re aware of those increased pressures? Certainly the data reflects that, yes.

Yes. Now, we dealt with this on the last occasion, and your evidence was this – and 10 this is, Commissioners. at 4371. You were asked what you could say about the breakdown of that backlog information and you said:

The physical activity of the investigation in a large part of those, I would reasonably expect, that has been done. It’s the administrative data input that 15 would be causing some of that lag.

Now, just to be clear, you were not by any means saying that the administrative data input was the entirety of that lag, were you?Can you repeat that, please.

20 Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If you look at the transcript on the screen.

MR MORRISSEY: Are you able to see that, lines 30 to 33. Is that visible to you or 25 is it too small?That’s much easier to see. Thank you.

MR O’MAHONEY: I mean, the language there speaks for itself. The witness talks in terms of causing some of that lag. The question is, “By some did you mean all of it?” 30 MR MORRISSEY: That wasn’t the question and I’m going to get her to clarify.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I think it can be explored, Mr O’Mahoney.

35 MR MORRISSEY: Anyway, you see what you said on the last occasion, you said that would be causing some of that lag?Yes.

But you were not by any means suggesting it would cause all of that lag, were you? No, I don’t believe so. 40 No. Alright. Thank you. So just to take you now to something that you said on a previous occasion, and by way of background can you just put this: the Commission has heard evidence of – or some evidence about a thing called workload management strategies, which are responses really by Territory Families to deal with the backlogs 45 as they arise in different regions; is that correct?Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4774 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY And you’re aware that recently, in January 2017, such a strategy – a workload management strategy was indeed implemented in the northern region; that’s your understanding?I’m aware of that.

5 Yes. Now, could we just – so could we just go to – sorry, yes. Thank you. Supplementary tender bundle 149. Thank you. Now you’re a member of this executive leadership group; is that correct?Yes.

Just by way of background – I will come to this document later, but just to put it on 10 the map, you’re aware that the workload management strategy was implemented and states in terms – I won’t jump from screen to screen too much, but just – so leave this one on the screen. But what was said there by Mr ..... was that the office was struggling to manage the increased workload. You would understand that that is a reason for the adoption of this strategy, that there was a struggle to meet the 15 workload? Alright. Thank you. So now we have the executive leadership group meeting minutes on the screen. And you’re a member of that group; is that correct? Yes.

Can you just explain to the Commissioners, quickly, what that leadership group is 20 and what its function is?Certainly, Commissioners. That is a governance mechanism in the Territory Families agency whereby the chief executive brings the executive leadership group together as the name suggests, that is an oversight function. Just to broadly describe it as a core governance function within the agency.

25 How frequently does it meet?Monthly, usually.

And – yes, thank you. Alright. Now, can I just take you to a couple of aspects of what was said at this meeting. You were present, and you contributed, and can we go to page – to attachment B of that – at point 6809, and in particular go to paragraph 30 1 of that. Just perhaps zoom if we could just zoom in on that, so that the witness can see. Thank very much. So just – if you would just quickly look at that first paragraph. For those who can’t see the screen, I will read it out – I will read it as you would read it:

35 There has been an increase of notifications and numbers of cases ..... compliance with response times has improved. However, the number of finalised child protections, investigations and substantiated investigations has decreased, indicating that child protection officers are unable to keep up with the increased workload demand. Many child protection officers have been 40 struggling to recruit and retain staff, impacting on the ability to manage the increasing workload.

Now, that’s what you said at the time; that was a candid assessment of the problem as you saw it; correct?Yes. 45 If we just go to the final paragraph there. It says:

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4775 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY With limited resources, case worker effort is being disproportionately allocated to the early stages of case work, but the effort cannot be sustained in the investigation stage and ongoing case work activity required to finalise an investigation. 5 Now, once again, that was a candid statement of the problem as you saw it. And, just having regard to the last sentence there, you drew a distinction. You said the investigation stage and ongoing case work activity required to finalise investigation? Mmm. 10 Now, does that reflect the division that we mentioned just a minute ago between – between situations where there was still investigative work of one sort or another to be done on the one hand, and on the other hand, work that might be described as merely administrate in nature?I think the point of difference I would like to make on 15 the investigation stage is that’s the piece of work that you’re assessing has the child suffered harm or not suffered harm? But the ongoing case work activity that you still may need to do to finalise an investigation could be anything from, once you’ve made an assessment of what the family requires, what case management support could be offer to that family that would then give you a good predictor that the risk 20 of harm is going to be reduced in the future? I see them as being different, but complimentary, of one another.

They’re complimentary. Could I just ask you then to assist – perhaps it would assist the Commissioners that in the course of an investigation like this, from cradle to 25 grave of such an investigation, the first step following the referral is a safety assessment; is that right?Are you talking at the intake

Yes? phase?

30 Yes?That is a part of it, yes.

But following the safety assessment comes the investigation followed by relevant risk assessment; is that correct?Certainly, if the matter is proceeded to an investigation, that is the flow. 35 I was speaking of such situations?Yes. Okay. Yep.

And followed by that, then there will be an investigation summary report, ISR, and – followed by, ideally speaking at all events, a case closure document?Yes. 40 Is that correct?Yes.

And so when we – coming back, I’m just spelling that out for those who don’t have that process under control, here when you made the comment as you did in those 45 notes there:

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4776 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY The effort cannot be sustained in the investigation phase and ongoing case work activity required to finalise.

Does that formulation encapture all of the steps I mentioned there or just the steps 5 following the initial safety assessment?The steps following the initial safety. So making a very clear distinction between the work that’s conducted at intake versus the work that – once the report has gone to a regional office, yeah.

Now, your concern there – obviously it’s not ideal that the mere administrative work 10 gets incomplete, but it has a certain lower priority than the investigation. But your concern there was in part that relevant child protection officers are indeed falling behind on the actual investigative work in those subsequent phases to some degree; is that correct?In falling behind in the investigative work?

15 Yes?Components of it, not in its entirety. I think we need to be sure that the work is continuing, but I guess it is a reflection that, is it continuing in its most fulsome way? There’s elements that may not have been completed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there any – I know that there was a blitz to get 20 those administrative reports completed?Yes.

Some little time ago. But it’s obviously not sustainable to do that every time?No.

There’s a backlog of administration. Is there given any thought to managing this 25 from some different way because it must always be a terrible burden for case workers knowing that they’ve got all those reports to write up?That’s correct, Commissioner, and I think ideally the person who has made the assessment who has actually knocked on the door and worked with the family and conducted that investigation is the same person who writes it up. And certainly when we’ve done 30 blitz, for the language that was used, that’s not always the case and no, that’s not ideal, Commissioner.

Well, no. We’ve heard it’s certainly not. In fact, I think a group of New Zealanders came in and assisted ..... obviously, the Territory wasn’t ?You have to be creative. 35 very appreciative?Yes.

But there must be some other way of managing this, because it’s obviously going to be an ongoing problem, is it not?Yeah, and I think it does – I think it was coming 40 out, some of the evidence yesterday. It really does have an impact on staff who take the work very, very seriously and want to demonstrate that they’ve done everything reasonably possible but I think some of the work – work is in train to try and make this better. I mean, it sounds a little bit government speak but, you know, reducing the red tape is something very real, very reasonable that we can actually do, and are 45 in the process of doing, to make the documentation of the actions that frontline staff have taken simpler.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4777 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Yes?Not to make it too minimalistic, that we’re not having an accurate of what’s being – what has occurred to work with a child and their family, but I think there’s – just as a very practical thing alone that will happen. I guess, Commissioners, in an ideal world we will become more technologically futuristic, for want of a better 5 word. We will actually have the technology in the hands of the staff who are actually in situ and frontline to be recording as they go. That would make such a huge potential difference too. So it’s more (a) more timely, (b), you’re getting the person who’s done the work recording the work. I think if we could get that in the hands of our practitioners 10 That technology is available now?The gadgets are coming out thick and fast, Commissioners, so I’m sure we have counterparts in other jurisdictions doing the doing with more technology at their disposal.

15 So they can take them with them when they go and visit the families?Correct.

And write it – read it up – speak it up when they’re leaving in the car, things of that kind?Potentially, yes.

20 MR MORRISSEY: I think there’s two aspects to the discussion. You’ve

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry.

MR MORRISSEY: No, no. It’s always an interesting challenge for counsel, 25 because questions have been answered in some respects before the question was asked. Could I just tease out a couple of things you’ve referred to there. In essence, the issue of workload and the issue of backlog impacts in two ways relevant for you. Firstly, we know that impact on the front-line staff in the way that you’ve heard in evidence. Secondly, it impacts on you as the person responsible for governance to 30 identify where gaps emerge. In other words, where there’s a trend in the workplace that emerges and you find you’re not able to cover it or to present nuanced data about it, that gives you an opportunity to look at it and to see. That’s what, I think, we’re asking you to do here?Yes.

35 So just could I take each of those just quickly in turn. Here, your data did allow you to spot that problem in a broad sense; is that correct?Broadly, yes.

Yes. So you could say, “Look, I can’t say what extent the backlog or the lag is caused by noncompliance with administrative requirements,” as opposed to 40 noncompliance – or tardy compliance might be a fairer term ?Yes.

with the investigative requirements. You’ve identified those things, you’ve raised them, and then you’ve pointed to what might be called the need for an ad hoc strategy to deal with it, and that’s what we’re seeing in the strategic plan. Could I just turn to the issues – and then in discussion with Commissioner White you referred to the issue of how do we address it, how do you make the workload easier for the workers? Some of those reforms, if you like, technological advances, easing

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4778 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY the load and so on might assist you in your role as governance as well, and I wanted to ask you about that. At the moment you don’t have sufficient oversight, do you, of – once an investigation has gone outside of the 28 day period, your data has a bit of a gap in terms of where such an investigation has got up to; is that a fair general 5 comment to make?Yes. Yes, it would be.

If workers were to be equipped with technology – I will give you an example, it’s just an example for the purposes of argument here, but it might capture a few options that exist. If workers had iPads, if they were able to tick a particular box of a – and I 10 mean with a single click to say, “I have now completed this phase”, and that could be stored centrally, that sort of data would be retrievable by you and give you the opportunity to advise both the managers below and importantly the executives above, at your meeting, what the state of play was in a particular region; is that true?I think what you’re saying, could technology give us the better clues about the performance 15 indicators in an investigation?

Correct. That’s precisely what I’m asking?Yeah. Okay. Look, it wouldn’t be a hindrance at all. It would absolutely help to be able to unpack where things are at. But as a caution to that though, just using the example, if you had the performance 20 indicator, “Has the child been sighted during the investigation.” You could tick that, and that would be favourable, but not all investigations just require you to check that once. It could be that it’s a more complex investigation, so it would actually be of high benefit that you sight the child more than once. So I’m saying yes it would be highly beneficial, but I just wouldn’t want us to be putting the caveats around that 25 box has been checked, so all is done, because that’s not always

COMMISSIONER GOODA: That’s a software issue, isn’t it, how it’s designed? Yeah. I

30 I think Mr Morrissey is asking about the concept, using the technology?Yeah. The concept would be valuable. At least you could say, “In this investigation, these key performance indicators have been met.” I guess I would hold that reservation that, just because those individual boxes have been checked, doesn’t mean there’s extra work that needs to be done. I guess is the 35 MR MORRISSEY: I think – may I say this, what you’re doing there is showing an appropriate and sensitive recognition that useful data for you as a compliance person is not going to exhaust best practice for the people on the ground and what they need to do. Is that a ? ..... 40 Does that capture your – the caveat that you’ve ?Thank you.

You’ve raised? Yes. Alright. Thanks very much. So let’s just proceed on with that, though. I think we’ve heard from other witnesses as well, and human common sense and best practice also dictates, it is important to conclude investigations in a timely manner and the imposition of a 28 day deadline was not merely an aspirational goal

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4779 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY but recognised the human importance of concluding investigations a timely way. Is that a fair comment to make?Yes.

And it often happens in that – in a situation where a notification has occurred that, 5 and bearing in mind the steps that I sketched out earlier for you, the decision on whether or not to remove a child when such a situation occurs is on many occasions made at that very first safety assessment; is that correct?Not always.

No. Certainly not always?No. 10 Yes?So

You’re correct. You pull me up when I put a question generally, and that’s correct to do that, that is at least a viable option that happens on occasion?So again the 15 language of a safety assessment, that’s the assessment that’s happening is a central intake phase. So the decision to remove a child may not – it won’t necessarily happen there, but it will certainly influence how quickly do we need to go out the door, because the information is suggesting that child is more at risk of harm, so it could be that our responsiveness to get out there is faster because we think there’s an 20 imminent risk.

Yes. I think what you – and there what you – the priority 1, 2 or 3 is a tool that’s relevant at that phase?Correct.

25 When intake is ?Yes.

But what I’m referring is the initial assessment that is done when contact is made? Okay.

30 So once central intake have referred the matter with an appropriate prioritisation, I’m referring to the step immediately after?Yes.

So you agree that at that phase to which I’m referring that it is very often the case that where a child is removed it is removed at that point?Potentially. 35 For one or another acute reasons, as perceived by the workers who go there at the time. Alright. So just taking that step. So if you take a serious allegation, say for example a child that’s suffered a fracture, case workers attend and they decide it’s necessary at first instance to remove that child. Now, what we’ve heard is that there 40 may be – I believe that there was evidence given, it’s going to be tendered at a later time by Ms Brown who was the principal legal officer, there might be four or five such urgent removals every week or even more on occasion. Does that sound right to you?It could well be, yes.

45 Alright. Now, just take the example of a family that lives remotely?Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4780 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY So families within the purview of CAALAS and others, but not limited to that, of course. If a child has been urgently removed, they will be likely placed centrally in Alice Springs or Darwin in a central location. If the investigation is not completed promptly within the 28 days that could – that poses the spectre that it might be many 5 weeks and possibly even months before the child is returned, even if the investigation is ultimately one of not substantiated. Do you agree with that?It’s plausible.

Yes. Now, that – you need in a sense, as a governance issue, to have oversight as to 10 whether an office has got a lag because it’s just overworked, it hasn’t employed staff, it has got illness, it has got all sorts of issues that it might have. You need – or it would be ideal for you to have that sort of oversight?I think it’s ideal for the agency completely to have that oversight, yes.

15 Yes?Yes.

Right now, there are shortcomings in that, aren’t there?In the data, do you mean?

Yes?Yes. Certainly you could keep drawing indicators together to paint a way more 20 fulsome picture, so there’s always room for development that way.

And with respect to picking up the points of discussion with Commissioner Gooda before, it’s always going to be better for front-line staff to be more plentiful?Yes.

25 And no one’s opposing that, but in terms of technological solutions what do you say to that? That it might be if the sorts of measures are in place, you would have, in your governance role, oversight of an office saying, “We’ve got an increased lag at this office or in this region.” And that’s something where at the moment you’re limited to the sort of general insights that you expressed in those meetings; is that 30 correct?More data would be useful.

Yes. And I understand you’ve always made the caveats: don’t overstate what gathering that data will do, there’s still discretionary decisions that have to be make and – made?That’s correct. Yes. 35 Feel free to remind us of it, if you think you need to, but I think you’ve made that pretty clear on the way along. Can we just come to the 28 day guideline once again, and then we will finish that issue. Your evidence on the last occasion was that there is indeed a policy to complete the investigations in 28 days, but for operational reasons that time period is often extended. You made a comment too, which I will test you about a bit later on, you said it’s an aspirational target. I want to be putting to you that it’s – it should be a bit more than that, but before we get to that point I just wanted to ask you about the extension process. You mentioned that there is capacity for there to be an extension to be made. What I wanted to ask you about is: is there a policy governing how an extension is made? In other words, is there a standard policy as to how a worker requests that an extension are made? Is there a policy as to the granting of such extensions and, as a follow-up, how is that recorded

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4781 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY and is that visible to you when it has happened? So that’s three questions, but see how you go?First question is there a formal policy?

Yes?No. Is there a formal process for extension? 5 Yes?No. Is it documented – I think it would be more of a documentation at the supervision level that would occur.

Yes?So the practitioners would be reporting back to their team leaders, who I would 10 absolutely expect are asking the questions, “How is this investigation going?” “We’re up to this point, we still have this work to do.” It would be that discussion, but there’s no, “You must document this.”

Yes?To my knowledge. 15 So I understand there may be discretionary reasons why a worker and their supervisor ?Yes.

Might need some flexibility as to how that’s done but at the moment what you’re 20 saying is there’s no standard way in which that question has to be addressed across the Territory or even within the cell of each region; is that correct?There is no formal policy regarding it. I could make an assumption that individual officers may have something more mechanical to monitor it. I do understand officers keep their own spreadsheets to do some of that more formal tracking, but I would say it was a 25 more localised way of recording.

And following from that, I guess it follows that that data is not – that data, if it exists at the moment, is not made available to you in your oversight capacity?Correct. Yes.

30 So we’ve heard, you know – so in terms of what was – Ms Hancock gave evidence. She was a residential work – former residential worker and she gave evidence to the Commission and she said:

It was quite common practice for an urgent placement to turn into a much 35 longer placement.

That’s something that does happen from time to time?Mmm.

Now, in those circumstances the 28 days is – shouldn’t be merely an aspirational 40 target, should it?Poor choice of words on my part. I will absolutely acknowledge – absolutely acknowledge that. Just taking a step back, though, sometimes an urgent placement becomes a longer one.

Yes?That can be for all the right reasons too, because as you’re conducting your investigation you’re finding out – gathering more information that then formulates the assessment, “Well, there may be more to this picture than what first met the eye.”

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4782 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY So it’s not inappropriate, if you’re gathering the information that says returning the child safely to their family cannot happen urgently, they do need to stay in care until we remedy or work with the family, until it is safe. So yeah.

5 Yes?It is appropriate.

I think – I don’t think anyone is suggesting that there should never be power to seek an extension?Yes.

10 But I think the thrust of these questions is at the moment it seems that the discretion to extend the 28 day period appears to be unchecked. Are you aware of any checks upon it at the moment by way of policy?Again, just to repeat, to my understanding there’s no formal policy, but again we do have the data that just does at least at a bare minimum just says of this office there are this many cases that haven’t been finalised 15 in 28 days. That’s a good clue to have, a good piece of information to have.

Yes?But I can’t answer to having the supporting documentation about how then the officers manage those.

20 I think the shortcoming that I sought to put to you last time – I think you explained it even better. The short coming with that tool is although you can see where an office is developing a significant backlog ?Yes.

it may be that some of that is relatively innocent in the sense it’s just 25 administrative?Correct.

There could be a number of causes for that, but you don’t have the tools to look past that at the moment ?No.

30 do you?No.

And it means that the governance that you’re providing is just necessarily blunt and general and one might say preliminary in nature?I would agree with that, yes.

35 Yes. Alright. Thanks. Now, if we turn to the strategies. The workload management strategy was implemented in January this year. You’re familiar with that – with the document. Just while we – sorry, that’s JS5. Could we just have JS5 up on the screen here. May I just offer for tender too, before I forget Commissioners, the document – the supplementary tender bundle 149 to which I referred earlier. 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 515.149.

EXHIBIT #515.149 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 149 45

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4783 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Now, just having a look at this – this strategy here. This is the document which I referred to earlier, and I quoted, saying the northern region is struggling. Now, you were familiar with the formulation of this particular strategic response?I have seen the document. 5 Yes. Thank you, okay. So do you have any concerns – do you have and are you aware of any concerns that implementation of strategies like this one, and there have been several, might have some adverse results, or there’s a danger that they’ll have some adverse results? I’ll put two of them to you: one of them, overworked case 10 workers might rush investigations in order to comply with the policy. And secondly, overworked case workers might feel as if they’re being directed to close files. They might feel that pressure even though, of course, you can’t imagine they would be told explicitly, “Close regardless of merit.” Nevertheless, you understand what I’m getting at there? That they might feel that. Could you comment on that – those 15 potential dangers?Can you rename the first one.

