transcript 12 may 2017 web view.royal commission 12.5.17p-3881l. tonumaipea xn ©commonwealth of...

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITEDACN 110 028 825

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N H-773113

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

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

DARWIN

9.09 AM, FRIDAY, 12 MAY 2017

Continued from 11.5.17

DAY 38

MR P.J. CALLAGHAN SC appears with MR P. MORRISSEY SC, MR T. McAVOY SC, MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN, MS S. McGEE and MS R. RODGER as Counsel AssistingMS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR G. O’MAHONEY and MR C. JACOBI for the Northern Territory of AustraliaMR P. O’BRIEN appears with MS C. GOODHAND and MR D. INDEVAR for Dylan VollerMR P. BOULTEN SC appears with DR P. DWYER for North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears with MS G. LEWER for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR J. LAWRENCE QC appears for ADMR S. O’CONNELL appears for AN and AVMS T. LEE appears for AA, AB and AC

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3867©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MR McAVOY: Good morning, Commissioners. I had indicated yesterday that we would be proceeding with the witness, Amanda Nobbs-Carcuro this morning at 9 am and the witness CB. After further consideration overnight I asked that the witness CB be released, and she hasn’t returned today.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. And she should be released then from her summons. I think that she had a very comprehensive statement and we had got so close to the end, if we hadn’t already got to the end, that there’s no point in inconveniencing her further by bringing her back. So the Commission releases her from her summons.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. The other witness, Ms Amanda Nobbs-Carcuro, was in attendance but as a result of some developments overnight and some discussions between my instructors and the SNFT, we prefer to have her called later in the morning. At the moment, it’s estimated that her evidence may be able to be taken after morning tea, and the witness that was scheduled for 10 am, Ms Leilani Tonumaipea, is available in court to commence immediately. Commissioners, I should indicate that the examination of Ms Nobbs-Carcuro later in the morning will be in relation to certain advice that she was involved in procuring from the solicitor for the Northern Territory. That advice came to the Commission’s attention during the evidence of Mr Russell Caldwell, if the Commissioners recall. There was a draft notice to produce sent to the solicitors for the Northern Territory on 24 April. As a result of that notice, documents were received yesterday.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It was just a draft notice, I think you said.

MR McAVOY: It was a draft notice.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That is the practice, as I understand it. Those notices were shown to the Solicitor for the Northern Territory.

MR McAVOY: It was at the Solicitor’s for the Northern Territory request that we operate by draft notices as a – I’m sorry. The documents to produce yesterday were produced under the original notices to appear last year on 26 August, N7 and N8. There are additional documents which were sought under the draft notice, N384 of ’17 on 24 April. There has been some response from SFNT slightly – just shortly before we resumed this morning. There needs to be some further communication between my instructors and SFNT about the existence of any other documents which might be relevant to the proceedings.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Nobbs-Carcuro can be stood down until that’s sorted out then.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. I will add that because the statement came in reasonably late last night it’s also probably also fair for all the parties to have a bit longer to consider it before considering any cross-examination.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3868 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We would quite like to see that too.

MR McAVOY: Certainly. Commissioner, I call Leilani Tonumaipea.

<LEILANI TONUMAIPEA, SWORN [9.14 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MCAVOY

MR McAVOY: Good morning, Ms Tonumaipea. Could you tell the Commissioners your full name, please?---Leilani Tonumaipea.

And your business address?---It’s 20 By Road. It’s New South Wales 2560.

And, Ms Tonumaipea, can see on the screen to your left, a statement dated 9 May. Do you recognise that statement?---Yes.

And that’s your signature that appears on the bottom?---That’s correct.

And you will see adjacent to it is that’s your signature that appears above the date?---That’s correct.

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

Commissioners, I tender the statement of Leilani Tonumaipea, including all the annexures.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 377 from Ms Tonumaipea’s statement together with those annexures.

EXHIBIT #377 MS TONUMAIPEA’S STATEMENT

MR McAVOY: Ms Tonumaipea, could you just explain for the Commissioners your role as centre manager at the Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre?---As the acting centre manager of Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre my role is to oversee all the operational and – programs, business of the centre, and that includes the Waratah Unit Pre-release Unit

And you’ve been involved with the Waratah program since its inception?---Yes. I wasn’t there initially when it was actually being implemented, but when I came back from leave, I had – you know, I had a major part in it as the assistant manager client services.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3869 L. TONUMAIPEA XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR MCAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can you just explain for the Commissioners what the Waratah Pre-release Unit at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre is?---Look, Waratah Pre-release Unit is – it’s a program which allows young people who are coming towards the end of their time in custody to engage – to practically engage in their exit planning. So, you know, generally prior to the Waratah Unit kids would go out with an exit plan, but they don’t get the opportunity to engage in that whilst they’re still in custody. But Waratah allows them to start engaging in their exit plan while they’re still in custody, but still have the supports around them to tease out any issues that they might have that could be resolved or we could help assist them with. And then when they actually exit out in the community they are a lot more confident to engage in their exit plan. We have linked them to network supports. We’ve created networks for them so that they can ask for help when they struggle or they feel like they’re going to struggle to carry out their case plan.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So, although it’s co-located in the Reiby precinct, your young people, I take it from your statement, can come from anywhere in New South Wales for that program?---Yes. It’s available to all kids across New South Wales in custody.

You’re probably going to talk about the criteria for selection for the Waratah program in due course.

MR McAVOY: I am happy for you to ask questions, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. You’ve got beds for about 10 young people there?---Yes, we do.

What’s the basis for selecting them to engage in that program?---So they have to be at the last six months of their control order. But, again, we have been flexible in that because we see that there are young kids in custody who are on a long remand sentence, and then when they get a control order, it’s a short control order, and if we feel that the program could support them, to return back into the community with a good discharge exit plan, then we would recommend that they come to the program, and we provide them an intense sort of a stream lined version of the Waratah, but we then just look at the essential needs, like accommodation, education, something that would support them. It could just be getting them their licence, getting them a White Card, referring them to Centrelink because Centrelink also comes into the centre and set them up before they get discharged. So try and make sure that whatever we can provide to these kids and as long as they’re suitable for the program we do not limit that within our criteria, but we have got to make sure that we get approval from our regional director to do that, yes.

MR McAVOY: At paragraph 21 of your statement, Ms Tonumaipea, it’s page 3, you can see at the bottom of page 3 there’s some discussion regarding referrals and in order for a young person to be referred to the Waratah program there’s a list of criteria set out at paragraph 21 which then goes over the page. Firstly, they must be between the pages of 16 and 21; is that correct?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But sometimes you take 15 year olds?---We have taken 15 year olds.

The second criteria is that they be male?---Yes.

However, on a non-residential basis you will take female detainees as well?---Yes. When Juniperina closed, then they built Reiby. We saw how the program could also benefit them, so we risk assess that, and now we allow for the inclusion of girls to participate in the program.

For the benefit of the Commissioners, the Juniperina Centre was a young - - -?---Female centre only.

At the Reiby complex?---At the Juniperina complex which closed down in April 2016.

They are required to be on a B2 or B3 security classification, and they are the lowest in the New South Wales system?---That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there any plan to replicate the Waratah program for females?---There has been discussions, and we are actively looking at those options.

One can see because of the proximity to Reiby that if the girls were, in fact, transferred to Reiby, say, if they weren’t - - -?---Yes.

Then that probably isn’t so difficult because they are not very far way and they could easily go there to sleep. It would be better if they had the facility, wouldn’t it, like the Waratah?---That’s correct. In saying that, we haven’t made that a limit to them accessing the program. We have had three girls go through the program. Towards the last phase of their time in custody, which we have two girls at the moment, they engage in a majority of the Waratah program with the exception they don’t sleep there. They return back to the units inside the centre.

MR McAVOY: Is New South Wales experiencing a growth in juvenile young female detainees?---Yes. Of recent the numbers for females have definitely increased and sort of stabilised at that high rate.

I’m not sure whether you’ve had the opportunity to consider this, but is there a sufficient cohort of female detainees to warrant a separate centre such as the Waratah pre-release program on its own?---Based on the stats for Waratah alone, I think there is sufficient number of females in custody that would warrant that.

Item D is that the criteria for referral is that the detainee be on a control order and have between six months remaining on their sentence, but I understand from what you said a few moments ago that there’s also the possibility for remand detainees to engage in the program?---Remand detainees do not engage in the Waratah program. What we do do is we make sure that the services that some of the Waratah detainees


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

have access to – we can make that available within the centre. For example, like White Card, Centrelink, so we brought those services within inside the centre.

Is there any plan to extend the Waratah program to remand detainees?---There’s no current talks about it but there is – at the moment we are actively looking at how we could increase some of the programs that are available to remand detainees which would allow them – which would allow for good exit planning, case planning.

Item E is that the detainee must be eligible for outings, and that’s because a very important part of the Waratah program is that the detainees get to engage in activities in the community?---Yes.

And F and G provide that the detainee must be free from any current self-harm alerts or have never escaped from juvenile justice custody. I note that there is room for some discretion with respect to previous escapes?---Yes.

So can you just explain how that works?---That’s based on if the stakeholders or the staff who have worked with the young person – if they strongly recommend that the young person, you know, has made amends, he has worked on those issues, worked on those behaviours which might pose a risk to himself and the community, and they strongly feel that the Waratah program would benefit them, they have the right to put up a case and we have to consider.

So it’s not the case that if a detainee is involved in an escape, that that forever prohibits them from engaging in programs?---Yes. But it would eliminate, you know, that young people feeling that they automatically could just be considered, but they will understand they need to work hard on those behaviours that poses a risk to themselves and the community. And once we can eliminate that then we know that they’re suitable and we know that it will be safe for them in the community to participate in a program.

Are there any restrictions on the program, entry into the program by reason of the offence type? So are people who are – young offenders who are serving sentences for violent crime or sexual offences, are they prohibited from entering the program?---No. There’s no restriction based on their offence. We just have to make sure we assess those risks intensively to make sure that, again, there’s no risk to the young person or the community and others.

So at an extra one to your statement is a guiding document in relation to the Waratah program?---Yes.

It’s quite a comprehensive document?---Yes.

And is that the general guide to the operation of the centre?---That’s correct.

Is it a document that’s used by staff?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. Now, you describe in your statement how each child that comes to the Waratah program is assigned a key worker. Can you just explain what a key worker is?---Okay. So a key worker is a youth officer that works inside the Waratah unit, but they’re assigned as the key worker that provides case management needs to that young person during their time in the Waratah unit. And that’s a system that we also do inside the centre as well. So you’re the responsible key worker to oversee the case management of that young person while they’re in custody.

And, in addition to the key worker, there is a caseworker or caseworkers that deal with the – interact with the detainees while they’re in the project?---Yes. So every young person has a dedicated or allocated caseworker in the community. They’re the primary caseworker, so they’re the ones that oversee the full case management of the young person whilst in custody and community, and they still engage with them whilst they’re in custody as well.

So that caseworker would be the person that then continues the contact with the detainee once after release in the community?---Yes, that’s correct.

In terms of the staff, the key worker and the case workers, I imagine it’s quite important to have highly skilled staff for those positions. Is that something that you find to be important for the success of the program?---Look, it’s definitely important because the task that they’re required to complete, is an important role in the overall case management of the young person. For example, some of the tasks that they do have a complete once a young person comes into custody is induction, make sure the young person is aware of where they’re at, what they’re entitled to, how we can support them while in custody and their role inside the centre. They’re also having the responsibility to advocate on behalf of that young person, maintain contact with the young person’s family. If there’s any issues that arise, they’re the person that needs to refer the young person on to relevant services, communicate to management, you know, if there’s any concerns. So they’re almost like, they have a parental responsibility to that kid. I mean, we all do, but they’re the ones that we’ve said to the kid that’s your key worker; any issues go to them. Failing that there’s other staff that they can go to.

And so how many – you said that each detainee is allocated a key worker when they come into the Waratah project. How many detainees does each key worker work with?---With a number of detainees in Waratah’s 10. A key worker would probably only have a maximum number of two. Of two. But most of the time you’re just allocated one. One young person.

So it’s almost a one-to-one?---One to one.

Most of the time?---Yes, majority.

So that allows for very intensive case management?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And I understand that that’s in a response to the understanding that the needs of the detainees are very high and that - - -?---Yes.

And they need a lot of support preparing for release?---Yes. Generally when kids are getting ready to exit custody they have so many things that they want to get sorted before they leave custody, you know, setting up a bank card, setting up Centrelink, you know, things that they would not normally be able to confidently do on their own once they are released from custody.

With that level of intensity, how do the costs of running Waratah compare with, say, Reiby?---I would say it balances out because, again, when kids are in Waratah, we – it’s almost like a home environment, so they have access to their own clothing. You know, we teach them how to live on a budget, and if they’re working, we allow them to use half of their money that they’ve earned from employment to learn how to budget to purchase their own goods. So it balances out. I wouldn’t say it’s that much more than – possibly could cost more inside the centre but, you know, I don’t know those figures really well, so - - -

Is there a lot of support from external agencies while the detainees are in the Waratah program?---Yes. And we rely heavily on that report from external agencies, and they also fund some of the activities that happen within inside Waratah. Education department, they are a big factor in the Waratah program, and they fund their own programs that they run inside Waratah. We have the Aboriginal Faira Corporation who has funded a lot of projects. The kids in Waratah have done a lot of community projects, and in respect those agencies have sort of rewarded them by, you know, paying for a recreational activity that they could do. So there’s a lot of give and take inside Waratah.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What about commercial enterprises in the surrounding area? Do they get involved with any of the Waratah activities?---In our allied - - -

Businesses?---So the local community, like the football, our local football, which is West Tigers, they come in, they run groups with, not necessarily Waratah, but also within inside the centre, the Souths Care who is also attached to Sydney Rabbitohs. They have also come in. They run a lot of groups. They’re part of our Aboriginal consultative committee. We do have them and they come inside and assist.

What about work opportunities in the community?---Work opportunities, we seek that with the assistance of the Department of Education, so we have formed some relationships with some local employment around the community and when we have kids that come in. They’re our first point of call to go to. We have also accessed ability agency when we have had kids in Waratah that fell within that criteria. So we are always looking for options and building networks so it makes it easier for us to link the kids and the community.

MR McAVOY: In your statement, you indicate that the Aboriginal population in Reiby is about 53 per cent?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do those figures flow through to the Waratah program. Essentially, half of the kids coming through are Aboriginal kids?---It’s not necessarily representative of Waratah. We have had a mix in Waratah. But currently we have got out of the four kids in there, three of them are Aboriginal young people.

And you said that there’s some assistance from the Aboriginal community. You have visits from members of Aboriginal community organisations?---Yes. There’s a strong relationship between the Aboriginal corporation and Reiby and in saying that they also assist in a lot of the Waratah programs. So we have a mentor, Aboriginal mentor, who brings in elders from the local council, and they would run learning circle activities. It could be a yarn in the circle, and they teach them how to cook over an open fire. It could be just teaching skills. We utilise them a lot for our most challenging kids because I think that young Aboriginal kids have a lot of respect. It’s part of the culture, and every time that they’re with the elders you always see that – just a different side of them, you know, that respect that is there. And we hope that, you know, when they spend time with their elders they’re able to remind them of, you know, the culture aspect of the - - -

How often would you have visits from the local elders?---Weekly. The mentors come in weekly, and we can always call upon them and they’re always available, yes.

And they do that as a voluntary?---Some of them do it as a voluntary. Others as part of the monitoring program. So it’s a funded program.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: What about the local Aboriginal medical service, it’s a fairly big service out there, isn’t it?---Yes. We send the kids out there for medical needs, yes. That’s our main service that we use for dental, local GP. Yes. So the kids access that service a lot, yes.

MR McAVOY: And the detainees attend school in the Waratah program?---That’s correct.

A separate school to the kids who are detained in Reiby?---Yes.

So of the school at the moment with four detainees would consist of those four students alone?---That’s correct.

And so that’s a fairly high ratio of teacher to student?---You have two teachers inside the Waratah unit and they have assistant principle. If a young person is not necessarily attending the Waratah school full-time, they could actually be going to work full-time, or one might be going to TAFE. You might have a teacher allocated to that young person going to TAFE.

I understand from your statement that acknowledging success is a very important part of the Waratah program?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Acknowledging an achievement so that when students do well at school or in their employment placements, that’s acknowledged?---Yes.

How is that done?---So we always write up stories, providing some information of the progress that the young person has achieved and the outcome of that progress. So we send that through to our media unit which runs Jigsaw, and then they publish that across the centres and the community. We have also had media who are interested because they’ve found out about some programs that we run inside the centre with external agencies, and they’ve come in to interview staff and kids about the success of those programs. Look, and we encourage that because it’s important for kids, especially staff that work with the kids, to know that, you know, there is value in the work that they do and they have a major responsibility in assisting young people to be rehabilitated when they’re in custody.

Obviously, having that supportive approach to the young people’s achievements is something that you see as valuable in their preparation for life after detention?---Yes. Young people are not always confident in their abilities, and sometimes our role is to remind them that they’re capable of achieving. I guess they’ve had years disappointments, but it’s our role again to demonstrate that they’re capable of doing a lot better, you know, that they have skills, that they could focus on that would help them improve the opportunities.

From reading the guiding document, it’s apparent that there’s also a detainee representative council?---That’s correct.

And that’s a forum in which the detainees meet regularly?---Yes. They meet once a month.

Once a month?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry to interrupt you on that. I had that document out. I see in the Waratah program documents it’s suggested that it’s to be held every Sunday. Has that changed since this document has been put together?---Sorry for Waratah it happens every Sunday but for inside the centre it’s once a month.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: And clearly that’s encouraged by the staff?---Yes. Because it’s an opportunity for young people to raise any issues that they need addressed or to provide suggestions how we could better do our business or how to help them. So it’s a good - - -

And what’s your observation as to how the young people feel about participating in that council? Is it something that they - - -?---For Waratah, it’s good for them because this is where they discuss overnight leave, you know, how they get to access overnight leave, how they get to access day leave, when they can have their families come in. So the discussions in their DRC meetings is more about their case


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

planning, whereas inside the centre, which is also a good thing, it allows kids to say when they think the food is not so great, when they think they should have more towels during shower routine, so for them it’s more routine stuff, but for Waratah the discussion is around – the DRC is around case planning.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are there any serious issues that arise in the Reiby Centre itself at its meetings? Have you been to some of those meetings?---Yes, I’ve conducted a few of those, and the majority of the things that come out of there which the kids feel are serious to them is their incentives, you know, the need to have a lot of good stuff on the incentives. I mean, one of the things that does come up which is always contentious is, you know, points, you know, how those points are earned and how staff have an impact on them, but yes.

And if they have grievances about their own allocation of points, which, as I understand it allows them then to get things - - -?---Yes.

- - - that they desire, do they have some way in which they can air that grievance outside this open forum committee?---Yes. They have the option to go talk to the assistant unit manager on shift. They also can speak to the unit manager, and sometimes when I actually walk through the units they would come and tell me themselves, and we make sure we address them. It always comes up in our discussion. What we have said to staff, “If you feel that the young person hasn’t earned the points, make sure that you’ve documented why they haven’t earned it. If we feel you haven’t documented well and we can see the young person has a good case, then we may overrule the decision that you’ve made.”

So rather than just say, “Yes, I will look into it”?---No, we have to follow it up.

There is some system for following it up?---Yes. They also have the official visitor that comes in. We have three official visitors.

How often do they attend? This is at Reiby not Waratah we are talking about?---Reiby, they have been coming in once a week. Of late, they’ve been coming in once a fortnight, but quite frequently, and more recently we have got an Aboriginal official visitor, so that has given us three official visitors.

Does the official visitor have the freedom to walk around the centre?---Yes. They are – after an induction their issues their own key and radio, and we provide them with planner of where all kids are in the centre so they know where they can find them if they’re not in the unit, so they have free access, if you know what I mean. They can just freely walk around the centre and have access to where the kids are.

And is there privacy for individual young people to speak with them?---Yes, there’s a space for that.

MR McAVOY: I just want to ask you some questions now about the effectiveness of the Waratah program. Is it the case that you see many of the detainees come back


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

through the Waratah program after they’ve been through?---Look, in the cases that I’m aware of, there haven’t been too many kids that have come through. I know of two that have returned back to the Waratah Unit, but I know of kids that have left the Waratah and have not returned and have continued in engaging in the school that they were attending whilst they were still in Waratah. Again, we had a kid that went to the local school across Waratah unit. Then he was able to gain a scholarship to a private school. We have had kids that have called up and said they’re still out there and working and they maintain contact with school staff, so I guess I haven’t really paid much attention to the kids that I’m not aware of, if they return, but I know for a fact that the kids who have successful reintegrated back into the community, you know, I know of those kids because they contact the centre and they said that they – they tell us that they’re still out.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that what you meant by return, Mr McAvoy? In other words the success stories are keen to come and talk to the staff, or did you - - -

MR McAVOY: No, that’s another – Ms Tonumaipea answered the question that I was asking, but there is another question as well. There might be young people who have completed the program but, for one reason or another ended back up in detention in another centre, you might not know about them?---Yes.

But generally, for the majority of them, you don’t see them again in Reiby?---I don’t see them again in Reiby.

And some of them are – taking up the Commissioner’s point – some of them even make the effort to keep in touch with their case workers, or their key workers, after they’ve been released from detention?---Yes. I get a lot of feedback from school staff and youth officers who say young people ring them when they’re on shift and tell them how well they’re doing. I mean, the assistant principal gets a few calls, he has been invited to a wedding or asked if he could come in and help purchase a car, because he doesn’t know anything about cars, so I hear a lot of – of their stories.

So does that say anything to you about the nature of the relationship the staff have been able to forge with the young people?---Look, it definitely reinforces our role as youth officers, managers. You know, we – these kids come to us at a critical point in their life, and we have a major responsibility in making sure that we demonstrate positive role modelling and social interactions, because it can – it has a huge impact on these kids. A lot of them haven’t that had in most of their life and they come from difficult circumstances. So youth officers who do a really good job will always be remembered by these kids, because they’ve had a positive impact on them.

And, in your role, do you have a function to play in supporting and encouraging the staff? I imagine you do?---Yes. Look, my role is – I mean, as the – I always felt that programs is always my thing. I’ve always made sure that we’re not always limited to what’s available to us, that it’s our job to keep finding what’s out there, what we could do better, and to make sure that whilst we generally manage the kids the same way, when it comes to case management each of them have their own individual


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

needs and we have to – we have to make sure that we cater for those individual needs. That’s what makes them different, yes.

Do the staff have a sense of the good work that they’re doing?---Look, they do. Some staff seem – to be honest, some staff probably feel sometimes that they don’t see the end of the good work that they do. Staff in Waratah would see that end, because they see a lot of the – they’re actively engaged in the exit planning. The ones that are in the centre who works with really challenging kids, they might not see that. So my role is, as the centre manager and management, is we have to provide them those ends results. We have to say to them, “Look, this is what we all work towards. You might not be at the best part of the young person’s case management, but it does happen.” Some kids are actually able to work out of here with a success story.

Yes. Are there any other programs like the Waratah program in New South Wales?---No, there’s no other program like Waratah.

I just wanted to ask you a question about record-keeping. How important is it in Waratah and in the Reiby centre to ensure that the records are kept in a clean, clear fashion?---Look, it’s really important. It’s something that we remind staff all the time, because other juvenile justice workers that are not necessarily working inside of Reiby rely on that information to make sure that they can do their role effectively. I mean, if there are any issues that come about, we rely on that information to do our own investigation and proper findings. So it’s very important. Not just that – it’s not just about the negative side, it’s about the positive side. It’s being able to see what has been happening for that person, quality assure that we have done the best that we can, and we are doing the best that we can.

Is there an example that you are able to give where you’ve been able to observe something – the figures are high in relation to some aspect of the operation and you’ve been able to act upon that?---So recently we have been asked to have a look at our use of confinement and segregation and monitor that closely. I guess Reiby was one of the centres that had a high number of confinements, so we – you know, implemented a monthly review of confinement segregation and the use of force. What we – so I designed a template, put down some issues that unit managers would have to address when they’re going through to do an audit of their own unit’s use of confinement segregation, making sure the staff understand the use. It’s not necessarily to stop them using it, but making sure that they’re using it effectively. So I think, as a result of us monitoring that, we have seen a decrease of the use – not necessarily are worried we are keeping an eye on them, but we have now said to them, “Do you think that’s an effective way of managing that issue?” So staff – you know, we have seen staff now using other options – you know, rather than confinement, which is young person spend time in their room. They could be restricted from access to an activity which might have more impact on the young person’s behaviour. or do an extra chore, or you could say – look, address the issue and give the person a caution but then the young person then sees that you’re being fair and might think twice the next time.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So because you’ve got that data on the use of force register and the segregation and confinement use, and it’s available and accessible, you are able to respond?---Yes.

Are you able to say, in general terms, how long it took between recognising the issue and undertaking the audit and implementing a response with the staff?---Well, when it was brought to my attention, it took me about a month to implement the process, develop a template, and then initiating it within my own management team. But as part of that role too, I make sure that I provide feedback. So this week I attended a unit meeting and I gave staff feedback. I said to them, “Look, you know, we have been reviewing use of forces and segregation,” and I want to acknowledge the fact that I can see that they are putting – they’re actually thinking about when they’re actually inquiring about what’s happening. You know, they’re being thoughtful about how they address the issue and making sure that we are not overusing it or it’s being used effectively. So it’s important that that gets communicated back to staff as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is the staff trained in difficult behaviour management techniques?---Yes, they are. I mean - - -

I mean that’s really often – perhaps overlooked in the heat of the moment, and they use the other easier option, if you might like to call it that way?---That’s right.

