Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now if you've just joined us this morning, the Australian
newspaper is reporting today that a domestic violence perpetrator who
has reportedly been jailed multiple times for breaching domestic violence
orders is on the staff of the Northern Territories opposition
spokesman for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Now joining me
in the studio right now is Steve Edgington, the member
(00:21):
four Barkley.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Good morning to you, Steve, Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Good morning Katie, and good morning to all the listeners
across the territory.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Steve, why did you employ someone who's reportedly faced territory
courts twenty seven times in the past four years on
serious domestic violence related charges, including multiple counts of contravening
a domestic violence order and breach of bail.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, let's get back to the facts, Katie. This is
new information to me. Certainly a journalist contacted me yesterday
morning and presented those that information to me, saying that
there was a multiple number of domestic violence offenses previously committed. Look,
when I employed mister plumber normal processes filling out an
employment form, he certainly declared to me that there was
(01:06):
two recent breaches of a domestic violence order. I had
a long conversation with him about that. It was only
yesterday that I was made aware of other offenses that
allegedly were committed us.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So you weren't aware of his history. You weren't aware
of the extent of his history. I mean, like facing
territory courts twenty seven times in the past four years.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Certainly not and that's, you know, I need to be
open about that. I certainly wasn't aware of that. I
spoke to a journalist yesterday about that very issue. I
was made aware of two matters and had a very
lengthy discussion with mister Plumber about those two matters. That
was declared on his employment form that was sent to
the department, and as part of the employment process. We
(01:52):
certainly considered those two matters very very carefully, because look,
I'm one of the strongest advocates when it comes to,
you know, trying to reduce domestic, family and sexual violence.
I don't support any factors that contribute to domestic violence.
The facts remain is that these offenses were committed prior
to him coming into my office.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
I mean it is reported though that he was jailed
twice last year, just months before he was appointed the
electorate officer for you, is that are they the two
incidents that you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
When they are the two that I'm aware of? It?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Lie, did he tell you that they were four?
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Well, what he told me was it that, yes, there
was a domestic violence order in place, and he told
me that the breaches involved consuming alcohol. Now it is
common in all parts of the Northern Territory that domestic
violence orders are in place, and one of the conditions
of his domestic violence order was not to consume alcohol
in anywhere near his partner.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
I mean, the thing is, though, it's a pretty serious
situation if you've if you've been to jail twice in
the last year, and then to obviously be given that job.
I know you've said that you're aware of those two incidents,
but you're saying on one hand that you are one
of the strongest advocates when it comes to domestic violence,
but then you're employing somebody who has reportedly perpetrated domestic violence.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I think when we discuss these things, you know, at
what point do we never employ somebody that's committed an offense?
And I think this is very important, and these are
the things that went through my mind when I employed him.
At what point do we want to rehabilitate offenders an
offender that served his time, accepted to responsibility for his actions.
At what point do we put somebody back into the
(03:34):
workforce try to rehabilitate that person given an opportunity to
break the cycle and become a better citizen, not only
in the Barclay or across the territory.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
The fact I get what you're saying, and I totally
understand the point that you're trying to make. But to
others out there listening, they're going to be thinking to themselves,
how though, can you, as the opposition spokesperson for domestic violence,
then have this person who has reportedly been in gay
aged and in domestic violence, then you know, on your
(04:05):
team and going along two meetings with you presumably and
being privy to discussions about you know, incidents of domestic
violence and different programs and that kind of things. That
kind of thing like, how can you do that in
good faith?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yeah? Well, there's no doubt that. Look, I share those concerns,
and what has transpired since he's been employed in my
office that he does travel to remote areas with me.
It would be. I can't recall being in any situation
where there's been confidential information or policy you discussed. Mister
Plumber plays a role of a laaison officer, so he
(04:43):
works closely with me and helps bridge the gap between
me cultural issues in the community. So that's the role
that he plays. But look, I totally understand where the
community is coming from. It was a very difficult judgment
call that I made, but now that i've to regret it, No,
I don't at the moment, But given that there's further information,
obviously I need to have a look at that. I
(05:04):
need to get to the bottom of that to find
out exactly what's happened, clearly what's being reported in the paper.