Yes. I will, sorry. So the dangers are, number 1, that the case workers might rush investigations and number 2 they might feel like they are being directed to close investigations. These issues, I’m putting to you, really arise from Children’s 20 Commissioner concerns?Okay.

So just could you comment on each of those please?It has been a long time since I’ve been in front-line, so certainly the feeling that you’re having to rush your investigations and I know, from some of the evidence that’s come out most recently, 25 staff do feel that way.

What do you make

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Can I ask, then, what quality assurance measures are 30 put in place to make sure that that doesn’t happen?I think, Commissioner, some of the indicators that we discussed before. The one example – just to be sure a good investigation should have some key performance indicators in it, so (a) has the child been signature, for example, have the parents been engaged?

35 No, but I mean the report?Okay.

Does someone randomly go through the reports and say, “Well, that’s okay.” Or is there a random assessment – like, that’s what quality assurance is?Yes.

It’s making sure the guidelines are being adhered to?Yeah. I think in any – I probably – there’s two caveats I probably want to put around this. I’m familiar with the workload management strategies, but how they are actually imparted on the ground I don’t feel I can talk to in the detail that the Commission is probably wanting, but certainly I know that we’re in the risky area of business anyway. Child protection is full of risk, every day, every case, every matter that we attend to, and I appreciate that there would be concern that doing a workload management strategy may have an element of increased risk, but I also want to assure the Commission

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4784 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY what I’ve seen when these workload management strategies been put into place is also a comparable effort to put risk mitigation strategies in. So, for example, the couple that I’ve seen we will put more senior officers on to assessing, “Is this case really ready for closure?” We won’t put the junior staff into that decision-making. It 5 will always have a more senior officer. I think one of the people yesterday said there will always be a point of view difference on managing the under fives, because we know they’ve more vulnerable. So I guess I’m wanting to say I’m not dismissing that it may create risk, but what I also see in our workforce is an inherent will to make sure that there’s suitable risk mitigation strategies in place if we have to deploy 10 this strategy, as best as possible.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Just on that issue, could we I just go on the second page, please. I will have a couple more minutes of questioning on this topic, if I may. Here it states that part of the strategy is that a review of the open cases by 15 experienced workers, which I think is consistent with what you just said, ensuring the investigation activities have been appropriate. When you look a little bit further down the page it says:

Where the reviewer is confident that the case can be closed, the following 20 policy requirements will not be completed.

And it sets out the steps that I put to you earlier on: safety assessment, risk assessment, summary report and case closure document. Now, here, it appears that the – once again, Territory Families’ reporting system is not going to have oversight 25 of what work is being done through your methods. This is going to fall to, in a sense, a cold case methodology of the manager reviewing these files; is that right?Yes. So we were talking a little bit earlier about reducing red tape, so some of what you were just referring to there of truncating the documentation, the system will not pick that up. I’m just trying to think of a way to explain it. So once content is documented 30 into a Word document, that’s not going to give the system enough clues to go, “Aha these actions have been taken.” If that kind of makes sense.

Yes, it does. Just in terms of that though, although one might say this can be broadly categorised as cutting red tape, you can’t really categorise a – one might say a 35 leaping over the topic of safety assessment or indeed risk assessment as cutting red tape. That’s substantive assessment, isn’t it?The actual tool

Yes? called a safety assessment won’t be completed, but I’m very aware that this workload management strategy still required practitioners to make an assessment of 40 safety and risk, albeit in a document that looked different. So I’m certainly not suggesting that those two key elements of an investigation were overlooked. The documentation still compels staff to make sure that they were documenting the assessment from the work with their family on what is the safety for this child and what are any risks for this child? It’s just how that got recorded was in a different 45 format.

But is it by way of a paper review?It could have been, yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4785 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Could I just quickly – just for time reasons, I’m sorry there’s a lot more that could be said about that, as I’m sure you appreciate, but I just want to turn to some financial implications of this if I could. If we just turn a further page over here. Can we just turn a further page over, sorry. Thank you. So do you have – just I’ll take you to a 5 little bit of this. It’s really just there to indicate the sort of thing I’m talking about. I won’t grill you about the actual figures. But here in the financial implication section the final sentence notes that the northern region is well over budget, can’t fund the initiative. However the southern region, if we just turn over the page quickly now, to the next page, the southern region is underspent and so it could fund it. Do you 10 know yourself whether that approach was adopted?Sorry, I can’t answer that question.

Are you aware of whether that approach has within adopted in our situations?Not – no, I’m not having any recollection of that. 15 No?No.

Just – we’re just dealing with Mr Fletcher’s evidence yesterday that the Katherine office simply couldn’t cope with its workload. Is it fair to say the Department’s 20 strategy seems to be to use savings caused by staff shortages in other areas, arguably causing backlogs in those areas, to pay for a temporary additional staff in the northern region to catch up with their backlog. Is that what it looks like?I’m sorry, I don’t I’ve still got the previous document on my screen.

25 Yes. You don’t

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Isn’t that the obvious conclusion from the top two dot points.

30 MR MORRISSEY: Well, that’s really what I’m asking the witness to acknowledge and comment upon. You see that that seems to be what has happened? That they found money in the southern, region, because they didn’t spend it, because they had staff shortages, they had it to spend here. I just wanted to ask you that. I mean, it looks like a ?I guess 35 A most temporary, ad hoc, and unsustainable approach. Are you able to comment on that?I guess the comment I would like to make, Commissioners, is that it’s, although regions have their individual buckets it’s a Territory Families bucket of money for the services of delivering care and protection to children and families, so I just see it 40 as a deployment of funds for the agency being deployed where they’re in need. I have underspent too, and I’ve funded projects from other divisions, so I take it to mean it’s agency wide budget used to deliver agency-wide services.

Can I just ask you the final question on that topic is: do you see that as an area of concern, in other words does the Department move this moving of money from one bucket to another, to use your term, as a practice that they would prefer to do away

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4786 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY with, and if so is there a strategy in place to do that, or are you not aware?I’m not aware.

If you’re not aware, I’m not going to grill you about it. Thank you. I will move to 5 another issue. Could we just move to the minutes of the meeting on May 2017. Now, this is supplementary tender bundle 150 here. Thank you. And if we can just go please – do you recognise this report? Is this one that you authored?Yes.

Yes. Thanks. Can we go to page 8683 of that report and have a look at the – yes, 10 sorry. Need to go to a different page, sorry. 6870. There’s a graph here which I would like to ask you to have a quick look at. And what this is going to show, when you see it, is that it shows a fairly substantial spike in the substantiation of investigations for the periods of August 2015 on to April 2017. Do you see that?Yes.

15 Do you see that there’s a significant spike in February 2016?Could you just scroll. It’s just cutting over the page at the moment.

Sorry, are you okay?Yes, that’s better. A spike in February, yes, that’s correct.

20 Okay. So you see that?Yes.

Now, could I just ask you this: do you know whether that spike was the result of any particular workload management strategy?I don’t. Certainly my recollection, when we noted the increase in substantiations I think we also made reference to the fact 25 that area was going to conduct a piece of work that did do a practice reflection on substantiations to try and understand that data change. So I can’t categorically say whether it was linked to any workload management strategies or not.

Just – so if we could go to page – yes, if we could just go back to 6863, and I know 30 it’s difficult to jump around these old reports because you’re in charge of many of them. If we go halfway down the page, the dot point under the first graph there, you make this comment:

More child protection cases will close compared to quarter 3 of 2015/16. A 35 proportion of the increase in the number of cases closed is attributable to the northern region workload management strategy which commenced in January 17.

?Okay. Yes – yep. 40 So does that refresh your memory a bit? Perhaps I should have taken you to that first of all?Yeah. All I would like to say is certainly, if they were closing more cases, that is – that is great. But whether more of those closed cases from the workload management strategy resulted in substantiations, I can’t comment on. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4787 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Yes. Alright. Well, just on that topic though, this significant increase – so you get – in February, you get a spike because there was a strategy, resources were thrown at it pursuant to the strategy document we just saw, but it doesn’t look as if that, in fact, resulted in any increase in children entering care and, in fact, it looks as if there was 5 a drop. Now, are you aware of that?Numbers of children entering care have remained quite stable over a financial – financial years, not just months.

If we can just go to page 5, that’s .6865 and to the heading Children in Out-of-Home Care. Although we had a spike in February we don’t seem to have a significant 10 increase in children entering care in that time?Yes.

The Children’s Commissioner raised an issue about this concerning that there was pressure on case workers to unwittingly manipulate case closure procedures in order to meet the ..... and I just wanted your comment on that. Do you think there’s a 15 danger that happened?An unwitting

Well, there was a – the Commissioner noted the pressure. They were talking about pressure, they weren’t talking about outcomes, they were saying there’s a danger. But they pointed to it: pressure on case workers to unwittingly manipulate case 20 closure procedures. In other words, pressure to close the case, because we don’t have any increase at all of children going into care I’m asking for your comment on that?Two things. Pressure to close cases. Look, in local offices it could be that the number of investigations open for a longer period of time could well have said, “Look, we really do need to attend to these to make sure that we’re still attending to 25 incoming business.” But how that correlates to less children entering care, all I can say is it’s just the data gave us the clue that said something – there’s a picture here, but I don’t have all the information to unpack why that picture is so.

Just to conclude that, what further information would you want?Certainly – I mean, 30 one of the ways that we’ve approached it in the past is to analyse a sample of cases. That’s some of the work that our team does, just to go what is the practice story underpinning these data trends? It won’t give you the full picture, it might again give you some more clues. That would be one suggestion that we could do to better understand it, but what more data we would require, I’m not too sure to be honest. 35 Yeah.

Look, I’m very grateful you have patiently borne with questions concerning compliance, and I want to turn to a different topic now if I may. And the topic now that I go to is the issue of reportable incidents, particularly with a focus on reportable 40 incidents relating to kids in care. Kids who are in the care of the Department here? Yep.

So – and we will just see how – what – how the Department can deal with that issue. Now, could we just go to the safety and wellbeing minutes, please. So this is 45 supplementary tender bundle 56. Do you recognise that document headed Concerns for the Safety and Wellbeing of a Child in Care meeting minutes?I’m familiar with the template, yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4788 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY So that’s – this is really by way of a case – sorry, we don’t think that has got any identifying information but we’ve made mistakes. I have made mistakes before so if anyone spots it we will quickly have it taken down. We think it’s okay. Thanks. Sorry. Now, so this is a meeting – the document that you have there is really the 5 minutes of a meeting convened to discuss concerns about particular residential care facilities; is that right?It’s in response to a concern for the safety of a child, yes.

The issue is that some of those facilities are calling the police very repeatedly, presumably as a reaction to behaviour by the children at the facility?It happens. 10 It happens. And you’re aware that the sort of behaviour that’s varies widely from some – on occasions quite serious criminal behaviour?Yes.

On the one hand?Yes. 15 To the other end of the spectrum it sometimes is very trivial behaviour?Yes.

And looks like it represents an overreaction of the carer in the premises?Yes.

20 Alright. Thanks for that. The Commission has heard a lot of evidence on this and it appears that this contact with the police in the out-of-home care facilities is a funnel, or at least a link, by which some children come from the child protection world into the criminal justice world. Sometimes they’ve been called crossover kids and that’s the issue that’s been identified. Can I just ask whether it’s – just excuse me. On the 25 screen in front of you there’s – you’ve – you’re recorded as making certain comments. Do you actually recall this particular one?I actually don’t. No.

Alright. Well, just do the best you can, given it’s a recording of what you’ve said. You see here: 30 The concerns raised are largely a by-product of systemic issue in these facilities and are best addressed through more strategic means.

So you went on to say: 35 The Department needs to stop and consider how we support placements to ensure they have the competency to care for children and what constructive activities are in place to engage our children. The reportable incident data is very high and the top issue is children absconding. 40 Now, just – that was a candid response by you as to the problems, some of the problems as you saw it; correct?Appears so. Yes.

You’ve heard the – and you’ve heard – I’m not sure if you’re aware, but you may have heard Ms Hancock on Monday giving evidence. She estimated that somewhat in the realms of 90 per cent of children at both Safe Pathways and Anglicare, where

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4789 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY she worked, actually absconded in that period of time?I couldn’t answer to that figure.

You don’t dispute that .....?Certainly absconding it high, yes, I will – yeah, I agree 5 with that.

And she also raised issues that case workers at those facilities were undertrained. Some workers never received any training over 2.5 years that she was there. Can you say anything about that?I think it’s a workforce that would absolutely benefit 10 from more training opportunities. I think it’s – without being disparaging of the staff, it’s a non-professional workforce, it’s a non-skilled workforce, so certainly anything that upskills their capabilities and competencies to care for complex children is absolutely advantageous.

15 Yes. Thanks. Very well. Now, I just – I think you’ve made it clear in your own response that it looks to be a systemic issue. That sort of response. And I just wanted to ask you about that if you could just help the Commission here explaining: how does the Department address that issue? You’ve identified it as an issue?Yes.

20 Has the Department commenced a response to that sort of issue?Yes, several. Several, in fact. So certainly some of the ones I could talk to now is obviously the Government’s commitment to outsource residential care services into the non- government sector, so that will all come around into the entire framework about not only getting it into the non-government sector, but certainly what the expectations 25 are, how we deliver those services. I’m aware that we’re increasing the training co- share, for want of a better word, training opportunities between our staff and the non- government staff, will all benefit from the same training opportunities, so opening up the doors to one another’s training. Certainly, I know – and you’ve got Ms Couch coming to the stand shortly, but I know that she has instigated conversations on a 30 quarterly basis with her residential care providers and has brought police into that conversation as well to tackle this particular issue of residential care services calling the police for all manner of things. So yeah, very active progress has been made.

Yes. 35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is she the person to speak to in more detail about how you actually go about evaluating the appropriateness of the residential care providers?Yes, Commissioner. Yes.

40 MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Commissioners, could I just indicate I hadn’t indicated to take this much further with this witness ..... deal with that with Ms Couch.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: But there are – there is an issue I would like to ask you about, and that’s one might say governance and oversight of those non-government institutions that are providing care, whether it be residential care in the residential

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4790 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY home facility or what is known as purchased out-of-home care. Can I ask you, at the moment, what data do you have or is made available to you concerning the compliance of firstly the current government residential homes with their obligations?A great question. Certainly, at the moment our – well, Ms Couch may 5 have more data than I have access to, so it’s something that I don’t believe is extracted out of the systems that we’ve spoken to earlier on. But certainly, again, that’s another piece of reform work underway is the accreditation of residential care services, whether it’s internal or external, to be able to identify what are those performance measures, who’s meeting them, who needs to do more work or – so 10 that’s definitely something in train. Again Ms Couch might be able to talk to that way better than I can.

I think we’ll ask her about the reform proposals?Yes.

15 But thanks for indicating that they exist. But I guess what I’m asking you to speak about now is, in terms of the resicare, what has there been in place up until now by way of your sort of auditing or governance oversight by the meeting of those institutions – just the government resicare ones ?Yes.

20 of their obligations?My division’s line of sight on that is limited because – certainly the conversations around that is definitely something happening in the out- of-home care division.

Yes. What have you – what oversight have you got now and what more would you 25 like? I understand there is a discussion, but what have you got at the moment of the resicare?Limited in what – certainly, the data that I have access is to is a little bit colloquially – sometimes the data that comes into the governance division at the moment is the data where it hasn’t gone quite right. So certainly I don’t have the line of sight of where things are actually going quite well, so using the reportable 30 incidents, for example, that has only given me a picture of where something is going not quite right here. Or complaints, for example, I do get a lot of data that says there’s an issue that needs attending to, where my line of sight is – isn’t going – will actually put those to one side, where’s the wealth of stuff that is going right? And I don’t have much exposure to that. 35 Yes, I understand. Thank you for that. And so it’s reactive?Certainly, a lot of the business that comes through our division, yes.

In terms of complaints how are the number of complaints arising from out-of-home 40 care facilities, particularly resicare, how is that brought to your attention?So certainly the Children’s Commissioner. She may have, when she was on the stand, talked about how she refers complaints into the Department and certainly providers can also come in and complain direct to the agency as well.

May I just ask you a little bit about that process, and Ms Couch will give more detail, but it could affect on – it could bear upon how you deal with things too. What is the situation, when a complaint comes in of that nature, is it investigated in the same way

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4791 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY that a complaint made in relation to a child in a normal situation, not in resicare. Is it investigated the same way?In my statement I do talk to how we assess complaints and certainly I do recall saying in there it isn’t an investigation per se. I’m not dismissing some complaints will require a formal investigation. They are low in 5 number. But certainly every complaint is assessed.

Very well. Just turning briefly to your oversight of children in the care of the Department who are placed in purchased care. What do you have by way of visibility of how those providers meet their obligations? Do you have any?Not 10 directly, no.

Do you understand – have you ever raised that, or has it ever been raised with you as an issue, that a large number of children who are obviously vulnerable children, are placed in a situation where – an expensive situation, one might say – where you 15 don’t have any ability to advise senior executive level of your branch?I think we need to separate out what my visibility is and what that of another executive director has. So I feel entirely confident that the executive director of out-of-home care has that line of sight. I certainly don’t want the Commission to think just because it doesn’t come to me directly as a numerical integer or a piece of information that 20 there is not awareness of it in the agency.

But just on that, I appreciate what you say: there may be another line of visibility? Correct, yes.

25 But you’re saying that you don’t have that?No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that Ms Couch’s role?Yes. There’s a division

Well, we will talk to her about it then? ..... has a line of sight on that. 30 MR MORRISSEY: We will, but I think just in terms of how the discussions proceed I would like to ask one further question about that: are you aware whether, in fact, she has got a line of visibility into the meeting by those purchased home care providers of their obligations?I believe so, but I really would like Ms Couch to 35 respond to that.

Yes. I think the Commissioners would too?Okay.

So I think I will ..... 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Given that we don’t have much time, Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: Can we just conclude my part here with the – with a question about the recommendations register. So this is exhibit 494 if that could be brought up, please, and which is the – sorry, I’m just going to get one brought up. I appreciate these are small, but I would like to go to that. Just excuse me a moment.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4792 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY We will zoom in on the correct spot. So four from the bottom. A shaded line four from – we’re heading in the right direction. If we can go a little bit closer, please. So here you’ve explained on the previous occasion, and just looking at that document, you see here there’s a requirement that clear direction is provided to CIT 5 staff in relation to the application of the STM tool. That’s the tool you referred to earlier?Yes.

And the assessment of a household. Now, that’s the requirement. Can we just then turn to what was done in the next column?Mmm. 10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: So clever.

MR MORRISSEY:

15 All CIT staff receive appropriate training in use of the STM tool.

And it refers to the policy manual. Can you explain what that means and what level of oversight you were able to provide to the senior executives as to what happened? So you’re asking the question on what level of oversight to 20 Well, looking at this chart?Yes.

Can you just interpret what does that mean? Does it mean that the decision was taken that nothing more needed to be done because there was a reference to it in the 25 policy manual?No, that’s not correct. So in being able to close that recommendation it required us to liaise and to sight what training was being delivered or had been delivered to central intake staff. So certainly I know – I guess I can’t see the date line reference to that.

30 Perhaps we can zoom back out?It might have been 2013/14.

Correct?So certainly for us to close that the line of sight we had was for us to affirm that central intake staff were receiving appropriate training in the use of STM assessment. We would have liaised with central intake to form that opinion; we 35 would have liaised with our workforce and training people to form that opinion; but certainly since 2013 the world has changed significantly since then, so I know that there has been enhancements to that training with the Children’s Research Centre over time. So what you’re seeing is a point in time reflection of had we done enough action to close that recommendation but that doesn’t mean further work hasn’t 40 occurred.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Just excuse me. Might I take this opportunity to tender supplementary tender bundle 56. I believe it will become exhibit 515.056.

45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Correct. Exhibit 515.056 for that ..... meeting minutes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4793 L. WHARBURTON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY EXHIBIT #515.056 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 56 MEETING MINUTES

5 MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, there’s some overlap with my questions with those of my learned friends and it seems appropriate that if I cease and let them start now I can sweep anything that’s missed, but it might be the most efficient way to proceed.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Morrissey. Dr Dwyer, I think. She might like to go next.