So does this get reinforced as a discussion about a situation? Do you have a debrief with them?---Yes. When we have an incident we do debrief with them and, in saying that, that has been our focus point this year, to remind the staff about detainee behaviour intervention framework, utilising those other skills before we escalate them having to resort to the use of misbehaviour and confinement.

MR McAVOY: I imagine the capacity to de-escalate a young person in a heightened state is a very important tool for a youth worker?---Yes. Yes.

And so you provide training in that area?---Yes. We provide training and often staff call on duty managers to come and assist. And, as a duty manager, we have to demonstrate how you would do that best. I mean, I’ve recently had to – was called to come in and de-escalate a kid who I had a good rapport with. And – you know, the feedback I got from staff, “Well, you know, it was good to see that because we didn’t necessarily have to go into the room.” And I said, “You don’t have to go into the room. He’s inside the room, so he’s secure. He is not hurting you; he’s not hurting anyone. Whilst that is happening we don’t have to engage. Someone – not you guys someone else, that hasn’t been part of the incident, go stand outside the door and talk to him.” And that’s what happened. We got someone to stand outside the door. He was de-escalated because the people that initially responded to the incident, he saw them as the foe, but someone different came in. We weren’t engaging in his current behaviour. I just said to him, “I’m not sending staff in there. It’s not safe for you, it’s not safe for us.” And we – I said, “When you’re ready to talk, I will come back and talk to you.” And then you know – but sometimes it’s just staff and experience


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and it’s our role to make sure we provide the training and, I guess, lead by example, really.

In terms of ensuring that the services and the support to young people, the centre operates at a sufficient level of quality, you use a quality management tool?---Yes, there’s quality assurance once a year.

And that’s a fairly well-developed and defined program, QA?---It is. It’s quite intense. But look, I – I’ve always said that QA, it’s good for us because it makes us accountable and responsible. It also allows us to improve our practices if we think it needs improvement. I know in my role as assistant manager client services it’s helped me to develop as a – as a manager and it’s provided me too with the skills and practice to support other workers.

I’ve just got a few more questions. Do you engage with the victims of any of their offences at the Waratah program or at Reiby?---Yes.

Can you just explain how you do that?---Are you talking about the victim services?

Yes?---Okay. So when Reiby was picked as the pilot centre for the victim services program, that was – it’s about recognising that young people in custody are also victims of crime. So we had to set up a process to identify those kids, making sure that they were referred to the victim services counsellors so they could engage in the counselling whilst they’re in custody and, if they were discharged from custody, set up a process to make sure that they transitioned from custody into the community and referrals were made to continue that service. So psychologists have a big role. Whilst all staff with can refer a young person, if they’re aware, psychologists were the ones that we relied on because they had that relationship with the young people, and they referred them through our client assessment meetings, which we then send the referral to victim services and then they send us an approval letter saying that that young person can commence counselling with the victim services counsellors.

Thank you. There is also an Aboriginal Community Consultative Committee at Reiby?---Yes.

Can you talk about who is on that committee and how often – what type of engagement there is with that committee?---So that committee is a representation of – has representation from the Department of Education, Justice, Health, the local community, our regional Aboriginal programs officer, and youth officers themselves. We have quarterly meetings, but we also meet outside of those standard time frames. Look, the Aboriginal Consultative Committee, it’s a real – it’s an active committee. They – we consult them on Aboriginal programs. We – you know, they refer services to us. They also actively provide and facilitate programs for young people in custody, and we rely heavily on them to provide us with advice on how to best manage the overrepresentation of – of young people in custody. We rely on them and their networks to refer them to us so that we could make that available to young people in custody.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Given that half of the population at Reiby is Aboriginal kids, how important is it to have that type of committee available and working closely with the management?---Look, it’s really important. I know for a fact we would not be where we are at without them because, again, they’re the expertise in that area. And – I mean, I know – Aboriginal kids in custody, there are issues that only members of their own community would be able to assist with. And. you know, we get kids from regional areas who have no family that they could contact, have no family that they could visit them, so I rely on the Aboriginal Community Consultative Committee to – sometimes I say to the elders if they could come in and visit the kids, because they have no one that can visit them. So they become the parents or the immediate family of these young people in custody. Years ago, we used to get chaplains to come in on the weekends or bring volunteers to visit the kids, kids that didn’t get visits from family, but now that we have a really strong Aboriginal Consultative Committee – and they’re always at the centre – so we rely on them. And you know, kids still have their community inside the centre. If you come to Reiby, you wouldn’t know the difference. Our centre is like the community, because the community accesses our centre like the normal community, and we rely heavily on the community to provide programs for us as well.

I’ve got one last question for you, and it’s something I perhaps ought to have raised a little bit earlier, but in dealing with the young people, how important is consistency of approach and application of the rules by the case managers?---Look, it’s important. Kids will tell yourself when they feel we’re not being consistent. They’re the first ones to point out that staff are not being consistent, so it’s very important that we are consistent in our approach. But, like I said, there are cases where it could be different because we have got to address individual needs of young people. But it’s important, it’s definitely critical that we’re consistent in our case management approach.

That concludes my questions for this witness. I understand that Ms Graham has leave for a short number of questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, she does. Thank you, Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [10.02 am]

MS GRAHAM: Ms Tonumaipea, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. You comment in your statement at paragraph 14 that about 75 per cent of children in Reiby are on remand, and then you go on to say at paragraph 47 that there are programs that are available for children whether they’re a sentenced detainee or whether they’re on remand. And it’s the case that you expect your staff to identify or develop programs that are going to meet the needs of the children in detention; is that right?---That’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3882 L. TONUMAIPEA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Could you indicate what are the types of programs that are available to children that are held on remand in Reiby?---So the types of programs that are available to young people, we have Trackside – they come in and run health programs. We have Shine that come in and run a strength based program for males. They also come in and run the living skills program for girls, which they – you know, learn hygiene, grooming. They’ve also set up – we’ve have actually had a ball, held a ball at Reiby at the end of the year, where they get to put those skills that they’ve learnt, how to dress up, prepare for a ball. We have the homework centre. That’s provided by the chaplains. We have – they provide members from the community in specialised fields like teachers, speech pathologists, they come in and coach young people with any literacy, numeracy, and living skills as well. We have the aunties, Aboriginal aunties who come in on the weekends. Again, they run various programs. It depends on the need and the wants of the young people in custody. We have the art museum who has come in and provided cultural programs. We’ve had Pacific Islander groups come in and provide music program, a rap program, writing – a song writing program. We have ..... come through school and also through us. We’ve had a lot of programs, so – and they cater for both remand. So – look, we identified – I know, as assistant client manager services, we saw that there are a lot of programs for control kids, but we need to cater for the increasing remand kids in custody. So, in my role as assistant manager client services, I got one of our programs officer who I gave allowance to go out into the community, be part of different forums out there, different networks, go to their meetings, and then sort invite them to come to the centre and provide them a group of young people that could also benefit from their programs. So we are actively always seeking those programs.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that – that initiative was very productive, because you have just listed a very rich suite of programs and most of them sound as though they actually come as a consequence of the community coming into the centre - - -?---Yes.

- - - and volunteering their services. That’s the case, is it?---Yes. And through them - - -

Rather than being funded by the centre?---No. Yes – yes.

MS GRAHAM: You say at paragraph 12 of your statement that each of the children that are held in Reiby or any of the other detention centres across New South Wales are allocated a dedicated community caseworker that follows them not only whilst they’re in detention but then upon release; is that right?---That’s correct.

And is that dedicated community caseworker someone who is available for both children who are on remand and who are sentenced?---That’s correct.

And is it the case that in New South Wales, when a child first comes into a detention centre, they have that dedicated community caseworker allocated to them and then that will be the same person that is allocated to them if they come back into the system down the track?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And so there’s this system in place where the child can develop a relationship with one allocated caseworker who can then be there for them throughout their time involved in the system?---That’s correct.

And that means that it’s a more effective engagement with the child, because they’re not having to spill their life story to a different person each time or try to build relationship; is that right?---Yes, that’s right.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Where is that community caseworker sited? Are they all from a government department or some of them resourced from non-government organisations?---No, it’s a juvenile justice caseworker, so we have - - -

All juvenile justice case workers?---All juvenile justice case workers, yes.

Thank you. That’s a fairly large number, probably?---Yes, that’s correct.

MS GRAHAM: And so there are juvenile justice officers that are based in a lot of the regional towns and so on throughout New South Wales, and is it the case that a child who is in Reiby who is, say, from Dubbo would be connected to a community caseworker who is in Dubbo?---That’s correct.

So that when that child returns home to Dubbo, that person is there for them in their own community?---That’s correct, because they still maintain contact with that caseworker in custody.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And how do they do it? We seem to be having a dialogue, Ms Graham, three way. How – to keep with the Dubbo example, do they remain there and have Skype visits with them or do actually they come physically?---No. They maintain contact over the phone. We are now looking at how we could make sure there’s AVL access in the remote areas, so that we could also make that available to the caseworker and family through visits. But yes, most of the time, it’s through telephone.

But it could – as technology is more enabling, you could do it other ways?---Yes.

MS GRAHAM: You’ve spoken a little bit about positive behaviour reinforcement and the importance of that with the children in detention. What are the incentives that are available for children in Reiby to reward their positive behaviour?---So the tangible incentives that are available for kids in custody: if you’re on stage 1, you could earn a nice body wash, writing pad, nice toothpaste, soap, a stress ball; if you’re on stage 2 you could also, again, a really good brand of body wash, which is what they’ve asked for, an loofah, activities like a writing pad, food items, bowl of noodles; if you’re on stage 3, you could access a later bed, again that’s the case for 1 and 2, a lot more toiletry options, a lot more food options, a lot more activity options; and stage 4 is the same thing, but for stage 3 and 4 – provided you’re on the right stage – you can start accessing outings and – outings and day leave and overnight leave. And there are other programs like the games room program, if you’re on stage


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2 and above, you can access the games room program, which is a really well done up gaming system inside the centre, which is it’s an idea that the boys came up with when they were there. So there’s different options.

You’ve talked a lot about the community involvement in the centre and the positive relationships that you have with community organisations. Could we just turn to the back of your statement and perhaps at the back of annexure 4, please, could we turn to page WIT.0208.0001.0231. This is the Campbelltown, McArthur Advertiser entitled, Art Enabled Young Detainees to Show They Care. And this was a program that involved the young people going to a women’s shelter and doing some renovations there and improvements there; is that right?---Yes.

And then this was promoted in the local newspaper as one of the initiatives that the centre was involved in?---Yes.

Do you see the positive stories about activities and programs that Reiby is involved in and that the children held in Reiby are involved in, as a critical aspect of being able to continue that community involvement in the centre and have these different programs and activities available for the children?---Yes, definitely. That project – not only did the young people go out and help build an area where the women’s shelter was able to utilise for mothers and their kids, but they also learnt about – you know, they became self-aware of what domestic violence was about. And moving from that project they actually started, they were able to write – design a poster which acknowledged domestic violence. And for White Ribbon Day the boys actually wrote messages to the young girls saying, “It’s never okay to be in domestic violence, it’s never okay to be hit.” And then they presented that to the females in custody. But that was something that they took on their own, it was something they did on their own. So these projects teaches them a lot more than just the project itself. It’s about the issues surrendering what they contribute to. So yes, definitely.

And the fact that these positive programs can be promoted publicly in the media, that helps to achieve the rehabilitative aims of the programs themselves?---That’s correct.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY [10.13 am]

MR McAVOY: Just one matter for re-examination, Commissioners. Just looking at the page, if we could go back to the page that we had on the screen, please, I can see that there’s some young people in the photographs?---Yes.

They’re young detainees from Reiby?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3885 L. TONUMAIPEA RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And I notice that their faces aren’t shown?---Yes. Because we never identify the young person’s face or name. That’s something that we definitely are not meant to do. So our media unit always screens any media stories that we provide that make sure that the young person’s identity is not disclosed.

And you’re required to do that by law?---That’s correct.

Do you have any view as to whether it would be good for the kids to be named in public as detainees?---The kids will tell you they don’t have an issue with that, but I – you know, parents don’t normally, don’t consent, and I think – I don’t think that we should, because – you know, community can be quite positive or can be quite judgemental. So for the protection of the kids, I guess I agree with the law. But, in saying that, we make it available to the kids because for them it’s a self-esteem booster for them. You know, they actually stick it up in their rooms.

So they like seeing their pictures in the local newspaper even if their face isn’t shown?---Yes. And they actually ask for copies to send to their families so they could show that they’re doing the right thing. You know, kids in custody are always trying to show their families that they’re trying to do the right thing. So it’s a good boost for them.

Thank you very much. I have no more questions for you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Just one question. We talk about the home environment, and you talk about the Waratah unit being like – can you tell me what your view is about a home environment as opposed to Reiby more generally?---So I guess when I walk into Waratah, the kids are going about with staff, they’re supervising them. You know, like I would, if I walked into my home, the kids are watching TV or then they have an activity, they’ve got football training to go to too. Whereas inside the centre it’s a lot more structured. You know, “This is where we’re going to. It’s time now to go to your room.” Or, you know, “It’s time to go to school.” But these kids, they know what their routines where they – so a kid could be going to school, one could be coming back from work and then they will be getting ready to go to training. S that’s how I feel it’s more like a home environment. It’s open living – you know, not everyone is in one area. One could be talking outside with another kid. Another one is just making themselves lunch. Like, they’re actually making their own food. You know, I have been in there when kids have cooked me – made me a sandwich. So I don’t – inside the centre we don’t experience that because it’s a lot more structured and regimented. So that’s what I mean about more of at home, you know, living.

So literally like a home?---Yes. Literally like a home. The only time we say, “It’s time to go to your room”, is 9.30 at night because we have to lock the doors before staff go home. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you very much, Ms Tonumaipea, for your assistance. Commissioner Gooda and I had the great advantage of visiting the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3886 L. TONUMAIPEA RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Waratah centre and saw how wonderfully well it operates, and also of course we saw Reiby, but hearing evidence from you today has – I think – helped to fill in some gaps for us, and I know that for others who haven’t had that opportunity it would be very informative. Thank you very much for travelling to Darwin to speak with us?---Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you.---Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. You are free to go now---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.17 am]

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms Rodger is here to take the next panel, I understand.

MS RODGER: There’s just a little logistical problem – it shouldn’t hold us up too long. Mr Quayle will need to stand while giving his evidence. You, Commissioners, can probably see he has injured himself.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I saw the – I saw the crutch and understand that he has been quite heroic in coming here today.

DR DWYER: While those witnesses are making their way to the stand, might I just announce my appearance for Ms Taylor-Hunt and Mr Quayle.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly, Dr Dwyer.

MS RODGER: Commissioners, Mr Thomas Quayle will start sitting but he might need to stand during his evidence. I call Thomas Quayle and Samantha Taylor-Hunt.

<THOMAS QUAYLE, AFFIRMED [10.20 am]

<SAMANTHA TAYLOR-HUNT, AFFIRMED [10.20 am]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And indeed you – we are not so formal as to suggest you have to ask every time you stand or sit, or whatever you need to do, and if you need a break, you will let us know, won’t you.

MR QUAYLE: Thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3887 QUAYLE/TAYLOR-HUNT ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We are entirely comfortable with how you manage to give your evidence. We are just grateful that you have taken the trouble to come. Yes. Thank you, Ms Rodger.

MS RODGER: Thank you, Commissioners. Mr Quayle, firstly, you gave a statement dated 21 April 2017.

MR QUAYLE: Yes.

MS RODGER: And if you just have a look on the screen there, that’s your signature?

MR QUAYLE: It is, yes.

MS RODGER: And the contents of that statement are true and correct?

MR QUAYLE: Yes.

MS RODGER: I tender statement 3, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Mr Quayle’s statement is exhibit 378.

EXHIBIT #378 STATEMENT OF MR QUAYLE DATED 21/04/2017

MS RODGER: And Ms Taylor-Hunt, you gave a statement dated 10 April 2017. Is that your signature?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes, it is.

MS RODGER: And the contents of that statement true and correct?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes.

MS RODGER: I tender statement 4.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 379.

EXHIBIT #379 STATEMENT OF MS TAYLOR-HUNT DATED 10/04/2017

MS RODGER: Now, Mr Quayle, I will start with you, but by all means, Ms Taylor-Hunt, if you think you want to add something to the answer, go right ahead. Perhaps firstly, Mr Quayle, if you can set out the service that’s provided by NAAJA Throughcare.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR QUAYLE: Yes, sure. So NAAJA Throughcare commenced in 2009 with a prison-based prisoner support worker and then in 2010 expanded to clue a Palmerston Throughcare team. That commenced with two members of staff and has since grown to now have a coordinator and nine case managers. So, in terms of the work we do, we provide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people preparing to leave prison and we also provide them with post-release support when they’re out, and then - - -

MS RODGER: Can I just stop you there for a minute. You assist both adults and young people, don’t you?

MR QUAYLE: That’s correct, yep. So that inclusion detainees at Don Dale as well.

MS RODGER: Yes.

MR QUAYLE: So the way the program works: we commence engaging with our clients about six months before they’re due for release. The purpose of that time is to allow case managers to develop relationships with the people that they’re working with, as well as have conversations around what that person’s risks, needs, and goals are, and help them build a good responsive post-release plan that is going to help keep them out of trouble when they leave prison. We work from a strength based perspective when we are doing that work, and encourage conversations to assist people to develop insights into those things I’ve just talked about.

MS RODGER: Can you give an example of how you might do that and how that conversation would go?

MR QUAYLE: Yep. So, for example, if we’re talking about accommodation, for example, we will spend quite a lot of time talking to clients about where they’ve lived in the past, what has been good about where they’ve previously stayed but, in particular, talked to them about some of the challenges that they experienced and to try and encourage conversations around whether they see a link between those negatives and their offending behaviours, for example. As part of that work, we also try and engage with family too. I think it’s important to emphasise we take a collective approach to the work that we do with our clients.

MS RODGER: Collective by means of the family, the detainee and Throughcare?

MR QUAYLE: That’s correct, yes, because quite often family are going to have insights into why they think somebody has been getting into trouble. You know, we work from an empowerment approach. You know, we want our clients to lead the development of their post-release plans and families with a role to play within that context as well.

MS RODGER: It might sound like an obvious question, but what’s the importance of having the detainee or the client lead the planning for their release?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR QUAYLE: If they don’t own their plan, and don’t feel they’ve been – you know, a very important participant its development then it’s possibly unlikely they’re going to be committed to it. You know – and I think – we’re a voluntary service, we are working with people who want to work alongside us, and I think one of the ways to enhance the odds of success is to make sure that you’re working with a person to achieve their goals. So if you’re imposing goals on them, it’s not necessarily going to be the best way forward.

MS RODGER: Do you want to add anything at this time, Ms Taylor-Hunt?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: No, I think Thomas has fairly well covered it. I think how we engage with our clients – as Thomas said, we’re a voluntary service and it’s about, it’s really about listening to the client’s story. We come from a narrative perspective where we will sit down and talk with the youth, and the adults, and hear their story and help them, support them, into identifying their goals, their risks, their aspirations and then, being client-led by them, engaging other services that they feel would benefit them.

MS RODGER: And Ms Taylor-Hunt you’ve been involved kind of from the outset in 2009, haven’t you?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes, I have.

MS RODGER: And has Throughcare always had a youth dedicated worker?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: We have. It wasn’t a specific mandate of our funding agreement but when Palmerston based Throughcare commenced in 2010 there were two positions and my – most of my experience had come from working with adults and we had – we had decided that we would work across both Don Dale and Darwin correction that will centre so it made sense to have someone with a high level of youth expertise to come on board and share the case loads.

MS RODGER: When you said before that it wasn’t a requirement of your funding to have a youth-specific worker, it’s the case – and correct me if I am wrong – that there was no funding provided to provide a youth service?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: The funding covered both Don Dale and Darwin correctional service and it was up to us to structure how we were going to manage that.

MS RODGER: I see. And because, as I understand it, you’re more au fait with the actual role of the caseworker on the ground, are you able to set out a bit more about what the caseworker, the Throughcare caseworker does?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: So I will talk specific to our youth caseworker on this occasion.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS RODGER: Yes.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Our criteria for participating in our program is that the youth needs to want to engage, it’s voluntary. Obviously, they need to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander to – because NAAJA is funded to work with that client group. They need - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: To that first – that first point, Ms Taylor-Hunt, I was going say, of making them want to engage, I don’t mean to use that forcefully, but how do you persuade the young person it would be a good thing to be engaged in the Throughcare plan?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Through a conversation. So youth worker or the case manager will go in and meet with the young person, either on referral from someone from Don Dale or one of our youth lawyers or – you know, like, youth lawyer will go in, have a conversation with that young person, explain our service, explain that it is voluntary, and explain how we can work together to support and assist that client. But that’s a process that doesn’t occur all in one visit. We go in and introduce ourselves and we talk about where they’re from, and it basically – the conversation is led by them. If they want to talk about a game of football on the weekend, then that’s where that conversation goes for that period of engagement. And it’s a gradual build-up of rapport over a period of time where the client feels comfortable and wants to share their stories and identify goals. So it’s rare, in the youth space, that we would get a client that would say, “No, I’m not interested in talking to you.” And if the first – on the first occasion, if someone, if a youth does indicate that that’s the case, then we would more often than not go back on a second occasion, because it might be circumstantial for the day and what the client – what the youth is going through at that particular time that led them to say that on that occasion.

MR QUAYLE: I think it’s important to add, too, we are blessed with a very good youth specific case manager who is – you know, amazing at developing relationships with young people in detention.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes, she is.

MR QUAYLE: So the uptake of our service provision is – is very high.

MS RODGER: Ms Taylor-Hunt, you touched then in your answer on the issue of referrals. So is it the case that referrals are either from NAAJA lawyers that have appeared for the people at court, and you also said that some of the referrals are from the Don Dale. That’s from Don Dale youth caseworker?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes. Of recent times we haven’t had the numbers that we would like to see of referrals from Don Dale case managers.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I noted that in – I think it’s in your statement, isn’t it Mr Quayle, particularly. There’s a sort of flavour of negativity there, or is it just that you’re doing such a good job they think that you can do the whole job?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: To some degree. To some degree, I think that’s the case. I also recognise there have been a lot of staffing issues within Don Dale and there are – there are low numbers on the ground and they have a large role to play themselves and I would rather – rather than focus on the negatives, we do have a relationship with Don Dale that is quite good and quite strong, and we certainly have a really good level of access and the ability to work. There’s always room for improvement, and we’re confident that the way that we work with our youth is best practice, but we’re also willing to learn from other services constantly.

MS RODGER: Is it fair to say there has been some fluctuation in terms of engagement of the Don Dale case workers, but at the moment the fluctuation is on a positive rise, to put it that way?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes. I think so, yes.

MS RODGER: And NAAJA Throughcare, it appears from your statement, is doing what it can to ensure that that collaborative approach with the caseworker at Don Dale and also with Territory Families with continue to improve so that the service delivered to the young person can be improved.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: It’s vital. We are all working towards the same end, and that’s – it’s all about the client and achieving outcomes and having those relationships and working collaboratively together to achieve the best outcomes for the client is what it’s all about.

MS RODGER: Perhaps to best illustrate that, would it be possible to expand on how lack of collaboration impacts on what can be provided to the young person compared to good collaboration between those organisations?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Well, I mean, you can – from the beginning you can say, if we didn’t have a did good relationship that allowed us access in the first instance, then we wouldn’t have the level of engagement that we do with the youth.

MS RODGER: And you might not find out about a young person that’s in Don Dale if NAAJA doesn’t already know about them.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Absolutely, yes – yep.

MR QUAYLE: I think, too, we want to build on any work that has commenced in the detention centre. So if young people have had access to offender programming for example, then we want to ensure that those messages follow that young person out into the community. So if we don’t know what a young person is doing while they’re in Don Dale, and we don’t have access to things like exit reports, for


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

example, then we have really got nothing to build upon. So really, I think, collaboration allows us to enhance the value of things that – you know, Corrections or Territory Families have already done or are doing.

MS RODGER: While you are on that issue of exit reports or exit plans, are you indicating that you haven’t previously had access to those documents?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Access has been very limited. In fact, I think – yes, probably in the last 12 months the exit plans, we’ve probably only seen one. Again, I hesitate to say that they’re not being done, but we’re not seeing them, and we’re not feeling like they’re thorough in their putting together strong post-release plans particularly. So exit plans are designed to lead that youth back into community, is my understanding, and we rely much more heavily on our case management plans that our youth worker puts together and in collaboration with Don Dale or Territory Families.

MS RODGER: Sorry. Is - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If the – can I just ask – follow up on that. If the exit plans were being developed with the young person, would that detainee take a copy of the prepared exit plan when he or she leaves detention? You would expect so, would you not?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Certainly that is our practice with NAAJA Throughcare, so the youth has the option to take that plan with them.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that’s for yours. I was really asking that question because if the young person is working with the NAAJA Throughcare plan you would think they would show you the exit plan from the detention centre as well. Has that been your experience?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: I think part of the problem with the exit plans that come from Don Dale, and no – I think it’s because when a youth exits detention that that’s when Don Dale staff end their engagement and I think the level of engagement with services post-release into planning what’s going to follow through probably lacks a little bit, on their exit plan in particular.