I've asked mister Plumber to consent to a full criminal
history release, and what we're going to do is get
to the bottom of that because these are very serious
matters and I want to get to the bottom of
them as soon as I can.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Is he going to be sacked? Is he going to
be stood down?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Well, I think that's an issue with all employment processes.
I can't preempt what that process might look like, but
I've certainly had discussions with the Department this morning. Every
employee is entitled to natural justice. There is a process
when it comes to employment and they will be followed
so we can get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
I mean, what kind of process did you go through
before actually employing him, because I guess you know, Tenant
Creek's a small town, like you would think that you
would have been aware of his history. By the sounds
of what the Australians reporting, it's extensive. I mean, I've
googled his name this morning and there appears to be
from earlier this month. Everybody appearing at the Tenant Creek
(06:04):
local court list in the NT news being reported and look,
unless there's two people of the same name, it appears
that you know that he was due to appear as
early as earlier this month.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Is that the case he recently appeared in court for
a drink driving matter and that was resolved. I think
it was last week or the week before.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Goodness me, so drink driving matter as well.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yep, a recent drink driving matter. Again, we've been following
processes to deal with that. The information that came forward.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Yesterday, Steve, can you see then, how like honestly you
must even be thinking to yourself, mate, you conduct yourself
at a pretty high standard.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I would think. So then when you've got a.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Staff member who now you know this like this is happening,
and you're then copying flak over over a staff member
that you've employed, you must be thinking to yourself, goodness,
may should I have done more checks and balances here
before employing it?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Look, I acted in good faith at the time. I
spoke with mister Plumber about it. He declared his matters
on the employment form. I had a discussion with him
about it. To look in hindsight, yes, we certainly should
have done more the situation where at the moment the
information came forward to me yesterday and we're dealing with
that appropriately at the moment.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
So should he stand down?
Speaker 1 (07:17):
I mean really like for you, I'd be thinking, yes, yeah, Look.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
It's these things came up very quickly yesterday. I've had
some preliminary discussions with the department this morning, and I'll
have further discussions with the department this morning, and I'm
sure that under the process is available, they'll be taking appropriately.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So did you do a criminal check before employing here?
Why not?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
There's a form where those declarations were made, those declarations
were put on the form. They're the matters that I
sat down and spoke with him about. Looking at the
processes moving forward. There's an opportunity now to look at
what that employment form looks like from a department perspective.
For certainly, I'll be speaking to the department about what
can be done to tie and up per employment processes
(08:02):
moving forward.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
The NT Minister for Prevention of Domestic Family and Sexual Violence,
Kate Warden, has told the Australian newspaper that your position
is now totally untenable, Steve.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Should you be standing down over there, No.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
I shouldn't at this stage. What I want to do
is get to the bottom of these issues, find out
where the system broke down, particularly around those employment practices.
I've been made aware of issues that I wasn't aware of.
I was aware of two matters and I followed normal process,
had those discussions, looked at what the risks were, looked
at what occurred, what I was told during those offenses.
(08:38):
I decided to give him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself
to get back on track. Now that I have further information,
it's important that we get to the bottom of that
very quickly.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Some people are going to be listening this morning questioning
your decision making skills on this whole situation, and questioning
whether realistically you are up to being the opposition spokesperson
for domestic and family violence given your decision making in
this process.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
What do you say to those people?
Speaker 3 (09:09):
What I say is my decision was made on the
information before me. At the time I made a decision
based on the information, I took that information at face value.
I've lived in Tenant Creek for a long time. I
know lots of people there. I took that information at
face value. As I said yesterday, more information has come
to hand. We'll be getting to the bottom of that
and taking appropriate action where necessary.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I tell you what it is MESSI and I know
that from what I'm seeing on the text line this morning.
To put it really bluntly, people are pissed off with
the level at which our politicians are conducting themselves at
the moment. You know, this is one situation obviously that
we're talking about this morning. They are still annoyed at
the situation, you know, with Brent Potter's posts on social media.
(09:53):
They're still annoyed with Chancey Pake's shares fiasco. I mean, really,
shouldn't you all be operating to a higher standard.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
We certainly should. I agree with it, and I operate
to the very highest standard possible. I've always done that.