DR DWYER: Ms Wharburton, my name is Peggy Dwyer, I appear for NAAJA. You are well aware, of course, of the level of trauma of many indigenous children who go into residential care. You’ve just given evidence that residential care 20 facilities are often staffed by non-professional and a non-skilled workforce. Some of those workers will have had no experience working with indigenous young people at all. You’re nodding in agreement?Yeah, I am. Yes.

And that’s of concern to you, isn’t it, as the head of governance?It is a concern, yes. 25 It underscores, doesn’t it, the need for NT Families to focus on the Aboriginal placement principle and supporting Aboriginal families to keep their children wherever possible; correct?Certainly. Yes.

30 What qualitative efforts or data is kept to ensure the compliance with the Aboriginal Placement Principle?So certainly the data to note whether an Aboriginal child who has had to enter care is placed in an Aboriginal placement is a value that is extracted and reported on in the monthly performance reports. So certainly it is something that can be monitored. 35 Many workers with NT Families – we’ve heard about a regular turnover of staff, the difficulty that NT Families have attracting staff, and many of the staff members will not have had familiarity themselves with Aboriginal people; correct?Yes.

40 Is there a way of monitoring how well staff understand and implement the Aboriginal Placement Principle?That’s a good question. Is there a way of monitoring?

Yes?That is a good question. I have to give that one some thought. Look, to monitor their understanding of the Aboriginal ...... 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4794 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER Yes. And to record the way in which they are absorbing the importance of it, the principles and implementing it in practice?I just don’t want to give that answer disservice. It would have to – surely have to be multiple ways.

5 Do you – I beg your pardon?Yes. I was listening to Ms Havnen’s statement – evidence earlier, I just don’t want to be flippant to say that putting staff through an Aboriginal child principle training is sufficient, it’s not. Watching their application and the interaction with families would be another way of monitoring have they understood it, but that would be a very situational thing. It would have to be so 10 multidimensional for us to form that opinion with the level of robustness I think you’re wanting.

The

15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, can I ask you this then: can you think of a circumstance where a case worker doesn’t seem to have absorbed that imperative at all, and therefore is either found a different position in the Department which doesn’t require to do this work or something of that kind?I don’t know if I could name a specific example, Commissioner. I do hold a reasonable degree of confidence that 20 our practitioners do understand the requirements of the legislation: Aboriginal children should be placed with Aboriginal families. I believe that concept is well understood. What I do believe our practitioners struggle with is, if the child has to be removed into a placement on an emergency basis, the work that is required to liaise with the family for them to sit down with us and talk about all the family members, 25 who are the strong family members, who are the family members they don’t consider suitable. Where I see the workforce struggling is (a) the time that takes bringing the parties together, all the things you’ve heard over the last few days of evidence, bringing the interpreters to the table. Once we identify a family member that may be suitable the time is then takes to put them through an assessment to then verify their 30 suitability. It’s so multidimensional, it’s complex. And I certainly see a workforce that is committed to do their best to try it but it’s not without its difficulties in implementing it often in a timely way.

DR DWYER: And very difficult to implement in circumstances where you’re 35 dealing with a workforce who don’t have a deep understanding of the kinship connections in Aboriginal culture?I would agree, yes.

Do you think there is a way in which NT Families can improve monitoring how the Aboriginal placement is implemented in practice?I can only sit here and say as a 40 proportion of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care system it would absolutely be something that would be of high benefit, to be sure that we are giving due credit to make sure that Aboriginal Placement Principle is practiced with rigour – that it does deserve, yes.

Ms Wharburton, the Commission heard from Professor Silburn today, who looking at the statistics of children moved into residential care. You would be familiar with the statistics generally that show there were 147 children in 2000 in out-of-home care in

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4795 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER the Northern Territory, in 2015 there were 1067. That’s an enormous leap up, of course. And an enormous number of Aboriginal people – Aboriginal children who are not placed in kinship care but placed in the out-of-home care system, you would agree?They are – and other placements in the out-of-home care system. Yeah. 5 That is of great concern to you as the head of governance, isn’t it?It’s concerning, yes.

Have you raised that with the executive leadership group that meets?Ms Dwyer, the 10 data does speak to itself. It doesn’t need a specific paragraph in a report. The data says what the data is.

Alright. Is the issue? ......

15 Is it – rather than just this specific data, is the issue of compliance with the Aboriginal Placement Principle and the increasing number of children in resicare raced at the level of the executive leadership group?Repeat that please.

Sure. Is the issue of compliance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle ? 20 Yes.

on the one hand and the rise of numbers in children in out-of-home care raised at the level of the executive leadership group?The data that identified how many Aboriginal children are placed or not placed with their kinship carers is visible in the 25 monthly performance report that is tendered to executive. So yes, it is raised that way.

And does the executive leadership group discuss an action plan for addressing those? Not specific to that particular item, no. 30 Should it?Look, I think it’s – the planning has to be for the whole out-of-home care system and its reform. So look, there should be the conversation. The data does speak for itself: we have more Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, we have less Aboriginal children given kinship care, absolutely. 35 You agree that the executive leadership group should focus on improving the ways in which Aboriginal families should be supported to keep their children?Absolutely, there is the desire to want to work in a way – whether it’s just in Territory Families or with our other agency counterparts, this has to bring housing around the table, it 40 has to bring health, it has to bring education, around how are we going to support families to grow up their own children? It’s – it’s more than ELG, it’s whole of agency, whole of NTG that has to be this approach.

Are there Aboriginal representatives on the executive leadership group?Yes, there is. 45 Who are they?Mr ..... Anderson.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4796 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER So there’s certainly room for raising the issue of the Aboriginal Placement Principle and how better to deal with it?Absolutely ..... yeah. I’m not saying it hasn’t been discussed.

5 At paragraph 123 of your statement you say that:

Most complaints are received from parents, families and carers, and very few from the young and young people themselves.

10 I take it from the thrust of your statement that you would like to see the system improved so that children have a greater say themselves?Certainly, and I understand that’s being supported in other evidence that the Commission has heard.

And as head of governance, you would accept that NAAJA can play an important 15 role in bringing a complaint on behalf of a child?We know you certainly have, yes.

Well, you certainly accept the legitimacy of that role for NAAJA?Yes.

Correct. And You know NAAJA acts on instructions ?Yes. 20 from the children or parents?Yes.

And you would like to see complaints dealt with in a constructive manner by your Department staff?Absolutely. 25 And you support an approach that is not defensive but focuses on addressing the issue and building relationships; correct?Working on a shared problem, yes.

Have you counselled your staff that that is the appropriate way in which to deal with 30 complaints?What do you mean, “counselled”?

Do you advise your staff, or do Territory Families, that when a complaint is received by a child or parent, put forward by NAAJA, it’s appropriate to deal with it in a constructive and non-defensive way?Absolutely. That’s how the area is led, yes. 35 And you would welcome any dialogue between the agencies to improve the way in which complaints are .....?Absolutely. We’ve got examples of it happening in practice now.

40 At present there – in terms of giving children a voice, there’s no independent Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner. You would support an Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner being appointed to assist in dealing with those .....?Certainly, the is the role of the Children’s Commissioner in its current form is valuable, so certainly recognising the population of Aboriginal Children, yes, it would be advantageous. 45 There’s – you’re familiar with the Northern Territory families policy. I’m getting the time up, so I will deal with two issues as quickly as I can. You’re familiar with the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4797 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER policy – and I won’t put it up, to save time – that siblings should be kept together unless there’s exceptional circumstances; correct?Mmm.

And, for the benefit of my learned friends, supplementary tender bundle 137. 5 Regrettably, many indigenous siblings are separated when they go into out-of-home care; correct?Mmm.

Sorry, you’re nodding. We just need a responsive?When you say many

10 A significant percentages of Aboriginal children are separated when they go into care?I don’t have a good line of sight on number.

And that’s my question?Yes.

15 Does the Department keep data so that we can determine how many Aboriginal children are separated when they go into care?I don’t believe there’s – I suggest it would be a figure that might need to be manually manipulated to achieve it. I just don’t think it’s something that is readily extractible to count that.

20 Do you agree that that’s worthwhile data so that you can then reflect on the trend? Finally, there’s another policy, STB127, leaving an aftercare support for young people. The department has a policy in place – I’m grateful to the operators – that shows the – says that:

25 NT Families us committed to supporting young people to make a successful transaction from care to independence and, where appropriate, young people can be provided can financial and other supports.

Are statistics kept on how many young people are helped financially and with other 30 support?Certainly, I know that we can count the number who have an open case of that particular type, and certainly I believe it could be – again, I don’t think it’s a ready figure that will come out of a system, but I think there would be a way to achieve it.

35 So sitting there now – I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining the data, are you able to tell the Commissioners the percentage of young people who move from being a child in care to receiving financial and other support .....?Not at that level of detail, no.

40 Do you agree that that’s useful data to retain to see if that system can be approved? Without a doubt.

Nothing further.

45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Dr Dwyer.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4798 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

MS GRAHAM: Ms Wharburton, my name is Felicity Graham, I appear for 5 CAALAS. Can we have up on the screen please exhibit 518 at page 5364. Ms Wharburton, Ben Mason – a former CAALAS lawyer – has provided some evidence to the Commission that he has serious concerns that around – in around late 2015 Territory Families began seeking long-term protection orders until children turned 18 and that that started becoming an automatic order that was sought by Territory 10 Families once a short-term protection order had expired. We can see there, if we look at the Central Australia work unit, this is the monthly performance report for April 2017, the southern region, that there were 250 children in out-of-home care, of which 242 were Aboriginal children, and 204 of those 250 children in Central Australia in care were under an order until the age of 18?Mmm. 15 You acknowledge that that’s a very large proportion of the children in care that were subject to such a long-term order?Mmm.

You’re nodding?A large proportion? 20 It’s over 80 per cent of the children in care that were subject to an order until the age of 18. Do you agree with that?Yeah. The number is what it is, yes.

And have you noticed in the data a shift in the policy or practice that there has been 25 an increase in the use of these long term orders until children are 18?Look, that’s a good question. Given that what’s on the screen is only a month, that’s hard to comment. I don’t recall if I’ve seen a shift in the long-term orders. I certainly know just recently we analysed that the number of orders on adjournment is starting to come down. I know that was also an issue for legal practitioners, but I’m unable to 30 comment on the trajectory of the long-term orders at this point.

Has that been a topic of discussion among the executive group the number of children subject to long term orders until the age of 18?I recall that we did talk about the growth in the numbers, yes. 35 And is that something that’s of concern to you, the growth in numbers?Look, I think it’s a – it’s a concern to have the growth but conversely – yeah, no, yeah, it would be a concern.

And particularly when we put that set of data together with the fact that only 33.1 per cent of Aboriginal children in the central Australian region are placed with an Aboriginal carer, when we put those two sets of data together, the fact that they’re on proportionately – a huge proportion until they’re 18, and not placed with Aboriginal carers, that must be a concern to you from a governance perspective?Yes. Look, certainly it is a concern, but certainly by virtue of them not being with a kinship carer if they’re on a long-term order, doesn’t mean the options to continue that have been

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4799 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM exhausted. I would reasonably believe we are still actively looking to transfer the child to a kinship placement in a large number of those.

And that would be borne out from the data if there has been an increase in 5 compliance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle ?You would expect.

over time?Yeah – yep.

You’re not able to say that that’s actually what, in fact, is happening though, that 10 there’s an increased ?Increased

compliance with the Aboriginal child placement ?No, certainly

principle? I think there’s a decrease, yep. 15 Can we go please to LW7 table 8. This is relating to concerns for children in care and there were 32 substantiated cases between July to December 2016?Mmm.

You’re aware because of the way that, on the ground, workers understand the 20 concept of harm to children or exploitation of children, that there’s a problem with how this data is interpreted in the sense that we can’t interpret the 340 findings of no abuse or neglect found to, in fact, mean that that child was not harmed or exploited or neglected in care because of the disconnect between assessing that either as being attributable to a parent or carer, or otherwise?I’m going to have to ask you to reframe 25 that, please.

Sure. If we can go perhaps two pages previously, understand Other Considerations, the report notes that:

30 Harm caused to a child by someone other than a parent or carer may have the outcome of no abuse or neglect found.

And, therefore, while the data is accurate ?Yes.

35 does not provide ?Yes.

an accurate reflection of harm ?Yes, that’s clear.

experienced by child in care of the CEO?Yes, that’s clearer. 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m not sure why you asked the question since the answer is in the paper.

MS GRAHAM: Well, if I can go back to the table, please, Commissioner, of the 704 cases that were in some category other than substantiated, what has your governance team done to review or provide some oversight to answer that question of whether those children in care have actually been harmed?Yep. So certainly

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4800 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM our role maintains quite active involvement in these cases. So certainly it’s not uncommon for us to have case coordination meetings when the region are about to affirm their substantiation decisions for practitioners removed from those cases to go, “We might have a different view”, or to offer some different professional opinions. 5 So we’ve certainly got that oversight there when outcomes are being decided.

You would certainly support the data for all of these cases going to the Children’s Commissioner so that she can provide some oversight in this area?Yeah. I certainly – I have read Commissioner Gwynne’s statement and I think she expressed concern 10 she may not be receiving all of them. If I understood Commissioner Gwynne’s statement correctly, that she may not – feels she may not be receiving the substantiated A3B matters, that’s not the case. Any substantiated matter of a child who has suffered harm in care has always been notified to the Children’s Commissioner, no exceptions. 15 The difficulty is that the Children’s Commissioner does not receive any of the cases in the categories other than the substantiated ?No, that’s correct.

category, and so ?Yes. And I know she has expressed 20 And you would support ? an interest in seeing those

And ? but currently we’re just adhering to the legislative requirement that we only report to her substantiated matters, but where the agency provides a lot of 25 information to the Commissioner she can issue notice to access, as I’ve talked about in my statement. Her remit is very broad. The agency would support that.

Support providing all of those cases to the Children’s Commissioner?If she wishes to have them all, but certainly it’s within her legislative framework to allow that to 30 happen.

Finally, does your area currently have sufficient data to investigate or review matters relating to children in detention who are also in the care of the Minister – care of the CEO, rather?Sorry, do we have a remit to? 35 I’ll withdraw the question and ask a different question?Sure.

In the monthly performance reports there is some data represented about the number of children that are in care that are in detention?Yep. 40 Are you aware that there’s some unreliability in relation to how that data is collected and put into the monthly performance reports?Unreliability?

That it’s based on whether or not the individual case workers happen to enter that 45 data into the system or not?That’s not correct.

That’s not correct?No, that’s not correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4801 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM Can you explain how that data is collected?I’m not the expert on it, but certainly my understanding is that we can do the linking behind the scenes of a case ID. So how I understand it is the Department of Attorney-General and Justice can give us the names of children who are in detention and behind the scenes we can map those to 5 children in out of home care. It’s not practitioner-dependent at all.

If that’s not currently happening, that’s something that you would certainly see – hope to see implemented soon?Certainly any implementation system that’s going to join up youth justice with child protection better is most welcome. 10 Does the data that you currently do have access to show the number of children on remand in care, as opposed to serving a sentence?I think we need to separate out – Territory Families has several client information systems it’s working with. So the community care information system, which child protection practitioners will use, I 15 don’t believe has a status of whether a child is on remand to be easily extractable. I think it’s IOMS or IJAS, I do confuse the two, is the Attorney-General and justice system, it’s recorded in that. At the moment those systems don’t interface or talk to one another, and that’s where, in the future, we want to create that connectivity to make this statistical analysis so much easier. 20 So the issue of children remaining on remand because Territory Families aren’t able to find a placement for them, that’s an important governance issue for you to be able to review in the future once this data is able to be collected and put together?Yeah, look, I think now that Territory Families has become much bigger agency with a 25 wider remit, getting the – the business intelligence for us to analysis and assess and project where we’re going and how we’re performing is something that’s maturing as we go. There’s still a lot of work to be done there.

Thank you, Commissioners. 30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR LAWRENCE: My name’s Lawrence. I’m engaged as counsel for the Danila Dilba Health Service. Are you aware of them?Yes.

40 Just in view of the breadth of Mr Morrissey’s questioning, following consultation with myself, my client does wish me to ask in relation to the issue of complaints coming in concerning children that are in care, I think you’ve given a bit of evidence about that. Does Territory Families have a policy in regards for responding to those complaints?Yes. I’ve annexed it to my statement. 45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we’ve dealt with that and it’s in the statement.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4802 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE MR LAWRENCE: And it’s there. Right. And how long has that been

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m only bundling you along because it’s half past 1 and we’re going to have a tiny little lunchtime before we meet again, Mr Lawrence. 5 MR LAWRENCE: Yes. That’s all I wanted to clarify really.

And how long has that been in place?Certainly a complaints policy has been in place, goodness, we’re talking a couple of – more than a couple of years. It’s been refined 10 over time but certainly it’s not a new policy, if I can frame it that way.

That’s all right?Yes.

That’s all. 15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Lawrence. Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: Leave has been granted, I believe, to two others.

20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

25 MR BELLACH: Thanks, Commissioners.

My name is Bellach. Ms Wharburton, my name is Bellach and I appear for witness DD, who’s a vulnerable witness. You’ve given some evidence about reportable 30 incidents and I wanted to ask you some further questions about that. You’ve annexed to your statement – and it’s at annexure LW9, policy for reportable incidents?Mmm.

And you’d accept that that policy includes absconding from Resicare placement or 35 an out-of-home care placement as a reportable incident?Mmm.

Now, are there obligations on Territory Families to tell parents that a child has absconded from a placement?That’s not something that is articulated in the policy nor the procedure to my memory. 40 Putting the policy and the procedure aside then, are there any other obligations that would require Territory Families to specifically advise a parent that their child has absconded?I would suggest it might be linked to the type of authority that the child is on. So certainly if we have a shared parental responsibility arrangement, I would 45 think that would be more than reasonable.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4803 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR BELLACH And in such a circumstance, taking that particular example that you’ve given, would you accept then that any sort of contact made with the parent, it should happen immediately while – while that situation is unfolding, while the child is at large. It shouldn’t be left to days or weeks later, next time there is contact between Territory 5 Families and the parent?I think there would be definitely a senses of immediacy. But certainly it’s also my experience that when – I’m not saying all, but I’m saying a lot of young people are actually absconding back to their family. They would be one of the first people to also know where the young person is.

10 And in those sort of circumstances, Territory Families would expect that the parents advise Territory Families that the child is ?That would be most useful. Yes.

Yes?Yes.

15 Now, I’ve asked you about those obligations of advising a parent in relation to Territory Families, but what about in relation to the carers that are providing that care in those Resicare homes or out-of-home home, what, if any, obligations are there on those carers to provide that same sort of immediate information to parents when a child does abscond?Certainly, the interface between a residential care provider and 20 the notification would be triangulated back through the case management team. I wouldn’t expect the residential care staff in notifying parents directly. It may happen, but certainly the contact between family and placement should be directed through the case management team.

25 Okay. So the expectation placed upon carers would be that ?To notify us, to notify an intern. Yes.

Yes. And would you accept that the failure to notify parents in those circumstances is likely to negatively impact upon the relationship between the parents and Territory 30 Families?I wouldn’t – I’d rather not make a blanket statement. It could be – we have removed the child from their family, it could well be that notifying a parent is actually not in the child’s best interests equally. So I would like to

It’s going to depend on the circumstances? consider that on the circumstances of 35 every individual case.

Sure. Thank you.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: If it please the Commission I think that I have leave 40 to ask some questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher. I think you do.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioner. I see you glancing at the 45 clock.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’re standing between me and a cup of tea.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4804 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR BELLACH MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: My sincere apologies.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Ms Wharburton, as you’ve heard I think I’m the last person to ask you some questions. I represent a vulnerable witness by the pseudonym DS. I’m going to ask you about complaints. In your statement you say 10 that:

A complaint with a good outcome for a complainant is one in which they feel they’ve been heard.