MS RODGER: And is it fair to say, from the evidence that you’ve just given, that it’s possible up until today’s date that a young person could have an exit plan with Don Dale Don Dale caseworker and have a parallel plan with NAAJA Throughcare, so there’s some duplication of efforts there?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: I think our planning is quite thorough, and we certainly have conversations. We have regular fortnightly meetings with Don Dale, communications meetings which our youth worker attends. So there is regular conversation and I don’t know that there’s duplication, I think our case plans are


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

more heavily relied on and contain a lot more detail in relation to the services involved and the level of engagement and follow-up post-release.

MS RODGER: So rather than there perhaps being two plans in parallel, what you’re indicating is the NAAJA Throughcare plan has often been the only plan in relation to that young person?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: That we’ve seen, yes.

MS RODGER: If I turn to you for a moment, Mr Quayle. The NAAJA Throughcare service receives no funding from the Northern Territory Government, does it?

MR QUAYLE: That’s correct.

MS RODGER: And in relation to the funding from Prime Minister and Cabinet and from the Healing Foundation you’re talking about in your statement - - -

MR QUAYLE: Yes.

MS RODGER: - - - is any of that current funding to provide a youth specific role?

MR QUAYLE: The Prime Minister and Cabinet funding we’ve discussed doesn’t require us to have a youth specific role. but we do have one. The Healing Foundation funding is for a specific youth role.

MS RODGER: In relation to the Prime Minister and Cabinet funding it’s just the fact NAAJA has decided, “We’re going to focus on youth and we are going to allocate some of that money to a youth-specific role.”

MR QUAYLE: That’s correct.

MS RODGER: Now, Ms Taylor-Hunt, we have spoken a bit about the case managers work on the ground. Are you able to say what the case load is per worker, currently, for a youth worker?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: For a youth worker, the number – the top cap is 15 but it generally sits around 12, which is really a high number when you’ve got a high level of intensive case management both in custody and out.

MS RODGER: The Commissioners have heard some evidence in relation to organisations perhaps distinguishing between files that are high needs and files that aren’t as high needs. Does that factor into your case load for workers?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: It factors into the prioritising of the workload but not necessarily – well, yes, I mean if there’s seven on the case load that are highly intensive, then unfortunately there might be a number of youth that wouldn’t be


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

allocated until that intensity drops and the case manager has capacity. But we haven’t experienced that. We have managed over the seven, eight years that we have been working with Don Dale to work with all sentenced Indigenous youth at Don Dale.

MS RODGER: So I take it from that, up until today’s date, there hasn’t been a waiting list of young people who need assistance that can’t get it from NAAJA Throughcare.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Not sentenced youth, no.

MS RODGER: And you’re distinguishing there between remand youth?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: I am. NAAJA Throughcare, Palmerston base, doesn’t have any capacity to work in the remand space, and hasn’t from the outset. There is a huge gap in service there, but that’s one we are hoping will certainly be alleviated a little bit by the Healing Foundation position.

MS RODGER: Well, Mr Quayle, if you could expand on what’s happening in that space.

MR QUAYLE: Yes. So NAAJA recently received funding from the Healing Foundation establish a healing project within our Throughcare program. In order to do that we have partnered with Danila Dilba and AMSANT so we can ensure there’s a therapeutic element to the work that we do in that space. So Danila Dilba have employed a youth engagement counsellor who will commence working with young people in detention that have a social and emotional need that Danila Dilba can address therapeutically. And then NAAJA Throughcare have employed a youth support worker who can work with that young person in collaboration with Danila Dilba to make sure there’s a really good post-release plan following that person back out into the community. Those roles are not dedicated to sentenced detainees. That means that we can start working in that remand space as well.

MS RODGER: And is there a difference, as you see it, between the Throughcare plan needed by young people that are coming out after sentenced compared to the plan needed for young people coming out after remand?

MR QUAYLE: I think one of the biggest differences is the amount of time you have to work with the young person. So if a young person is sentenced then you have, generally speaking, a definite release date to work towards. Whereas if you have a young person in remand, you know, the possibility of getting them out on bail or maybe they’ve got sentencing coming up, it’s a little unclear. So I think certainly we have to work a little quicker when we’re working with remandees which obviously has an impact on workload for the two staff involved in that space.

MS RODGER: And you’ve touched on Danila Dilba. Can you perhaps expand on the importance of partnerships with other services? I know we’ve touched on Don


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Dale case workers and Territory Families, but – and perhaps in that context comment on the importance of an Aboriginal organisation running a Throughcare program generally.

MR QUAYLE: Sure. I think all organisations can grow and evolve, and I think NAAJA is evidence of that. I mean NAAJA is a law firm that now has a well-established Throughcare Program, but I also think it’s really important to ensure that you manage growth responsibly. So you need to ensure, if you’re going to provide a good service to a client, that you’re working within your area of expertise. So having funding from the Healing Foundation is obviously a fantastic thing, but NAAJA Throughcare that – you know, our area or expertise is post-release caring and Throughcare support. You know, we are not therapeutic. So partnering with Danila Dilba allows us then to ensure we have got another member of staff in place who is able to take care of the therapeutic needs of a young person and is well supported by an organisation for whom that is the area of expertise. So they can ensure clinical governance and appropriate supervision and support.

MS RODGER: And that probably touches on the issue of the importance of culturally appropriate and trauma-informed practices.

MR QUAYLE: Yes. I think, in terms of the Throughcare support we provide, being part of an Aboriginal organisation is absolutely crucial. The vast majority of young people who are in detention in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal and I think if we apply a mainstream approach to the Throughcare support we provide we may not be successful. So we need to have a very strong Aboriginal flavour in the work that we do, and it needs to be Aboriginal-led, I believe.

MS RODGER: And you’ve spoken in your statement about trauma-informed practice. Is there anything you want to expand on that in relation to today for the Commissioners?

MR QUAYLE: I think it’s important to say that, although we have got the healing project within NAAJA Throughcare, that doesn’t mean trauma informed practice is restricted to those two positions. All of our staff engage in trauma informed training, whether they’re work in the youth or the adult space. You know – like, I think we need to understand how trauma impacts on people’s ability to make choices and plan for their future so that we can best support them to come up with a really good plan that’s going to work for them and their family.

MS RODGER: In terms of people with complex needs, perhaps for example people with FASD or cognitive impairments, mental health issues, can you outline the challenges to the successful Throughcare management for those clients - - -

MR QUAYLE: I think - - -

MS RODGER: - - - and how you address them, perhaps?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR QUAYLE: Yeah. I mean, we very often come clients who we may be able to identify as having a particular cognitive issue. However having clients formally assessed, so that we have got a little bit of a road map, is particularly challenging in the Northern Territory.

MS RODGER: Anything suggestions about a way forward?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can – have you – I’m just going to ask it in follow up: because NAAJA is a pretty active organisation, presumably you have given a lot of thought to how you can address this problem of want of services, and it’s not just for detainees, the problem is widespread, isn’t it for everyone in the territory? Is there any conversation with medical association or organisations of that kind?

MR QUAYLE: Yes. Often. So in relation to the healing project particularly, we are partnering with Danila Dilba but we are also working with AMSANT on a proposal so we can have some train the trainer work done around trauma – you know, within the context of those meetings we quite often speak about the difficulties of having people assessed, where we are querying cognitive issues or FASD, for example.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I recall that Dr Fitzpatrick mentioned, during his evidence last year, which is quite a long time ago now, that he was of the view that an assessment tool of an is simpler kind could be developed that school teachers, for example, might be able to administer, at least to give them some initial understanding of whether the young person they were concerned about fell within the possibility of it.

MR QUAYLE: I mean, I think – you know, whether we’re talking about cognitive impairments or just a post-release plan generally, it’s in part why we think a collaborative approach to the work we do is really important, because – you know, we have a great Throughcare program, absolutely, and we have got an amazing team of staff, but we are not experts in everything. So if we are going to be able to provide amazing support to our clients, we need to be able to draw from the expertise of people who might sit in different organisations. So – you know, having clients assessed is often challenging but – you know, we have to be resourceful with what we’ve got. You know, our staff are able to identify issues where they arise, but equally we can use our partnerships to get a bit of guidance from other organisations that might have – you know, more appropriately qualified staff.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: And we do have really strong links, as Thomas said, with Danila Dilba. Youthworx in relation to employment and training opportunities. CatholicCare and the Daisy program around counselling, Anglicare and the YWCA around accommodation options for youth. Mission Australia and the sailing program has been fantastic in terms of extracurricular activities, which are really lacking in the Northern Territory, particularly for youth that are being released around school holiday periods when school is out and there’s no – there’s nothing to engage them in, or the football season is finished, or the basketball season has finished, and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

boredom is an issue. Having those extracurricular activities is really, really important to fill a person’s time.

MS RODGER: Now, Mr Quayle, in your statement you talk about the difficulties of servicing remote communities with a comprehensive Throughcare program. Can you just expand on that?

MR QUAYLE: Yes. And I think the best post-release support is provided face-to-face. Obviously that’s challenging for us in that we have a team based in Palmerston, and getting out to see clients on remote communities is an expensive undertaking, and obviously time consuming as well. So it does pose a challenge.

MS RODGER: How do you propose best meeting those challenges?

MR QUAYLE: It’s always easy to ask for additional funding. I mean – I think at the moment we have to be really resourceful with what we’ve got, so we take a team approach to clients that are – are living in remote communities. So we – we do try and group communities into a region, I guess, and – you know, generally speaking might have a caseworker who is specialist in that particular area. With the youth it’s a little bit different, in that we have got one youth-specific worker who has to cover, you know, the top half of the Top End and might have clients spread throughout. And, you know, in those situations if we have another caseworker, for example, who might be visiting a client on the same place where another caseworker has a client then, you know, we will share and have that person follow up on another case manager’s behalf for example.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry to interrupt, you finish your - - -

MR QUAYLE: No, no. That’s alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is it? In paragraph 46, which I think is where I think Ms Rodger is discussing this – in your statement is discussing this matter, you say that:

Increased funding would allow us greater capacity to provide a more intensive service to your bush case loads.

What form do you think that that would take? Would it be just – I don’t mean by being merely, but it would be another caseworker or would it be something slightly different?

MR QUAYLE: I think there are a number of options available to us. You know, as I said at the beginning of this ..... you know, the best post-release support is going to be provided face-to-face. So, you know, in an ideal world, I think you would want to have staff based on communities. That is challenging, though. With our case loads being capped as they are, the numbers of people living in a particular remote community might – you know, fluctuate. There might be – you know, two or three


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

of them, but there might be none. So in terms of having people based in particular communities that can be a challenge. One of the things we could do to address that is regionalise. You know, for example, you could have a Throughcare member based in Borroloola for example, who would be responsible for a number of communities in that region, and they could cover both youth and adults. An alternative, may be not plan A but maybe a plan B, would be increase the number of staff that we have at our Palmerston office, which would mean we could reduce case loads, and have people travelling out bush on a more regular basis. That’s not ideal but it is an option.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: In saying that, we do travel to the Katherine region every – each and every four weeks, it’s usually once every four weeks. And it might just be Katherine, but it might be Katherine, Beswick, Barunga, it might incorporate Borroloola. We travel as far as Lajamanu, out Timber Creek, so we cover the whole area and our trips are focused around where our client group is. We do also monthly trips out to Wadeye, including Daly River and including all outstations around that region.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can see you would have a bit more agility, presumably, if you had several workers based in a region.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: That would be the ideal outcome, and that – you know, that’s the important link between community. Some of the challenges with that is making sure that that person is really well supported and gets the training and support of us, and also is really well-resourced. They need to have access to a vehicle, they need to have access to their own office space, and own that position and that’s a challenge.

MR QUAYLE: And I think too, if we did have the ability to employ people on community, I think that would enhance the support we can provide because you would be employing – hopefully – local people who had knowledge of language and the specific culture of the area and would have hopefully, strong links with those communities that are vitally important.

MS RODGER: It’s the case currently, isn’t it, that NAAJA Throughcare can’t assist in the Alice Springs area?

MR QUAYLE: That’s largely true, because a lot of clients are transferred up from Alice Springs to Darwin. We do have contact with clients who would be returning to Central Australia. All we can do with those clients really, though, is provide information and advice and, where we can, link them up to services where they exist in Alice Springs or Central Australia to assist them. But in terms of the provision of Throughcare support, no, we are not currently able to do that.

MS RODGER: And would NAAJA Throughcare be interested in offering assistance to other areas to set up a similar program?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR QUAYLE: Absolutely. I think particularly if they were an Aboriginal service provider, I think NAAJA Throughcare has a pretty amazing track record of providing support to other organisations around Australia that are interested in setting up Throughcare programs. You know, we’ve certainly offered advice in the past to the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service of WA. When I was employed at CAALAS, I spent time with Sam in Darwin talking through the NAAJA program, which was of great assistance to me. I’m also area we have had people from Queensland and New South Wales that have spent time with NAAJA Throughcare learning about our program. I think we would take a particular interest in Central Australia though, given that we have a pretty nuanced understanding of the challenges down there, and they’re our clients too. So we want to see them looked after and provided with the best support possible.

MS RODGER: Thank you. Commissioners, I don’t have any further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’ve just got a couple of questions that haven’t been addressed. In paragraph 60 of your statement, Mr Quayle, you mention the desirability of a specific youth parole board. Some people who have given evidence have suggested that it’s a function that could be undertaken by the Youth Court, others have rejected that notion, but I take it your suggestion in paragraph 60 is that it should be a bit like the adult parole board but informed by those with expertise in matters pertaining to youth? Now, my question is: the numbers are very, very small for youth, and it’s a bit hard to justify a standalone Parole Board. So have you given any thought to the practicalities of what you’re suggesting in paragraph 60?

MR QUAYLE: One thing I hadn’t considered is what you have just mentioned in terms of having a Youth Court take responsibility for parole matters. I think that would be possibly a good workable solution. I mean, I think at the end of the paragraph there, I’ve talked about it operating like a problem solving court. So, you know, a Youth Court may have capacity to do that. But I think you are right. I mean there are resourcing challenges to having a youth specific parole board, particularly given the small number of people that have non-parole periods. You would only be convening a youth specific parole board on an irregular basis, I guess. But I am sure there would be people happy out there in the Northern Territory with expertise, to sit on a youth specific parole board, even though it wouldn’t necessarily be a regular occurrence of being convened.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. There might be some other practical ways of perhaps looking at it. The other question is the next paragraph, 61, that post-release plans should extend beyond the age of 18. We know that in some jurisdictions the 18 to 25 year old cohort is targeted as still in need of some care and protection, because they’re still developing and they’re still in that high-risk category for criminal conduct. Did you have an age in mind when you were positing the increase in the Throughcare program for young people? Did you think 21, which once used the age of majority, or did you think something higher than that.

MR QUAYLE: Well I’m almost 40 and my parents are still supporting me. So - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I have a view about that too, Mr Quayle, I might say.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: When a youth worker has capacity we actually work with youth up to the page of 25 in Darwin Correctional Centre as well. So Amanda, when she – as I said, when she has capacity, if there is an adult in that space that is up to the age of 25, we will allocate them to Amanda and recognising that, you know, they’re still developing and some of their challenges may have inhibited their ability to problem-solve at age-appropriate levels and giving that extra level of support and recognising that they are still growing is really important. So I would say 25.

MR QUAYLE: Yes, and I think most definitions of youth these days extend up to 25, 26. So I think that would be appropriate.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It might be a thought going back to your parole – youth parole board that in fact you might look at a wider cohort than those who just come within the youth detention facilities, but – then you might get better take-up for the idea, of course. They would be much the same considerations, in many cases. Thank you. I will just check my notes to see whether I had anything else, Mr Quayle. I don’t think so.

MS RODGER: Ms Graham has some questions, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I suspect she doesn’t think that you have covered, sufficiently, Central Australia, Ms Rodger.

MS RODGER: I accept that may be the case.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Graham.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioners. Mr Quayle, Ms Taylor-Hunt, as you know my name is Felicity Graham and I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Mr Quayle, you’ve talked about NAAJA being a law firm that now has this Throughcare unit, and that might not be necessarily at first glance be seen as the kind of organisation that would deliver that service, but is one of the successes of having that model where you have NAAJA as a law firm delivering Throughcare services because of the access to clients and the ease of internal referrals from your Youth Court lawyer to the Throughcare program?

MR QUAYLE: Absolutely. I mean, I think – I think that link has been really important.

MS GRAHAM: In terms of NAAJA’s status as being an Aboriginal community controlled and run organisation, has that been really important in having this long relationship of trust with the Aboriginal communities that you service and giving the organisation the best chance of being able to engage meaningfully with Aboriginal clients needing Throughcare services?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR QUAYLE: I think so. But I think it’s more than that. I mean, I think NAAJA is a recognised brand around the Top End of the Northern Territory and that that has definitely been beneficial to us. But I also think we’ve developed our own relationships with our clients to the extent that, whilst we are part of NAAJA, you know, we are recognised out there as being NAAJA Throughcare and have, you know, our own strong connections on community and with clients.

MS GRAHAM: And is it important that the relationship a caseworker can build with a client is – doesn’t involve any element of the caseworker being an authority figure with the power to breach them if they are failing in any of their conditions that might attach to a court order, such as parole, or - - -

MR QUAYLE: Definitely. And I think one of the huge advantages of the work we do as compared to, say, Community Corrections is we are a voluntary service. People are engaging with us because they want to.

MS GRAHAM: And do you agree with that?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: I do. I mean, we’re there to support and encourage them to meet their statutory obligations, obviously, and if they are on parole or a parole condition with orders then we will talk regularly with them about meeting those conditions and any challenges and we can often be the conduit between the parole officer in relation to having conversations about varying orders or talking to a parole officer or a probation officer about a client perhaps wanting to attend a funeral on community, or go back and meet a cultural obligation, or anything that might come up. And they can have an order varied. You know, when they’re a NAAJA client we also have the benefit of linking them back in to the legal service to have that happen.

MS GRAHAM: Mr Quayle, you’ve talked about the importance of – or the ideal situation of having face-to-face service provision for Throughcare. Do I understand that the ideal is that a Throughcare service is going to be a locally-run service? So, for example, in Central Australia the best case scenario is that a local Central Australian organisation is providing that Throughcare service?

MR QUAYLE: I think the key is having locally employed staff who have a knowledge of the area, the peoples in the area, and have strong relationships with those communities, but also other stakeholders that are operating in that location, for example, Corrections staff who are based in the community and the prison, Territory Families, that kind of thing.

MS RODGER: And in Central Australia there’s one person employed by Mission Australia, he provides some post-release services both to adults and young people; is that right?

MR QUAYLE: That’s my understanding. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: And in terms of what his case load might look like at, there are over 600 people in the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, adults, and then several young people in the youth detention centre. Is it your understanding that Mission Australia’s ability to provide specialist youth throughcare is compromised by that reality of how many adults there are to service?

MR QUAYLE: I think that the person employed by Mission Australia has a huge job, given he’s the only person in Alice Springs providing post-release support. So, yes, absolutely. I mean, I think his ability to dedicate significant time to young people coming out of detention would possibly be compromised.

MS GRAHAM: And is it your understanding that his – the scope of the work that he does, is also limited to only three months after someone is released from custody?

MR QUAYLE: No. I think it’s that he commences working with people three months before they’re due to be released. I’m not sure what the timeframe is post-release.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Taylor-Hunt do you know how long, after someone is released from custody, Mission Australia is able to work with them? Is it the three month limit?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: I’m not sure there’s a specific timeframe attached to it. I think given – and the same – the same occurs in Darwin. Mission Australia has one dedicated worker that works across the youth and the adult space up here as well, and works with Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous. So, yes, I think through circumstances and through the fact that there’s a high demand, and case loads are much higher than ours, that their post-release engagement ceases at around the three month mark. But I couldn’t be 100 per cent certain on that.

MS GRAHAM: And NAAJA engages with clients for as long as they wish, and I think the longest you’ve worked with someone is two years after release

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: It is. We don’t want to go past the two year mark. We don’t want to create a dependence. We want to empower people so that they can live fruitful lives and be empowered themselves, but what we find is that the strength of the relationships that we build means that often long after we’ve closed our files we will still have clients ringing and say, “This that is just come up and would you be able to help me or refer me or point me in the right direction?” And I think that’s a really good indication of – of how important that relationship building is and how that length of engagement impacts on relationships.

MS GRAHAM: Apart from Mission Australia, the one other person that you at NAAJA children people to is Antoinette Carroll at CAALAS; is that right.

MR QUAYLE: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: And Antoinette has a lot of experience in young people engaging with the justice system; is that be fair to say?

MR QUAYLE: Antoinette Carroll is amazing.

MS GRAHAM: But she is only one person funded for a part-time position, not directed at throughcare, is that - - -

MR QUAYLE: That’s correct. My understanding of Antoinette’s role is it is a court support role primarily. So on occasion we will have young people who are returning to Alice Springs that we’re aware Antoinette has a relationship with and she does provide them with support, but she is also doing policy work, as well as the court support work. So the post-release support that she provides is in addition to an already very full position.

MS GRAHAM: She goes above and beyond when trying to assist kids?

MR QUAYLE: I don’t know when she would have ever worked a part-time week.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Ms Graham. Dr Dwyer.

DR DWYER: Just very briefly, your Honour. Most of it has been covered, Commissioners. Mr Quayle, first, both you and Ms Taylor-Hunt have talked about the importance for NAAJA building strong relationships with government and non-government working in youth justice; correct?

MR QUAYLE: Yes.

DR DWYER: You’re aware, aren’t you, that one of the strong relationships that NAAJA is built up with PM&C; is that correct?

MR QUAYLE: Very definitely.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Absolutely, yes.

DR DWYER: So it’s strong, it’s mutually respectful?

MR QUAYLE: Yes.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes, it is.

DR DWYER: And I note you are adding your agreement, Ms Taylor-Hunt.

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Adding agreement and appreciation for the long term support and funding that we’ve received through Prime Minister and Cabinet.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, they don’t often get that kind of accolade. I hope they’re listening.

DR DWYER: In – on the sort of other scale of that, in developing post-release plans, perhaps Ms Taylor-Hunt, do you look at locally run programs that are relevant to an individual’s needs and then try to tap into those?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Absolutely. So – you know, in developing the case plan, we encourage the youth to identify the services that are best going to support them. It might be someone that’s known to them already through previous service provision. Or it might be just through talking through the different types of services that are available and supporting them in identifying the best link.

DR DWYER: Has one of those programs in the past been Balunu for you, Ms Taylor-Hunt with your clients?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: It has. My understanding is that Balunu was defunded, and I think that was back in 2012, in terms of the camps they were providing. I know that our youth workers at the time worked closely with Balunu. For me personally – I started in 2009 at NAAJA in 2009 as a community legal educator, and at that point in time Balunu were running regular barbecues at the Casuarina swimming pool. And my experience, in attending those, was that the number of – there was a high number of youth attendance, and the respect was really mutual, and you could see the youth engaged really well and were really appreciative of those activities. And I think I said earlier extra curricula activities are really lacking up here and certainly Balunu is missed in that space. And I think – you know, in addition to that we can definitely say that there are no youth camps up here and having that available to make referrals to. I mean – you know, they ran a camp that, from my understanding, was a healing camp and addressed issues such as substance misuse, and whilst I couldn’t give you an in-depth overview of what Saltbush do, that’s where all of our kids get sent from up here. So if we had a service that was able to offer a similar type - - -

DR DWYER: So an Aboriginal run service - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: BushMob, was it?

MS RODGER: I’m sorry, Mr - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Sorry. Sam said Saltbush, she meant BushMob.

MS RODGER: I do - - -

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Yes, sorry. Saltbush is – yep, sorry. I apologise.

DR DWYER: So to you an Aboriginal run organisation, running school holiday programs and healing camps available to Top End kids would be a really useful resource?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: It would be more than useful, it would be fantastic for the youth, absolutely.

DR DWYER: Mr Quayle, you’re nodding. Is there anything else that you wanted to add?

MR QUAYLE: No. Just my agreement, definitely.

DR DWYER: Okay. Just – last topic. Ms Taylor-Hunt, in the time you’ve been working with NAAJA did you hear anything about an SEED program, S-E-E-D program, that was run within Don Dale by NTG?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: No, I didn’t.

DR DWYER: Mr Quayle did you hear anything about SEED.

MR QUAYLE: No.

DR DWYER: In line with the collaborative approach that you have outlined, would you welcome any opportunity to contribute to programs that are put forward by the Northern Territory Government as being appropriate for young people in Don Dale or outside of it, Ms Taylor-Hunt?

MS TAYLOR-HUNT: Absolutely. Thomas is on some advisory committees now, and he is probably better placed to speak to that, but yes, definitely.

DR DWYER: Mr Quayle, first could you indicate the advisory committee that you are on – or committees?

MR QUAYLE: Yes. I’m in the practice advisory group for the .....

DR DWYER: And so any particular service model that the Northern Territory Government puts forward, you would welcome the opportunity to add NAAJA’s expertise and input in that space?

MR QUAYLE: Absolutely, yes.

DR DWYER: Nothing further, thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you very much. Mr Quayle and Ms Taylor-Hunt. Of course. you have got a lot more in your statements than we have covered here, and it’s – they’re full of information and very helpful indeed and, of course, NAAJA has been a continuing presence during this Royal Commission in many roles. And so it’s no doubt that without NAAJA’s contribution, it would have been a much more difficult task for us. So thank you for coming today.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [11.11 am]

MR QUAYLE: Thank you.

MS RODGER: Commissioners, the next session is a closed session. So it might be a convenient time to .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Take the morning tea break. Well, we will resume at 11.30 if the hearing room is ready.

ADJOURNED [11.11 am]

CLOSED SESSION ENSUED

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

PUBLIC SESSION RESUMED

RESUMED [12.52 pm]

MR McAVOY: May it please the Commissioners, I call Darren Young and Melissa Previtera, who are presently in the witness box.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, yes. I expect they’ve been waiting. We do apologise for delaying.