I've always put every effort into doing my job to
the very best of my ability ethically, with integrity. What's
happened in this occasion is that I've acted on information
that was presented to me at the time. I have
further information, and I'll be taking appropriate action. And I
(10:22):
want to assure listeners that now that we have further information,
there will be a process to follow. We need to
get hold of a proper, verifiable criminal history so that
we can take the necessary Is.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
That something that's easy enough to do, because I mean
even just looking at looking at what's reported in the Australian,
but now just learning that he's also appeared in court
on a drink driving charge, you know, is it actually
going to be possible for you to get that full
criminal history?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
And you know if you weren't able to do it
before he was employed.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Well, there's a process to follow, and you know there's
I've already spoken to mister Plumber and he's agreed to
consent to that. I've spoken to the department this morning.
We'll be following those processes. What we've seen in the media,
that's a whole range of issues there. But what we
want is a verifiable criminal history in front of us,
(11:12):
and we will follow normal employment practices and deal with
the matter in an appropriate way.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So just to be clear, there is still a possibility
that this boy could retain his job.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
I don't want to speculate on anything at the moment
that these are issues that we need to discuss with
mister Plumber to say that, you know, to preempt the
end of the process. Look, I think when we follow
normal processes normally, the outcome is what people would expect.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Steve Edgington, the member for barclay Or Position, spokesperson for
domestic and family Violence. I really appreciate you joining us
in the studio this morning.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Thank you, Katie, and good morning to everybody.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Thank you.
Now if you've just joined us this morning, the Australian
newspaper is reporting today that a domestic violence perpetrator who
has reportedly been jailed multiple times for breaching domestic violence
orders is on the staff of the Northern Territories opposition
spokesman for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Now joining me
in the studio right now is Steve Edgington, the member
(00:21):
four Barkley.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Good morning to you, Steve, Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Good morning Katie, and good morning to all the listeners
across the territory.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Steve, why did you employ someone who's reportedly faced territory
courts twenty seven times in the past four years on
serious domestic violence related charges, including multiple counts of contravening
a domestic violence order and breach of bail.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, let's get back to the facts, Katie. This is
new information to me. Certainly a journalist contacted me yesterday
morning and presented those that information to me, saying that
there was a multiple number of domestic violence offenses previously committed. Look,
when I employed mister plumber normal processes filling out an
employment form, he certainly declared to me that there was
(01:06):
two recent breaches of a domestic violence order. I had
a long conversation with him about that. It was only
yesterday that I was made aware of other offenses that
allegedly were committed us.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So you weren't aware of his history. You weren't aware
of the extent of his history. I mean, like facing
territory courts twenty seven times in the past four years.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Certainly not and that's, you know, I need to be
open about that. I certainly wasn't aware of that. I
spoke to a journalist yesterday about that very issue. I
was made aware of two matters and had a very
lengthy discussion with mister Plumber about those two matters. That
was declared on his employment form that was sent to
the department, and as part of the employment process. We
(01:52):
certainly considered those two matters very very carefully, because look,
I'm one of the strongest advocates when it comes to,
you know, trying to reduce domestic, family and sexual violence.
I don't support any factors that contribute to domestic violence.
The facts remain is that these offenses were committed prior
to him coming into my office.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
I mean it is reported though that he was jailed
twice last year, just months before he was appointed the
electorate officer for you, is that are they the two
incidents that you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
When they are the two that I'm aware of? It?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Lie, did he tell you that they were four?
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Well, what he told me was it that, yes, there
was a domestic violence order in place, and he told
me that the breaches involved consuming alcohol. Now it is
common in all parts of the Northern Territory that domestic
violence orders are in place, and one of the conditions
of his domestic violence order was not to consume alcohol
in anywhere near his partner.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
I mean, the thing is, though, it's a pretty serious
situation if you've if you've been to jail twice in
the last year, and then to obviously be given that job.
I know you've said that you're aware of those two incidents,
but you're saying on one hand that you are one
of the strongest advocates when it comes to domestic violence,
but then you're employing somebody who has reportedly perpetrated domestic violence.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I think when we discuss these things, you know, at
what point do we never employ somebody that's committed an offense?