15 And the second part is:

One where the complaint is dealt with objectively.

And has that been the case as long as you’ve been employed at DCF?Look, certainly 20 it’s a trickier area of business. I wouldn’t like to say every complainant feels that they’ve been heard because, I think, as I also articulated in my statement, it could be that the position of the complainant varies to the position of the agency and while we may conclude that we’ve heard your point of view and you’ve heard ours at the end of the day it could be that we still don’t 25 See eye to eye with the issue? resolve the

Yes? outcome in a way that the complainant seeks often for very good reasons, but it could be that we’ve had very reasonable conversations but the outcome they 30 wanted is not the outcome that they got.

Sure. But you’d want a complaint to be dealt with in accordance with these principles; would that be fair?Absolutely. Yes.

35 I want to show you a document. This is the unredacted version I’ve given the witness but the redacted version is on the screen and I just want to be able to take the witness to a few things?Yes.

This is a correspondence from the complaints section dealing with five different 40 complaints. You would accept that it deals with a number of complaints together? I had hoped to give this document to you before you began your evidence, but I wasn’t able to?I can see several names but whether they’re complaints I don’t know.

Would you take it from me that this deals with five complaints in one?Okay. 45 I just want to take you to some things that are on the screen under the section Why, the last dot point:

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4805 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER NAAJA is prosecuting a public campaign against the Northern Territory Government over its Youth Justice System, which NAAJA views as deeply flawed.

5 And I will take you to the last dot point on the top paragraph:

The similarity –

sorry, the first dot point: 10 NAAJA has used child and care to prosecute a campaign against the –

sorry, my mistake, I withdraw that. The last dot point:

15 The similarity of the complaint suggests at least, to some extent, they are hiding behind using their clients to prosecute NAAJAs own complaints/wider agenda.

Now, would you accept that these – that the person who wrote this document may 20 have formed a particular view of NAAJA as an organisation.

MR O’MAHONEY: I object to this, Commissioner. I’ve just been handed the complete document. The witness is being shown, on no notice at all, a handful of paragraphs from correspondence she wasn’t privy to or the ..... we haven’t been 25 made aware of this. She’s hardly had a clans to read it even on the screen. I know everyone’s pressed for time but I’m obviously concerned that questioning is going to continue against that backdrop.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, perhaps – irrespective of the document, perhaps 30 you can ask your question because – if you can make a tidy statement about this, I – it seems to me that it’s not a document that Ms Wharburton is familiar with.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: No, I accept that but she has familiarities with the complaints process and she’s 35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Indeed. So ask

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: experienced in this area, and

40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: So if you ask her the question.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Well, the questions are these: if a person, who’s dealing with complaints, has a particular view of the source of those complaints or the people who are conveying those complaints to the department, that would suggest 45 that they are viewed through a particular lens; would that be fair?No.

Okay. Would you accept that the complaints being dealt, with where certain views are expressed, might suggest that the complaint wasn’t dealt with objectively?No.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4806 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER Would you accept that this being handled by the integrity unit would mean that it was considered a level 1 complaint?I’ve not read it to answer that, I’m sorry.

Okay. A serious complaint?I haven’t read 5 If it had been handled by the Integrity Unit? it to contextualise it.

Well, I’m asking you because your statement says, at 116, that if it’s dealt with by the Integrity Unit it’s a serious complaint; is that right?I have said that in my 10 statement, yes.

Okay. So you’re prepared to accept that this is being dealt with by the Integrity Unit.

MR O’MAHONEY: I don’t think that’s fair – I mean, really 15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, is it or isn’t it. It’s an objective fact, isn’t it. Is it being dealt with by the

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: That’s my understanding of the document. 20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: All right. So if you have a situation where the Integrity Unit is dealing with a level 1 complaint, then Mr O’Brien-Hartcher, the question?

25 MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: You would accept it would be considered a serious complaint; would that be fair?The seriousness of it is – we – a matter that comes to our division can be still for all sorts of things. It doesn’t – it doesn’t – how do I want to say it – by virtue of it coming to practice integrity doesn’t automatically mean it’s more serious, but we still get the diversity of complaints. It be anything from a carer 30 who’s still waiting for a foster care payment to something at the other end of the spectrum. We get a lot. We get a lot of variety.

All right. But other than, that there’s no – other than what’s outlined in your statement, there’s no other complaints mechanism; is that true?In the agency, no. 35 Okay?Yes.

You might not be able to answer this question because – alright. The

40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ask the question now, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioner. What safeguards did DCF have in place to ensure the complaints are dealt with professionally?Can you repeat the question? 45 What safeguards do Territory Families have in place to ensure that a complaint is dealt with objectively?Safeguards? I think the way I’d like to frame the answer to

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4807 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER that is that the safeguard is that there’s multiple eyes – as humble as it is, there are multiple eyes on a complaint. The person who may prepare a response to a complaint, it gets assessed by a secondary officer. Complaints, if you’re saying this one’s more serious, I suspect it would have been elevated up further through 5 executive levels to have multiple eyes over it. So, I guess, all I can offer as a response is that we will uphold the values that the agency operates under to be honest and transparent and treat everything with respect and the objectivity will come in from multiple professionals assessing a matter before it is concluded.

10 Thank you, Ms Wharburton. Thank you Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr O’Brien-Hartcher.

MR MORRISSEY: My friend asked the question, but may I tender the redacted 15 version of the NAAJA email.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

MR O’MAHONEY: Very briefly – sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m not quite sure what exhibit number we’re up to yet. 550. Thank you.

25 EXHIBIT #550 REDACTED NAAJA EMAIL

30 MR O’MAHONEY: Very briefly, Ms Wharburton, you were asked about this earlier today, in your statement you say that most of the complaints that are received by the department come from people around the young people, not the young people themselves?Correct, yes. 35 Could you tell us always bit about the nature of that challenge and how big it is, getting the young people to come forward?Look, I absolutely commend the young people that are using the advocacy sources to lodge their complaints. Certainly, we have experienced where they are utilising the Children’s Commissioner, we’ve seen experiences that they’re utilising NAAJA, credit to them. But certainly, what we would like to see happen in the future, that young people feel more confident to raise their voice perhaps more in situ in the offices or the points of contact that they have in the system. So it could be something like – and Ms Couch might be able to answer this – it could be in a residential care facility that there’s an internal complaints mechanism that they – or a feedback mechanism. It doesn’t always have to be negative just offering the young people a voice to go, “Alright, is this about the services I’m receiving”, or, “I don’t like this about the services”, but the challenge is

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4808 L. WHARBURTON XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY to – we have some very confident people out there, but making more young people confident. If they raised a complaint there’s not going to be negative ramifications from it.

5 Beyond the confidence of the young people, are there other issues or obstacles to getting young people to come forward and tell stories?Look, I think it would be familiarity that these services or options are available to them would be another challenge. And maybe just having the right support person once they do wish to do, there’s somebody walking the journey beside them to actually make that happen. 10 No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks.

15 MR MORRISSEY: I have no questions arising from any of that ..... to thank for her patience and forbearance, Ms Wharburton.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Wharburton, for coming back a second time. A little bit enduring this time, I realise that. I’m sorry we’ve had to sit so late, 20 but the Commission is grateful to you. Thank you?Thank you very much.

Thank you.

25

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will adjourn for half an hour, which will be all we can afford, I’m afraid. Can I again remind anyone who is listening outside that 30 Commissioner Gooda and I are meeting in a community forum at the convention centre at 5 o’clock today. We will need to rise at quarter to 5 in order to accommodate that, and that that community forum meeting is going to be facilitated by Mr Charlie King. Thank you.

35 ADJOURNED [1.45 pm]

RESUMED [2.23 pm] 40

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I recall Marnie Couch.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Ms Couch. 45 MS COUCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4809 ©Commonwealth of Australia COMMISSIONER WHITE: Now, I think we released you from your summons and your former affirmation.

MS COUCH: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: So we will do it again.

15 MR MORRISSEY: Could I just take you first of all – or return to the issue of purchased home based care?Sorry?

Purchased home based care. And I’ve got a series of questions concerning that. On the last time when we – when you were before the Commission on the previous 20 occasion, we went through that concept and there’s just some base propositions I wanted to remind you of and see if you agree with those. We believe it to be established that there was, in April 2017, some 333 kids in purchased home based care. We can take you to an exhibit, if that’s – does that broadly accord ?No, no. That’s fine. 25 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Secondly, that many of these placements in purchased home based care, you’re aware of what was – sorry, excuse me one second. So you may recall that there was reference made last time and I will do it again to a Deloitte’s report?Correct. 30 That was annexed – and you’re familiar it was annexed to Mr Twyford’s?Yes. I’m familiar with the report, Commissioners.

Yes. It’s – Commissioners, that was at LT31. And you will recall communicate of 35 the comments of that report was many of these placements are not actually suitable for the child in question. You recall that being said?I do recall, and to the best of my recollection I said that without the context of that sentence I was unable to make further comment.

40 Yes. And that’s not your report, of course?No.

No. I understand that. But you also recall that in the same document the comment was made that what should only be emergency placements were, in fact, being used as long-term housing for children?That would be correct. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4810 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY And that was one – I think you did associate yourself with that comment as a general proposition?Yes. I’m aware that that is Territory Families’ position and that has always been the intent the purchased home based care, Commissioners.

5 Yes. Sorry, the intent is to make it – so the intent is to use it as an ?A short term option.

A short term, emergency placement?Correct.

10 But, by force of circumstances that prevailed in the Territory, it often turns out that it’s used as a long-term housing option?Yeah, I can certainly add to that. So Commissioners, it – it is always our intent to place children in kinship care or foster care placements. The placements unit, out-of-home care division, is of the position that purchased home based care is the last option and it is only when we’re unable to 15 find a general foster carer or a kinship carer that we look at purchased home based care as a placement.

Now, in the intervening period between the last hearing and this one, you were good enough to help the Commission by providing some information concerned purchased 20 home based care, and that was that purchased home based carers, effectively family day carers as entities, provide care services for – as entities providing care services for children under statutory orders in the Northern Territory, you indicated they’re regulated by something called Quality Education and Care NT administering the framework; is that correct?The national body of family day care. 25 Yes. Now, what is the framework?I cannot recall the exact details, Commissioner, I do apologise. But I did look further into this after the last hearing to ensure that the purchased home based care providers are overseeing the monitoring and auditing of the placements and I am assured that they are looking at all of those placements with 30 the same rigour as the national quality framework.

Yes. So who operates the national quality framework?That I would not be able to answer.

35 Alright. Could I just go back to the statutory issue that I think I – just take you back to a statutory issue that I raised – I started to raise with you last time, and I just wanted to see what your position was about it now. The Act specifically states that a care service that you say is regulating purchased home based care doesn’t, in fact, include care provided under a child protection law. In other words you will recall 40 that?That’s correct.

That was a carve-out?Yes.

Do you see that as an issue yourself?So I – I took that question on notice, Commissioners, I and I spoke to the purchased home based care providers in charge about that, and they have assured me that they have the same expectations, whether there’s – their service providers provide out of home care or whether it’s family day

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4811 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY care, they have the same stringent qualities and oversights over both of those types of care. So I was quite specific in asking those questions.

To whom does that oversight extend? Just going to what one might call the market 5 that exists in the Northern Territory at the moment, you’ve got some very large providers, other small providers, and then you’ve also got some who subcontract to the large providers, such as Kentish and others ?Okay.

as you would be aware. So the oversight to which you’ve just referred, by way of 10 the accreditation body, who is that applied to? You said you’ve spoken to the providers here in the Northern Territory. Could you just indicate who you spoke to?I probably got a little lost in that sentence.

Yes, you could have?So discriminating between providers and providers and 15 providers.

I’ll make it a bit simply?Thank you.

You say, taking the question on notice, as you did?Yes. 20 You spoke to some of the providers?Yes.

So did you speak to the large providers, if you like, the umbrella type of providers? Yes, I did. 25 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps just tell you who you spoke to, if you don’t mind?So I spoke to Family Day Care, which is Alice and Darwin Family Day Care, and Kentish providers.

30 MR MORRISSEY: Did you speak to any of the bodies that subcontract to those large bodies?So I am not aware of subcontracting other than the family day carers that occur within those two, so I would need to look further into that, Commissioners, if that is the case. Unless we’re talking at cross-purposes.

35 I hope we’re not. I’m really just seeking to find out who it is you spoke to. Each of those bodies provides care as you understand it?So

Or do they – so I’m going to take you to the process by which you engage.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps we could just ask how they provide care, how those big bodies do it?So if I take Kentish and Family Day Care as example, they are the management and governance over the carers that are employed or subcontract to them. So when you talk – when counsel talks about subcontracting then, yes, that would be the case but they are individual households and members that are linked to the service provider. So I guess the simplest way I could explain it is like the out-of- home care division and we’ve got a level of hierarchy, and as the ED I’m ultimately responsible for the out-of-home care division, then I speak to the people that are

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4812 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY ultimately responsible for the family day carers as such. So they are the governance training and structures.

What can you tell us, for example, about Kentish? What is it? It’s a corporation, 5 presumably. Does it file annual reports, does it have shareholders? How can you find out more about .....?Commissioners, I did see that come up today, that question, and it is a good question. I can certainly go and look into that.

But you don’t know?No. So when we purchased the service we do get invoices from 10 them, and I’m sure they will be brought to the Commission at some stage, but in terms of looking at their annual reports it would only be if they were published on the website. However, I’m confident if I contacted, for instance Kentish, and said, “Could I view these documents?” They would be more than willing to show them to me. 15 Are you concerned to know how the – their oversight operates?Commissioner, in my conversations in my ongoing dealings with them, I’ve been in out-of-home care for three years now, I am confident that we have a positive working relationship and that if I have any concerns or questions they will be open and honest in responding to me 20 about those. And working together.

So independently of their assurances, and that’s speaking about all of the ones that the Department purchases, you don’t check – you don’t do any checks on them?We

25 How do you retain them to do the work for the Department?So it is – once again if I talk about the hierarchy then the people at a similar level to myself within those organisations, they’re responsible for the support, the training, the recruitment, the ongoing governance and oversight of them. That doesn’t come directly to me. If I’ve got particular issues around, say an individual carer, then I would go to my 30 counterpart in the agency. The other thing that we just instigated in extending out our auditing of residential care providers is that Family Day Care and Kentish have also agreed now that we will schedule out both unannounced and announced visits in the second half of the year, which is the same auditing tool and oversight that we’re providing in residential care, and they are welcoming that and the information I’ve 35 received is actually the family day carers are welcoming of that as well. I do understand there has been concern about children being in – I will use the word “home-like placements”, because we’re all using a lot of different language. We have a lot of good purchased home based carers who are providing quality care and care very much about the children. And I think there’s two issues here. There’s the 40 money, which I understand and accept is a great concern. I’ve heard Commissioners make comments about that. but there’s the quality. So I’m confident that the quality – the children are getting quality of care. Not to say that there is – that I don’t miss the odd one.

45 COMMISSIONER GOODA: But there’s – you know,

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4813 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY MR MORRISSEY: May I take the

COMMISSIONER GOODA: 2012/13 was 13 million, and 2015/16 it’s 27 million. So there must be a lot of kids coming in who you can’t place. Like, at the beginning 5 of your evidence you said you only go to the purchased home based care for the children. So that represents a lot of children, that’s $27 million?It is – it is a lot, Commissioner and we don’t shy away from that, and Territory Families have made it quite clear that purchased home based is not their preferred care option, that kinship and foster care is. I’ve heard previous statements to say that the leap in the use of 10 purchased home based care happened at a period of time. I’m not personally aware of the information around that, but I did hear that described. I know as my time in the out-of-home care division my staff work hard to identify alternate placements, because their remit is to – where possible and where it’s not against the best interests of the child – and I’m happy to explain that a little further – that we actually move 15 children from purchased home based into foster and kinship care. And obviously kinship care is our preferred option. So the placements unit are well versed in that, and that’s the daily work that they do.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, it might assist if I took through step by step 20 how an engagement happens. That might assist in the following line of questions. So could I just ask you about this way: I would like to go through the process of your team placing a child ?Of course.

in purchased home based care. The child is referred to your team by the case 25 management team; is that correct?That’s correct, through the placement request form.

Alright. The next thing that happens is that your team sends an email to purchased home based care providers; is that correct?So I’d just like to step in there, 30 Commissioners. As I explained their first preference is to source a foster carer or a kinship career. So when they receive a form they are expected to scrutinise the database and our list of foster and kinship carers to ensure that there are no available carers in that space. It is only once they have completed that that then they will seek a quote or seek a quote from a purchased home based carer. 35 To interpose in that, can I suggest that can’t be right when you’re dealing with a person in respect of whom there’s an urgent placement. You can’t exhaust kinship possibilities in that short time, can you?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think just talking about the database, is that, rather that ?That – that’s correct and counsel is correct: we’re not going to always have a kinship carer available. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, because sometimes – and it is a rarity that kinship careers will have a child leave their care and remain on our database. We try and encourage them. However, once the specific child has left, they prefer to leave our authorisation system. However, we do have foster carers that specifically request to be emergency or short term foster

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4814 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY carers, so they’re the lists that we go to straightaway, and they are prepared to take a child at short notice.

MR MORRISSEY: Alright. Well, I understand what you’re saying there is you do 5 what you can ?Absolutely.

to see if you can find a foster or kinship care option before?Yes.

But having decided – having exhausted that possibility, sometimes in quite an 10 emergency or pressing situation, the step by which you then turn to the home based – purchased home base care providers is that you send an email to such providers; is that correct?That’s correct, the placement unit does.

Now, the placement unit sends that email indicating that you are seeking an out-of- 15 home care placement for the child; is that correct?That would correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Some description?

MR MORRISSEY: Could we please have on the screen 20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: With some description of ?So, Commissioner, I don’t believe there’s any evidence tendered but a placement request form has a narrative from the case manager to describe not only the age and the complexity of the child, but we like strengths of the child on there, any complex behaviours and what they’re 25 hoping for in terms of finding a placement or, as I like to say, a home for a child.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, might I just tender the tender bundle index and then go to a copy that’s on it.

30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, certainly.

MR MORRISSEY: The out-of-home care tender bundle, I should call it, and then could we please have on the screen tab 54. And I will just take you to a couple of steps in this document?Certainly. 35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you?Is that the one you wanted?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Sorry, it is. No, that’s right. We do want that.

40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I will give this a number first. That will be exhibit 551.

EXHIBIT #551 OUT-OF-HOME CARE TENDER BUNDLE 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4815 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Sorry. Could we just have regard to that – just sort that out for a minute while we have a break. Sorry, Ms Couch. Would you mind just having a look at that document there, and it will indicate what the terms of the request are. So you see ?So 5 halfway down the page, this is an email from your placement unit; is that correct? Yes, the bottom half is.

Yes. That’s right, thank you. It starts from the named individual ..... and the request 10 – it says, “We are emailing you to seek your assistance with an out-of-home care placement.” So that’s the formal request?That’s correct.

If you look down the bottom there, it says:

15 If you have available placements please generate a detailed quote for placement confirmation for this request for the time period specified. To ensure your quote is considered please respond by email in the next two hours to placement.DCF.NT.gov.au.

20 Now, that is – that’s the process; is that correct?That is part of the process, yes.

Sorry, that’s that part of the process. Now, just on that issue, there’s a requirement of a quote and there’s a requirement that it be done within a two hour period. Could I just ask: is that consistent with the – with departmental policy, I think, to get the 25 best value for money in the procurement policy?So

Perhaps to assist with that I will ask – if we have an annexure to your statement MC2 brought up onto the screen and the page we would like is 5021. So I will take to you it. So this is part of your procurement grant management governance and 30 accountability manual and if you just look at 5021. So ringtail 5021, please. So there is some principles of procurement set out. I won’t delay – it might take some time, sometimes to upload these things?I would be happy to answer your concern if you told me.

35 Yes. Perhaps you know, in any event, where we’re going to. No. Well, the issue really is this: that among the criteria for procurement of services is a requirement that it be best value for money?Yes, I’m aware.