<DARREN YOUNG, AFFIRMED [12.53 pm]

<MELISSA PREVITERA, SWORN

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Kindly be seated. Yes. Thanks, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. Starting first with Mr Young, could you tell the Commissioners your full name.

MR YOUNG: ..... Darren Young.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3907 YOUNG/PREVITERA ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: And your present role is as?

MR YOUNG: State Director for Mission Australia across Queensland and the Northern Territory.

MR McAVOY: And you’ve prepared a statement for the purpose of the Royal Commission.

MR YOUNG: Yes, I have.

MR McAVOY: If you look on the screen to your left you will see a statement dated 16 April. Do you see that?

MR YOUNG: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And your signature is at the bottom and your signature appears there on the last page?

MR YOUNG: Correct.

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

MR YOUNG: Yes, it is.

MR McAVOY: Commissioner, I tender the statement of Darren Young together with the five annexures to that statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. That’s exhibit 381.

EXHIBIT #381 STATEMENT OF DARREN YOUNG

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms Previtera, you haven’t provided a statement to the Royal Commission, have you?

MS PREVITERA: No.

MR McAVOY: And your understanding of attending here is that the issues which you are particular concerned with are covered in Mr Young’s statement and, to the extent that you are able to assist the Commission by answering questions about those matters, you will do so?

MS PREVITERA: Yes, that’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And you’ve got specific knowledge, of course, of the supported accommodation field in Townsville, haven’t you, and you can assist us with that?

MS PREVITERA: Yes, Commissioner.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I will start first with Mr Young. Mr Young, I want to ask you about the Housing First model that Mission Australia operates. Can you explain what the housing first model is?

MR YOUNG: I can. In essence, it basically means there’s no precondition for housing. So we’re – the Housing First model is saying let’s get the housing right first. Let’s get someone into stable accommodation, and let’s address of other issues which may relate to alcohol and other drug use, or it may relate to mental health. Let’s work on those once the person has housing. If we wait for a – for those issues to be addressed, we may never house that person, so it’s starting with the housing first.

MR McAVOY: And a paragraph 38 of your statement – you might be able to see that on the screen.

MR YOUNG: Yes.

MR McAVOY: You make the observation:

If a person does not have safe and stable accommodation they are not able to rebuild their lives in other areas.

MR YOUNG: That’s right.

MR McAVOY: And so that’s the approach that Mission Australia takes, that having stable accommodation is so fundamental to rebuilding one’s life that that’s where your efforts are put?

MR YOUNG: Yes it is, and in that program in peculiar we work to – accommodation is one of the biggest things that we address first, probably employment is the second most common issue that we grapple with.

MR McAVOY: Are you able to say why safe, stable accommodation is so important for young people in particular?

MR YOUNG: I think for young people in particular, if they do not have stable accommodation, their lives are in a state of chaos. They’re not – you can advise a person to attend a medical appointment or visit a lawyer or get a particular service, but they’re probably unlikely to do that if their life is in chaos without having stable accommodation. So once they’ve got stable accommodation, they have an address, they’re contactable, we can support them. The person is not worried about where


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they’re going to be sleeping that night: much easier to work with that young person and address their circumstances.

MR McAVOY: And in circumstances where young people are homeless, does that increase their risk of criminal justice interactions and other aspects that aren’t favourable to them?

MR YOUNG: Yes, it does.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That evaluation, the MISHA one that you’ve attached to the statement, that was some little while ago now.

MR YOUNG: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But would you suggest that, nonetheless, the findings are consistent with what the situation is today?

MR YOUNG: Yes, I think the principles behind the MISHA Project still apply today. The housing principles are quite sound and quite well evaluated around the world.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: ..... they – apart from this one there are other - - -

MR YOUNG: Other evaluations, correct.

MR McAVOY: And with your knowledge are circumstances in the Northern Territory for youth in particular, is housing availability and homelessness a particular issue in the Northern Territory?

MR YOUNG: My understanding for housing, particularly for young people is there is a desperate need for housing young people. Safe, stable, permanent housing is in short supply.

MR McAVOY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What would the – what would the nature of that housing be, Mr Young?

MR YOUNG: I think there could be a number of different options that would work, and there probably would need to be a number of different options. Certainly, the Housing First Model advocates for putting a person into that house and that becomes their permanent arrangement. So they don’t have to worry about being evicted, or in 12 months time they need to exit, so the Housing First Model advocates that. But I think there’s a view, particularly for young people, that sometimes transitional arrangements still might need to apply. That might mean, for instance, being involved in a group housing situation where they’re still learning some of the basic skills about how to interact with others, how to do all the very basic things to look


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

after a house. So sometimes that might be more appropriate, with a view to some longer term accommodation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And would – on that first model, would that envisage having a kind of resident caretaker on the premises to aid them in those life skills?

MR YOUNG: Yes. Yeah, certainly depends on the cohort. For young people there’s probably quite a broad spectrum of abilities, competencies, even across an age group, and you certainly can get young people who are quite independent at a young age, and yet on the other end you could have people in their very early 20s that are struggling with maintaining accommodation. So I think there would be some different approaches and different models but certainly those that need – need support, having people available, supporting on site, certainly does make a big difference.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And does – do any of your models include a hostel type complex?

MR YOUNG: Not – we don’t have any hostel arrangements in the Northern Territory.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No.

MR YOUNG: We do provide out-of-home care in Queensland.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps I didn’t quite express the question. Do you advocate for a hostel type accommodation for young people or do you think it is better to look for the home situation?

MR YOUNG: Home situation absolutely a better, better solution for young people.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: With perhaps four.

MR YOUNG: Yes. As close as possible to an environment in housing that is similar to the other houses in an environment, as most normal as possible to that housing situation I think is the best solution. I don’t – I certainly wouldn’t personally advocate, for any length of time, having young people in a large group housing situation. I – I don’t think that’s desirable.

MR McAVOY: And following on from that question, Mr Young, it’s not – Mission Australia doesn’t operate any supported accommodation in the Northern Territory?

MR YOUNG: For – not specifically for young people.

MR McAVOY: Not for young people.

MR YOUNG: No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: But one of which you’ve referred to in the statement is the supervised community accommodation in Townsville.

MR YOUNG: Correct.

MR McAVOY: I was wondering, Ms Previtera, could you tell the Commissioners about that accommodation?

MS PREVITERA: Yes. So supervised community accommodation program is set up to assist young people exiting Cleveland Detention Centre in Townsville. So the cohort of young people we are working with is 16 to 18 for long term accommodation, which is six months, and we also set up for 12 to 15 – so short-term or emergency stays. So we predominantly work with young people in housing, young people that come out from detention, so whether they’re being on supervised community orders, whether they’re on bail or conditional release, and they stay up to about six months. Sometimes in individual circumstances it’s quite longer, so it might be nine months. We do things like help them connect with the youth justice worker. We will take them to appointments, we will assist with social activities, psychosocial activities, we provide cultural camps, we provide knowledge on how to cook a meal, how to wash your clothes. So it’s very practical and I guess it’s to really help them with their independent skills as well, so post-SCA we help them to find more of an independent living, so their own unit or their own house in which they can stay after supervised community accommodation.

MR McAVOY: And you used the initials SCO?

MS PREVITERA: SCA.

MR McAVOY: SCA.

MS PREVITERA: Is the acronym, yes.

MR McAVOY: So that’s for supervised community accommodation?


MR McAVOY: Yes. Okay. And, in the Townsville accommodation, how many young people can reside there?

MS PREVITERA: So four at any given time

MR McAVOY: That’s for supervised community accommodation.

MS PREVITERA: Yes, that’s correct. MR McAVOY: In the Townsville accommodation how many young people can reside there?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS PREVITERA: Four at any given time for six months.

MR McAVOY: And how many staff are there for those four young people?

MS PREVITERA: We have six support workers that are rostered on. So we’ve got one during the day and two at night. So one will do a passive shift, which is a 2 to 10, and they sleepover until 6 o’clock in the morning, and we will have another worker that will assist them from 2 pm to 10 at night.

MR McAVOY: The accommodation is a house.

MS PREVITERA: Yes, it’s a house, normal house, normal settings.

MR McAVOY: Is it a house that has been subject to renovations, or is it a house built from scratch?

MS PREVITERA: It’s a house that had renovations to accommodate for the young people that come in.

MR McAVOY: And it’s in the suburbs in Townsville.

MS PREVITERA: Yes, it is.

MR McAVOY: In a normal street.

MS PREVITERA: In a normal street, no signage or anything.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Does it have a lock-up at night? That’s a pretty normal domestic thing that when people go to bed, they lock their doors in some places anyway. Is that what happens there?

MS PREVITERA: Yes, that’s correct. Yes, it does, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that if they’re out after lock-up, what happens to them? Do they have their own key.

MS PREVITERA: No, they don’t have their own key, but we have the passive shift which is the sleepover which will open the doors for them at night. We don’t lock anyone out. If they come home, we accept them in at any time.

MR McAVOY: Are you aware that in out-of-home residential care facilities there’s often an issue with damage to the residences from the residents, the young residents? Is that an issue that you confront in SCA?

MS PREVITERA: Not particularly. We don’t see it all the time. Sometimes a young person will come home quite elevated, but we have got support workers who


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

are very skilled in de-escalating elevated young people that come in. So, no, not often.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But I take it from your answer that there is sometimes some - - -

MS PREVITERA: Sometimes, just for example, they will kick a piece of furniture, not often breaking it, but might kick a chair or something like that if they’re quite elevated. But nothing that would say it was a lot of damage in the house.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Anything that would suggest you would need to get in touch with your insurance company?

MS PREVITERA: There was only one particular time when there was damage to a TV. But that was the only time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Probably want to go on from that about managing that with police, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner. Thank you. On that occasion you did make a report to the police, didn’t you.

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And what happened with the young person? Did they remain in the house or was that the end of their stay?

MS PREVITERA: The young person was due to exit. So he then went back to his parents to reside, and I think he did go to court for that, yes.

MR McAVOY: Are there, apart from that event – is there any history of offences being committed by young people staying at the accommodation in Townsville?

MS PREVITERA: No. There’s previous offences but not - - -

MR McAVOY: Not while they’re there. But the house has four separate bedrooms. It’s like a normal house


MR McAVOY: A lounge area, kitchen, dining area.

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

MR McAVOY: So if you were driving past it in the street, you wouldn’t notice any difference; it’s a regular house.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS PREVITERA: Not at all.

MR McAVOY: And if you were inside, it would look like a house with a lot of young people in it, I suppose.

MS PREVITERA: Yes, that’s correct. Yes.

MR McAVOY: How important is it that it is and appears to be a normal house?

MS PREVITERA: It’s very important. Most of the young people that reside at SCA, they’ve never had a bedroom or their own bedroom. They’ve never been able to access a fridge or sit on a lounge without being disturbed. So I think it’s really important to get away from a sterile environment. So we try and make it as homely as possible and get the feel of what a normal home feels like. So at the house we introduce a chore system as well. So, just like one of our children at home, you know, they mow the lawn for some pocket money, might clean the fridge out, do their washing. They get $10 a week for doing their washing and hanging their clothes out.

MR McAVOY: And you heard some questions earlier about larger hostel-type accommodation. What is your view about the benefits of a smaller house-like environment as opposed to a larger group home?

MS PREVITERA: I think we’re able to cater for the individual a lot more in a normal environment and provide that one-on-one tailored case management more effectively if it’s on a smaller setting.

MR McAVOY: And I take it it’s your view that that’s what the residents at your accommodation need, that tailored one-to-one assistance.

MS PREVITERA: Yes, it’s paramount, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Young, in your statement, you talk about a community-based approach, and I discern that means engaging the community as much as possible in activities. Would you like to elaborate a little more on that because that seems to us quite an important way to bring the community into what are often seen as a very alienated group and a group that are not regarded favourably by the community.

MR YOUNG: Yes, absolutely. I think it is a fundamental principle for our services as a whole. We would rarely offer services where we don’t look to see what sort of engagement we could get in a local community, but particularly for young people, and there are – a community will have particular views about young people. We can engage volunteers to work and be alongside young people. I think we have seen great benefits of doing that on both sides, both from a young person’s perspective but also from the community, and the cultural camps that we provide in Townsville are


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

an excellent opportunity to involve local people in that process, and I think we have had some great success there too.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We have heard some evidence about Mission Australia’s sailing program here. It sounds a bit tantalising. That’s all we have heard. Would you like to tell us a bit more about how that works?

MR YOUNG: Yes. The sailing problem is a subprogram of a broader one entitled Spin 180, I think, with a view that Spin 180 means really turning some lives around, essentially. The sailing program is, essentially, a vehicle for us to engage young people in an activity that perhaps wouldn’t normally be accessible to some young people and one of the great things about that activity – it does take young people out of their comfort zone. We’ve been able to structure a – there’s a credited program that they will go through, so there’s some active learning. But also along the way one of the great things is they will experience, particularly when you’re out on the water, you need to be able to make decisions and problem solve and you need to be able to communicate well. So we facilitate and prepare the young people for that, so it’s not just about the sailing, but we do focus heavily on some of those social skills for them to exercise throughout that program. One of the great things about that program is that some young people will get a lot out of that, and we’ve seen them progress into – after a five week stint they will come into the next program and they will be leaders for the next group of people coming in, and they start to learn some leadership skills there, so it’s a great vehicle of engagement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have any collaboration with the sailing fraternity here in Darwin?

MR YOUNG: Yes, yes. The Darwin sailing club. We have worked with them. They are they supportive. They do want to reach out and support the community. And also we don’t run it separately. We had the young people come in doing some preparatory work before they started sailing so they got into the club, got familiar with that environment, did things like learn how to do knots and other things you need to do, a bit of navigation work. But they’re also there interacting with just your average young people who have joined the club. They’re there alongside them as well doing their activities too. So for us it’s very important not to do segregated activities, but to look for ways of having particularly disadvantaged young people interact and interconnect with mainstream activities in the community.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How long has that activity been going on?

MR YOUNG: We started the activity last year.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s relatively recent.

MR YOUNG: Relatively new, and we are still trialling it and working out the best way to do it, but we’re getting some very good feedback.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The young people who engage in that through your good services, are they people who have been in detention?

MR YOUNG: We have had some young people have been in detention been part of the program. As I understand, I guess the broad referral source is schools and with a particular criteria of disengagement with a school or disengagement with home. So that has probably been the broad category, and sometimes that does cross over with young people who have been in detention.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So it’s not specifically targeting programs for youth who have been in touch with the criminal justice system.

MR YOUNG: That’s correct. It’s a broad scope of young people that can be involved in that program.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. And the training boats that the people on that program get to use, they’re provided by the Darwin Sailing Club.

MR YOUNG: Yes, yes.

MR McAVOY: So there’s some real support coming from that organisation.

MR YOUNG: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. They want to see good things for young people in their community, so they’re seeing that’s a way to assist and probably do look for those young people to be club members as well down the track. If they can get some of that, that would be good.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I might turn back to Ms Previtera for a moment. Once you have selected young people to enter the housing at Townsville, how soon before they arrive do you start contact with them?

MS PREVITERA: Four weeks prior to release.

MR McAVOY: And so during that four weeks prior to release, you’re visiting them at the detention centre.

MS PREVITERA: Yes. So we identify their key worker which will be their primary support worker at the house, and they will go into detention and work with the young person based on an integrated case management from Youth Justice and work on some of the goals, some of the aspirations that they might want to do when they are released from Cleveland.

MR McAVOY: And if you look at paragraph 62 of the statement, you can see that that the staff at SCA appear to have a significant level of training in terms of related fields to the care of young people and people with trauma. Can you see that in paragraph 62?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

MR McAVOY: Would you regard the staff as highly skilled for the work that they do?

MS PREVITERA: In dealing with young people with complex behaviours, yes.

MR McAVOY: And is it difficult to attract that sort of highly skilled specialist staff?

MS PREVITERA: We have a lot of support workers in the community that put their hands up to work with Mission Australia with the supervised community accommodation, so, no, I don’t find it particularly hard to find skilled workers.

MR McAVOY: Are any of the employees Aboriginal people?

MS PREVITERA: Predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander at SCA. We have one non-Indigenous male working at SCA.

MR McAVOY: On that note, there’s a significant Aboriginal cultural program as well with the camping and the visits by elders; that’s correct.


MR McAVOY: But the cohort at SCA is not all Aboriginal kids.

MS PREVITERA: No. We do have non-Indigenous young people who reside at SCA.

MR McAVOY: What’s the make-up at the moment, for instance?

MS PREVITERA: In terms of young people.

MR McAVOY: Residents, yes

MS PREVITERA: Predominantly Indigenous.

MR McAVOY: How do you find the non-Indigenous young people respond to the traditional camping and the visits by the elders and participation in community activities?

MS PREVITERA: Yes. I feel that they have also a rapport with other local elders because most of their peers are Indigenous and they’ve grown up in a lot of Indigenous households. So they’re particularly interested in any cultural aspect and particularly in talking with elders who visits that and some of our non-Indigenous young people also go on a cultural camp.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: So I take it that you are of the opinion that they also – are not only interested in it, but get something out of the cultural aspects of the housing?

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Ms Previtera, can we just talk a little bit about that cultural camp. You run a fair few of them during the year?

MS PREVITERA: We’ve – we’ve had four previous.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And are they all in Townsville or - - -

MS PREVITERA: No, predominantly in Juru country, which is Bowen and - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Bit north.

MS PREVITERA: Yes. North and we also had two in Mungalla, which is in Ingham.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And do the local people – so, the Juru people, buy into that process as well?

MS PREVITERA: Yes. We have – one of our Indigenous elders who is a board member of Juru and very supportive of the camps.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And they do the traditional – like fishing and - - -

MS PREVITERA: Camping, hunting.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yarning. Lots of yarning.

MS PREVITERA: Yarning, definitely.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There is a lot of yarning that goes on, Ms Previtera, doesn’t it?

MS PREVITERA: Yes. So they talk about lore, as in l-o-r-e.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yes.

MS PREVITERA: Traditional lore. They visit cultural sites, which is caves, scar trees. They also look at the fish traps that were thousands of years old. So definitely introduce them to cultural sites.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So that – you know, it’s a general phenomenon around the country where young – particularly young males in urban areas have lost


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

a bit of connection with their country, this is an opportunity – with their culture. Bit of an opportunity for them to reconnect and appreciate the culture.

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Like we had an elder from Tiwi come present to us about – you know, things like obligations within the Aboriginal culture can actually help put kids on the right track.

MS PREVITERA: Yes. That’s right.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Yes. So do they talk about those sorts of things as well?

MS PREVITERA: Yes. Most of our young people who enter SCA have lost the connection to mob. Quite oftentimes don’t know who they are or where they come from. Trevor, who is one of our volunteers, will go through and he will identify their last name and say, “Okay, you’re Juru.” And you know, I think that really helps in the connection. It also sets a platform for other things, you know, to involve themselves in more – you know, cultural activities in future.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And Mr McAvoy talked about the preparation before they come out of, say, Cleveland. That’s pretty important?

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Getting them ready to come out.

MS PREVITERA: Particularly working on the rapport with the young person.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And the six month period, it’s a fair period really, isn’t it, to reintegrate into the community. It’s not like a couple of weeks or even a couple of nights at some of the places I’ve seen.

MS PREVITERA: Yeah. I still don’t think it’s long enough to be honest. Six months does fly by quite quickly.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So what would your preferred timeframe be?

MS PREVITERA: I would say more a 12 month period, because of lack of housing opportunities in the Townsville area. It’s quite – it’s particularly hard to house a young person post SCA due to the limited housing that we have. So that’s where the time is really needed.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And the particular sort of housing, like, I’m imagining it would be – you know, single accommodation.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Those sort of things are pretty hard to come by.

MS PREVITERA: Very much so. We find that’s a bit of a barrier post release, particularly with young people.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The ..... population in Townsville is rather than higher than other places in Queensland outside the communities themselves?

MS PREVITERA: Yes, I think that is so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Any idea of what the percentage might be?

MS PREVITERA: No. Not off-hand, Commissioner, no.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I ask, your house in Townsville is for young males, isn’t it, young men?


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there anything for young women.

MS PREVITERA: No. Not presently, Commissioner, no.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Not from Mission Australia or anyone else; is that the case?

MS PREVITERA: There is out-of-home care for males and females, but nothing particularly for young females post detention.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there a need for it?

MS PREVITERA: Yes, most definitely.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Just on the cultural stuff, we know Palm Island is very close to Townsville. Do Palm Island kids come into the facility as well?

MS PREVITERA: So some of our young people are from Palm Island and they reside at the house for six months due to disconnection with family, so it’s about rebuilding a connection on Palm Island, so they do – they do reside at SCA.

MR McAVOY: Ms Previtera, when asked by Commissioner Gooda whether you thought the up to six month period was suitable, you expressed the view that you would like to have up to 12 months. I’m wondering at the other end, in terms of preparation for release from detention, is four weeks a suitable period or would you like longer at that end as well?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS PREVITERA: I think longer, to build rapport with the young person, and particularly working with a key worker at SCA, maybe even eight weeks prior to release would be something ideal.

MR McAVOY: I just wanted to ask you, Mr Young, about your programs in the Northern Territory. Mission Australia’s programs in the Northern Territory. Mission Australia returns a post-release support program in Alice Springs for adults?

MR YOUNG: Correct.

MR McAVOY: Can you just briefly describe what services are provided?

MR YOUNG: Correct. It’s a case management type service. So a staff member – we have one staff member who engages with people three months prior to release, builds rapport. On release will assist primarily around accommodation. Accommodation options are quite short supply for this particular cohort of people, so that takes probably a large amount of time, but also we recognise that employment is key. Often employment is organised prior, but not always kept, so his role is very much around working with that person to ensure that they do all the right things necessary to maintain their employment. So they are the two key priorities of his case management.

MR McAVOY: And you’ve said – I think you just said you commence work with the prisoner three months before they are released?

MR YOUNG: Three months prior.

MR McAVOY: Is that a suitable length of time in terms of preparation?

MR YOUNG: My understanding it is. I think a principle would be to engage as earlier as possible, but from the feedback I’ve had from the staff member involved, three months is a good time period to start that engagement process.

MR McAVOY: And you’ve just heard Ms Previtera to say she would like maybe two months, rather than a month, in respect of young people. Would you say – would you agree with that or would you perhaps think three months as well?

MR YOUNG: I would go as long – I would go three months. The earlier the engagement – building rapport is critical, enabling a smooth as possible transition of support for those young people, I think, is an ideal solution.

MR McAVOY: Are you aware of any similar program existing in Alice Springs to the adult post-release support program that Mission Australia runs?

MR YOUNG: There is a – I believe Anglicare provides a similar service to us under the same funding arrangement.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Only – is – any of those for children?

MR YOUNG: I’m not aware.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And do these – the release, the care program in Alice Springs, that’s just for those who have been sentenced?

MR YOUNG: Yes. That’s right, adult offenders have been sentenced, yes.

MR McAVOY: I just wanted to touch briefly on the funding arrangements for the programs that you run in the Northern Territory. What funding cycle are they on?

MR YOUNG: Yes. One year cycles.

MR McAVOY: And is it by way of grant or contract for services?

MR YOUNG: It’s a contract for services with the Territory.

MR McAVOY: And is that the – in your observation of working in Queensland and New South Wales and what you know about the rest of Australia, is a year to year contract the normal arrangement?

MR YOUNG: Things have fluctuated over the years in social services. As an industry, we have argued for longer contracting times. We often accept a year as a pilot arrangement, but where the services are being – year after year after year going through a process of applying and competing for tenders, we don’t see that to be desirable thing for the services. In particular, as an employer, it does get very hard to retain our staff and, as Melissa said – you know, we do invest a lot of training with our staff. Staff naturally get very nervous when we don’t hear from government, and we can go to a matter of weeks before the end of the financial year not knowing whether we will be funded to run that service in the new year, and staff will – staff will leave. And after the work we’ve put in, particularly if we have got services where we ..... rapport and building up relations with our clients is important, that is really detrimental to the service.

MR McAVOY: And I suppose that where you have a short period left on your contract, and a staff member leaves for one reason or another, it then becomes difficult to attract new staff.

MR YOUNG: Correct. If a staff member left just at the end of March, it would be very hard for us to fill a position for three months.

MR McAVOY: And so your observation from working in Queensland, are you able to make any comment what the norm there is in terms of contract for services in the social sector?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR YOUNG: It is varied, but we certainly do go beyond one year contracts. We look to ideally get arrangements where we have got three year contracts in place.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there some other way of doing the funding that is just a bit more coherent in doing the work you have to do? Because, in a sense, it’s the private sector, the charity sector if you like, doing the work that sometimes some people might think Government ought to be responsible for. So can you think of a better funding model that this particular one?

MR YOUNG: Yes. I think the fear sometimes of Government is if we lock a – providers like us into three year contracts they won’t have flexibility, but I am convinced that we can do contractual arrangements where there is flexibility that, if you do not perform against your key performance criteria, or where there is a fundamental shift in policy, that changes could be made that to contract. I think that could be done. So – you know, the vast majority of the contracts probably stay the same and that might apply to 20 per cent of the contract. I think it is entirely possible to do longer contracting by – through Government.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No doubt that has been proposed and rejected.

MR YOUNG: I think each jurisdiction perhaps considers the pros and cons, each Government considers the pros and cons over time, but we have been consistently saying for many years that longer contract periods will result in better – better services, enables us to focus on the business at hand rather than worrying will we have our staff and will we have a contract post 30 June.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: It’s one of those conundrums that Government imposes lots of accountability measures, but it also costs a lot of money for Government to monitor those things, and even the resources required to make a series of one year grants compared to a series of three year grants so - - -

MR YOUNG: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: - - - we might be able to make arguments about cost savings to Government here as well.

MR YOUNG: Yes, absolutely. On both sides of the occasion, the monitoring that will go in and the changing of the contracts, but also on our side when we prepare for a contract that is not done with those contract dollars, that is done from Mission Australia’s own dollars we have to invest to make that work. And it would be great to use those resources into direct service delivery instead.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Like, the demand is not going to change at the end of this – the end of next month, end of June, end of the financial year?

MR YOUNG: No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: In Townsville for instance, going to be there.

MR YOUNG: Correct.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. That concludes the questions I wanted to ask these witnesses. I understand there might be some questions from Ms Graham.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Young, in your recommendations and observations, the first one talks about a continuum of services and, just following on from that last question, it seems to us that there’s a whole lot of players in this field. Is there any mechanism to – often we talk about Government coordinating services, is there any mechanism to coordinate the NGO sector around services like this. Because it seems to me it’s really needed.

MR YOUNG: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: There’s so many players in the field, just making sure that even in the facility we visited in – your facility in Townsville that the sort of you need in those can’t be provided just in one place. So has there been any thought about, say, pick an area. Youth detention, there’s a need to coordinate that continuum of services.

MR YOUNG: Yes. Certainly, it is the – the social services sector is a very complex sector, and it is very easy to have disconnections between services and it certainly where there is institutions like detention and a young person leaving it’s very easy for those four walls to prevent good communication with those service providers on the outside. And having worked for many years in this field, I continue to see those disconnects that occur. Certainly, there is examples of where both Government and where NGOs have taken leadership roles where we have piloted projects to enable better coordination. Sometimes that is focused around individuals, so we have got examples where we do collaborative case management where we have a lead providers and then other providers will come around the table and have coordinated action to get a good result for a young person or for an adult, but that doesn’t always happen. So we will be absolutely agreeing with you that there is probably, both from a Government side but also an NGO side, that service integration, service collaboration is needed and we have got some examples of mechanisms to do that.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And again, I don’t want to seem like I’m bashing Government, but the tendering process has almost set up a competitive environment where – you know, it almost seems to me like there should be some way of coordinating who provides accommodation, who provides entry into housing, otherwise you are just setting up, I reckon, a false competition here.

MR YOUNG: Yes. I think another issue is that as contracts over time have got much tighter, and organisations like us need to prioritise where people’s energies go, ideally we would like to have our staff networking and working closely with these


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

other organisations to understand what they are doing and how can we work together, but where there’s very tight contracting that will fall off the table and they will just focus on the - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Then come tendering time you are in competition.

MR YOUNG: That’s right – that’s right, competing against those people. So it is – it is challenging.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you.

MR McAVOY: I apologise, there is no cross-examination for these witnesses and that concludes their evidence, I believe.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr McAvoy. Thank you, Mr Young and Ms Previtera, very much for coming along and assisting us with the things that are of vital importance to us in the inquiry. Thank you for hosting us in Townsville at your premises too, Ms Previtera. That was a very useful engagement, particularly to be able to speak to one of your young people who was residing there with so much good effect for his life. And we will be much informed by the things that you have told us in your statement. Thank you very much. And thank you for coming along.

MR YOUNG: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And can you pass our thanks on to all your staff who looked after us as well.

MS PREVITERA: Yes. Will do.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: And hope ..... is going okay.

MS PREVITERA: Yes.

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [1.36 pm]

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Maybe I shouldn’t have said that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, we will take a short lunchbreak. Ms Edwards is our next witness, I think, and I know that she has been waiting in the hearing room for some little time.

MR McAVOY: Yes, it is proposed to call Ms Edwards next, and then - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Does she have a flight to catch?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: My understanding is not.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Will one of your people ..... just what it is that – when she needs to be away?

MR McAVOY: No. There’s no - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No pressure.

MR McAVOY: No pressure – time pressure for Ms Edwards and I understand Ms Nobbs-Carcuro’s office is not far and is able to come this afternoon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Alright. We will adjourn until quarter past 2. So thanks very much indeed.

ADJOURNED [1.37 pm]

RESUMED [2.23 pm]

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I call Julie Edwards.

<JULIE EDWARDS, SWORN [2.24 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY

MR McAVOY: Could you tell the Commissioners your full name?---Julie Edwards. Julie Mary Edwards.

And your occupation?---I’m the CEO of Jesuit Social Services.

If you look to the screen to your left, you will see the statement bearing your name. That is your signature at the bottom?---That’s right.

You can see the final page on the screen?---Yes.

And that’s also your signature that appears there?---That’s right.

The date 24 April 2017. The contents of that statement are true and correct, subject to a couple of minor amendments you would like to make?---That’s correct.

The first, I understand, is at paragraph 81?---That’s right. That’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3927 J. EDWARDS XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Could you just tell the Commissioners the changes you would like to make?---Yes. This is the findings of the KPMG report, and when I looked more thoroughly at it, the data I wish to refer to is over the 24-month period, not a 12-month period.

That’s in the third line?---So it should read:

And found that within 24 months of the conference only 19.2 per cent.

So delete 14.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 16?---16:

Had reoffended compared with 42.9 per cent of those on probation, comparable.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. And paragraph 96?---That is right. This is in reference to the program Barreng Moorop. I said the program commenced in 2015; it actually commenced in 2014.

Thank you. There are no other changes?---That’s right.

To the best of your knowledge, the statement with those changes the document is true and correct?---That’s correct.

Commissioners, I tender the statement Julie Edwards dated 24 April 2017, subject to the changes as pointed out by the witness.


EXHIBIT #382 STATEMENT OF JULIE EDWARDS

MR McAVOY: Ms Edwards, you are the CEO of Jesuit Social Services; that’s correct?---That’s right.

You have been at Jesuit Social Services since 2001 and CEO since 2004?---That’s correct.

Jesuit Social Services provides a number of services across Australia, including post-release support, youth justice conferences and diversion?---We no longer provide the particular diversion program that was referred to in the report which I noted at that time. We did a pilot for the first 18 months.

We will come to that?---Okay.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I just wanted to ask you at the outset the program that you run receives funding from the Jesuits?---Our budget overall. We received a grant from the Jesuits. The majority of our funding comes from the state government or from all governments, but particularly the state government, about 70 per cent of our funding. And other money comes from donations raised from philanthropy and a bit from the Jesuits, plus some money we raise ourselves.

The money from Jesuits is untied money?---Yes. It’s given to us to support our advocacy work, but we’ve used it, for example, to start our work in the Northern Territory up here, in Darwin, I mean.

So it gives you a little bit of freedom in terms of advocacy that other service providers might not - - -?---That’s right, and to innovate, etcetera.

You have had a lengthy experience in dealing with prisoners on release; that’s correct?---That’s correct.

Can you explain to the Commissioners how you first came to be involved in the role of dealing with prisoners on release?---Yes. I suppose really it goes back to before I was fully qualified as a social worker even. I lived in a therapeutic community. So we’re talking about 40 years ago where we lived with people exiting custody, psychiatric facilities, etcetera. And as deinstitutionalisation was happening, particularly in the 80s and early 90s, we saw more and more people coming out from those institutions without adequate support. So I had actually got involved as a 21 year old.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: They were a lot of people who had some mental health problems at the time. Those who were closed institutions, as I recall, were thought to be fit to live relatively unsupported in the community?---That’s right. So, for example, we would have lived – I can remember one person in particular who had been in Larundel in Victoria for nine years, and suddenly he was out in the community, but actually with very little community support following him into the community, but in terms of this cohort of young people in youth justice we used to have young people at Baltara or Turana or with an organisation called Four Flats, which was the precursor to Jesuit Social Services actually, come and stay with us, and it was a different era, shall I say, and it’s the sort of thing that you could do and support young people in the community.

MR McAVOY: Even though it was a different era, there were some lessons that you learned during that period that have been able to guide you in the years since?---Yes, very much. I suppose living in a home, in a house with people in need like that, and I was concurrently studying social work, it struck me that many of the services that we actually offer are quite thin. They’re more transactional. They’re delivering an outcome but often the engagement with the person, with their heart and mind and their aspirations for the future is relatively limited in a traditional setting. So I was very influenced by that in my early life and career, I suppose, to understand the importance of relationship and the transformative power of a relationship which


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

is reciprocal and mutually respectful. So that has continued to shape me and my practice.

And, indeed, it underpins the work of the Jesuit Social Services?---That’s right.

And there’s an acronym that you use as guidance for Jesuit Social Services?---That’s right. We have developed a way of working that comes, I would say, from our heritage, which is the Jesuit Ignatian heritage and Catholic social teaching, also through what the research and literature says and synthesising that with the practice wisdom of our staff. We’ve developed a way of working, and the acronym we use is VALUE, V-A-L-U-E, and the components of that way of working are comprised of valuing self and others, affirming hope and aspiration, linking into supports, using skills and capabilities, capacities and enhancing civic participation. And the reason we have that acronym is because we – while we do provide services, we don’t view ourselves just as a service provider, but we see ourselves as a social change organisation where we have a vision of building a just society where everyone gets to reach their potential, and the VALUE acronym sums us for us about how we might accompany people in a mutually respectful way to reach their potential, and it’s not just about service delivery. It’s about relationship and fostering, the valuing of that person and building hope for them, linking into the supports by all means, but ultimately we want people to be contributing, participating people in the community.

Included in that way of working, which, I might make the observation, is not often seen, is the value of enhancing civic participation?---That’s correct.

How does that play a part in the work that you do? What’s the intention there?---It comes back, I suppose, to having a clear vision for the person of what we believe everyone wants and we believe that people are inherently relational, that they seek meaning and purpose, that they want to contribute and participate and have hope for their future. And based on that, we know that people don’t just want to receive services, but they want to believe they’re valued and play a part, and so we’re working with the individual, and the group conferencing is a particular model where we’re helping the young person take responsibility for their lives and give back. We’re very keen on that approach, which also means we try and work with communities to help them be more receptive because, ultimately, service delivery comes to an end and we all live in a community, so we need jobs opened up to us, we need a community that accepts us.

I take it then that you say that having a clear set of values is very important in working with youth?---Yes. I think - - -

Social Services sector?---Absolutely. And I think in terms of any work that we do, but I will focus particularly on working with children and young people at the moment, this is very demanding work. It’s very – a challenging work. It’s work engaging with young people who are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the community who have often known abuse, neglect, trauma from their earliest days, it’s often intergenerational poverty and disadvantage we are dealing


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

with. We think that it’s really important that staff have a clear framework within which we are working, a clear understanding of what we’re trying to achieve. So we recruit for that. We induct and train for that and continue to support staff to work according to a particular model. And that holds the person when, for example, the work is relentless or unrewarding that we know what we’re doing. We know that when we’re simply driving a young person to an appointment, for example, that it is part of building their potential and building the just society we all want. So we think it’s really important in sustaining the vocational heart of staff because, ultimately, whatever policies, program frameworks you have, it comes down to that person, that staff member with the person in front of them.

Is that reflected in staff retention and staff morale?---Yes, it is.

I just wanted to speak about some of the programs you’re involved in. The post-release program, Youth Justice Community Support Services, that’s run by Jesuit Social Services in Victoria for young people on release from detention; correct?---Yes, across metropolitan Melbourne, those four regions. And other organisations do it in regional areas.

How long has the program been running?---I would like to refer to my - - -

If I said 2008, would that - - -?---2008. Before that we were doing that sort of work, but the Youth Justice Community Support Service, which it’s currently known as, and in that format since 2008, but we’ve been doing that work for 40 years. This year is our 40th anniversary.

And is there an age group that you work with?---In that program.

Yes?---Yes. We work with 10 to 21 year olds because in Victoria there’s a dual track system of – for 18 to 21 year olds.

And can you just explain the dual track system for 18 to 20 year olds?---Yes. So up to 18, if you’re up to 18, the Children’s Court will hear your case. If you are 18 to 21, the adult court will hear it, but in Victoria it’s possible for you to be diverted back to the youth justice system either for custody or for an order.

And do you think that’s an appropriate way of dealing with young people?---I think it’s an excellent way, and what we have found is that about 50 per cent of people, young people, still end up in the adult system, and about 50 per cent are diverted back to youth justice. And that’s particularly appropriate for young people who may be especially vulnerable in some way or may be a low level offender or show particularly good prospects for rehabilitation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If they’re to go into detention in that cohort, will they be housed with the juveniles?---No. There’s a particular facility, Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre, just on the edge of Melbourne that is for that cohort.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: For the 18 to 21s?---That’s right.

Do you think knowing – sorry, I withdraw the question. Are you aware of research relating to the development of the brain of adolescents?---Yes.

And the propensity to engage in risky behaviour and those factors?---Yes.

Are you satisfied that an upper limit of 21 is appropriate or is there room for it to - - -?---We would like it to be higher, for example, 25. A lot of the brain research now, as far as I understand it, would talk about the brain developing 25, even up to 28, and that there is a particular therapeutic window of opportunity to engage with the young person, to turn their lives around at that point. And there are many – well, I don’t know many. There are a number of oversees jurisdictions who go to 21 and some to 25, I understand.

How is it that a young person is brought to your attention as being someone about to be released or with an imminent release date and who might be suitable for your program?---The way that it works in Victoria is that the regional staff of the department of – it was Health and Human Services. It has just moved over to Department of Justice and Regulation. They make the referrals to our service. So they do an assessment based on risk and/or need and make the referral to our organisation.

And there’s some eligibility criteria?---Yes. Currently, there’s an assessment tool calledthe VONIY, Victorian Offender Needs and something. But that’s actually being looked at as part of a review that’s just been completed by Professor Jim Ogloff and Penny Armytage because we have come to realise that that assessment tool was developed some years ago and needs to be updated. So it would have eligibility criteria where you would be favouring providing a service to someone, for example, who was homeless or who was disengaged with school, etcetera. And what we have discovered most recently is that, in fact, some of the young people who have been committing very serious offences aren’t necessarily homeless. They could actually be at home with their parent, and, therefore, those young people had proven ineligible for the service which could have been useful for them. So that’s being looked at at the moment.

But, firstly, I will go back a step. If the witness could be shown paragraph 35, please. You will see there at paragraph 35 at the bottom of the page, the name of Victorian Offending Needs Indicator for Youth assessment?---That’s right.

That’s the VONIY assessment you were referring to?---That’s the VONIY.

Thank you. In general terms, the type of cohort that you receive into this program are the high needs youth?---Yes.

And so that’s in part because of their state of being homeless, but there are other factors that contribute to that characterisation?---Yes. And I should say that the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

people we work with in YJSIS, some are on community-based orders and some are exiting custody. So if we, for example, look at the cohort, the Youth Parole Board, their own data has said that about 66 per cent of that cohort who have been in detention sentenced have either got a current or a previous connection with child protection, about 66 per cent have been excluded from school. About the same percentage have substance abuse problems, lesser but are still significant. I think it’s somewhere around 25 plus per cent have mental health problems, so we are talking about a seriously disadvantaged group.

When do you start your contact, your organisation’s contact with those young people in relation to their release?---The guidelines for the program are that we should be able to start work six weeks prior to their release. That sometimes doesn’t happen. The referral comes late or for various reasons, including that there have been lock downs and we haven’t been able to get to the young person.

If you were able to nominate the period pre-release that you are able to get access and commence work, what would be ideal for your program, do you think?---I think six weeks could be adequate, but that should sit within a framework where actually planning for the release of the young person begins the day they enter, and that could be done by custodial staff, regional staff as well so there’s planning about how to help reconnect with family and community, what training options, what living skills they need to develop while they’re in custody, etcetera. And we are part of that. We could be part of that. But as long as that’s actually – that time in custody is being used usefully, six weeks could be fine for as a time for our engagement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you coordinate with the young person’s corrections caseworker then to help develop this plan?---When everything works well that’s what happens, and sometimes things don’t work in such a systemic way. The youth justice staff would also say they’re very overloaded and have quite large case loads. But in principle, in theory, that’s what happens, yes.

MR McAVOY: And the work that is done then during that six weeks in becoming acquainted with the individual and preparing, how important is it that the caseworker get to know the individual?---I think it’s very important. Many of the young people we have known for a while anyhow because they’ve been in and out, but if it’s a first time connection, again, establishing the relationship is really important. If that doesn’t get to happen while the young person is inside, there’s very little basis once the young person is removed and not that much incentive, I suppose, on the part of the young person to continue the relationship. But if there has been a bond established, if our work has also, in a sense, proved themselves useful in terms of listening to the needs of the young person, the young person will have some concerns often about family or community and what happened and may want help in reconnecting with them or may want to know that their family is okay about them returning, etcetera. There’s a range of issues that the worker can help with while the person is in custody.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And, once they’re released, what are the services that are provided under the program for the young people then?---The Youth Justice Community Support Service brings together a consortium of organisations. Jesuit Social Services is the lead agency across the metropolitan region but, for example, YSAS, what is the Youth Support and Advocacy Service which has specialist focus on alcohol and other substance abuse, they’re part of the partnership. We also have a housing provider in each of the regions, a different housing provider in each region. And we also have links with education and training, both through our own services, but through others as well. So we are really bringing together a group of people who can develop a good case plan for the young person and work out who is taking the lead and what services need to be included.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Edwards, for how long has that situation prevailed? Because there certainly seemed to be a plethora of service providers, some of whom are offering much the same service as another service provider, and most of them are Government funded to a large extent, and there seems to be some fragmentation, so how did you achieve this position in Victoria?---Well, in – this is the one that I said began in 2008. Before that period there was much more of a hotch-potch, I suppose and there were historical reasons why certain organisations had been funded. What happened was the Department of Human Services as it was called at the time, instead of biting the bullet themselves and monitoring certain agencies and saying, “Well, you’re not delivering, we’re not going to fund you anymore,” which we would have preferred if they had done that, they were quite clever and probably it’s had a good outcome, and instead this is – developed a model with organisations like ourselves contributing to it and then said, “This is the new model, it’s put out for tender, you go for it. Form your partnerships and go for it.” So what it meant was we, the community sector, were pitted against and work out who would we partner with and who not? And so it was a bit of a brutal time because some organisations we weren’t prepared to have in the partnership because we thought their practice was poor, and we were forced, in a way, into it. But I think ultimately – maybe I’m saying it because we were successful, but ultimately I think we have got a more cohesive and integrated approach as a result of that process. So Government basically said, “We’re not going to fund – you know, every flower that’s blooming, and we’re going to develop a model with the sector that we believe is effective and then we are going to put that model out for tender, and you all apply for it and we will see who we fund.”

How does it work – you say you’re the lead?---We are the lead across metropolitan Melbourne.

How does that work? Can you just explain it a little bit more?---Yes. So we formed – in terms of developing our bid, we – and the model, we formed relationships with various organisations and that varies according to each region. But in each of them, there is – YSAS is our partner as is a housing provider. So that’s the core that’s in every region. And then, depending on which region, we have relationships which won’t be – they’re not funded relationships but it’s MOUs or agreements to work with agencies that specialise in – with different cohorts. For example, they might be


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

African, communities, etcetera. So we have relationships with those organisations, and the referral comes to us. There’s a meeting, a case planning meeting, when the referral comes in and Jesuit Social Services as a lead manages that. But it could be that if we find YSAS, for example, is already engaged with that young person, or the housing provider is, it may end up they may being the main case manager of that young person but we are still the holder of the contract and are responsible for the reporting back to Government about that.

Thank you.

MR McAVOY: How long do young people stay in the program, Ms Edwards?---It varies. It’s supposed to be for up to 12 months, and there’s some leeway if it needs to be longer. Sometimes it’s just for a few months, but it can be up to 12 months technically.

And the program has been subject to review by Synergistic?---That’s - - -

And that review appears at annexure 3 to your statement?---That’s right.

And the review was favourable?---It was favourable. It was pretty – how should we say, I don’t think it dug very deep, but it’s overall favourable. But it’s not really a comprehensive – comprehensive evaluation. But it was favourable.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Who identified the evaluator for your program? Did you – did your board?---No. As in who should do the evaluation?

Yes?---No. Government.

Government - - -?---Yes.

- - - selected the evaluator?---That’s right. We’ve got – am I allowed to add something?

Yes?---We’ve got – I think on number 45 of the document I submitted, we have got our own data through our data collection system where we’ve tracked the people in youth justice community support service ourselves, and that’s – actually digs in and gives a little bit more detail to outcomes.

Yes. I saw that and they’re attractive outcomes?---Yes – yes.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Now, I can tell you – and you will be aware that we heard evidence earlier this week from Mr Jared Sharp, who runs the youth justice group conferencing in the Northern Territory?---Yes.

So I won’t ask you questions about that aspect of your programs, but I would like to ask you a few questions about the program Barreng Moorop?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jesuit Social Services runs that program as a diversion program for 10 to 14 year old Aboriginal children?---That’s right.

The organisations you work with in this program as your partners, can you just explain to the Commissioners who they are?---Are VACCA and VELS. So Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service.

And they’ve been your partners in this program since its beginning?---Yes. In fact before in terms of design, and they wanted us to be the lead. And in that, with the agreement that we would hand over to one of their organisations at some time during the life of the project, at the appropriate time.

And at the outset of your evidence you amended the date - - -?---That’s right.

- - - for the commencement of that program from 2015 to 2014?---Right.

And the number of young people that have been helped through that program was referred to in that paragraph as 35?---Yes. And I think that is still accurate. I’m not going to offer an update of that. It’s very intensive, and very small case loads, one worker to four young people. So it’s small numbers.

And the young people in that program are very high needs?---Not – well, yes, but they’ve come to the attention of the police, is why they’ve been diverted to us, and at that point the police contact VELS as per their requirements to let them know they’ve picked up a young Aboriginal person. And it may be that they’re actually at the start of offending, or it may be that they’ve just been hanging out in the street, so they may not be high risk, but we would say they’re probably high needs.

Yes. And it’s referred to a very intensive program. And is that intensive because of the staffing ratio or intensive because of the client group?---Yes. Because it was established as a diversion program the point is, I suppose, to do everything we can to intervene early in that young person’s life, once they’ve come to the attention of the police, to divert them away from further offending. So it takes a comprehensive approach to working with the rest of the family. It could be an 18 year old brother is creating an influence, for example, that’s not great. So we would work with that person as well, or parent, or maybe that there’s a parent in prison. So it works with the whole family. So intensive both in terms of the nature of the work that we do, but one in four is considered a small case load generally in community services.

And the program has had an impact on the clients that it’s worked with?---Yes. Again, we do a sort of a process evaluation but the funder, which in this case is Prime Minister and Cabinet, have solicited evaluation which hasn’t – we haven’t seen, it hasn’t been completed yet, but we are anecdotally picking up very good results, particularly in terms of retention at school.

That program is in the process of being transferred to one of your partners, isn’t it?---That’s right, to VACCA.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And they’re going to take over the whole of the program?---Yes. I should say that VELS and VACCA have had roles to date we will continue to have a role. It may be our role is more around this process of monitoring of it, so we will still be involved and they will be the lead, and they will deliver the actual intervention.

Thank you. The - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that part of your philosophy which you’ve mentioned in paragraph 100 of your statement, Ms Edwards - - -?---Yes.

- - - of capacity building when you have partnerships with Indigenous bodies?---It is also when we say about capacity building we recognise that our own capacity gets built as well in those relationships, our own capacity to work in a culturally competent way. So there’s a mutuality in that capacity building as well. But it’s very much our intention, wherever possible, to support Aboriginal organisations to take the lead if that’s what they want to do.

And that was the basis upon which you entered into this relationship, was it; that’s what you say?---That’s correct.

Does that mean that you’re involved in leading on processes or some training for the personnel involved?---I missed the first bit, sorry.

Was it to show processes that might work or to do training for those who are involved?---It has been a mixture of things. So, for example, we have provided the process evaluation, which means really interviewing staff, what they’re finding out, interviewing other stakeholders along the way. So we’ve done that. We – I think because of our own database and the sort of information we can collect from our database, we bring some of that capacity to the consortium to the partnership, our staff training models, etcetera. But equally VACCA have provided a lot of training around cultural competence and working in a culturally sensitive way. So really each partner has brought something to that.

MR McAVOY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions, Ms Edwards, now about funding for Jesuit Social Services but in particular program funding for services as a service provider. What’s your experience of the funding cycles for contracts for services in Victoria in terms of the duration?---Yes. I suppose I would say on average most are three years. Sometimes they’re two, sometimes they’re four, and we love it if they’re five, but on the whole three years is typical.

And if I said to you that the funding cycle in the Northern Territory is often on a 12 month contract, would you have concerns about that length of time as a contract for the types of services you provide?---I – most definitely. If that were an ongoing feature, I definitely would. We know that sometimes, and some of the services we run ourselves, if there’s a state of flux or people think there’s going to be a policy change or something, they will roll funding over for a year. We understand that, but


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

it is very unsettling for everyone, including staff, but also for the people that we work with. So it’s not suitable if that’s an ongoing state of affairs.

Thank you. Commissioners, that concludes the questions I have for Ms Edwards. I understand that there’s no cross-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I wonder if you would perhaps just speak a little more about Jesuit Social Services in the Northern Territory. I know you have set it out in your statement and, of course, you have now become much more part of the Top End with the restorative justice conferencing, but you have actually had a presence in the Northern Territory for quite some years now?---That’s correct, yes.