And a number of other requirements. So the question I have for you here is that that process where you put the – where you solicit in effect the quote, and impose a two hour limit, does that involve the potential for different providers to respond?So, Commissioners, with purchased home based care we only have a limited number of service providers in an arena. What we have found is that we will send the request for quote out to both of those service providers, or if there’s a third one then we will do that. They are of similar rates and they are – have similar availabilities. So we’ve previously talked about the stresses on the out-of-home care to find an appropriate number of placements. It is the same with purchased home based carers. They do

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4816 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY not have a plethora, for want of a better expression, of people available either. The system is under, somewhat, stress.

Just on 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: So you’re looking for two weeks for this tiny baby in this particular example we’re looking at?So without knowing the details of the baby, it’s likely that baby was brought under a temporary protection order, which is 14 days, and we are unable to make a placement beyond a court authority. There’s a 10 number of reasons for that and one is, I mean, amongst other things, we would be beholden to honour that contract if we started making financial arrangements past a court authority whether that child was returned to parents or not. I think

MR MORRISSEY: So the question really was is there a competitive side to this? In 15 other words, if you put that – I don’t want you to get hooked into this case, because I know it will have – but it’s an example of the form that was used. Is there, in a sense, competitive bidding by the agencies for the opportunity to accept that placement?So I think this market could always welcome competitiveness and once

20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I had the impression that perhaps it wasn’t so much competitiveness but can you find anybody who will take this little baby who’s got breathing difficulties? I’m using the example that’s on the screen, because ?Yeah.

that gives a good sense of how difficult it might be to find someone who might be 25 prepared to do that.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’m looking at a list here of 2014/15. There’s 37 people on this list, purchased home based care. You said there were two?Sorry? No, two providers. I believe what you’ve got in front of you – I’m not familiar with the 30 documents, I might be incorrect.

It’s in your statement?The – can I just see that statement Commissioner so I can clarify that.

35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Which exhibit is it?

MR MORRISSEY: Is it ringtail 0017?If we’re talking about purchased home based providers versus residential care providers.

40 COMMISSIONER GOODA: Purchased home based care. It starts with Alice Springs home day care. I can show you it on the? No, Commissioner, that’s okay. I just wanted to make sure I was giving you the correct information. So Alice Springs Family Day Care, those are the carers that come under that umbrella and they do have various business names. So does that make sense? 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4817 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER GOODA: No, not really.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Not entirely. Are these – underneath the first one, the Alice Springs family day care incorporated, all the rest under there, are they 5 subcontractors to that top one?So if I go through that list it looks like what we have a list of is family day carers but other – other things that are funded through out-of- home care services. So Chelsea’s Disabilities is a Darwin – Darwin provider. As I said I’m familiar with some of these, this information was provided

10 COMMISSIONER GOODA: There’s more than two?Yes. So I guess when I’m talking about – and I have to be clear with my wording because I don’t wish to confuse anyone, Commissioner, when we’re talking to purchased home based care in Darwin I was referring to Kent your and Darwin Family Day Care.

15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, Kentish appears on that list, of course?Yes.

It’s halfway down. So it’s ..... just trying to ascertain?There – we do have difference service providers that have disabilities. Chelsea’s provides disabilities and

20 COMMISSIONER GOODA: Under a list called purchased home based care?It is, and sometimes there is confusion and sometimes there is confusion for myself in our naming conventions.

MR MORRISSEY: But just, perhaps 25 COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’m lost.

MR MORRISSEY: One thrust of the questioning may be this, and it might assist. Just – it might help if we stay with this process and then – and it will allow us to 30 come back to that question?Okay.

So when you send the email out, you’ve indicated that in respect to particular child in that example you contacted two. What is the typical number of providers that you would contact. When you said you have a child, we need to place this child, it’s not 35 always a baby, there’s a variety of situations. When you do that, how widely do you distribute that request for people to put in a quote to place the child?If it’s purchased home based care in the Darwin area it is two providers

Okay? who have the carers under their umbrella. If it is in – and it can be different 40 for different areas. So previously in Alice Springs, Alice Springs Family Day Care was the only one in existence under – and I’m sorry, Commissioner, I understand this is confusing, this list, but if we talk about Alice Springs Family Day Care, they were the only provider of that sort of care in Alice Springs is.

45 Yes?So there is a limited market.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4818 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Let’s just – but I think it can be made clear. Let’s just explain it, take it through. When you make contact you put the offer out – are you comfortable to call it offer? An offer of placement? What’s the term you would like to use?A placement request.

5 A placement request. Let’s call it that. You put the placement request out to a very limited number of large umbrella-type organisations?That would be correct.

Alright. You don’t put it out for tendering, if you like ?No.

10 by the smaller groups; correct?No.

Those smaller groups respond to a further request put out by the big umbrella groups; is that correct?I think when you refer to them as groups I refer to them as homes or family day carers. I think we’re talking about the same thing, just 15 I’m happy for that, you’re referring to the family day carers who may ultimately end up looking after the child?Correct.

So the end service provider?Yes. 20 Alright. But the point is this, that person is not contacted directly by the Department at all; is that correct?Generally, we will go through the service provider. There are some times – there are some times where we will speak to the individual carers when there’s needs for the children but largely it’s under Alice Springs Family Day Care or 25 Kentish provider.

Alright, now

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But see, I don’t know. You still show on this list 30 Kentish getting $10 million?It is a significant amount of money, Commissioner.

But you just said that they then go out to other providers?So

So do they, Kentish provide this care for children?Yes. So Kentish do with their 35 carers and my understanding this is perhaps where finance would be better to respond to this because it’s technical issue that is I’m not overly familiar with.

I’m just responding to a list that’s front of me called purchased home based care? Yes. My understanding is that Kentish invoices us, we pay Kentish and then Kentish 40 disburse the funds.

But why would these other names come up on the list then?Some of those may be Alice Springs Family Day Care and, Commissioner, to do

45 There’s 37 of them?To do you justice, I would need to scrutinise this and work with both the procurement branch and finance to provide the level of detail.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4819 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Like I said before, you can see why I’m confused?Yes.

When we talk about purchased home based care and I keep on quoting the figure of 21 million at the end of that?Yes. 5 Now you’re telling me it’s not purchased home based care. There’s other things?The list.

Yes?Yes. 10 Bit misleading. Not doing yourself any favours. I mean, I’m quoting the figure of 21 million and if you’re telling me it’s not 21 million of purchased home based care? Purchased home based care is the coding that we use in our Citrix system and that’s the coding that that goes to finance. I’m certainly not meaning to confuse you 15 Commissioner and I would like to answer you better but I would rely on finance to go into those details with me.

So if we’re talking about the cost to the system of out-of-home care, do you think it’s fair that we use that $21 million figure for purchased home based care?I think that’s 20 the question on everyone’s lips, Commissioner, that out-of-home care is a costly exercise and

No, no, no. This is specific for – this is the list we have in front of us, because ? Yes. 25 somewhere down the track we will make comment about the costs of all this?Yes.

And if we said, well, 2014/15 in purchased home based care, which we will describe it cost 21 million, now, would we be right or wrong if we put that in our report?I 30 would need to go back to work with procurement and finance just to actually deconstruct our use of the word of purchased home based care and make sure that we are talking the same language, because some of

I’m only using the language you’ve given us?Yes, no, I know Commissioner, 35 absolutely, I understand and as I said sometimes I do find the use of that name and our financials confusing, because sometimes there are things in there which I’m not familiar with. And if I look at that list – and, yes, I agree, I did tender this document that, if we look at there are individuals listed in there as well as agencies, and my belief, and I’m not going to attest to this, I will need to go check this myself and I 40 will do with absolute rigor is that those individuals would fall into Kentish or family day care. So I don’t understand why we’ve got individuals listed or agencies and service providers listed as well.

Okay?Sometimes the funding and I’m not shying away from my responsibility, 45 sometimes the funding is taken from out-of-home care but sometimes I do not have responsibility for.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4820 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY MR MORRISSEY: So

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Like, for instance, there’s one there that might help you, there’s Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services?That would be 5 something I do not program ..... oversight of, Commissioner, but it’s been deemed applicable for it to come out of the out-of-home care budget.

So maybe if you come back with the clarification?I would love to.

10 Okay.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. But still you can take us through the process of how children are referred and how they’re placed, that’s what we would like you to do here and just take us through the process ?If I could 15 Sorry. Go on?If I could – because I think there’s some questions around – and I’ve heard in previous evidence, there’s some concerns around the competitive pricing and whether there is competitive pricing in purchased home based care and whether we are negotiating the cost of purchased home based care. I heard that referred to in 20 other statements. Is that something that’s of concern?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it is.

MR MORRISSEY: Well, it may be a matter of concern but I think at the moment 25 can I just ask you to say

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Both about the quality and the quantity?Yes, Commissioner.

30 MR MORRISSEY: Yes. So really I’d like you to stay with us if you could and step through here. When you sought a quote, that goes to a number, as you’ve said, a finite number of potential service providers; is that correct?Correct.

They will return within the two hour period with a ?Not always. 35 No, but it’s open to them to return within the two hour period with a quote?Yes.

So they will accept on certain terms; is that correct?Correct.

40 And then you will select from a range of 1 to however many quotes happen to have come in on that one, you will select the successful, one might say the successful tenderer; is that correct?I think there are many times that we do not have a lot of choice in what we receive back. We may only receive one response, because there might only be one available person. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4821 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY But you accommodate competitive tendering in the process?We accommodate is but there’s no doubt there is a limited market and there is much work to be done in this field.

5 I won’t be grilling you about the market in general but simply the process. So the structure of it is very much – tell me if this is right, it’s very much of an eBay structure where you will put to tender the placement of that child and they will bid for it; is that correct?I’m not on eBay, so I probably couldn’t make that reference.

10 Well, okay. It’s competitive bidding?Yes.

In relation to that, you’ve indicated that the quotes that come back, that they’re required to provide a quote at a particular rate. Now, those rates, they are not rates referable to the expense of taking the child, but rather they’re commercial rates, are 15 they not, with no standardised fees or scale of costs?They are. So the inquiries I’ve made into the national family day care pricing structure is that family day carers can call their own price, and whilst they might have some guidance against the national structures, it is up to the individuals.

20 Yes. It’s the complete reverse of the situation facing foster carers or kinship careers who must account for expenses and be, in effect, reimbursed for those; is that correct?Foster carers and kinship carers are not asked to account for how they spend the money, and they’re not reimbursed. That is a payment to provide for the care of the child. We don’t ask carers to account for the money. 25 Yes. Perhaps that was a wrong choice of words, but the amounts of money that are provided to them are relevant, are governed by their expenditure or their expected expenditure; is that correct?It’s a child maintenance allowance.

30 Alright. Thank you. Now, just – thank you for stepping us through that process. Now I just want to ask you some questions about the sort of oversight you’ve got. You have a good working relationship with the umbrella organisations, for example, Kentish Lifelong Learning and Care?I would call it a positive working relationship, yes. 35 Yes. Okay. And that’s something just as part of your professional work, you’ve got to develop that relationship?Yes.

Regardless of what the formal structures are, you have to have a working day-to-day 40 relationship?Yes.

But still I need to question you about the formal structures and how they work. When you offer – when Kentish accept a particular bid, do you know whether that child is going to go into a home care operated by Kentish or operated by a third party 45 with whom they have a separate arrangement?Commissioners, I’m not aware of any third parties. So if Kentish accept the child for placement, then they’re placed with one of their family day carers.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4822 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY It’s the relationship between Kentish and their family day carers that I’m pressing you about. Do you know who the arrangement is?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought it was that they’re on their books?Yes. 5 Kentish are the coordinators of a number of individual people?Correct.

MR MORRISSEY: They have their own – sorry, your Honour.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s what I’ve always understood it?But not a third party. I’m becoming a little confused as to how a child

MR MORRISSEY: No, no. If you don’t like the term “third party”, what’s the term that you would like to use?But I’m not sure what you mean by third party? That 15 would have

That’s okay. We won’t use “third party”. I don’t want to confuse you. But the issue is here that there’s a carer who – in an arrangement with Kentish to accept the placement; correct and that carer generally will have their own ABN; is that 20 correct?That’s my understanding.

And their own insurance?That’s my understanding.

But you don’t know who they are, do you, when a placement happens?We’ve got a 25 list of them.

Yes. But when it particular child is placed by Kentish you don’t now where?Yes, we do. We’re advised by Kentish if we’re using them as an example.

30 Yes, alright?We have to update the details of the child.

Territory Child Care Group Incorporated, when you use them, are you told with whom the child is placed?Yes, same process, we would need to do that.

35 Do you have a legal relationship with that particular – and I mean the care provider, the third person, you don’t want to call them a third party, but the care provider; do you have a legal relationship with them?I would say that our relationship is with the provider – the umbrella provider and that is done through our placements unit.

40 With Resicare, you’ve got an obvious right to go into the home and have a look at the kid and see how they’re going?Correct. However, I’ve also got the agreement from purchased home base care to start going into the carers or the family day carers as well both unannounced and announced.

45 I understand you have that agreement now, but

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4823 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s just happened, hasn’t it?It has, and it was the expansion of the residential care auditing and monitoring, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. But up until now you haven’t had that power. Sorry, let 5 me take that back and rephrase the question. Up until now you haven’t had even that agreement with those carers; is that correct?To the best of my recollection, I think I did give app example last time because I have gone into the home of family day carers when there has been a indication or a concern and I’ve worked with the providers and met with their family day care providers. 10 Yes?So whilst

Been into a family day care home?Yes, a number of them.

15 But you don’t have a right of entry there, do you?Child protection – as I said, it’s been a while since I’ve been in the investigation and children in care end, but authorised officers have a legal right to enter the place of a care – place of care where a child, under the care of the CEO, resides. So they do.

20 Sorry, who are you saying does have that power?Someone on the investigations and assessment or children in care team, they have different delegations to out-of-home care and their delegations allow them to enter the place of care of a child at any time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s delegated from the chief executive who .....? 25 That’s correct, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: And is it your evidence that that applies to purchased out-of- home care?Yes.

30 Yes. We’ve heard from Ms Wharburton about audit – the auditing of the operation of those homes and she said it was really a question better directed to you. What audit oversight do you have of the operation of out-of-home care – purchased out-of- home based care placements?As described earlier, we have organised to do both announced and unannounced visits to purchased home based providers. They have 35 given us a list of their family day carers and that has been scheduled out for the second part of the year.

Did you always have such a list or is that a new development?No. This is something that we have developed this year. 40 Prior to that you didn’t have the list of the providers?No, no, we did have the list of the providers. What we’ve now got is a schedule of home visits that have been put in place.

45 That’s a voluntary arrangement, isn’t it?It would be a voluntary arrangement in terms of out-of-home care.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4824 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Yes?However, it wouldn’t be a voluntary arrangement if an authorised officer, who was responsible for the case management of that child, wanted to go visit.

What sort of show cause – what’s the trigger for such an officer to exercise that 5 power?In terms of

The visit to ? a case manager?

Yes?So from my time in that arena 10 Well, not from your time in the arena. No, no. From your oversight of these homes now?So I just need to be clear, I’m talking about two different areas. So out-of- home care is which I’m responsible for Commissioners, they’re not delegated officers to enter where a child resides with that legal authority. Then you’ve got case 15 management who is responsible for investigations, strengthening families, children in care. They have different delegations and they can enter. So when I say an authorised officer may enter the house I’m talking about the case management.

Alright. Now, the perceived – so, in other words, in order to enter a house the case 20 manager needs the usual triggers they would need to enter any house in the Northern Territory?They can authorise that power if they need to.

That’s right?I guess what I’d like to make clear is that I’ve never had to find a way to exercise any delegated power with any of the purchased home based carers. They’ve 25 always been agreeable to anything I’ve asked. So I’ve never tested this theory.

Yes. Are you aware of how many substantiated notifications of harm there have been arising from children placed in out-of-home care?I wouldn’t be aware of the exact figures 30 Sorry. Purchased. I apologise. I should have qualified purchased out-of-home based care?Purchased. I wouldn’t be aware of the exact numbers, however, I am aware when those matters are substantiated and we’re required to work with the purchased home based carers. 35 Have you ever deregistered or struck anyone off?We’re not responsible for registering the providers. However, where there are concerns – and if I can just be clear in terms of the whole of the system, when we’ve got concern for the care of a child, whether it’s with residential care, a foster or a kinship career or a purchased 40 home based carer, our first role after the investigation is complete is always to look at whether there is room for education and whether there’s an understanding of what’s occurred and what work we can do. So even with our foster care our kin carers, our move – our first move is not to just deregister people, and they’ve had substantiated harm, it’s about what education and what supports can we put in with 45 this carer to improve.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4825 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY I don’t think anyone’s going to argue that it’s good to have a flexible approach like that, but have you ever taken the step of – well, you’ve told me you can’t, you don’t have any power to administer any sanction to the individual care provider, have you ever moved to have an individual care provider taken off the list of those eligible to 5 receive or to accept children via one of the big umbrella organisations?Not in my time as ED of out-of-home care. And I would like to think if that occurred and there was serious concerns around a family day care provider, that the purchased home based umbrella would be – would work with me to mitigate that risk.

10 Are you aware of how many complaints there have been lodged by children placed in purchased out-of-home care?I do understand, via the evidence given by Ms Wharburton, that it’s a low number and that you did question it and perhaps I can answer to that a little further.

15 Sorry, do you mean you would like some time – you would like that on notice and you could let us ?No, no.

Okay. What’s the answer?I don’t have the exact number.

20 Sorry. Alright?But I heard it talked about before and I can talk to you about the mechanisms that are in place for the voice of children to be heard and for their complaints to be reported and investigated.

Well, I think that’s important and I will ask that question, but I just wanted to get 25 answer if I could. Are you aware of any complaints coming from children while they’re placed in purchased out-of-home care?I cannot bring an example to mind, Commissioners, but I can bring to mind – there are – over time, we have had concerns raised by children in different types of placement, whether that’s kin, foster, purchased, home based care and residential care. 30 I do need to keep you to the purchased realm, if we could, at the moment?Okay.

Do you mind just staying there, if you could. Why do you think there is, and I appreciate you don’t know the exact number whether it’s zero or something slightly more than zero but why do you think there is such a low number of complaints from persons – young persons placed in that situation when they make up such a high percentage of young persons in care and when you know, from the Resicare placements, that, in that setting, there are many complaints?I think it’s apples and oranges. So if I can go a little further into that. First of all, I love my data. We are trying to move towards a more scientific way of analysing our data and looking at trends throughout Territory Families and I am a – have a great love of data. On saying that it’s very difficult to have one piece of data provided to you and then to extrapolate out some meaning around that without the context around it. If I – and if I – I don’t want to get off point, because I understand that it’s time limited. In residential care we do have a large number of complaints from children. Children don’t like being in residential care. They want to be with their families and, you know, there’s no doubt that we’ve got improvements to do in the area of residential

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4826 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY care. I think to ask me to stretch that out and say why aren’t we getting complaints from children in purchased home based care would perhaps to be – to make an assumption that they have concerns and we’re just not hearing about them and that’s not something that I could reach to without doing further analysis. 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: It might be

MR MORRISSEY: Has any analysis – sorry, your Honour.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it might be that you could point to some quite critically different arrangement for the accommodation of the children in the purchased home based care, which makes it more desirable or the children are happier there. I mean, that could be an answer as well?It could be Commissioner, it is a family 15 It is a ?I know it’s – I know the costs and I don’t want to mislay people, but it is still a family home, the purchased home based care, so – which is very different to a residential care setting.

20 COMMISSIONER GOODA: And they’re generally younger, wouldn’t they be? Yes. There’s a lot younger children in purchased home based care as well. So I would – I would be remiss in trying to draw conclusions without proper analysis.

MR MORRISSEY: Did you ever put in place any inquiry as to why there is such a 25 low percentage of complaints coming from the children in that setting?Well, I really don’t know how to answer that one, because

You can say “yes” or “no”. I mean, you can say that, “I haven’t done it”, or, “I haven’t done it”?Well, I think there’s two ways you could look at that, the low 30 number of complaints in purchased home based care could suggest that the care provided is good care and there are no complaints or – so in the absence of complaints, I don’t think I would go looking for reasons unless there was something that had alerted me to a concern.

35 Could I put a general proposition to you: these are private providers who are quite legitimately entitled to maximise profits, do you think there might be a commercial motivation for some providers to minimise the number of complaints and the number of potential breaches such as absconding or other matters that are notifiable?So to go to your second part of your question, I’ve not experienced anyone within that service 40 area trying to quash or quieten any concerns for children. I’d also like to say – and I would be

Stop there for one moment. I just – I’m not going to stop you from going on with that, but just on that thing, you say you haven’t heard, but you don’t have any audit 45 oversight of that, do you?We have ongoing communication and remembering

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4827 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY You have that with the umbrella – sorry, just to interrupt you, you have that with the umbrella organisation, not with the local provider; is that true?The family day carers, and I’m just trying to stick with the same language, have ongoing contact with schools, case management, health, the umbrella. So there is actually a lot of 5 mechanisms if there are concerns for children in their care to arise.

Do you feel that you’re delegating a great deal of statutory functions to the private sector there?I think that’s where it’s important that we acknowledge we’re moving to the outsourcing of out-of-home care and the mechanisms that will occur through that 10 process in trying to bring about accreditation, greater oversight, consistent pricing, quality of service, Aboriginal led organisations. So I think – I think there is recognition that things can definitely be improved.

Well, in terms of governance and oversight, you’ve indicated that there is a process 15 going on, and Ms Wharburton adverted to it, but is it proposed that there would be some accountable oversight – statutory oversight and statutory requirements – that will hedge the – those who provide purchased out of home care, particularly in light of – that’s an expanding area?So I would – and I don’t have the figures to hand, Commissioner, but we do keep an eye on this data and it is not spiking greatly one 20 way or the other. I would like to see it dropping. So I would

Sorry, I misled you there?Yeah. It’s not increasing.

Let me come back to – come back and I will put the question another way. What 25 plans do you have to ensure that the Department has sufficient statutory oversight of purchased home based care and those who provide it?I think there’s many mechanisms for the statutory oversight of the children in the care of purchased home based care providers now, many mechanisms, and I think also, as I acknowledged, the move to outsourcing of out-of-home care will bring in greater surety to the 30 arrangements for children in care.

Well ?I’m not saying it’s not an area that doesn’t require improvement, Commissioners.

35 But I’m just asking you to be specific about the need for further oversight and regulation of that sphere. Do you agree there needs to be further oversight of that sphere?They’re under the regulations of the national family day care framework. I – we’ve put in an auditing schedule. I have positive working relationships with the service providers. Case managers are required to see their children monthly. We 40 have the charter of rights. We have the investigations, 83s and 84s, which will look into concerns. So whilst any area can be improved and any service can be improved I am reasonably confident that we have enough mechanisms within the system to oversee that our children are doing well.

45 And what plans are there currently being developed to deal with the auditing function that the Government has in respect of all of the other areas of occasion to extend that to purchased home based care?I’m sorry, I just did not understand that question.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4828 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Yes?Are you talking about the outsourcing of out-of-home care?

I’m speaking about – so the department has an audit function, generally speaking. It audits ?Are you talking about governance? 5 Yes, I’m speaking to governance?Okay. I’m just checking.

Yes. So just in relation to that, at the moment the governance organisations in Northern Territory ..... have no reach into the purchased out of home care space, do 10 they?So that was my understanding from Ms Wharburton’s statement.

So what do you say is going to be done to improvement that so that taxpayers can be sure that those institutions are operating in accordance with their statutory requirements? In other words it’s alright to have statutory requirements, but what is 15 going to be in place to ensure that that compliance can be monitored?I think there are different areas monitoring the compliance. I know that governance is one area that has oversight of some of the arenas of Territory Families. I know that I work with governance, on a regular basis, where we have noticed patterns of concern or an increase of reportable incident forms. So I – I don’t have the answer to that at the 20 moment, but I’m certainly willing to take it away and give it some thought.

We would be very grateful if there are further materials you can provide, it will assist. And I think for time reasons I really have to change the topic. I’m sorry, that must be done. But I just want to council to the issue of multiple placements, if I 25 could. In your previous evidence you indicated that the ratio of staff to – staff, I’m using staff in an extended term there – carer to child in the purchased home based care is generally four to one?Correct.

Do you agree that there are multiple placements though in that space where that ratio 30 is exceeded, in some cases as high as seven to one? Do you agree with that generally?I have no knowledge of seven children being placed in full time care – in purchased home based care, and I would be interested to take that information on.

If you were – if that were the case would that be investigable, is that something you 35 would need to look into?I don’t think it’s a matter of investigation, because investigation is if there’s concerns for harm for the child. I am aware that we have looked into the matters where there are significant numbers of children with a purchased home based carer, I’m going to suggest four at this stage or five, where we’ve got a sibling group, Commissioners, and we do go in and do an assessment 40 and work with the provider to determine whether the family day carer does actually have the capacity to provide quality care for all of the children, because that’s a large number. And we have – but we also have to take that situation very seriously because when we’re trying to hold sibling groups together you can’t make a light decision to split a couple of siblings up, either. 45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Certainly not.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4829 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER GOODA: Just on that, what’s – in your view – the average – well, your experience, the average number of siblings that are kept together? Like, we’ve heard occasions of recently seven children being with a family?I did – Commissioner, I did hear you raise this earlier in the day. I cannot answer to the 5 number, but what I can talk to you about is that we are currently working to identify where siblings have been separated for a variety of reasons, and sometimes that is ordered by the court, and looking at how we can move siblings back together or try and repair relationships and connections with family.

10 I was just thinking generally, you know, you get a big family, seven would be pretty hard to place?It’s extremely hard to place, and I do recall where we had a family of seven come into care, and we worked very hard to keep them within the kinship care system, and in the end we couldn’t make it work. Yes, large sibling groups are common. I think also where we’ve got the situation where the younger children 15 might stay at home but the older sibling due to their behaviours and families unable to manage those behaviours, that’s where you might end up with sibling separation as well. And then when you’ve got – you might have another sibling come in from that family group, if you’ve already got one child from that family in care and you can’t place their brother or sister with them where they currently are, then we have to 20 look at separating them. It’s not something we like to do, and it’s something that the placement unit should be looking at it in every instance.

MR MORRISSEY: Can I ask that tab 48 be put on the screen. Here – just – these questions at the moment are really about the numbers. It’s not a value judgment as to 25 whether it should be four to one, two to one or seven to one, but there’s a document here I would just like you to look which makes a reference, and perhaps you can explain it. It seems to have a reference to a seven child rate. So in front of you on the screen now. Can you identify that document or say what sort of document that is?So – I can. May I just say 30 Of course? That the first thing I’ve gone to is the date and that’s 18 February 2014.

Yes?That was around the time the out-of-home care division was formed, and part of the work of formation of the -of-home care division was to review the situations, 35 understanding that past practice had seen large amounts of children placed with purchased home based carers. That is not

It would be very helpful for you to explain that, because it’s – you might be indicating that there was a change in policy. But could you just explain what we’re 40 seeing there first of all, and do you see a reference there to a respite rate of $8.40 per child. But then it says 7 child rate, now what was a 7 child rate? Does that presume that there were placements?Without the information around – I cannot answer that with any assurance. I could assume, as perhaps you are, that that means there are seven children but without further information I can’t answer to it. As I’ve just 45 explained, there was past practice where there was large numbers of children.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4830 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY I won’t ask you to swear up to something you don’t know about on that screen, but can you tell the Commissioners what – how that came about and how it was ended? Was there a specific change of policy where you and those working with you said, “Look, we can’t have that number.” How did it happen that you stopped having the 5 big groups?There wasn’t a change of policy that I can recall. It was in line of the formation of the out-of-home care division and the executive director at the time, and I know I had conversation was her at the time, and there was concern about the ability to provide quality care for such a large amount of children and she enacted a limitation on those numbers at her own instigation, and the purchased home based 10 providers, to my understanding, complied.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And when you talk about four as being the maximum as a matter of policy, that’s in addition to any children that the home provider might have of her own living in the home, presumably?In conversation, what we are 15 finding – and it can be both a positive and a negative, is that the family day carers providing out-of-home care are taking in less and less family day care purist model children – I can’t really think how to discriminate otherwise – because they’re finding that due to the complexities of the out-of-home care children they require taking to specialist appointments and schools, medical appointments, and they just 20 cannot manage the logistics of having – I’m not saying that that doesn’t occur, Commissioner, but that seems to be the general consensus I’m getting at the moment.

But they – but these may – because it’s a home, the carer herself, if she’s by herself or with her husband or whatever configuration you like, they may have their own 25 birth children in the house as well?Yes, that’s – that’s correct.

So they might have three primary school aged children, for example, and then take four in, or will it be a maximum of four children in total in the household? Do you know how that works?Commissioner, we have got some circumstances where there 30 is a large biological family and then there is – normally they’re a sibling group as well and we’ve got a large family unit, and I must admit I would not be able to manage that, but we have to go in there with a great deal of delicacy, but scrutiny, to find out how that family unit is working and whether they have the capacity to care for such a large number of children, because whether they’re biological or children in 35 care makes no difference. They’re all children within a family unit.

Yes. I was just trying to ascertain though where your limit of four actually rested, whether it was four children in total or just four placed children?Four children in care, you’re right. However I would – I would like to think we’ve got oversight, but 40 I will take all of this away from the Commission and look into it, because it is a good question, and it’s certainly not the exception to the rule. As I said, we do have large family groups, but I’m confident that we would be able to look at that so to see whether they would be able to provide adequate care. It is a reasonable question.

45 MR MORRISSEY: I just have another

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4831 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that – those – for example, that example in 2014 was $1000 a week per child?It’s a lot of money. A lot of money. There’s no shying away from it, Commissioners, it is a lot of money.

5 COMMISSIONER GOODA: Have you ever seen – or would the cost of that ever influence the decision to be made or is the decision in the best interests of the child? So I just have to think about that. So the best interests of the child would always say the foster and kinship career, and I know you’ve heard me say that.

10 No, no. I mean in this case here, looking at this case, that’s 12,000 bucks for three weeks?If I saw – so I will speak to myself.

Yes?If I saw this and saw that there was seven children in this, I would be seriously questioning it, and I would not be making that placement lightly. I would want to 15 know whether there were siblings groups, I would want to know the dynamics, I would want to know the capacity and the motivation of that family day care. I would want to be assured of all of those.

I’m just asking: does cost, the cost come into your consideration of what to do? 20 Look, I’m – I’m always beholden to be fiscally responsible.

Yes, I get all that?Sometimes we are limited in our choices through a lack of options. So

25 COMMISSIONER WHITE: You will pay what’s demanded if you’re desperate for a place, is that the short answer?Yeah. And this is where I was going to before because we’ve been in this situation. We could – and it’s something I’m going to give serious thought to as well. I think the lack of negotiation that has occurred has been a pattern that’s been set up for quite some time and the thing is that when you 30 start negotiating you need other options as well and if – and we’re already there because we don’t have options.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: I’m just – just to make it easy, so you’ve got this, there’s no other options for these four children, it’s going to cost $12,000. That’s the 35 only option. You worked out that’s the best way to go, would you go with it?If we need to put a child in a home then – and I’ve got no other options.

Yes?Then yes, I would.

40 Okay?On saying that Commissioner

No, no. I’m fine with that?My placement unit would be working really hard with the case managers to identify foster and kinship careers.

45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Certainly want to.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4832 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY MR MORRISSEY: So could I just – Commissioners, just excuse me. Just as an organisational matter, we’re going somewhat overtime than what was scheduled with this witness, but it’s important material. What I was going to ask the Commissioner is if I could just ask a series more questions here and then seek 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Without us interrupting. We will do that.

MR MORRISSEY: No, no difficulties about the interruptions. It’s more just that I would – there is one area which I wish, what I’m saying from the end is I would like 10 a five minute break after a short period, because there is a document issue which may create an unfairness to the witness, and it needs to be clarified, and it may have misled the Commission as well. We need to clarify that, and find out the correct way of doing it. That will take us a short time.

15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did you want to do it now or

MR MORRISSEY: I’d like to ask some short questions which will conclude this topic, but for that, and then take the break, if that .....

20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: We can do that.

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks. Sorry. So, Ms Couch, and then – although Ms Couch is under questioning, we would like to speak to her as well.

25 How many of the out-of-home carers who actually did the caring, how many of those, or what percentages of them are, in fact, Aboriginal people themselves?So I just need to clarify you’ve said out of home based carers. Are you talking about

Purchased home based care? Purchased home based care. I do not have that data. 30 Do you have any knowledge whether any of them are?I know – the one thing I can say is that it is a multicultural service provider in having met a number of them, there are, yeah, a number of

35 I think that’s clear that there are many races and backgrounds who provide those services. What I’m asking, though, are any of those Aboriginal?Yes. My understanding, there is, but I could not bring figures to mind.

Are you aware whether some of the cost of providing purchased out of home based 40 care consists of a commission paid by the carer to a large umbrella organisation?I would expect that if the umbrella organisation is overseeing the training, support, governance, applications that there would be some type of

Are you aware of what percentage that commission is?I’m not aware. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4833 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Are you aware whether any commissions are in the realms of 7.5 per cent of the cost?I would take, given that you’re suggesting it, that that’s probably within the sphere of it.

5 Don’t – no, you don’t have to be led. If you don’t know, just say so. That’s fine. You don’t know?No, I don’t.

Now the final question, before we cease, is this: you’ve indicated some concern not to go out of your area of knowledge and into the precise contractual arrangements 10 that are entered. I just want to be clear about this: is that because no one knows or because someone else in your Department is appropriate to explain what the contractual arrangements are and how they came about?Purchased home based care?

In relation to purchased home base the care; correct?I think – I think that may be 15 information that’s difficult to come by given that the inception of purchased home based care goes back a number of years and

Historically – I don’t think anyone has got a difficulty with that, but in terms of the situation now, contractual arrangements that exist, the policies that inform entering 20 into contracts?There are no contractual arrangements, except for our purchasing – our invoicing and purchasing of that service, if that’s what you’re asking.

Well, yes, I am asking you that, and I’m – because part of that is are there contractual arrangements that govern how the provider is obliged to deal with the child?The 25 provider is governed by the same legislation as all of our other carers. They also have their own policies and procedures and over sight of that. So there is oversight of that, but there is no contractual arrangement, and Commissioners, again we are moving towards the outsourcing of out-of-home care where I believe all of this will be addressed. 30 Well, I think

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well our terms of reference, of course, take us back to 2006?Yes. 35 So we can’t really just, you know, look at the initiatives of the past few weeks or months. We actually have to look ?Yes of course.

Look back a little further than that. 40 MR MORRISSEY: Just in summary then, in terms of – I appreciate you say there are moves afoot but – in fact, I think I’ve asked you most of those questions. Commissioners, might we seek to take a short break.

45 COMMISSIONER GOODA: Just ask one question.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4834 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY MR MORRISSEY: Of course.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: After it going through that process of for every child you go out, you look for cost – I won’t call them bids or anything, but then they 5 come back and someone has got to make a decision. Has anyone worked out the transaction costs of that?Sorry, the.

The transaction costs of just doing that?So

10 Given – like, it costs some money to send – a staff member to send it out, get back, make an assessment, make the decision, then go into it. That seems like a lot of transactions?It

If it happens, like, I’m sitting here wondering why haven’t you entered into a 15 contract with some of the providers?It’s a good question and I’ve been

Purchase so many nights or something like that?Yeah. I’ve been party to preliminary conversations in that arena because – but I have to temper that with where we’re heading with the outsourcing of out-of-home care. I can’t answer why that hasn’t 20 been done previously. That would make sense.

It just seems like a labour intensive process for every child that comes up?It’s an incredibly – it is a labour intensive process.

25 And it’s an administrative process that just seems to take time, when a Department is so – you know, at the front-line services?It is. The only thing that I would add to that, Commissioner, as well is I’m a little cautious – so I think there’s a fine balance in there somewhere, because what I don’t want is anyone to make any, if it’s – if it’s in the best interests of – sorry, let me clarify. We’ve got a number of children in 30 purchased home based care that have been with those families for years, and then it becomes a really serious consideration on what is the best option for the child if there is no kinship careers left. So we’ve got that group. But where we’ve got children that have not been there for very long, then the placement unit will work ongoing with the case manager to say is there a kinship career or have you identified them? 35 So we’ve – I’ve found in the past if we do long-term arrangements then sometimes the work can drift.

I’m just talking about a child comes in, you need an urgent placement, you’ve got to go through this big process?Yeah. 40 ..... cost?Yeah.

Someone’s got to make a decision on every one of those placements. It just seems like administratively ?It is an intense process. 45 an intense process?It is an intense process.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4835 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY I’m just talking the pure administration of that?Yes. I agree.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You need a break now, so you can deal with these matters. 5 MR MORRISSEY: We would like a break now, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly. I think it’s five minutes.

10 ADJOURNED [3.32 pm]

RESUMED [3.42 pm] 15

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks, Commissioners. We’re grateful for that time. It will result in a time saving, but could I draw the Commission’s attention to a matter just to ensure that fairness is done to the witness in respect to a particular issue. The 20 witness was taken to a table which is part of annexure KC2.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: And it was the table concerning purchased home-based care. 25 There are two matters about that that should be drawn to the Commission’s attention, because it was put to the witness in a particular form. The first of those is this document is annexure KC2. It’s annexed to the statement of a witness who’s not to be called. That’s Kim Charles, a finance officer. Second issue that needs to be drawn to the Commission’s attention about that is that the subtotal of 21 million – so 30 going to page 0017 which is on the screen here.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: The red line subtotal two-thirds of the way down the page of 35 21,272,222 is an error. If the Commission looks at the bottom of the page in the next red line subtotal you see an identity figure is there and it looks as though it has been entered in error. The correct figure though – that is simply a typo we believe, not a miscalculation, it’s just an error, but the correct figure will be found at paragraph 23 of Kim Charles’ statement, again a statement of a witness not proposed to be called. 40 And at paragraph 23 of that, the correct figure is revealed to be purchased home- based care in 2015/16 – it’s at the very top of that page – is the sum of $27,656,000. That’s the correct figure. So it doesn’t undo the thrust of the questions that were being asked, and I was not proposing to step-by-step over the same area, but it should be revealed in fairness to the witness that that is the document upon which she was 45 questioned and the figure – whilst she’s familiar with financial documents and with the work of Kim Charles, that’s not her document.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4836 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes?

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Apologise .....

5 MR MORRISSEY: Can I just – may I just say, you heard my speech there, you agree with what I put to the Commission?Yes, thank you. I just felt awful for not being able to answer your questions.

Thank you. I’m just going to turn briefly – and for time reasons I shall go speedily 10 through two more issues. One of them is residential care. Your team makes decisions to place children in residential care facilities?Yes.

And these are facilities which typically are staffed by workers doing eight hour shifts?Yes. 15 And whilst they do the best they can, and you’re very motivated to do it, you agree that those have a number of significant and recognised shortcomings as far as providing ideal care for those children?I don’t think we could ever compare residential care with the home-like environment. It will always have its limitations, 20 yes.

You may have heard – I’m not sure if you do hear any of the evidence given here from the foster care panel and for others, but they’ve been described in various ways, in various circumstances: soul destroying, distressing, and a variety of other sad 25 adjectives. Did you hear that evidence?I’ve heard a lot of evidence over the Royal Commission. I know that is the opinion, and there are a lot of reasons why it can be heartbreaking and soul destroying.

One of the issues you’re hoping to address in that space is the issue of staff turnover 30 and retention of staff in such facilities?I think all of us, as service providers of residential care, want to stabilise our staffing, particularly for the sake of the child, consistent adults in their life is incredibly important.