Would you just like to say something more about the focus of that work in the Territory?---We came here to Northern Territory, Alice Springs and surrounding areas, at the invitation of some Aboriginal people; in particular a group of people out at Santa Teresa who asked for our assistance at the time of, I suppose, the intervention and then the changes to the shire boundaries and there was - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: The abolition of the councils?---That’s – that’s probably more correct, yes. And – which in fact they said was more problematic in fact, probably than the intervention, they struggled with that a lot. What – the initial request came from the Catholic priest in Alice Springs, brought together a group of catholic agencies, actually, like Saint Vincent de Paul, CatholicCare, ourselves, and Aboriginal people who had gone to him for help saying, “We need help.” And initially asked us would we facilitate a session with them. So we came up and did that a number of times. And then at one of those meetings, a group of Aboriginal people actually said, “Would you help us? Would you take this further? We need someone to advocate with and for us and we want to have greater say over the decisions that are going to impact on our lives.” We took up that invitation. We got a donation from one person, a donor, and it was a bit of a risk because we didn’t know if we had longevity, but it was funding for a year and we came up and worked with that group, and with a lawyer as well and with community development. People on the ground. We helped set up at Saint Theresa a new corporation, Atyenhenge-Atherre, an Aboriginal controlled corporation where they felt they could have more say over their lives. So we – that was our first work, helping set up that governance body, and we have been accompanying them since.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How about the capacity building for those – that organisation?---Yes – yes. So we would see our capacity building in three levels, I suppose. One is actually at around the level of governance in – that was a good example of it. But we also have a staff member of Jesuit Social Services, for example, who accompanies elders in Wadeye about their needs, and it really is accompanying, it’s not directing. It’s just supporting them navigate systems, etcetera. So we do it at the level of governance. We do it at the level of strengthening service delivery, and that can be in – that’s in two ways. So the first way can be partnering organisations. For example, we have worked with ..... in Central Australia, where we are in a partnership currently with ..... and we have been


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

in other programs as well with them, and that’s strengthening for service delivery. And the other thing we have a learning and practice development unit at Jesuit services, so we do staff training as well, and we have been doing that up in Northern Territory for a little while.

Thanks. Thank you, Ms Edwards. Thank you, Ms Edwards, for your comprehensive statement. Of course we also have your submission, which you put in very early in our Commission, so that we are very aware of the things that Jesuit Social Services advocates for and, as Mr McAvoy has said, we have had the benefit of Mr Sharp’s evidence before us earlier in the week, which has been very helpful indeed, reflecting the same philosophy we are pleased to say. So thank you very much for troubling to come up from Melbourne?---Thank you for the opportunity.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.04 pm]

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, the next witness is Amanda Nobbs-Carcuro, who is resuming from yesterday.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

<AMANDA NOBBS-CARCURO, ON FORMER OATH [3.04 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY

MR McAVOY: Just one minute, Commissioners.

Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, thanks for coming back today. I’ve got some questions now for you in relation to a statement which was provided to the Royal Commission last night. I just ask you to have a look at the screen, and you can see on that screen is a statement under your name dated 11 May, and you can see the first page and the last page. You recognise that statement as your statement?---Yes.

And the contents of that statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Except for paragraph 6 where that should say on the 17th of – hang on. Did we go through that this morning?

Yes. So if you look at ANCH1 and that appears to be – in paragraph 6, you appear to be referring to an email which is the first page of ANCH1 – ANC1, sorry?---So it should be Monday – it should be 17 March, not 13 March.

17 March. Otherwise the statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3939 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you tendering that?

MR McAVOY: I do, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 383 for that second statement of the 11 May.

EXHIBIT #383 STATEMENT OF MS NOBBS-CARCURO DATED 11/05/2017

MR McAVOY: Now, in this supplementary statement to the Commissioners – to the Commission that you’ve just identified, you’ve annexed a number of email – a number of email – some email correspondence, I’m sorry; yes?---Yes.

And they’re – if I can put it this way, they’re in two batches: one is between James Sizeland, Salli Cohen, and yourself; and the other is between yourself and a Rob Jobson of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory?---That’s correct.

Now, in the first email where – that we looked at from the 17 March, and you can see it’s ANC1, you can see at the bottom of the page an email from Joseph Inglis to James Sizeland dated 13 March 2014 at 9.46 pm?---Yes.

And that email is forwarded to Salli Cohen and yourself on Monday, 17 March at 9.32 am; yes?---Yes.

And that email was in relation to accommodation of a detainee in the BMU at Don Dale under intensive management plan?---No. That email was – if it’s the email on the screen, that’s from the youth justice officer advising of what he overheard.

Sorry, my apologies, that’s the next email on the next page. You can turn the page, sorry?---Yes, that’s correct.

Yes. Yesterday in evidence, I asked you about your time at the Director of Public Prosecutions and by the time that this occurred, of course, you were trained as a lawyer?---Yes.

Did you hold a practising certificate at that time?---No, I don’t believe so.

And you weren’t working or engaged in the department as a lawyer at that time?---No.

Did you, at that time, have any role in the operational issues of the youth detention centre?---No, none at all.

None at all?---None at all.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is it the case, though, that being a lawyer in the Department of Correctional Services you were asked legal questions from time to time?---From time to time.

And – but you didn’t have an official role as a lawyer?---No. No, I never gave a legal opinion. If it required a legal opinion, it was referred to the Solicitor for the NT.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did your department have any lawyers who were fulfilling a legal role?---No.

It all went to - - -?---Solicitor for the NT.

MR McAVOY: Some departments do have in-house lawyers, though?---They’re all employed by the Solicitor for the NT, although they might be out stationed to a department. We didn’t have one.

Do you recall having any conversations with Mr Sizeland or Ms Cohen about any of the instances of detainee management in the BMU prior to being copied into these emails?---I couldn’t say. I mean, I note that this is on the Monday, the other is on the Friday. It’s not something that they would discuss with me. It only be because of the issue that was arising with the end of the period of the placement.

The original email from Joseph Inglis, do you know whether Mr Inglis is a youth justice officer?---I don’t know him, but I know the name.

And you recognise it as the name of a youth justice officer?---Yes.

And so it appears that Thursday evening’s email was dealt with by Mr Sizeland on the Monday morning?---Yes – no, no, it would have been – I’m guessing that because from this – yeah, well, that’s obviously – I couldn’t say. I really couldn’t say. I wasn’t part of those emails. The only emails I received was on the Monday morning.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, all you can say from that is that, so far as your office is concerned, that’s when you were sent it but Mr Sizeland might have done other things over the weekend?---Yes – yes.

MR McAVOY: In terms – yes, I won’t take that – I withdraw that. Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, where Michael Yaxley said about the directive that IMP signed about – IMP signed in 2011 was that he thought it allowed him to keep kids in the BMU outside of the BMU placement; does that make sense to you?---No.

Okay. In evidence in this Commission, Mr Yaxley gave evidence that he thought that the directive about IMPs in terms of management plans signed in 2011 was what he thought allowed him to keep kids in the BMU outside of a BMU placement?---I couldn’t comment what he thought.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You’re not aware?---No, I’m not aware what he thought. I had nothing to do with the operations. The only thing I did was a review for the Commissioner with Banksia Hill and that was in 2013. But my job was – my responsibility was the implementation of youth boot camps.

You are aware that in the email chain, at ANC1, there is an email from Mr James Sizeland to you at 2.51 pm on 17 March asking whether you’ve looked at CD 2.4.5?---Yes.

And you told him you weren’t aware of that directive?---Yes.

Do you now have any knowledge of what that directive was?---No.

Do you have any knowledge – any memory of whether you looked at that directive at the time?---I don’t have any memory whether I did. I was looking at the Act and the regulations.

You don’t recall having any discussion with Mr Sizeland about that directive other than via email?---We may have had a phone conversation. I – I can’t recall.

You can’t recall. Do you remember whether you discussed the – you might have discussed that directive with anybody else at the time – Ms Cohen, perhaps?---No, I – I don’t even think I looked at the directive. I couldn’t say. I looked at the Act.

And as far as you recall – well you can’t recall any conversation about the directive at all; is that – that’s the case? Are you aware of there being a practice, a longstanding practice within the Department of Corrective Services at the time, of keeping children in the BMU?---At the time of this email?

Yes?---No.

If we just look to the correspondence from – between you and Mr Sizeland and Ms Cohen. Ms Cohen at one point races the question:

Are we operating outside of the legislation, however, if we continue to accommodate him in the BMU?

Do you recall that comment?---In the email?

In the email?---Only when I was asked to look for these a couple of weeks ago, do I recall - - -

Can you see it now?---I can see it now, yes.

Does that bring back any memory of receiving that email?---I obviously would have received it, but I don’t have a recollection of receiving that email. I have a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

recollection of conversation with Mr Jobson, but I don’t have a recollection of specific emails.

But you did form a sort of a preliminary view about the - - -?---Yes.

- - - about the legislation?---I did.

And that appears in your email of 3.04 pm; is that correct?---Yes.

Of 2.07 pm, I’m sorry, and that’s page 5 of that annexure?---Yes. And I also said that I would ask Rob Jobson at SFNT to have a look at this.

So you formed an initial view, but you weren’t that confident about it, or it’s normal for you to go on and ask the Solicitor for the Northern Territory about legal matters?---As I said, I wasn’t employed to give legal advice, and I wouldn’t consider to be giving legal advice and I would always go to SFNT.

It’s the case though, that you thought that perhaps if the detainee had some contact with other detainees each 24 hour period that might not be in breach of the legislation?---Yep. That’s – that’s what I thought at the time.

Can you recall what sort of contact you are referring to at the time or - - -?---No.

Do you recall whether it was your idea to contact the Solicitor for the Northern Territory, or did somebody else ask you to do it, or were you directed?---I don’t know whether I said I would contact the SFNT to get this clarified or whether I was asked to. I can’t recall.

Looking at the email from 2.07 pm on 17 March, 2014 the last sentence is:

However, I will seek advice on this from SFNT as it may come up in the future.

That’s consistent with your forming a view yourself that it should go to the SFNT?---Yes.

And was that because you were concerned that the approach was possibly in breach of the legislation?---Yes. Or I mean I wanted to make sure that we were compliant with the legislative requirements, and I wasn’t qualified in my role at the time to determine that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m not quite sure why we are going so slowly with this, Mr McAvoy. I mean, the chain is very clear, it’s easy enough to read. Can we push on a bit?

MR McAVOY: Certainly.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s not unusual for any department to seek legal advice on a question of statutory interpretation, which is what this is.

MR McAVOY: No, I haven’t suggested – I don’t suggest to the witness that it’s unusual, Commissioner.

Upon receiving the response from Mr Robson, you respond to Mr Sizeland who had been, if I can put it this way, chasing you for a response, that:

Our use of section 153 of the YJ for detainee X’s continual isolation is not favourable.

?---Yes.

And you then forwarded the advice to James Sizeland and Salli Cohen almost immediately after receiving the advice. The term “not favourable”, can you explain how it is that – why it is that you used that term?---It was – so what would have happened is Mr Jobson would have rung me to say he was preparing the advice, about to send it, it would be with me shortly. He would have advised of that advice and when I refer to not favourable, I am referring to we are in breach of the legislation, and it’s probably not the best term to use, but it was done to alert both Mr Sizeland and Ms Cohen at that point, which was 11.31, that they needed to start looking at – that the advice was coming and they need to start looking at alternative options.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Doesn’t “not favourable” there simply mean that it doesn’t support the course of action that you would like to do – to take?---Yes.

Yes, I don’t see it as anything more nefarious than that?---Yes, that’s what I was saying.

MR McAVOY: Do you recall the conversation with Mr Jobson?---Look, as with any conversation with Mr Jobson, he would have rung up. He would have walked me through it, told me what he had found, what he had thought, and told me that it would be with me shortly.

Do you recall having any discussions then with Mr Sizeland or Mr Caldwell, Russell Caldwell, or Ms Cohen about the advice?---I’m guessing from this, only from the signature, that Mr – Mr Caldwell was on leave, which is why Mr Sizeland was going directly to Ms Cohen. So I don’t recall a conversation with Mr Caldwell. I may have had a conversation with Mr Sizeland. It’s not always easy to do that with the detention centre. I really couldn’t say. I don’t know whether I called him, whether I emailed and called him, called him, then emailed him. I just honestly can’t remember.

Are you aware that Mr Middlebrook, the former Commissioner, said in evidence to the Commission that he recalled receiving advice about the BMU isolation issue at


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

some stage and that it was quite likely that you, as a legally trained person the department, might have briefed him at some stage. Do you recall ever formally or informally briefing Mr Middlebrook on this issue?---On this – on the issue of the placements - - -

On the advice?--- - - - or on this particular issue?

On the issue of the placements or the SFNT advice?---I don’t know if I ever spoke to him about the SFNT advice. I did speak to him about different matters, but I – I really couldn’t recall.

Did you speak to him, perhaps, about your own views about the use of the BMU?---No. Because I – at this point, I wasn’t part of operations. I mean, I think I saw the BMU once. I wasn’t aware of its use. I wasn’t aware of what young people were in detention. I had absolutely no responsibility or oversight of the detention centre at all in 2014.

Are you aware of any other advice being obtained by yourself or anybody else in relation to the issue of the use of the BMU in this manner?---Not – not that I - - -

Do you recall whether there was any change in practice at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre after receiving the advice?---After receiving this advice, no. There was a change in practice in 2016, and I can’t give an exact time, but we changed the practice that a young person should only be detained for the minimum period. The legislation says up to a period of 24 hours and that steps would be taken within two hours and if that young person – t ere was no reason to have them continually on a placement, then they should be removed. But that was some – a long time after this.

Are you – do you recall that on 22 August 2014 – so that’s the day after the gassing incident in the BMU at Don Dale, you reforwarded the advice to – the advice we have been discussing from Mr Jobson to Ms Cohen?---Yes.

You recall doing that?---I do now, when I saw the emails.

And was that because Ms Cohen had raised concerns with you about the lawfulness of the detention in the BMU?---I can only speculate that I came to work on the 22nd and there was the incident the night before, and I was requested to track down a previous advice, and that was the reason I went looking for it. That’s the only thing I can - - -

You don’t recall any other conversations about that advice at that time?---No.

Are you aware of whether intensive management plans are still in use in youth detention?---Now?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---I couldn’t talk for now. I don’t know if they’re still in use. I know there’s a directive, but I don’t know if they’re still using them. They’re still a high security unit.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, that concludes the evidence – the questions for this witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you. There are a number of people who wish to cross-examine, so I hope they will be kind enough for them to recall that it is necessary for them to be reasonably confined in their questions.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. It appears first is Mr Lawrence.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Mr Lawrence.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE [3.30 pm]

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you. Ms Nobbs-Carcuro?---Carcuro.

Carcuro?---Thank you.

You’ve done two statements for the Royal Commission?---Yes.

The first one – forgive me, I haven’t got the exhibit number, but - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It doesn’t matter, we’ve got them.

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you.

Can I go to page 1, paragraph 4, please, Background and Qualifications. I just want to ask you, it says there at paragraph 4 prior to the role, you held the positions of – from April, of project officer in the former Department of Correctional Services. So you had been there at least a year before these emails that we’re talking about today emerged?---Yes.

Thank you. And prior to that, of course, you were an admitted practitioner in this jurisdiction for 10 years?---Yep. Still am.

And indeed you worked wholly as a prosecutor?---Yes.

And indeed you became the officer in charge of summary progressions here in Darwin?---Civilian prosecution.

And part of that involved the prosecutions of juveniles here in Darwin?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3946 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And so you would have been involved in the laying of charges, the prosecuting of the same, going to the Youth Justice Court, dealing with sentencing matters and everything else associated with the juvenile detention – or the juvenile prosecution system?---Not as much as when I was managing prosecutor, but at time to times I would appear.

So you would have been familiar with the Youth Justice Act?---Familiar in relation – not in relation to necessarily in relation to the detention provisions.

Well you would have been asked, as officer in charge, for advices from your colleagues as to provisions within that Act at times?---No, not always.

Not always. When you started in April 2013 was Ms Cohen the Executive Director of Youth Detention?---No, she was the director of policy.

Right. And if we can go to – she has given evidence about when she started as the executive director that there was a lot of difficulties with juvenile justice system, and in her opinion it required a complete overhaul and comprehensive change. You would have been of the same opinion when you worked with her as a project officer in the youth detention section?---My understanding came from when I was asked to have a look at the Banksia Hill situation, and identify if there was any upcoming challenges emerging at Don Dale as incidents started to occur. I conducted a review and provided that to the Commissioner. I was then – had no further part in the detention centre. My focus was implementing the youth boot camps and I started to oversee the youth diversion management of the youth diversion grants.

Where was your office?---It was – initially, it was in the Commissioner’s office.

Was it in the same floor as the Commissioner?---It was in the Commissioner’s office.

His actual office?---Well, sort of his office area.

Mr Middlebrook’s?---Yes, Mr Middlebrook’s. Not in his office but in - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: In his suite of offices?---His suite.

MR LAWRENCE: ..... as was Ms Cohen?---No. Ms Cohen was on – as the director of policies, she was on the first floor.

What about when she became the director, the executive director?---On the second floor.

Alright. But it was in Darwin?---Yes.

Now, during your career as a prosecutor in the summary section, you would have been to Don Dale?---I think I went – no, I don’t think I had.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You had never been to Don Dale?---No, I don’t think I had.

Can you tell the court when was the first you ever went to Don Dale?---It would have been when I was commenced in 2013 and Mr Phil Brown took me on a tour to assist with the review.

The review of Banksia Hill?---Well, we were looking at the circumstances that led to the Banksia Hill situation and whether, as we were beginning to have – as well, not me, there was challenges starting to occur at the Don Dale Detention Centre. I’m pretty sure that’s the first time I ever visited. I could be corrected on that, but I actually cannot recall having visited there as a prosecutor. It wouldn’t be something that we would do.

Alright. What about in 2014? Did you go to Don Dale?---No, I don’t – I don’t think I did. I might have gone for a meeting. I might have gone out in November, when I took responsibility for case management, but at that time they were at Holtze so, no.

Right. Well, let’s go to these emails that you’ve been able to produce overnight or since yesterday at least?---Can I just qualify that. I produced these about three weeks ago.

Alright. Thanks very much. And that tells us that you were – in fact, I will go to your more recent statement, forgive me, which tells us at paragraph 7 – 6 that James Sizeland had advised you directly and Salli Cohen, the email that you had overheard two detainees threatening to attack a female YJO, escape, take the keys, and you got further advice as to his intentions; right?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We have been through this, Mr Lawrence, and we’re keeping strict time.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You have 20 minutes.

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you.

Now – so you were briefed by him on an email as to what was going on there, which was they had overheard these conversations, they considered there was a threat, they considered the possibility of an escape, so the detainee in question was being held in isolation in the BMU; right?---That’s what his email said, yes.

And as a consequence of that he had asked – the email tells us – for Ms Cohen to approve such a detention, and she was in favour of it in principle; correct? That’s at 12.34 pm, Salli Cohen says she approves of it in principle?---That’s what it says.

And it’s after that that you gave your advice at the time, which was you thought it might be okay, if there was some contact during the period between the detainee and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

other kids. That was your advice, for whatever it was worth at that stage; correct?---It was my opinion.

And then you also said you went and got an opinion from one of the lawyers from the Solicitor for the Northern Territory, specifically Rob Jobson?---No, I said I would be.

Right. And that happened?---Yes.

And you would have spoken to Rob as well as send him the email which we’ve got as - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, she has said - - -

MR LAWRENCE: - - - to the situation?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That has been said. That is the evidence.

MR LAWRENCE: Right.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Not contradicted, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: Okay, that’s the evidence. And it was, as you said, not favourable, which was that – basically, he had concerns about the proposal, didn’t he?---Yes, he did.

He did. And they were on two fronts: one, you need sufficient evidence to justify pursuant to that subsection (5) of 153 and it’s an ongoing thing, you can’t just have evidence on the Monday and that’s enough to keep them in for the Tuesday, the Thursday and the Friday?---Yes.

So that’s not favourable. There’s a question mark over that type of isolation?---Yes.

Now, Jimmy Sizeland had just started at youth detention at that stage, would that be fair? I think he started in February?---I’m –

You don’t know?---I don’t know.

So would you agree that this stage from having received that advice, that it basically said, “Don’t do it,” because of the concerns?---Yes.

And as far as you were concerned, the information that was given to Rob Jobson to give that advice from you was given by James Sizeland?---Yes.

And you didn’t know the truth or otherwise of that information?---No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No. And it was basically that there was this conversation heard, which suggested the potential of an assault and a potential escape. One of the kid – two of the kids were young. They were kept in mainstream, but the other one was isolated in a way which wasn’t particularly severe, in that he was allowed out during the day for education, recreation and social, but at 5.30 at night pursuant to this section he was then isolated until the next morning.

MR JACOBI: I object to that. The summary of these documents speaks for itself, I don’t know what Mr Lawrence paraphrasing - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, Mr Lawrence, 10 minutes has gone.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. Well, I’m getting there, and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I know you are setting the scene but, you know, we have just recently looked at this scene.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes. Right. So now, in August of that year, there was an escape from Don Dale?---Yes.

Correct? 2 August, six kids broke out and were out and about for at least a couple of days, you were aware of that?---Yes.

And it was reported in the media and they were eventually recaptured and they were all placed back in Don Dale?---That’s what I read in the media.

Sorry?---That’s what I read in the media.

Yes. And they were placed in the BMU unit. You were aware of that?---No, I don’t know where they were placed.

Not at all?---No.

And for a period of time, six detainees were kept in the BMU unit, up until the gassing incident on 26 August, you were aware of that?---No, I wasn’t.

You weren’t aware of that. But you were aware of the gassing incident, presumably at least, on 22 August?---I don’t think I was actually told. I was told, I probably would have been told that there was a riot, but - - -

I see?---Yes. And that gas would have been used but it wasn’t something that I would have been called into a meeting to discuss, or - - -

Let’s try really hard because this was in the newspapers all over the place?---Yes.

Not just in Darwin, Australia, overseas?---Yeah. I understand there was an incident.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. It was a big story?---Yes.

You were working for Department of Correctional Services; correct?---Yep.

You were a former prosecutor of 10 years’ duration?---Yep.

That worked in this - - -?---and I understand there was - - -

That worked in this space?--- - - - an incident, but I didn’t know the details of the incident.

Right. You went to work the next day, which was Friday, 22 August?---Yes.

Right. Did you know about the riot as you call it on the Thursday night when you went to work on the Friday morning?---No.

Did you find out first thing on the Friday morning?---I – I’m guessing I did, yes.

Well, let’s not guess, let’s just try and remember because I suggest to you that it would have been the talk of the town in your office?---I – I can’t answer that.

Well, can you remember?---No, I can’t. I remember that there was an incident and I remember that something had happened at Don Dale and that everyone was running around, but that’s - - -

Alright. Well, can you remember being involved in taking the advice from Jobson from March and forwarding it that Friday to Salli Cohen?---Only when I retrieved the emails three weeks ago.

And when did you do that?---When I was asked to look to see if I had been involved in any advice.

Alright. Well, can you remember later on the Friday talking in the office about what had happened at Don Dale the night before, the likes of which had never occurred in this jurisdiction, ever?---Look, I’m sure we did discuss it but I – I couldn’t tell you what we discussed.

Right. Well, can you remember getting the advice from Jobson?---In March?

Yes. On the Friday, the 22nd?---I didn’t get it on Friday the 22nd, I simply went to my emails and reforwarded it to - - -

Yes. Right. And was the reason you reforwarded it a question from your superiors to check on the advice because they were concerned about the legality of the six kids that had been involved in the riot the night before?---I can’t say what they were concerned about. It may have been, and I can only guess that I went looking for it because I was asked to.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You see, in your statement, you make a suggestion which is different to what you’ve said, that they wanted it because they wanted to check on the prospective legality of those same six rioters, who were, at that stage, being held in the Berrimah adult prison, do you not?

MR JACOBI: I object to the question. The questions puts a premise with respect to something that .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I can’t hear what you are saying, Mr Jacobi. You’ve got your head down and you are not speaking to the microphone.

MR JACOBI: I apologise. I object on the basis that there’s a premise in the question that suggests that there’s something said in the statement. There’s not – as I can see it to be found. Now, if there’s something he wants to take the witness to for the purpose of contradiction, he can do that, but I don’t think he is entitled to mislead the witness.

MR LAWRENCE: Right. I will take you straight to the last sentence – the second - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just go - - -

MR LAWRENCE: - - - in your statement, paragraph 13.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Going to paragraph 13 are you not?

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Perhaps that could go on the screen, you could have a look at that?---I’ve got it in front of me.

MR LAWRENCE: Well, this is why I so inelegantly, if not inaccurately, tried to put to you a moment ago.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, just use the text itself, rather than paraphrase and then you can ask the question about it.

MR LAWRENCE: Yes.

You say:

I do not now remember why I forwarded this email but it was likely in response to a request from Ms Cohen. Given the timing of the email, I can only assume that the request related to the accommodation of detainees at Don Dale following the incident on the night of 21 August 2014.

?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s what you put?---That’s my assumption now.

Yes. But - - -?---But at the time I can’t say that I – that that is what occurred.

Right?---I can only assume now is that why I went looking for the email: because I was asked to.

Well, I’m suggesting to you and this might refresh your memory that you may well have been asked to get that advice because there was concern from above as to the legality of the detention of these six rioters from the day before?---And I’m suggesting to you that that may be the case.

Right?---And it may not be. I don’t know.

Okay. Now - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You’ve got five minutes, Mr Lawrence.

MR LAWRENCE: I know.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I just want you to use your best questions.