Thank you. And you aware, aren’t you, from Territory Families statistics that 35 between the second half of 2016 – between July and December – it appears that there were one 1588 reportable incidents to Territory Families and 90 per cent of them came from residential care facilities. That was an annexure to Mr Twyford’s?There is, and I’m sure you will come to this. A lot of those are children leaving placement without permission, and that’s what we’re trying to work on at the moment. 40 Yes. Very well. I think I won’t traverse over that, you’ve indicated what you want to say about that. One of the reasons for that is children in those facilities are often among the most traumatised and troubled kids; is that correct?That would be correct. I think also residential care, once again, children want to be with my families. So the rate with which children leave residential care does not necessarily

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4837 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY indicate that it is a bad environment, but that they would prefer to be in other places, which is with family and sometimes friends.

Accepting that, for the moment anyway, and subject to any reforms that happen in 5 the future, accepting that purchased home-based care facilities are less visible to the department than the resicare because they’re private whereas the resicare are not, do you agree that moving forward from now, in looking at how you handle residential care placements in the future, privatising the resicare facilities may – unless you’re careful and unless you put proper steps in place – may reduce the visibility of how 10 those children in resicare are treated and how they develop?I wouldn’t be able to draw that conclusion. I would like to have confidence in the process that we’re going to go through as Territory Families to the outsourcing of care and that the auditing and thought and co-design that is going to go into that process will do its best to ensure that that does not occur. 15 Yes. Do you think – is it – sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask a question there?Yes, Commissioner.

20 It will have to be something that still retained the Children’s Commissioner’s oversight, surely, when you’re doing the agreements?Yes, Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner would still have oversight and even with the – and as I said there’s a lot of work to be done so I don’t want to presume I know how the end is going to play out, but there will still be oversight of Territory Families for children in 25 care, but it will be the auditing and that process which will determine what that will look like and the accreditation.

Questions have been put to you at different times, both this time and last time concerning the legal framework within which those – resicare operates, and also 30 purchased home-based care operates, and the financial arrangements. Now, you’re part of the – or you have been part of the ongoing planning in relation to this area. Are you aware or can you say whether the planning includes review of the legal and financial arrangements to be put in place?In terms of the outsourcing?

35 Yes?So that will be part of the work that they’re doing, and the first step to that is the auditing, and the auditing would be looking at all components of out-of-home care, so yes, I believe that would be a component.

When you say “they”, that’s those who are – who do you mean by that, who is doing 40 the work?Sorry. I should say “us”, Territory Families.

So Territory Families. Is there a unit in Territory Families charged with this design? There is, and I believe Mr Twyford referred to it in his statement, the outsourcing of out-of-home care. 45 Yes?He has carriage of that.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4838 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY Alright. And do you know what is the name of that group that’s working on it? Does it have a name, a title? Service development and policy.

Service development and policy group or department, what is it?Service 5 development and policy of Territory Families.

It doesn’t have a final work like “committee”?No. I’m not aware of one.

That’s alright. Thank you. So now a couple of more evaluative questions, if I may. 10 Do you agree that residential care facilities are particularly unsuitable for younger children who are 12 years old or under?I think I know where you’re going with this, because we do have a large number of younger children in residential care. I don’t think – look, we have – we have two models of care designed for younger children. The community based children’s care model – and the purpose of that is to keep 15 children in community while they move to reunification or put them in kinship care. They are young children. I visit those houses. They’re fantastic in terms of developmental tools, and the care that’s provided to the children and the environment. I still think it is not beneficial to have young children in the care type where they have rotating staff members around them. Even if they are stable adults, 20 there is still – children need to have – and I know that children can form multiple attachments, particularly within the Aboriginal contexts, but rotating staff is never going to be ideal and residential care is never going to be ideal for younger children.

Thank you for – thanks for that explanation. Could I just identify the problem, 25 because it’s just to clarify something that you said last time, and I want to be clear that we’ve got a grip on it. Yes, it is correct that there are a significant number of children younger than that age in residential care. It appears, and you tell me if this seems right, that there’s, at the moment there’s approximately 110 kids in residential care and 37 of those are 12 years old or less; is that correct?That would be correct. 30 So the model that I’m referring to has capacity of six children per house so that would be 12 children. On addition to that, in Alice Springs, the reality is that we have not been able to attract the number of foster and kinship careers that we’ve required in that area which means that we have had to stand up houses with rotating staff for the younger children, particularly where it’s really important that we keep 35 sibling groups together. So in one of those houses we had a sibling group of four. We had no way of finding a foster or kinship – I’m happy to say we have now, but in order to maintain that is there sibling group together we opened a home.

I don’t know if you’re aware of this case, but it’s a case I just wanted to bring to your 40 attention. The Commission has heard of circumstances – quite deplorable circumstances, really, where a 13-year-old boy was placed in a particular – it doesn’t matter which one it was, but particular residential facility. Prompted a magistrate last year to write directly to the CEO stating the following:

45 The carer from the residential facility who attended court had no idea about the circumstances of the child or why he was in care.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4839 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY And secondly that:

A concern was raised that he turned up in court in ripped clothes. The DCF worker undertook to look into why that was the case, given that the resicare 5 facility is provided with funds to properly clothe them.

Now, that’s just an anecdote that has come along. But it comes through a magistrate. Firstly, are you aware of the case? We don’t want you to identify it, but do you know the case?So I – it’s highly likely I do know the case. If I can answer a number 10 of – a number of matters. The – and this is probably going to draw criticism, but I will say it anyway. The service providers are not funded in provide clothing for the children in most of the circumstances. That is something, as Territory Families, we are beholden to provide for the child, and that’s case management responsibility, but I would also say it’s a shared responsibility. No one should be allowing a child to 15 present in court in ripped clothes or to walk the street for that matter. With regards to the carer, and you’re talking about residential care?

Yes we are?Being unaware of the circumstances around that child, I think we need to do a lot of work in that area and, once again, I’ll use that word – I won’t shy away 20 from it again – there is sometimes a reluctance to share a level of detail around children, and I don’t know what that’s about, I don’t know whether that’s a lack of confidence in how that information will be used.

Reluctant on whose behalf, sorry? Just ?I think it can be a number of parties around 25 that child. In this circumstance, I would have to – I don’t know whether it was the case manager, it might have been a service provider, it might have been the placement unit, it could have been anyone. It’s a common theme we do hear that people need more information, and I think we have a lot of work to do in that area. Carers should be aware of those circumstances around the child, because that’s 30 critical to provide good care and support for those children. It’s very difficult to do it in the absence of that.

Sometimes – and this is another impressionistic question. It’s almost the end of my questioning, though. But I want to put this: sometimes, when senior professionals 35 such as yourself are asked questions about how do you deal with a particular issue, for example, deal with kids in resicare and so on, the answers have often been, to use a term, aspirational, in the sense that, “We try to do the following, these are our policies”?Okay.

“This is what we do.” And yet, in a complete disjunct from that, in various panels from vulnerable witnesses and from others we’re hearing experiences that are just poles apart from that aspiration. I appreciate you need to administer policies, and you need to operate at a high level, but there is just this disjunct that occurs a lot in this tribunal. Can you comment on how it is. Do you think that sometimes, at your level, there’s a lack of visibility of the real difficulties that face the individual young people so that they turn up to court in – disoriented, badly dressed and apparently not – well, yes, in that state?I think – I will only speak for myself. I – I am – I have

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4840 M. COUCH XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR MORRISSEY the benefit of having worked in every part of the child protection domain and that comes from residential care, foster care, one-on-one work with children with high challenging behaviours, so it’s very, and I – I am the type of ED that likes to know the detail, so that I can make sure systems and so forth are working as best they can. 5 I’m also lucky to be part of a lot of work that’s going on in residential care to try and join up or bridge the sometimes disparity between – I don’t want to use that word, it’s probably not the right word, but sometimes the

I used the word disjunct, and that was my word, so ?Probably, so I’ve picked it up 10 from there.

Yes?The disconnection from the residential care provider and the case manager, and trying to come together so that we improve the information sharing and the outcomes and the accountability and transparency, so if things aren’t getting done for a child, 15 whether it’s on our behalf or a service provider’s, there’s a – knocking that microphone again – a mechanism to report that and hold people accountable. So I – I think where is – where is the disparity? I think there are many stories. All I can say is that there are many good examples of the work that we do and there are examples which are not defendable. 20 Yes. Commissioners, although I have many hours of questions, the real world interposes and I would invite my learned friends to commence their cross- examination.

25 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Morrissey.

30 DR DWYER: Ms Couch, my name is Peggy Dwyer, I appear on behalf of NAAJA. Earlier today we heard evidence from Ms Wharburton that many in the workforce in residential care are unprofessional and unskilled. You would accept that evidence? They’re not the words I would use. 35 You accept that they are lacking in highly developed skills in terms of dealing with traumatised children?No, I would not accept that either. How I would frame it is that there are currently no all-encompassing qualifications for residential care workers, and this is an issue that has been going for some time, so it’s very difficult to say 40 they are qualified when there’s not an encompassing qualification. I also do actually believe that we have a number of highly skilled residential care workers.

But do you accept that there’s a number of residential care workers who are not highly skilled and they are not a professionalised workforce?Once again, I’m not 45 sure of the benchmark of what you would require of a highly skilled residential care worker.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4841 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER So you’re not prepared to adopt the description that’s accepted by the executive director of governance in their ?As I said, I would use different wording, and that’s okay.

5 You understand the importance of the Aboriginal Placement Principle, don’t you? Absolutely.

Earlier we heard from Ms Lambley, former Minister that in the three years from 2009 to 2012, private placements increased by 82 per cent in the Northern Territory, 10 as opposed to foster and kinship placements only increasing by 6 per cent. That’s a crisis, isn’t it, in terms of number of Aboriginal people being separated from their families?I think I heard to different questions in there, but anyway I will go to the first one. So

15 Well, let me – no, let me withdraw that. Do you accept the figure that were put by Minister Lambley that she learnt of when she became the Minister?I would – I would trust that she knew the figures of her time.

Alright. Well, I ask you to accept those, and them I’m asking you: that’s a crisis 20 isn’t it in the terms of the numbers of Aboriginal people being separated from their families?I think I answered this last time and my preference would be that no children come into care.

Okay. And do you – and what term do you prefer to use then in describing 25 MR O’MAHONEY: I object, Commissioner.

DR DWYER: Perhaps if my learned friend could wait until I finish the question.

30 MR O’MAHONEY: Well, it’s a question that’s directed to the use of terms and semantics, and really putting this witness words like crisis, if it’s going to be a synonym for that.

DR DWYER: I withdraw it. I will ask another question. Do you accept that having – that those figures of the 82 per cent increase in private placements over that period of time, as compared with the 6 per cent increase in kinship care, is not consistent with the aspirations of the Aboriginal Placement Principle?Well, first of all, I am finding that very difficult to answer. So there’s a couple of things. Absolutely, preference is that children should be in foster and kinship care, I’ve said that all along. So to have a disparate number would be a concern to me and I would want to know and look at the data. We have evened out those figures, so I would say that we are not practicing that way, but we have a lot of improvements still to go. In terms of the Aboriginal Placement Principle, I’ve discussed last time whilst it’s our preference that children are placed within family and community that is not always possible and I’ve always described the Placement Principle as a cascading effect and I think the area that we would, that I would like to see great improvement in is that maintaining

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4842 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER the culture and connection and communication and contact with family and community, where they cannot be placed with family and community.

You haven’t given up on the importance of kinship care, have you?No. 5 Or improving those statistics?Not at all.

Do you agree with me that the statistics I just told you in terms of the very tiny increase in kinship care as opposed to 82 per cent increase in private placements is of 10 grave concern to the NT Department and yourself?I cannot use those words, and this is a situation that was in the past Commissioner. With respect, I understand you have to go back in the years but I’m being asked to comment on a figure that is not today’s figure.

15 Do you accept that today there are still a concerning number of children placed with, in private placements and residential care as opposed to kinship?So you’re talking not kinship versus kinship.

I’m talking to the number of Aboriginal children taken away from families and 20 placed with non-Aboriginal carers. That’s of concern to you?I will go back to – I prefer no child come into care.

Alright. Fine, okay?But the reality is some children do have to come into care and our staff work very hard to try and identify kinship carers, families, and I would of 25 course like to see the number of children remaining in kinship and family increase.

Increase. Well, with that in mind at paragraph 88 of your statement you say that genogramming is the tool utilised to map families. Do you recall that?Yes, I do.

30 Have you become aware of the evidence of Dr Christine Fejo-King, an Aboriginal consultant, Larrakia woman with a PhD in that area?I was lucky enough to see some of her statement yesterday.

You will be aware then what she says in her statement at paragraph 15 is that the use 35 of genograms by child protection agencies is inappropriate when dealing with Aboriginal children and families, it does not reflect the Aboriginal family kinship system and disregards important members of a child, extended family and cultural relationships. She goes on to point out a better way of dealing with that from paragraph 20. Do you accept the significance of her evidence?I’m certainly not 40 going to disagree with Ms Fejo on what she said. What I can talk to you about is that – and I spoke to this last time, Commissioners, the genogram is simply a tool that can be used in a number of ways, and it is important that the staff using the tool are versed in kinship care systems and family systems around a child, so they are not limited by the tool itself, and that in the absence of the tool, they are able to have 45 those conversations around the systems, around the child, and identify extended family and kinship systems around the child.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4843 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER Do you accept an expert in this area is providing advice that the use of a genogram is not of assistance and doesn’t adequately reflect the Aboriginal kinship system?I would always welcome advice on how we can do things better.

5 How are you going to take that advice on board?In what way?

Have you talked to your superiors about how this mapping system can be implemented so that you can improve the statistics in relation to kinship care?So to – in all fairness, she appeared yesterday so I haven’t had the opportunity to go away 10 and review all of the information.

Are you going to reflect on it now?If I could – if I could finish my response, I’ve actually taken a lot away from this Commission in terms of research reports and people who’ve taken this down and provided information and intend to fully explore 15 it. So, yes.

In your transcript on the last occasion at page 4164, you were asked about models in terms of assessing kinship and you went on to express, if I can summarise it, considerable confidence in your staff in terms of their consulting with Aboriginal 20 communities about kinship and making the appropriate assessments; is that fair?Are you quoting me verbatim?

No, I’m not, I’m summarising in order to

25 COMMISSIONER WHITE: The transcript is on the screen in front of you. So you can just turn and have a look at that?So I’m happy to answer that. Which paragraph?

DR DWYER: I’m referring to around line 25 and onwards, where you give a lengthy answer in relation to kinship careers. You start at line 20 saying there are 30 professional experienced in that field who might be in a better position to answer that question and you go on to describe what I would respectfully submit is a confidence in your staff?Yes, I do have a confidence in my staff. With that said, we always – we always need professional development and ongoing reflection and improvement.

35 And do you agree that there should be professional development, improvement and reflection given the advice of Dr Fejo-King and her expertise in this area?Of course. We would always welcome it.

Were you in court for the evidence of Rosalee Webb, a Remote Family Support team 40 leader from Maningrida?No, I wasn’t.

I had the opportunity to show you briefly some evidence of her earlier; correct?Yes, you did.

She gives evidence around 4606 to 4607. She was asked about the evidence from the Burnawarra elders group who gave evidence to the Commission earlier this week.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4844 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER Did you see the evidence of the elders from Lajamanu and ?I did see part of it, yes, but not – not all of it.

Do you recall the evidence that they gave – that is, for example, Mr Dowardi from 5 the Burnawarra in Maningrida that they were not properly consulted about alternative kinship placements for a child?So I would certainly take that on notice and I would like to ask that group how they feel we could consult with them in a better manner. I welcome that information.

10 Is that something you can commit to doing, to consult with the Burnawarra now, about how that might be better – done better in the future?I can certainly take that on board, yes.

Similarly elders from Lajamanu, who said that welfare don’t come to their office and 15 consult with them about kinship. Do you commit to consulting with them going forward about how better ?I think the better thing for me to commit to is ensure that staff under my remit to look to every opportunity to consult with Aboriginal elders and significant peoples in community. I think I wouldn’t be able to commit to individually identify different people in different communities. 20 But they’re useful ?I need to work with the – I need to work with the relevant EDs but I think what you’re saying, in principle it’s the same: we need to increase our consultation with significant people in the communities and that’s something we absolutely should work towards. 25 And you’re happy to draw on the expertise of the elders’ panel in helping to inform your staff?I’ve done it in the past. I really welcome.

Okay. We heard from Ms Rosalee Webb 30 MR MORRISSEY: May I make application that my learned friend be permitted to extend her time, further than what has already been extended, by another two minutes.

35 DR DWYER: Your Honour, I’m happy to forego cross-examination of the witness Ms Thompson, as opposed to doing this witness properly in a way that properly assists the Commission. But it simply doesn’t assist – I’m already – I know I’m scatterguning these questions too quickly, and it just doesn’t assist the Commission if I can’t do it properly. I’m happy to forego the next witness. 40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Dr Dwyer, ask the questions that you must. You know we’re under terrific time constraints.

DR DWYER: I certainly do. 45 COMMISSIONER WHITE: And I know you’re beginning to sound like Gatling gun, and you probably don’t like that very much at all, but see what you can do.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4845 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER DR DWYER: I’m grateful. Thank you, Commissioner. You will have seen from the transcript that the Commission heard from Rosalee Webb, who’s a team leader in Maningrida that although she accepted the expertise of the leaders in Burnawarra to advise on kinship issues, her initial reaction was she wouldn’t meet with them 5 because her Aboriginal family support worker, whose mother was a traditional owner, didn’t recognise them as a legitimate entity. Did that concern you when you read her attitude?I – it’s a little like data, it’s very difficult for me to comment on that without understanding the full context of the situation.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I think in fairness though, she said that whenever she met with any of the Aboriginal people there, she liked to have her workers with – her Aboriginal workers with her. Because of their cultural differences with this particular group, she didn’t. But when pressed she said, well, yes, alright. Then she would go by herself and talk to them. 15 DR DWYER: Does that case example – Commissioner Gooda put to her that she was buying into the dispute to not go and consult with Burnawarra, because of her understanding of her Aboriginal

20 MR O’MAHONEY: I object to the question. It was put to that witness, Ms Webb, but she didn’t accept it and it really isn’t fair to her or this witness to have it recycled that way.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I think that’s correct. 25 DR DWYER: I withdraw the question.

Do you accept that it is inappropriate to not consult with a particular group of elders if you think your Aboriginal family worker won’t be in a position where she feels 30 comfortable?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, I object to that as well. 35 COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s not a fair – no, it’s alright, I’ll take this up. I don’t think that’s a fair system. It’s not systemic enough. It’s really personalising it in a way that I don’t think it helpful.

40 DR DWYER: I will move on then, thank you, Commissioner.

You – I want to read you something from the statement of the Burnawarra. Have you had an opportunity to review that statement?No, I haven’t.

At paragraph 8 of that statement the Burnawarra tell the Commission that there is no trust between Child Protection Services and the Maningrida community. They say in

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4846 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER that statement – on the – up there for you, “We feel the lack of trust is the most significant ”

COMMISSIONER WHITE: On the screen. 5 DR DWYER: On the screen, thank you?Yes, Commissioner. I’m also listening as well. I will have to change glasses.

DR DWYER: I will read it to you then: 10 There’s no trust between child protection services and the Maningrida community. We feel the lack of trust is the most significant barrier to the provision of effective child services in our community.

15 You see that?I’ve heard you, yes.

And on the last occasion, when you gave evidence at page 4164, it was put to you by Mr Morrissey at line 37 – 38 that the Commission has heard a lot of evidence about what might be described as endemic distrust on the behalf of many Aboriginal 20 communities and their members of Territory Families and its predecessors. You accept that this Commission has heard numerous examples of the lack of trust that Aboriginal family members feel towards welfare?I’ve heard the statements, Commissioners, about the distrust. I can’t discount that, and I think it warrants further inquiry, and thought, and conversations. 25 What you said earlier when you gave evidence in May, is that you were well aware of the – of the rhetoric and literature and research, but it’s not a message that you have received from Aboriginal community members yourself; correct?That would be correct. 30 Do you now accept that you have become aware of a direct message from Aboriginal community members in relation to the distrust of Territory Families?Of course. That’s the opportunity from the Royal Commission.

35 Does it suggest to you that you hadn’t been listening carefully enough, prior to the Royal Commission, about the lack of – distrust?Those would not be the words that I would use.

You accept that you have a responsibility, in terms of your leadership in this area, to 40 advise your staff about better ways to respond to Aboriginal communities in terms of listening and kinship; correct?Absolutely.

Do you recognise that you’ve got some room yourself for improving your understanding of the complex kinship systems in Aboriginal community?I think we 45 can always learn more, so I would not be so silly as to say I think I know it all.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4847 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER The final question relates to evidence given by Dr Fejo-King. She said at paragraph 29 that:

Alleviating poverty and assisting family was the fundamentals of living at the 5 early stages will avoid or minimise the risk of a child later being removed by NT families.

Do you accept that?Once again, I’m not going to disagree with what Ms Fejo said. I think the issue of poverty and neglect has been raised a number of times. I think 10 there are so many factors to what leads to poverty and neglect that it’s something that warrants a lot more thought and consideration and education around.

And so you think there’s room for improvement in terms of the Department supporting families to alleviate poverty as a way of reducing the number of children 15 taken?I think – and I’ve heard this said before – I think there are many areas that can assist in the area of poverty and neglect. I would also say though that it’s going to take all parties to come together, and that is family and extended family and communities as well, that it – we’re not going to achieve anything by individuals trying to do things on their own. We all have to come together and take equal 20 responsibility to try and change what’s happening.

But your role is to support families in changing what’s happening by alleviating poverty – is that part of your role?Our role is not to alleviate poverty.

25 Can you see a role for the Department to helping Aboriginal children to keep kids with them if you address basic poverty issues?So I think – once again, I’m not trying to be difficult. Poverty is a very complex word, and there are a lot of elements to it, Commissioners, so I do not have a simple answer to that question.

30 Nothing further.

35 MR LAWRENCE: My name’s Lawrence. I represent Danila Dilba Health Service. Just want to ask you about residential care staff, and I’m going to your statement, and perhaps the witness could be kindly shown her statement.

40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Which paragraph though?

MR LAWRENCE: 106.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. 45 MR LAWRENCE: Page 18. The exhibit number, I’ve forgotten?Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4848 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE Now, I just – you talk about at the end there ..... residential care has rotating staff that are trained in managing high risk behaviours in the general residential setting. Can I ask you this please: who designs and delivers that training?Therapeutic crisis intervention training, so that is delivered by both our residential care management 5 team and in the NGO sector the NGOs also provide that training.

And are you able to tell us in some detail the principles and the objectives of that training?I did it myself quite some time ago. I’ll try and refresh my memory as well, But I mean, the basic premise is to – and I don’t even like to use the word deescalate, 10 it’s so forensic, but to be able to deal with a child in a moment of when they are distressed, in a way that will calm them, and support them, and minimise the chance of it becoming a bigger matter, such as one leading to property damage or violence. That is the basic premise of it, and part of that is also what they call the life space interviewing. So talking to the child about what is happening for them in their world. 15 Do the particular requirements of Aboriginal children and young people form part of that training?I think that’s a valid question and one I will take away. We have Aboriginal staff that also participate or complete the therapeutic crisis intervention training. I have not had any feedback that they have any concerns. I think – if I 20 think of – I tend to think of culture in terms of values and beliefs, predominantly, and if I look at the values and belief systems within the therapeutic crisis intervention it certainly would do no harm and it’s not discriminatory against any particular values or beliefs, if that makes sense. But I will take that away and give that some thought.

25 Can you recall if the training is trauma informed, non-punitive and accounting for the histories of lived experiences of children?Yes, it is.

Okay. In a – similarly, can I take you to paragraph 110 of your statement, please, near the end. Page 19. Long-term planning?Yes. 30 This is when a decision has been made, obviously a critical decision, you would agree?Yes.

Can you tell the Commission how many Aboriginal children in 2016/17 have been 35 subjects of the decision to proceed to long-term planning because of a determination there’s no prospect that parents and kinship family will be able to care for them?I’m unable to give that data, Commissioner. What I can talk to is the part that the placement unit and out-of-home care division play in terms of identifying children where the case manager has stated that the child is on a long-term order, that there is 40 – all opportunity for reunification and kinship care has been exhausted, and then the placement unit will look to our pool of foster carers to see which ones are particularly wanting to provide lifetime care for that child.

Are you able to tell us if there are any – at least broadly, the strategies that would be undertaken to avert the decision to proceed to long-term planning?I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood that, and I also just want to clarify case managers make the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4849 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE decisions with the courts, of course, to whether a child will remain on a long term order and then subsequently long-term planning. I’m at the other end, where we influence – where a child will, what home a child will go to, if that’s the decision that has been made. Have I misunderstood something? 5 Well, is there any strategies involved in the decision-making that addresses trying to avert this decision?I think that would be a question for case management, and I know Commissioners have caught me on that before and said I’m sure I’ve got an opinion. So if I refer back to my experiences, I think it’s – I think there has to be, and I don’t 10 want to use the assumption, because we actually shouldn’t assume. I would like to believe and I have seen mechanisms used along the way of when a child is brought in on a short-term protection order that every piece of work has been done to ensure that every kinship care has been exhausted, that where the child was removed from, every opportunity has been exhausted, and that the decision for long-term planning is 15 when all of that work has occurred and it’s in the best interest of the child that they have some permanency planning in their life.

Can you tell us who and what position in your team oversees the practice that leads to such a determination?Which part? 20 Long-term planning?As to where a child’s home will be?

No, that decision itself?That decision as to where the home will be, I’m just separating out – remembering case management make the decision. 25 ..... it’s going to be long-term planning for a child, there’s no other kinship or other ?The long term – so the long – the direction to do long-term planning.

Yes?And where my team or the placements unit would become involved and the care 30 assessors, so forth, would become involved would be at the instigation of the case manager, through the placement request form which was discussed earlier. That’s where it should be articulated.

And would that be the same person who would make the determination the child’s 35 unlikely to be reunified with family and cannot be placed with kinship members? That would be correct.

And finally page 15, paragraph 86. This is just a brief question?Paragraph 86?

40 Yes. There was an annexure to your statement which was the ?Finding kinship model.

How long has that been in place?I could not answer to that – I could not answer to that. 45

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4850 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE Okay?It is – it is the model which is largely applied by the case management section, not the out-of-home care decision, but we are familiar with it as well, and that would be my expectation.

5 Okay. And just in relation to kids that are in purchased home-based care, I think you gave evidence earlier that there is a procedure that applies to deal with complaints from those kids?Yes.

Can you tell us what that is, please?Well, the charter of rights is afforded to all 10 children in care and the charter of rights gives the child information as to contacting case managers, contacting the Children’s Commissioner, contacting the Kids Helpline, so giving them a number of avenues to talk to when they have worries. It would also – I would also hope that children feel safe and secure in talking to their case managers when they see them, and talking to them about any worries they might 15 have.

Alright. Thanks very much?Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Bellach. 20

25 MR BELLACH: Commissioners.

Ms Couch, my name is Pete Bellach. I represent witness DD. She gave evidence, and provided a statement. I wanted to ask you some questions about respite care? Mmm. 30 And can you accept from me, for the purpose of these questions, that in DDs statement there’s information where she says she suggests ongoing requests for respite care were made to Territory Families. Now, at paragraphs 10 and 11 of your statement, you’ve referred to the five different types of out-of-home care?Yes. 35 Subparagraph (e) or little (e) you refer to other forms of care. Do you include within that respite care?No, that’s boarding school, Don Dale, those sorts. It’s not respite. Respite comes within the kinship and the general foster care.

40 Right. So is respite care an aspect of those other forms of care?Yes, it is.

Just moving forward to paragraphs 20 to 23, you’ve made reference to family support services and specifically the family intervention framework that is utilised by Territory Families?Yes. Correct. 45 Now, is respite care available within that family intervention framework?No. Respite care is available through the out-of-home care division’s placement unit.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4851 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR BELLACH Respite care is something that our carers can ask the case managers for at any time and then the case manager will put through a placement request form to the placement unit. I guess what I would be interested in is the date that that was occurring because it would concern me if we have a carer that is continually asking 5 for respite and we have not acted on it.

In response to your last

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask this question. Would there be some 10 carers who, in fact, like to work on the short-term respite basis rather than being long term carers for children?Yes, Commissioner, they would be our emergency and short-term carers and I – I just want to say because you know, we can think a lot of things about carers whether it’s kinship careers and foster careers, we need to be really frank with our carers about how much their heart can manage in terms of 15 caring for a child, and there are some carers that understand that – they would struggle to let a child go if they were with them for a long time so, you know, they can recognise their limitations. And sometimes there are work requirements as well. So

20 MR BELLACH: So respite care would be available ordinarily for foster careers? Yes, and kinship careers.

And what about relative carers?We don’t have relative carers.

25 Right. What about in circumstances where there is a child who is not actually in the care of the CEO, but may be at risk of being taken into care. Is respite care something that could be used in some sort of – as some sort of pre-emptive response in those circumstances which could prevent – or be used as part of some measures to avoid a child being taken into care?So first of all, Commissioners, I don’t have 30 authority or delegation to provide a place of care or a home for a child that’s not in the care of the CEO. So – but to answer outside of my domain, there would be mechanisms such as a temporary placement arrangement, which is a voluntary process through case management at a local level. That might be one mechanism to address that, but through my division, no. 35 And my last question would be, in circumstances where you’ve got a single parent who has shared parental responsibility with Territory Families, is that a circumstance in which respite care could be available?We have. Yes.

40 Thank you. Thanks, Commissioners.

45 MR O’MAHONEY: Just very briefly, Ms Couch, you were asked a number of questions earlier today about purchased home-based care?Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4852 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY Is it fair to say that you would like to see more operators working in that space?I – I think that’s what we’re welcoming in the outsourcing of out-of-home care, yes.

And is that because the contribution of, or involvement of, more operators in that 5 space would create more competitive pressure and potentially result in more cost effective outcomes for the government?I think we always need to look at increased cost effectiveness in out-of-home care because, as has been described to Commissioner Gooda, and I can’t remember who made this statement – might have been yourself, you know, if we can increase the efficiencies in out-of-home care, 10 that’s money we canning spending in other areas of the child protection area.

And what would you say, Ms Couch, to people following this Commission who are considering getting involved in that space and providing such care?I would be asking them to become foster or kinship careers. 15 No further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

20 MR MORRISSEY: I have no questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Morrissey, that table that we asked lots of questions about in Ms Charles’ statement where the figures were incorrectly added up. 25 MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Because it was the subject of really so much questioning and discussion, I think it ought to be in evidence. 30 MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The statement may or may not be tendered in due course. 35 MR MORRISSEY: The statement will be, but it would be appropriate, I accept what you say. May I offer for tender – it’s KC2.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. That’s 40 MR MORRISSEY: KC2, and it should be noted that the correct figures appear at 23 of the statement which will ultimately be

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, yes. That’s right. Subject to those – that issue. 45 MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4853 M. COUCH XXN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY COMMISSIONER WHITE: So I think that’s exhibit 552.

EXHIBIT #552 TABLE KC2 5

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, I may clarify that we tendered the index at the start. I should really have said that I tender that with the documents.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: And the documents as well.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And are they all open? 15 MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: They’ve all been dealt with?

20 MR MORRISSEY: They are. Other than that, Commissioners, it falls to us to thank Ms Couch for her extended – and her return and the evidence that she gave today.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Indeed. Thank you, Ms Couch, for coming back again to be subject to some fairly vigorous questioning?Thank you, Commissioners. 25 I know there are a number of things that, in a sense, have been left a little outstanding from the questions that you’ve been asked, particularly by with us, and if you wished on reflection to put in a further statement which clarifies those matters we will be more than happy to receive it?Thank you. I actually would still like to go away and 30 inquire about that table and get further information. You did raise it.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Once again I apologise for the wrong .....?Quite alright. Commissioner, as I said I just was a bit distressed I couldn’t provide you the answer. Thank you. 35

40 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Now, Mr Morrissey, exhibit 551 was, in fact, identified as the out-of-home care tender bundle index, only.

MR MORRISSEY: Index alone.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Consistently with our practice, each of the documents that are to be received in those indexes tend to be given their own number underneath it. If it’s all of the documents, that’s an easy administrative exercise,

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4854 ©Commonwealth of Australia because they will all be a sub-number under exhibit 551 but I think that’s how they will be done.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Someone else will do that. You and I won’t.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, Commissioner.

10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. And if that’s not what’s to happen, someone else will tell us that too.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

15 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. Now, we have got a very small amount of time. I take it that Ms Thompson is here and ready to be affirmed and probably give her name and address and not much more.

MR CALLAGHAN: Tender the statement and that might do. But I suppose ..... 20 COMMISSIONER WHITE: At least we could start. I think we should start. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. If you would like to be seated.

MR CALLAGHAN: Would you 30 COMMISSIONER WHITE: You understand that we actually have got very little time this afternoon?Yes.

And we might have to ask you to come back tomorrow?That’s ..... 35 But at least we will get a few minutes start. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Would you tell the Commission your full name and occupation please?Bronwyn Jane Thompson. I am the acting general manager of operations in Territory Families. 45 Ms Thompson, you have prepared two statements for the purposes of this Commission; is that correct? The first is dated 9 June 2017?That’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4855 B.J. THOMPSON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN That’s on the screen?Mmm.

And I tender that statement and annexures.

5 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 553.

EXHIBIT #553 STATEMENT OF BRONWYN THOMPSON DATED 9/06/2017 10

MR CALLAGHAN: And a further statement dated 20 June 2017. That’s on the screen in front of you?That’s correct.

15 I tender that statement and annexures.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 554.

20 EXHIBIT #554 STATEMENT OF BRONWYN THOMPSON DATED 20/06/2017

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m in your hands, Commissioners. I might be able to deal 25 with one very brief topic before you have to rise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, certainly. I think we can handle that.

MR CALLAGHAN: Ms Thompson, my first query relates to the status of children 30 in detention. If that child is under a child protection order, Territory Families continues to have case management responsibilities; is that correct?That’s correct.

And this is an issue that has come to your attention previously. I might get a document on the screen. That’s the document that ends in 6784. It’s the email, tab 35 22. Look towards the bottom of the screen. There’s an email dated 6 August 2015, and there’s a reference there to senior staff from DCF, including yourself, meeting with NAAJA on 6 August 2015. Take a moment to read that, and if we can eventually scroll down so that you can read the rest of the email which is on a following page. Had the chance to read that?Yes. 40 I specifically draw your attention to that passage in which it’s said that the lack of case manager content for children in Don Dale was raised, and is a valid concern, and an area DCF could improve on. Are you able to tell us what specifically has been done since that time to improve on the issue of case manager contact with children in Don Dale?Since that time, of course, we’ve had – the machinery of Government changes so we’ve actually – youth justice now comes within Territory Families. So we have actually been working together a lot more closely in terms of

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4856 B.J. THOMPSON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN the case management of – of children while they are in detention. It’s fair to say that there’s still some work to do there, but we’re looking at how we make sure that there’s continuity for kids who are in detention that are being case managed, in terms of things like their education, and the other care throughput that you would expect. 5 Are you able to tell us what specifically has been done since August of 2015? You tell us that you’re working closely together and looking at things, but what has actually been done?I can’t name specific items that have been done. It is an ongoing consideration. So we’ve had the – we’ve been together for nine months and so 10 we’ve – there’s a lot of work that’s clearly being done in the youth detention space. We have – as the email refers to, we have – we’ve been meeting with the legal providers and we are continuing to have those discussions about how we improve services and we have – we’re about to reinstate the meeting that’s referred to there as the family matters forum meeting. It’s a user forum group that we’ve made a 15 commitment to recommence in both Darwin and Alice Springs, and so those preparations are under way.

So there’s been conversations, there are preparations, but you can’t actually point to anything that has been done since August of 2015 to improve this problem?Clearly 20 we have policies in place that our staff have been – it has been brought to our staff’s awareness, so a lot of the problem that’s being referred to here is about – there are already policies and procedures in place to govern that. What tends to happen is that when children who are in care end up in Don Dale, or any detention centre for that matter, they – because their general care needs are being met at that stage it can be – 25 for case managers who have case caseloads, it has tended to be a time when they have got on with other work with their high caseloads, and that’s the thing that we have been trying to raise with them, the need for that continuity of the contact with the kids in care and to continue with the planning around their care planning.

30 Alright. I think that answers my question.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’re going to a different topic.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’ve got one other question about detention that I might be 35 able to deal with, but I realise you do have a very strict deadline.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. No. I was just saying we could take an early minute if you’ve finished on that topic, but if you’ve got a little more to go, we should be able to do that too. 40 MR CALLAGHAN: It’s simply this, Ms Thompson: it’s the concept of a handover and the exchange of information between a detention centre and Territory Families when a child is released or remanded. I understand that it’s all – the machinery has all changed and so on, but there’s still a need for information sharing at what we call the handover stage. What actually happens at that point, when a child is released or – released from detention or remanded in detention, is there a – an exchange of information between, say, a case manager or if a child – we’re talking a child in

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4857 B.J. THOMPSON XN ©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN care?Yes – yes, there’s contact between the case manager in the care and protection side of things and the case manager in the – case managing the child in detention.

Is that a formal process? Is that ?Yes. It’s a formal process in that it’s – it’s 5 outlined as to how to – that there’s a requirement to do that.

Alright. Where can we find that policy and outline?I don’t

Do you want to leave that till tomorrow?Sure. 10 I think we’re at the point where we have to adjourn now, so if you can perhaps come back to us on that tomorrow, if you don’t have it ..... now?I don’t have all the policies here.

15 What time for Ms Thompson tomorrow would you get?

MR CALLAGHAN: 12 noon, I believe.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 12 noon. Thank you. Is it a 9 o’clock start tomorrow 20 for us?

MR CALLAGHAN: 9.30 is being whispered to me.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. But the slave driver might have other ideas. 25 MR CALLAGHAN: That might be just wishful thinking.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We did try 9 o’clock this morning. Unfortunately, technology had some other ideas. Alright. We will adjourn then until 9.30 30 tomorrow. Thank you, Ms Thompson, but you for 12.

35 MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.44 pm UNTIL FRIDAY, 23 JUNE 2017

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4858 ©Commonwealth of Australia Index of Witness Events

OLGA HAVNEN, AFFIRMED P-4757 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-4757 EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4764 THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4772

LEONIE WHARBURTON, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION P-4772 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4772 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4794 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-4799 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4802 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BELLACH P-4803 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER P-4805 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY P-4808 THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4809

MARNIE COUCH, RECALLED AND RE-AFFIRMED P-4810 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MORRISSEY P-4810 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-4841 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-4848 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BELLACH P-4851 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY P-4852 THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4854

BRONWYN JANE THOMPSON, AFFIRMED P-4855 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-4855 THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-4858

5 Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #548 STATEMENT AND ANNEXURES OF OLGA P-4757 HAVNEN DATED 21/06/2017

EXHIBIT #549 TUITUIA ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK P-4764 IMPLEMENTED BY THE NEW ZEALAND DEPARTMENT FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN

EXHIBIT #515.149 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 149 P-4783

EXHIBIT #515.056 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 56 P-4794 MEETING MINUTES

EXHIBIT #550 REDACTED NAAJA EMAIL P-4808

EXHIBIT #551 OUT-OF-HOME CARE TENDER BUNDLE P-4815

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4859 ©Commonwealth of Australia EXHIBIT #552 TABLE KC2 P-4854

EXHIBIT #553 STATEMENT OF BRONWYN THOMPSON DATED P-4856 9/06/2017

EXHIBIT #554 STATEMENT OF BRONWYN THOMPSON DATED P-4856 20/06/2017

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.6.17 P-4859 ©Commonwealth of Australia