MR LAWRENCE: Five minutes on a Friday afternoon. I don’t know if that’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There are lots to come after you.

MR LAWRENCE: - - - easy or difficult.

Are you telling this board that you were unaware of the situation at Don Dale from 6 August through to 21 August where there was six kids being kept in the BMU?---I’m not saying that I wasn’t aware. I am saying I can’t remember being aware, or it being something that I was responsible for.

Alright?---I honestly - - -

There has been – there has been a lot of evidence?---I can’t know whether – you know, I mean, I don’t even know whether I was in town.

Well - - -?---When – I understand what I knew was there was a lot of challenging situations occurring at Don Dale and that there was a lot talk about what to do about it, a lot of meetings going on.

Yes?---I wasn’t part of them.

Right. Then the challenges were where could we accommodate these kids other than the BMU?---Yes. And I might have been asked about gazettal of other facilities at some point.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. And was it ever discussed or asked or put up a consideration of Wickham Point?---No.

The detention centre here on the edge of Palmerston, which is used by the Commonwealth for asylum seekers?---The only time I heard Wickham Point was after the Four Corners story on 26 July when that was considered as a place.

Alright. But you were aware that there was – looking around in the department for an alternative place, that was the challenge?---Yes.

And did you consider Wickham Point?---Me? I wasn’t involved. I wasn’t looking at any facility.

You say you weren’t involved. You are in part of the section. I mean, this isn’t New York; it’s not Sydney?---No. But I - - -

This is a small - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, Mr Lawrence, that’s enough. That’s enough.

MR LAWRENCE: So you’re saying you weren’t involved at all? You were doing projects and reviews?---I was implementing the youth boot camps and the youth diversion.

Well, you were - - -?---I wasn’t involved in operational. There was a whole team involved in operational. I didn’t have operational experience and I wasn’t involved in the operations.

Were you aware of the conditions that the six kids in the BMU were being kept under?---I knew that the BMU wasn’t a nice place, from when I’d seen it, but as I said I wasn’t aware of the day-to-day happenings at the BMU or at the detention centre.

I mean you’re aware of the conditions now, I take it?---Yes.

And as a former lawyer and indeed as a – well, you became ultimately Salli Cohen’s position, didn’t you, became the executive director?---Yes.

You would agree that those conditions are unsatisfactory?---Yes.

And unsuitable?---Yes.

Inhumane?---All of the things that everyone else has agreed to.

Yes. And other than the meetings, was there any other correspondence concerning alternatives?---Not – not that I was part of or involved in.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You see, what we know now as to the conditions that were unsatisfactory, unsuitable, etcetera, were far more extreme than what the conditions were when Sizeland asked for approval and you got Robson’s negative advice, weren’t they?---Sorry, can you repeat that?

The conditions that the six were kept in, in August, were far more severe than the conditions of the juvenile that Sizeland was seeking approval for and which you got Jobson’s advice about?---I couldn’t say.

Sorry?---I couldn’t say.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: She hadn’t visited it in 2013.

MR LAWRENCE: ’14?---No, ’13, I went there in 2013.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that your last question?

MR LAWRENCE: So that means you didn’t know in August?---I knew that they were having difficulties accommodating and they were looking for alternative facilities because there was the challenge, I knew about previous incidents when young people had got into the roof, been in the pool, but I didn’t know specifically who was being accommodated where in that facility.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Lawrence.

MR McAVOY: Commissioner, there are other applications for cross-examination. I’m not sure of the order.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The usual, if there’s no other order is to go in order of seniority, and that’s why Mr Lawrence has gone first.

MR McAVOY: Ms Dwyer, or Dr Dwyer, sorry.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER [3.52 pm]

DR DWYER: Your Honour, on the back of the additional documents, I had made an application for cross-examination for 20 minutes which I will make very targeted if that pleases the Commission. I understand the time constraints but I assure the Commission it’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You won’t march the old - - -

DR DWYER: Absolutely not.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3955 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia DR DWYER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - much beaten ground, will you?

DR DWYER: Absolutely not, thank you.

MR McAVOY: I can indicate that I’ve had the benefit of just now, having a look at the – some of the material that Dr Dwyer wishes to canvass and it seems to me that it’s appropriate, and I would consent to that course.

DR DWYER: I’m grateful to my friend. Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, at – I’m sorry, as you know, my name is Dwyer and I appear for NAAJA in these proceedings. At paragraph 17 of your statement and continuing, you talk about the CMETS, the new case management system that has been introduced since January 2016. You recognise case management, don’t you, as vital in order to meet the detainees’ needs?---Yes.

And you also recognise that it’s essential for post-release planning to ensure that a young person can integrate successfully back into the community?---Yes.

In fact, it has been mandated by regulation 69 in the Youth Justice Regulations since at least 2006, hasn’t it?---Yes.

That regulation provides that the superintendent must maintain a comprehensive case management system for each detainee’s needs in relation to education, vocational training, and rehabilitation. You are aware of that?---Yes, I am.

And you were aware of that when you held the positions as acting executive director of youth justice from August 2015 to March 2016 and, prior to that, the director of programs?---Yes.

Was it part of your role to ensure that case management was properly implemented during the period when you held the role firstly of director of programs and services for youth justice?---Sorry, can you say that again?

Was it part of your role to ensure that regulation 69 was being properly implemented when you were the director of programs and services for the youth justice?---Yes.

And that continued when you were the acting executive director from August 2015 to March 2016?---Yes.

For a period of time, though, over that period, case management was completely inadequate at Don Dale, wasn’t it?---I wouldn’t go and say “completely inadequate”. There was a lot of improvements to be made.

Well, Mr Sharp, in his – Jared Sharp who you are familiar with aren’t you? I’m sorry, you’re nodding, just - - -?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jared Sharp says in his statement, which is exhibit 355, at paragraph 287 – that might come up on the screen, but I’m happy to read it to you:

From a period of time in 2015, to the best of my recollection, there were no dedicated case managers at Don Dale. There was then a period where Corrections started utilising family responsibility care workers, whose primary role is to work with families as case managers for young people in detention. In more recent times there have been two case managers, until December 2014 there had been three dedicated case managers but these case managers did not have their contracts renewed and were not replaced.

He goes on to say that:

The consequences of this were that there were no individualised case plans to guide a young person’s time in detention and transition back into the community.

Did you become aware of those sorts of problems when you were in your roles?---When I was in my role, and the family responsibility in – I think it was October or November of that year came in and started working in the detention centre, and providing the oversight for the case management plans, as we reviewed the case management delivery and that was at Holtze.

But you became aware yourself, didn’t you, that the case management plans were not individualised?---Yes.

Correct?---Yes.

And were you concerned then, that in fact the Government wasn’t meeting the – or the department wasn’t meeting the obligations which are set out in the regulation?---I was concerned that young people didn’t have case plans, but at that time we had a high population of remand. The policy at that time was that you didn’t get a case plan unless you were sentenced. In 2015, that was changed following the Vita review when case plans were to be done regardless of your sentencing, of your status.

But Ms Nobbs-Carcuro there’s nothing in regulation 69 of the Youth Justice Regulation that specifies that case plans are only for sentenced detainees, is there?---No.

And so why was that regulation read down so that 70 per cent or thereabouts of the population in Don Dale on remand was not getting case plans?---I don’t know.

Well, did that concern you, that - - -?---Which is why we commenced a process of reform and review and looking at the delivery of programs, case plans, reintegration plans.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Did it concern you that the problems that the young people were experiencing in 2014, 2015, 2016, in terms of their behaviour might be linked to the fact that they weren’t getting education, vocational training and rehabilitation needs met because of the absence of case planning?---I disagree. In 2015, they were.

You think you - - -?--- ..... we employed Ms Angeline Swan as a forensic psychologist and she did a complete overhaul of our case management team and procedures and, whilst the procedure wasn’t signed off, from the day she walked in and commenced working at Don Dale, she was overhauling the procedures and the way that we deliver programs.

It came to your attention, in 2015 at least, that there were significant problems in the management of Don Dale, didn’t it?---Yes, because Ms Swan reported directly to me.

Did it – were you aware, or were you concerned, that the absence of proper case planning and implementation for young people might be compromising their welfare and contributing to the behavioural difficulties?---Yes. We had behavioural management plans but, as I said, we were on a process of implementing change.

One way of addressing the difficulties with having such a high population of remand is limiting the numbers on remand. That is, bringing them back out into the – finding alternatives to remand in Don Dale; correct?---That wasn’t something that I was responsible for, that’s a court matter.

Was it something that you turned your mind to - - -?---Yes, it was.

- - - on terms of advising Government about policy?---Yes. We commenced – and I was – as I recently was going through my emails I commenced discussions with Mr Jared Sharp about a bail support program. We commenced investigating a bail support program, however we didn’t have the funds to do it. We then – we commenced that in part of the youth justice framework. It was identified by all stakeholders in the youth justice framework, and in the Carney report, that a bail support program would be beneficial to young people and to reduce our remand numbers.

In your role as – or in both of your roles, I suggest to you as the director of programs and services with youth justice and also as the acting executive director, you would have come into contact directly with Ken Middlebrook, is that correct?---Yes.

Did you also come into contact with Mr Elferink, the Minister?---Yeah. He had a habit of turning up to the office.

Did you ever raise with him that your efforts to reduce the population on remand might be inconsistent with the Government’s law and order policies, the tough on crime approach?---I never engaged in those conversations. My engagement would have been with the ministerial advisor.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Did you advise the ministerial advisor that you had concerns that your objectives about reducing the population on remand were inconsistent with what the Government was promulgating?---I advised that we needed a bail support program, and that we were working on it, and we were looking for funds and – however, at that time, due to the overspend at the detention centre, any program funds were being offset to the detention centre budget. However, in 2016 I quarantined half a million dollars, we commissioned Save the Children and we were on our way to establishing Save the Children from Tasmania to come and do a pilot for - - -

So I just want to go back to 2014, 2015, at those times, because of the absence of any commitment of government to spend anything on rehabilitation programs or other programs in the detention centre, your hands were tied in terms of assisting the young people in that regard; is that correct?---In terms of rehabilitation?

In terms of implementing any sort of programs for young people that would improve their conditions in Don Dale?---No, because we had the Vita review and we commenced with looking at programs. There were programs running in the detention centre.

But you knew that, in 2014 and 2015, the programs running in the detention centre were woefully inadequate in terms of engaging all the children’s needs; correct?---I wouldn’t say “woefully inadequate”.

Let me just stick with inadequate. That they were inadequate in terms of engaging with the children and their individualised needs?---Look, I couldn’t talk about – I’m not a psychologist, I’m not a social worker, in terms of the actual programs and whether they were adequate or not to meet the criminogenic needs.

You became aware, as I said to you – put to you earlier, of the significant problems in running the detention centre in 2015; correct?---I’m not too sure what you mean, the “running”.

Alright. Let me take you to document exhibit 64.257. See that’s on the screen. Do you know who Kia Hanson is?---Yes.

If you take a moment to read that email, Kia Hanson refers to examining her notebook from a period in relation to a meeting on 8 May?---Yep.

Do you recall being in attendance when yourself and Ms Cohen and Mr Middlebrook were briefed about a particular person who was in detention?---Yes, I do,

A young person?---Yes.

And that young person, as you were briefed in May, was making allegations of children being asked to fight each other. You recall that?---No. I don’t recall that allegation, I recall another allegation that I would rather not repeat.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Let me suggest it to you, allegations of being filmed to masturbate?---No. That wasn’t what - - -

Allegations of children being barbed in the toilet?---No.

What allegation was it – of a general nature, a sexual nature, sexualised nature?---It was a sexual nature but it was occurring in a residential home as a result of what they say occurred in the detention centre.

Did you become aware, around May 2015, of an allegation of a child being subjected to particular cruelty in the detention centre in terms of being made to fight, being made to – or being filmed in a sexual act?---Thinking back, I think there was the sexual nature, but the others, no.

Alright let me stay with the sexual nature. Can I tell you Mr Middlebrook has a memory of you being there?---I was there.

So you don’t deny that?---No, I don’t deny it.

What were you told about it at that time?---We were told that the – that there was some allegations. They had just been to the Minister’s office. The Minister’s said to come over. I was told to go to a meeting immediately, and I went to the meeting, and they talked about some things that were being said. I think I potentially was a little bit shocked at the time, I’m not too sure, and that as a result of what has allegedly occurred in the detention centre, the actions that were being exhibited by that young person in the residential home were causing grave concern and that was a fairly significant thing that we were told and it caused me great distress.

And what was being reported to you about what were you told had happened to that child was in fact criminal activity. That child was the victim of a crime in detention; correct?---Yes.

What was done about it to follow up?---I understand that it was being referred to police, that police were investigating.

And did you do anything in your role of director of programs and services at youth justice to make sure that it was properly followed up by police, or to find out what happened as a result?---No. Because that was a role for Professional Standards Unit. They had all the dealings with police. We didn’t deal with police.

In September 2015, you were aware of a conference organised by the Red Cross where that young person attended and told his story. Did you become aware of that?---Yes. But at the time, when we had that meeting, I didn’t know who that young person was. We weren’t told who he was.

So you didn’t put two and two together as to that being the young person concerned?---We weren’t told the name of the young person.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Did you speak to Mr Middlebrook after the Red Cross conference about what should be done in relation to that person to making sure that young person’s welfare was looked after?---He was no longer – he wasn’t in the detention centre.

Do you recall that Mr Middlebrook was outraged that a young person had spoken out like that at a conference?---Yes. He was, yes.

Did you speak to him about his outrage. Did you advise him that actually the young person might have a point, that it might be true what he alleged?---I – I don’t remember.

Around May or shortly before that, in April, you were aware that there difficulties that staff were reporting in terms of managing detainees?---Which April?

April 2015?---Yes.

When you found out in May 2015 that there had been an allegation that a young person had been subject to assault, did it occur to you that actually some of the behavioural difficulties might be linked to the behaviour of the staff and the management of children?---Yes. And I think, if you looked at the records, I particularly asked the Professional Standards Unit to do an audit on placements in isolation, and I can probably produce that if required.

Can I have on the screen exhibit 283.109. You see down the bottom there, there’s an email from 29 April 2015 where you write to Ken Middlebrook, “Also I instructed Jimmy”, that’s Jimmy Sizeland; correct? You’re nodding, Ms - - -?---Yes.

That if - - -?---Can I just have some time to read it.

I’m sorry---Yep.

Do you see that you instructed Jimmy Sizeland that, if there was an incident that was presenting as righteous behaviour – does that mean to read righteous behaviour?---Yep.

That:

Given our current staffing predicament we should seek assistance from the IAT at the DCP.

What’s the IAT?---That’s the response group.

That’s the riot squad, is that right, or the tactical response group?---We actually had them there at times during that period.

Do you agree that that suggests that what you said to Jimmy Sizeland is that, “What you can do, if you’ve got bad behaviour, is call in the IAT,” as the appropriate


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

response?---No, what – this is when we moved to Berrimah. We were having significant problems. This was a week that Salli Cohen was away, and I was in the role. We had two young people who were continuously trying to take their own life, and we had significant staffing shortages, and this was just prior to the correctional, adult corrections being brought in to manage the centre. That is the level we had got to.

You must have been concerned then that the behaviour of the children at that stage was linked to their treatment in custody and the lack of resources; is that correct?---I think that’s a very broad statement to make.

You must have been concerned?---I was concerned about a lot of things at that time.

Alright. I withdraw that. Were you concerned, then, that the appropriate response from authorities should not have been a crackdown with the IAT but in fact addressing the welfare needs of the children?---But at that time we didn’t have the staffing or the resources to do that.

Okay. My question to you is did you raise that with Mr Middlebrook or Mr Elferink or anybody else above you?---Well, clearly, I was discussing with Mr Middlebrook, and he was well aware of the challenges that we were having, specifically at that point in time, in particular to two young people who were exhibiting some extremely challenging behaviours, and we weren’t getting any assistance from other authorities to assist us in managing their behaviour and keep them safe.

But did you raise with Mr Middlebrook that the appropriate response is not a crack down from the IAT or other enforcement agencies but it is to address the needs of the children?---Which is part of this, In 2015 Ms Swan was on board, and we had commenced that, and we were working on behavioural management plans and – yes, it’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It does seem a little odd to me that in your answer just a moment ago you said there were two children threatening self-harm, so you call in the IAT?---No, no, that was – so there was a lot of unrest in the centre.

Yes?---We also had two young people who were exhibiting some really challenging behaviours. And that - - -

Is that the two young people?---That was taking a lot of the resources to manage those two young people, which meant that we were, I suppose, security poor for the rest of the centre.

Perhaps to deal with the troubled youth who were at risk of serious self-harm might have been one way of releasing some of the staff?---That’s – that’s what we were doing, but at that time they were backwards and forwards from the Royal Darwin Hospital.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is there any secure mental health placement for youth in Darwin?---The only one at that time was the adult, which is called the Cowdy Ward, the Jo Ridley, which is where you wouldn’t want to put any young person. I understand there is a secure ward now, but at that time there was none of those facilities available to us. The only other facility we had was to use the Holtze medical centre which was staffed by medical staff 24 hours a day.

DR DWYER: Can I have on the screen an email exchange with Ms Shahleena Musk and Amanda Nobbs-Carcuro, 13 May 2016, that has been provided to the Commission. You’ve had an opportunity to read this email before now; correct?---There’s nothing there.

Sorry. It’s the email that I showed you earlier of 13 May?---You didn’t show me, someone else showed me.

Because I gave it to them?---Yes. You gave it to them, they showed me.

Thank you. Do you see that Ms Musk is asking you for the standard operating procedures all relevant directives in relation to the youth detention centre, a detainee induction manual, etcetera?---Yes.

And then you – she asked for that – made that request on 13 May 2016?---Yes.

Those documents were not provided to her by yourself, at least not before 16 August; correct?---No. Because I had recently provided to her in a hard copy in March and I have the emails here, of the 42 standard operating procedures, and I provided that to her in hard copy and I have an email from her acknowledging that, I agree, that we – I didn’t provided the detainee management directive, or the detainee classification manual, or the detainee health directive, because we didn’t have one.

I see. Did you let her know there was no detainee induction manual? So you say you didn’t provide her with the last three bullet points; is that correct?---Yes.

And is that because the - - -?--- ..... the induction manual because they didn’t exist.

Did you tell Ms Musk that?---I don’t know, I mean I did speak to Ms Musk ..... regularly.

What – why was there not – so you just can’t remember, is that your answer?---I can’t remember. I may have told her. I don’t know.

Why was there not a detainee induction manual?---Because at that time all of our operating procedures were still in development.

What standard – when were the standard operating procedures developed?---So we had 42 we put in place in January two thousand – can I just check those dates. We were under a constant review and rewrite and reassessment of procedures from


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

moving from the Old Don Dale to Holtze and then Holtze to Berrimah, and the 42 that we completed was in January 2015. However, we still had many to develop and many to review because – with the procedures, because they interrelate, when you change one procedure, you need to change the other procedure. You then need to have the training centre informed to make sure all staff are trained in the procedure.

If I suggest to you that NAAJA’s experience was that it was extremely difficult to obtain from the Department what actual standard operating procedures were in existence at any period of time during 2015, 2016, do you reject that?---No.

Was there a standard operating procedure in place when the restraint chair was introduced or was being used in 2015?---I’m not aware of the restraint chair being used in a detention centre.

Are you sure about that?---Not that I’m aware of. I’m pretty sure.

Can I have on the screen exhibit 283.104. Could you take a minute to read that email, please?---Yes. Well, that now refreshes my memory because I did raise this some time back.

Do you want to change the evidence that you just gave about not being aware of the restraint chair?--- ..... because I raised – when this Royal Commission was called, I raised that I could not recall, but I do remember a conversation in April 2015 that there was some discussion about a restraint chair being brought from the adult to be used in relation of a detainee and – but I could not recall whether it had been used. This now reminds me that we actually did.

Having now refreshed your memory from that email, what was your attitude when you found out Mr Middlebrook was authoring the use of the restraint chair in Don Dale Youth Detention Centre?---What was my attitude?

Were you concerned about the use of that device on children?---I wasn’t overly familiar with the device. What I was told is it was to ensure the safety of the young person because they were injuring themselves, and we had no other place to take them to keep them safe.

But, Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, this is at a time when you knew case management was not adequately being staffed or resourced and when you knew that - - -?---No, no. That’s not correct. In 2015 we were recruiting and we did have staff on board.

Did you think at this – I withdraw that. You knew at this time that there were serious difficulties in terms of the behavioural management of children in detention?---Yes.

You knew, didn’t you, that the welfare needs of those children were not being properly attended to and resourced; correct?---Sorry. Can you repeat that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You knew, didn’t you, that the – I will start with health – that the mental health needs of all of those children were not being properly attended to because of the lack of resources?---That’s true.

Didn’t it occur to you that it was the wrong response to authorise a restraint chair instead of making sure that the welfare needs were properly met?---I didn’t think of it at the time.

Do you think you should have, looking back now?---Well, at that time there was actually a whole team managing that young person, including health people. There was daily meetings, and it was then I was trying to recall there was some discussion of the restraint chair, but I couldn’t recall, when I was asked to, who it was. I couldn’t find anything in my emails, and, yes, if Mr Middlebrook said it was to occur, then I was in that acting executive director role for one week.

Last topic. At paragraph 85 of your statement you talk about the SEED commencing in youth detention in August 2014?---Yes.

Paragraph 86:

The program is only offered while a young person is in detention.

Do you agree by your statement you make it suggest that you’re informing the Royal Commission that SEED is a legitimate program that is in operation in the detention centre?---It was.

You go on to state at paragraph 87:

When the program was developed, the developers intended that an NGO, such as NAAJA, would be involved in the young person’s early participation so that it could provide the young person with support.

Paragraph 88:

NAAJA provided this through-care support to an early candidate of the program. However, this has not continued.

Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, Thomas Quayle, who gave evidence earlier today, never heard of SEED in his time at NAAJA. Samantha Taylor-Hunt was not aware of that program. Jared Sharp, the former manager of NAAJA, if you take it from me, never heard of it?---I need to correct you there. I don’t know what they were aware of, but at that time – and I cannot think of his name, but we had – I know the young detainee, and I know the person from NAAJA who met with us, and we found him employment. It was in a bike shop, and that was part – and so I’m not suggesting – so what you’re suggesting is that I made that up is not correct.

I didn’t put that to you?---Well, you are suggesting that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Could you wait for a question. It is not suggested by you, is it, that there was any serious attempt to engage NAAJA in the development of the SEED program, is it?---No.

Thank you. Your colleague who is in the witness box with you yesterday, CB, said in her statement that the SEED program has largely not operated since you commenced at Don Dale. Paragraph 79:

I understand that the person previously responsible for running the SEED program in detention was point 2 FTE.

That’s one day a week; correct?---I wasn’t aware where she got that from.

That person has changed roles, and little of this program has been implanted since. So, in fact, you would acknowledge that the SEED program was not successfully implemented at Don Dale, to the best of your knowledge?---And that’s what we have said in the statement.

Thank you. Nothing further?---What we have said is that we had challenges that we did have some success in the early time, but since then we have had challenges because of resourcing.

So, Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, final question is that it’s the lesson from your time in your roles that there really needs to be a great deal of attention paid to properly resourcing programs for children so that their mental and physical needs will be met whilst in detention?---I think there’s a lot of resourcing that needs to be made to make sure they don’t end up in detention.

If they do end up in detention, then resourcing needs to be put into their welfare to make sure they become functioning members of the society?---Absolutely. And when they come to detention they’re sentenced as quickly as possible.

Thank you. Nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Next, please. Thank you, Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [4.23 pm]

Commissioners. Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, as you know, my name is Felicity Graham, and I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Service. You say in paragraphs 117 to 122 of your statement - - -?---Sorry, what numbers were they?

It’s under the heading Parole Support and Throughcare Program Delivered by Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, starting at paragraph 117?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3966 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Are you aware that that program ran from 2011 to mid-2014?---Sorry.

By way of a prisoner support Throughcare program.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you just make it clear with your questions – paragraph 117 said it was funded during the first half of 2014 by the department. Yours is a different observation, that is, that it was running from 2011. Are you suggesting it was funded from 2011?

MS GRAHAM: Not by the Department of Corrective Services?---No, I wasn’t aware of it.

So you weren’t aware that what had happened was it had been running for some time and then CAALAS had informed the Parole Board that they were unable to secure funds to continue running the program, and that’s where the funding came from the Department of Corrective Services for just six months?---Yes, I’m aware of that.

To continue the program?---Yes, I am aware of that.

And that funding was secured with the assistance of Commissioner Middlebrook because there was a recognition that it was a worthwhile program that CAALAS was delivering?---Yes.

Prisoner Throughcare support, including to young people?---Yes.

And there was able to be found these funds to continue it for six months, but beyond that, there wasn’t funding provided from any Northern Territory Government department to secure the continuation of the service. That’s right, isn’t it?---That’s my understanding, yes.

And during your time as head of programs and acting executive director - - -?---Which wasn’t during that time.

- - - which was after that time, you were aware that there was no organisation funded to provide Throughcare support for children in Central Australia. There was no equivalent to the NAAJA Throughcare program that operated up in the Top End. You were aware of that?---I thought there was because Ms Carroll was very involved down at the court and at the detention centre. I thought the program was continuing. We just weren’t funding it.

Now, you were aware, during your time, that children from Central Australia were regularly transferred from Alice Springs up to Darwin and held at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre?---Yes.

And you were aware, during your time as director of programs and services for youth justice and acting executive director, that the children from Central Australia were disadvantaged by the fact of that transfer away from family and country?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that it particularly compromised those children’s ability to reintegrate with community upon their release?---I mean, I couldn’t say that it’s a fact, but I would say that it probably would have.

Wasn’t that something that you were particularly concerned about, in terms of needing to address those - - -?---Yes.

- - - particular needs of the children from Central Australia that had to be transferred away?---Yes. So we had regular communication meetings that were held each fortnight, and there’s minutes of, to ensure that those young people – so everyone was aware, and that was with CAALAS attending each fortnight. So those young people, essentially, weren’t lost in the system.

Have you ever visited the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---I have.

When did you visit there?---I visited there a couple of times, or quite a few times.

Do you remember what year the first time you visited Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre was?---No, I couldn’t say which year it was.

Did you visit at all during your time as director of programs and services for youth justice?---Yes.

So you would have been aware, from those visits, that the infrastructure available at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Service was totally inadequate in terms of an ability to provide appropriate services and programs to the children held therein?---Yes, it was very limiting.

And that that state of affairs had persisted from the very time that that centre had been opened in March 2011?---Yes. I’m – I don’t think it has changed – changed much since 2011.

The ability to provide appropriate programs in detention to address the children’s needs depends on the availability of staff to run and coordinate programs; is that right?---Yes.

And in terms of the staff that are primarily responsible for doing the administering of programs, that’s the case workers and members of the staff from the case management unit; is that correct?---Are you talking about in Alice Springs or - - -

In Alice Springs?---In Alice Springs there was a period that the Family Responsibility Centre was the program – was taking responsibility. Then there was a caseworker.

And there have been frequent occasions at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre where the position of the caseworker has been vacant; that’s right, isn’t it?---Yes. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And there has never been stationed at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre someone who is qualified as a psychologist; is that right?---No. The psychologist would visit from Darwin. I know when Ms Swan was in there she would be down there every six weeks, I think we scheduled it in, and I know only because I’ve signed off on travel that CB has visited on occasions.

And so you have a situation where in Darwin at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre you actually have two qualified psychologists in CB and in Ms Swan?---One now.

Pardon?---One now.

I just didn’t catch that?---I said one now.

One now. Ms Swan has left; is that right?---Yes.

For a time you had two psychologists in Don Dale and none based in Alice Springs?---Yes.

Now, it has been a constant state of affairs during your time as director of programs and services for youth justice and acting executive director that the vast proportion of young people in detention are held on remand as opposed to being sentenced?---Yes.

And the Commission has heard a lot of evidence about that being posed as a reason for not providing programs to the children in detention because of the difficulties based on the demographic of them being on remand as opposed to sentenced detainees?---That’s – that’s one of the reasons, but also the limiting facilities at the Alice Springs centre.

Where you have a state of affairs that persists, where a large proportion of the children are on remand, isn’t it incumbent upon you to design and source programs that are specifically targeted to that population which includes a large number of detainees on remand?---Yes. And we had – we commenced the Guiding Circles program. They also had the – they’ve got their kitchen unit, we had a cooking program. They also did the garden beds, which used to provide produce for the cooking.

The Guiding Circles program, that was an Aboriginal guide to finding career paths, a program that had been developed in Canada?---Yes.

And one of your staff members had received training in that program?---She had.

And that program only last so long as she remained working at the centre; that’s correct?---Yes.

And there was no process involved to pass on that information or training that she had obtained when it came time for her to leave the centre?---That’s correct, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s a program that’s available from the Aboriginal Human Resource Council in Canada. Are you aware that that program, including the training for people delivering that program is available with online resources?---No. I wasn’t aware of that, we bought a – Youthworks brought Mr Grey out and we had a number of people trained in the program. We were advised at that point that there was one trainer in the Northern Territory but, due to her personal circumstances, she wasn’t able to deliver the training. We combined with Youthworks and a number of people were involved in being able to provide the program but not to train in it.

In September 2013 you conducted the review comparing what had happened at the Banksia Hill detention centre with the state of affairs at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre; is that right?---Yes.

And you were specifically asked to focus and told, I assume, not to look at Alice Springs youth detention centre?---I don’t know if I was specifically. I was just told Don Dale.

Were you aware that at that time there were a number of parallels between the circumstances that existed in the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre and the circumstances revealed by the Banksia Hill incident?---Not at 2013, no.

Did you become aware about that – of those problems or parallels later?---No. Because the times that I visited the Alice Springs detention centre, apart from it not being aesthetically very nice, the young people seemed happy, and you know, I didn’t see the unrest or – you know, they were engaged in school. The girls went to school with the boys. There was only one girl at the detention centre and I wasn’t aware of – and it might be because I was in Darwin, and not in Alice Springs, but – any real challenges in Alice Springs.

You weren’t aware of poor governance issues, low staff morale, lack of clear and consistent philosophies, out of date procedures?---I knew that. I knew that we had Alice Springs operating under procedures that were different to those in Don Dale.

And you knew about the infrastructure and design problems in Alice Springs?---Yes.

And they were all factors that were revealed Banksia Bill review as being factors that contributed to the unrest in that centre?---Yes. But I wasn’t asked to look at Alice Springs and I was asked to look at Don Dale and I’m guessing that, being new to the department, that when those issues were raised, someone who was more familiar with the Alice Springs facility would have made that correlation.

Are you aware of anyone being asked to do a comparison between Banksia Hill and Alice Springs youth detention centre to review those issues for Alice Springs?---No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. Mr O’Connell


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL [4.36 pm]

MR O’CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, as you know. my name is O’Connell and I represent a former detainee who goes by the pseudonym AN. And you’re aware of who that is? You mentioned before Ms Swan, who came to work at Don Dale, that was in December 2015; is that correct?---I think she officially started in January. She moved to Darwin in December.

So January 2016?---No, ’15. January 2015 she started.

Okay. And she was a qualified psychologist?---A forensic psychologist.

And that was the first time an in-house psychologist had been employed at Don Dale?---In that position – it was the first time a forensic psychologist, from my understanding had been employed to be within the Don Dale Centre. I don’t know whether someone in case management unit previously had a – psychology qualifications, I couldn’t say.

She came from outside the Northern Territory?---, did.

And she was immediately concerned about many aspects of operations in Don Dale?---Yes she was.

And that included case management?---Yes.

Including the lack of case management plans?---Yes.

And the lack of detail in the plans that did exist?---Yes.

And she was also concerned about the lack of proper assessments having been conducted?---Yes.

And she was also concerned about the lack of proper treatment for trauma and mental health issues?---Yes.

And is it fair to say that she was a game changer in many respects for Don Dale?---I saw her as that.

And she drove a lot of the change singlehandedly?---She did.

How long was she there for?---She was there – she went on leave the following February. She then was coming back to work and then she, for family reasons, had to relocate interstate.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3971 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’CONNELL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So she was only here for a little over a year; is that right?---Yes. About 14 months.

Are you aware as to whether she has ever been replaced?---No, she has not been replaced.

So that one year was the only time Don Dale ever had an in-house forensic psychologist?---Yes.

Now, my client - - -?---Sorry, no, she was replaced by [REDACTED INFORMATION]

We don’t need to mention the name, but she was replaced?---Yes – yes, she was replaced and – and then when we moved to Territory Families, her replacement was no longer with us, and she’s never been replaced since.

Okay, thank you. My client was assessed by Ms Swan, and a treatment plan was developed, but she wasn’t able to be treated until she was sentenced because she was on remand at the time.

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

Yes. Nothing further.

MR McAVOY: I might just seek a non-publication direction over that section of the transcript until a redacted version is available to be published.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: From when the feed was cut?

MR McAVOY: When the feed was cut, yes

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. Well, that order is made, non-publication for that. I can’t say when and when, but I’m sure that our transcript people will be able to identify it. Yes, thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3973 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’CONNELL

5

10

15

20

25

30

MR McAVOY: I believe so. Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Lee.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE [4.44 pm]

MS LEE: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ma’am, my name is Lee. I appear for a number of young people who, at various times, have been in the custody of Corrections. In the statement that you provided dated 11 May of 2017, paragraph 9, you speak about not being involved in the day-to-day operations of the centre?---Yep.

And that’s evidence that you repeated when asked questions by Senior Counsel Assisting in respect of those emails that are annexed to this statement that, generally, you wouldn’t have been provided information about placements as in who was being placed where and for what period of time?---Yep.

Now, you accept that in that range of emails that you’ve annexed to that statement, that the first time a query with respect to the legislation, and that is section 153 subsection (5) was raised was in the email by Ms Salli Cohen on 17 May 2014 at 12.34 pm?---Raised with me?

Yes. Or just raised generally on that chain?---On what.

You can take a look, if you like?---Yes – yes – yes.

I don’t – would you like to go to the email? You can – I don’t think these are numbered but if you see the email from Ms Cohen where she says:

Jimmy, I approved in principle - - -

?---Yes.

And then she says:

Are we operating outside of the legislation?

You would accept that was the first time a legislative framework was raised?---That I’m aware of. I don’t know – it might have been discussed 12 months ago, I don’t know.

In terms of that email chain to which you were a party?---Yes – yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3974 A. NOBBS-CARCURO XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS LEE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So would you accept that there were two emails prior to that one, the first being the email from Sizeland to you and to Ms Sally Cohen which forwarded, effectively, what Mr Inglis had written. That was the first one you received, information only?---Yes.

And the second email that you received was from Mr Sizeland, again to you and Ms Cohen, about what he proposed to do with the intensive management plan at 11.18?---Yep.

Did it strike you as unusual that you had been included in those two emails, given there was no reference to legislative framework? It simply was just a reporting of day-to-day operations of the centre?---I can only think that – t he only thing I can think is that Russell was away.

So it’s possible that in certain circumstances, for example, if Mr Caldwell was away, that you would be included in those – information about day-to-day operations at the centre?---I can only think this because – I mean, my reading of this is he had been on a 72 hour placement, and that there was now obviously being some discussion of what to do now, and that I was included because of that point.

But you would accept that in those first two emails from Mr Sizeland there’s no reference to any legislative framework; there’s no queries about any of the legislation, it’s simply a “for your information, this has occurred”?---Yes. So I’m - - -

And, “for your information this is what I propose to do”?---So I can only assume that there was a conversation on Monday morning.

Now, ma’am, if I can ask you some questions now about the opinion that you offered in respect of that query about Ms Cohen, and that is the question of, “Are we operating within the legislative framework?” So you provided two responses and that’s in that bundle of material that’s annexed to your statement. You indicate on the first occasion that the difficulty is whether detainees should be isolated from other detainees?---Yes.

And then afterwards, when Mr Sizeland asks you about the CD, you respond and say you think the question is whether periods of single cell lockdown come within the legislative framework or not?---Mmm.

Can we take from that then that, when you referred to isolation, that you were referring to it both in terms of separation from the main and general population as well as single cell lockdowns?---Could you - - -

Sorry. I’ve looked at the responses that you’ve provided?---Yes.

But effectively the question is this: at this point in time, that is 17 March 2014, can we take it that your interpretation of the term “isolation” was, (1), separation from


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the main and general population, and (2), single cell lockdowns?---It was some time ago, but I’m guessing, yeah.

Does that accord with your – if I asked you to identify isolation now, would that accord with your current understanding?---Yes.

So the advice that you received from Mr Jobson, if I can just take you to that document now, on – it’s the beginning of the final page of that advice, the second paragraph, he says:

Overnight isolation as proposed cannot be imposed as a blanket management strategy.

?---Yes.

So you are aware of that information?---Yes.

Now, we have also talked about your movement through the centre and at one point in time you were the head of case management and then there are various points in time where you were acting executive director and then when were you appointed to that position full-time?---Yes.

That is Ms Cohen’s position?---Yes.

And you would accept that between the period of 2 June and 15 June 2015, you were executive director of youth justice?---I don’t think it was 2 June. I think it was more September.

Of 2015?---Yes. I think it was, yes.

In any event, you would accept that a young person being kept in a single cell lockdown overnight would be isolation?---I think the challenge there is the way they were being accommodated in single cells. They all had their own cells. So - - -

You understood, from your Banksia review, the report that you prepared, that the – this issue of keeping young people isolated, of other systemic issues of training of youth justice officers, had an effect on the behaviour of young people in detention?---Yes.

And that’s why, when you were acting executive director in January of 2015 – after you received the PSU report of the riotous incident from early January, which told you that detainees hadn’t received significant times out of their cells and that records were not being kept, that you went into the centre with Mr Middlebrook and said that that needed to be something that was addressed. That young people needed time out of their cells and that records should be kept properly of time out of their cells. Do you recall doing that?---No. I went into the – no. Do you have something there, that I did?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

It’s the evidence of Mr Middlebrook, but if that’s not your recollection, that’s not your recollection. Would you accept that – the general proposition that it was a matter of significance for youth justice officers to ensure young people had significant time out of cells?---Yes.

And that it was equally important that there were accurate records kept of that time out of cells?---Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Lee.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR INDEVAR [4.53 pm]

MR INDEVAR: Madam, I appear on behalf of Dylan Voller. Are you familiar with the layout of the Old Don Dale detention centre?---Depends what detail you want me to speak in. I mean, I know the entry and where the kitchen was and where the bedrooms were and where the low security was. Is that what you are talking –

Are you familiar with the special needs HDU cells?---Were they the ones when you walked in at the entrance, just past the entrance?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have a map to show?

MR INDEVAR: No, I don’t have a map.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps if you ask the question that you want to ask rather than laying the groundwork and see how it goes.

MR INDEVAR: Well, I suggest to you that the HDU cells were being used to isolate detainees in 2014?---I don’t know.

Those are my questions.

MR McAVOY: I understand Mr Jacobi has some questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Mr Jacobi.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JACOBI [4.54 pm]

MR JACOBI: Just two matters of re-examination. A question was put to you earlier by Ms Dwyer with respect to an email that you wrote to Mr Middlebrook. And that was an email of 29 April 2015?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 12.5.17 P-3977 A. NOBBS-CARCURO RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR JACOBI

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you recall that email used the word “righteous” behaviour?---Yes.

And could it mean riotous behaviour?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The witness was asked did she mean righteous, and she said she said she meant righteous. It has been .....?--- I meant – I meant riotous, r-i-o-t.

Didn’t sound like it I have to say, and it did sound an odd word to use. I – in other words, riotous?---Yeah.

But it did sound as though you - - -?---I’m sorry, I thought that was what I was asked. Yes.

It must be the acoustics in this room, then?---It has been a long day.

So the word that you had intended to type but your autocorrect put “righteous” instead of “riotous”?---Yes.

Is that your evidence?---Yes. Sorry if that was unclear.

Yes. Thank you. I’m sorry, Mr Jacobi. I had really thought that Ms Nobbs-Carcuro had confirmed “righteous”.

MR JACOBI: And I must say the reason I’m clearing it up is because partly the difficulty associated with what I understood was said.

Another question was asked. You referred to the establishment of a bail support program in 2016 and the quarantining of about half a million dollars. Could you just very briefly explain what that proposal was?---Well, the – we were aware of the significant work that was done in Tasmania with the reduction of detainee numbers, also in the ACT, with their reforms. So we were very aware of what a bail support program could do. The proposal – there was four proposals. We prepared a great deal of research on it. And we looked at four different models which were, you know, support and the police station for when police are trying to find a responsible adult, accommodation, supported accommodation, support down at the court to look at the time bail options for young people who had been remanded, and the fourth one was – I think it was a mixture of all.

What was the model you preferred?---The model we preferred at the time was having the support at the court so that options could be fully explored and that young people could be monitored when they left court and if they had to go to auntie’s place for two nights, which was in breach of their conditions, then there would be an easy avenue to alert people that they weren’t where they were supposed to be without having to go back to court. The second was to provide an avenue for police when they can’t find a responsible adult, a service that would assist them in providing the information to say, well, you’ve tried mum, but mum is now in a community, and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

here’s – but we are also aware that there’s another address and that they could go to this other address; they could go to the auntie’s. So having that support available after-hours for police who have expressed that they didn’t have time or the ability to track down a responsible adult.

And in broad terms what was scope of service that you thought $500,000 might procure?---It was to – one is prevent young people being remanded for short periods whilst options for bail were sought in terms of, you know, trying to find accommodation. That was the first one, to be able to do that at 11 o’clock on a Saturday night instead of waiting until 9 o’clock on a Monday morning when they turn up to court. The other was to provide the assistance when they would leave court and the assistance that the legal service are not funded to provide, where they could have someone who is checking in with them regularly to say, “How are you going?”, and if there is any issues with any of the conditions of their bail, that there was an ability to change it or to explain it or to – so they weren’t breached on their bail conditions and ended up coming back to court.

What was the ultimate conclusion with respect to that proposal?---It would reduce our remand.

You said it was proposed in 2016. What was the ultimate end result?---It hasn’t – those – we changed departments.

I’ve no further questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have anything else, Mr McAvoy?

MR McAVOY: Only to tender two affidavits – sorry – two emails that were referred to during the course of the witness’s evidence, Commissioner. I understand that they’re not in the system, but I can hand up hard copies for them to be - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: They can be dealt with later. Should they go together as one exhibit?

MR McAVOY: I’m sorry, Commissioners

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Should they be one exhibit, Mr McAvoy, or not?

MR McAVOY: Two.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Two. The email from Ms Nobbs-Carcuro to Ms Musk of 21 March 2016, exhibit 384. And the other one, the email from Ms Musk to Commissioner Payne dated 16 August 2016, exhibit 385.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #384 EMAIL FROM MS NOBBS-CARCURO TO MS MUSK DATED 21/03/2016

EXHIBIT #385 EMAIL FROM MS MUSK TO COMMISSIONER PAYNE DATED 16/08/2016

MR McAVOY: Thank you. No re-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Nobbs-Carcuro, for your assistance to the Commission. Thank you for coming on two days. I’m sure it’s very disruptive to do that?---Happy to help.

You are released from your summons.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [5.01 pm]

MR McAVOY: Commissioner, there are some other matters that Ms McGee is going to attend to now, just in relation to some documents that need to be tendered before we rise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MS McGEE: Can I just hand up two documents. It’s just, effectively, an update and mop-up tender. The first is not either of those documents, but if I could start by tendering the remainder of exhibit 337 which is the tender bundle for this set of hearings. And I understand that can be done administratively by your associate. Secondly, there are approximately seven statements of witnesses who have given statements relevant to these hearings but were not called or have provided supplementary statements. The first of those is the statement of Ann Lewis dated 26 April 2017. If that could be tendered, please. Sorry, Commissioner. They’re not on the documents I’ve handed up. I thought I would hand those up to start with so we could move - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So the statement of Ann Lewis. Dated?

MS McGEE: Ann Lewis. 26 April 2017


EXHIBIT #386 STATEMENT OF ANNE LEWIS DATED 26/04/2017


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS McGEE: The next is the statement of Noletta McKenzie dated 26 April 2017.


EXHIBIT #387 STATEMENT OF NOELETTA McKENZIE DATED 26/04/2017

MS McGEE: The next is a statement of Carolyn Whyte dated 21 March 2017.


EXHIBIT #388 STATEMENT OF CAROLYN WHYTE DATED 21/03/2017

MS McGEE: Next is the statement of James O’Brien dated 10 May 2017.


EXHIBIT #389 STATEMENT OF JAMES O’BRIEN DATED 10/05/2017

MS McGEE: Next is the statement of Kieren Wells dated 17 March 2017. I think that may be 10 May.


EXHIBIT #390 STATEMENT OF KIEREN WELLS DATED 17/03/2017

MS McGEE: Next is the supplementary statement of Nicola MacCarron dated 10 May 2017.


EXHIBIT #391 STATEMENT OF NICOLA MacCARRON DATED 10/05/2017

MS McGEE: And finally for the statements is the statement of Jeremy Styles dated 11 May 2017.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #392 STATEMENT OF JEREMY STYLES DATED 11/05/2017

MS McGEE: Thank you, Commissioner. Next there is a tender bundle which is one of the documents which I just handed up then. That’s an index of documents in relation to the vulnerable witness, AK, who was not called. I ask that the bundle be given an exhibit number and the remainder can be administratively processed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. That tender bundle for the witness AK, exhibit 393 and the one – documents within it will be given sequential numbers.

EXHIBIT #393 AK TENDER BUNDLE FOR WITNESS AK

MS McGEE: Thank you, Commissioner. I would ask that a bundle of materials provided by Judge Johnstone since his Honour gave his evidence also be given an exhibit number. There are six documents which are in a list that has been provided to LIO, which can be administratively processed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 324, with those documents being subnumbered.

MS McGEE: Yes. Within that, please, Commissioner. Similarly, there is four documents relating to Alice Springs watch-house records. I would ask that those be given an exhibit number and subnumbered.


MS McGEE: Second last, in relation to the evidence of Ms Nobbs-Carcuro in her statement of 24 March 2017 at paragraph 151, there are two documents relating to the bail support program model. I might just identify those. WIT.0154.0001.0508, if that could be given an exhibit number.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, I made a bit of a – did some strange things there, getting vague, it’s 396, I think.

MS McGEE: 26, Commissioner. I see.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, there was a bit of slippage with the numbering there, that was my fault. So in fact the AK bundle is 393, and they will have extra ones, then the judge Johnstone documents will be 394 with the subnumbering. The Alice Springs watch-house documents, 395, and Ms Nobbs-Carcuro’s paragraph 151 bail support documents exhibit 396.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #394 BUNDLE OF MATERIALS PROVIDED BY JUDGE JOHNSTONE

EXHIBIT #395 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ALICE SPRINGS WATCH-HOUSE RECORDS

EXHIBIT #396 PARAGRAPH 151 BAIL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

MS McGEE: Thank you, Commissioner .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry to confuse everyone.

MS McGEE: Not at all.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: .....

MS McGEE: I didn’t pick it up, I apologise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Getting a bit vague.

MS McGEE: The second document, which I think could be part of that same exhibit but I will identify it is WIT.0154.0001.0527. And finally, the second document that I handed up, Commissioner, is a list of statements. I don’t seek to tender the list. It’s just to indicate if those statements could be given exhibit numbers administratively, they are a list of documents outstanding from the detention hearings. Some relate to Mr Dylan Voller, some are other responsive materials received during and since those hearings. This is what is able to be uploaded as exhibits today and tomorrow. I just thought we would get that process started. I just ask it be noted that they will be given exhibit numbers administratively.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, that’s – that is noted, Ms McGee and that someone, who is obviously a little more attentive than I am at the moment will give those the sequential numbers when someone next gets to look at it, which is probably fairly shortly.

MS McGEE: Thank you, Commissioner. I think that may conclude these hearings.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. We will get the message passed along – is it 29 May? 29 May, Ms McGee.

MS McGEE: 29th. It is, yes, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: In Alice Springs.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS McGEE: In Alice Springs, indeed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Adjourn, 29th.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 5.09 pm UNTIL MONDAY, 29 MAY 2017


5

Index of Witness Events

LEILANI TONUMAIPEA, SWORN P-3869EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MCAVOY P-3869CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-3882RE-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY P-3885

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-3887

THOMAS QUAYLE, AFFIRMED P-3887SAMANTHA TAYLOR-HUNT, AFFIRMED P-3887THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-3907

DARREN YOUNG, AFFIRMED P-3907MELISSA PREVITERA, SWORN P-3907THE WITNESSES WITHDREW P-3926

JULIE EDWARDS, SWORN P-3927EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-3927


AMANDA NOBBS-CARCURO, ON FORMER OATH P-3939EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-3939CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-3946CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR DWYER P-3955CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-3966CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL P-3971CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE P-3974CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR INDEVAR P-3977RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JACOBI P-3977


Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #377 MS TONUMAIPEA’S STATEMENT P-3869

EXHIBIT #378 STATEMENT OF MR QUAYLE DATED 21/04/2017

P-3888

EXHIBIT #379 STATEMENT OF MS TAYLOR-HUNT DATED 10/04/2017

P-3888

EXHIBIT #381 STATEMENT OF DARREN YOUNG P-3908

EXHIBIT #382 STATEMENT OF JULIE EDWARDS P-3928

EXHIBIT #383 STATEMENT OF MS NOBBS-CARCURO DATED 11/05/2017

P-3940


5

EXHIBIT #384 EMAIL FROM MS NOBBS-CARCURO TO MS MUSK DATED 21/03/2016

P-3980

EXHIBIT #385 EMAIL FROM MS MUSK TO COMMISSIONER PAYNE DATED 16/08/2016

P-3980

EXHIBIT #386 STATEMENT OF ANN LEWIS DATED 26/04/2017

P-3980

EXHIBIT #387 STATEMENT OF NOELETTA McKENZIE DATED 26/04/2017

P-3981

EXHIBIT #388 STATEMENT OF CAROLYN WHYTE DATED 21/03/2017

P-3981

EXHIBIT #389 STATEMENT OF JAMES O’BRIEN DATED 10/05/2017

P-3981

EXHIBIT #390 STATEMENT OF KIEREN WELLS DATED 17/03/2017

P-3981

EXHIBIT #391 STATEMENT OF NICOLA MacCARRON DATED 10/05/2017

P-3981

EXHIBIT #392 STATEMENT OF JEREMY STYLES DATED 11/05/2017

P-3982

EXHIBIT #393 AK TENDER BUNDLE FOR WITNESS AK P-3982

EXHIBIT #394 BUNDLE OF MATERIALS PROVIDED BY JUDGE JOHNSTONE

P-3983

EXHIBIT #395 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ALICE SPRINGS WATCH-HOUSE RECORDS

P-3983

EXHIBIT #396 PARAGRAPH 151 BAIL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

P-3983


transcript 12 may 2017 web view.royal commission 12.5.17p-3881l. tonumaipea xn ©commonwealth of...

Documents