And I think this is very important, and these are
the things that went through my mind when I employed him.
At what point do we want to rehabilitate offenders an
offender that served his time, accepted to responsibility for his actions.
At what point do we put somebody back into the
(03:34):
workforce try to rehabilitate that person given an opportunity to
break the cycle and become a better citizen, not only
in the Barclay or across the territory.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
The fact I get what you're saying, and I totally
understand the point that you're trying to make. But to
others out there listening, they're going to be thinking to themselves,
how though, can you, as the opposition spokesperson for domestic violence,
then have this person who has reportedly been in gay
aged and in domestic violence, then you know, on your
(04:05):
team and going along two meetings with you presumably and
being privy to discussions about you know, incidents of domestic
violence and different programs and that kind of things. That
kind of thing like, how can you do that in
good faith?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yeah? Well, there's no doubt that. Look, I share those concerns,
and what has transpired since he's been employed in my
office that he does travel to remote areas with me.
It would be. I can't recall being in any situation
where there's been confidential information or policy you discussed. Mister
Plumber plays a role of a laaison officer, so he
(04:43):
works closely with me and helps bridge the gap between
me cultural issues in the community. So that's the role
that he plays. But look, I totally understand where the
community is coming from. It was a very difficult judgment
call that I made, but now that i've to regret it, No,
I don't at the moment, But given that there's further information,
obviously I need to have a look at that. I
(05:04):
need to get to the bottom of that to find
out exactly what's happened, clearly what's being reported in the paper.
I've asked mister Plumber to consent to a full criminal
history release, and what we're going to do is get
to the bottom of that because these are very serious
matters and I want to get to the bottom of
them as soon as I can.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Is he going to be sacked? Is he going to
be stood down?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Well, I think that's an issue with all employment processes.
I can't preempt what that process might look like, but
I've certainly had discussions with the Department this morning. Every
employee is entitled to natural justice. There is a process
when it comes to employment and they will be followed
so we can get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
I mean, what kind of process did you go through
before actually employing him, because I guess you know, Tenant
Creek's a small town, like you would think that you
would have been aware of his history. By the sounds
of what the Australians reporting, it's extensive. I mean, I've
googled his name this morning and there appears to be
from earlier this month. Everybody appearing at the Tenant Creek
(06:04):
local court list in the NT news being reported and look,
unless there's two people of the same name, it appears
that you know that he was due to appear as
early as earlier this month.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Is that the case he recently appeared in court for
a drink driving matter and that was resolved. I think
it was last week or the week before.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Goodness me, so drink driving matter as well.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yep, a recent drink driving matter. Again, we've been following
processes to deal with that. The information that came forward.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Yesterday, Steve, can you see then, how like honestly you
must even be thinking to yourself, mate, you conduct yourself
at a pretty high standard.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I would think. So then when you've got a.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Staff member who now you know this like this is happening,
and you're then copying flak over over a staff member
that you've employed, you must be thinking to yourself, goodness,
may should I have done more checks and balances here
before employing it?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Look, I acted in good faith at the time. I
spoke with mister Plumber about it. He declared his matters
on the employment form. I had a discussion with him
about it. To look in hindsight, yes, we certainly should
have done more the situation where at the moment the
information came forward to me yesterday and we're dealing with
that appropriately at the moment.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
So should he stand down?
Speaker 1 (07:17):
I mean really like for you, I'd be thinking, yes, yeah, Look.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
It's these things came up very quickly yesterday. I've had
some preliminary discussions with the department this morning, and I'll
have further discussions with the department this morning, and I'm
sure that under the process is available, they'll be taking appropriately.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So did you do a criminal check before employing here?
Why not?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
There's a form where those declarations were made, those declarations
were put on the form. They're the matters that I
sat down and spoke with him about. Looking at the
processes moving forward. There's an opportunity now to look at
what that employment form looks like from a department perspective.
For certainly, I'll be speaking to the department about what
can be done to tie and up per employment processes
(08:02):
moving forward.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
The NT Minister for Prevention of Domestic Family and Sexual Violence,
Kate Warden, has told the Australian newspaper that your position
is now totally untenable, Steve.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Should you be standing down over there, No.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
I shouldn't at this stage. What I want to do
is get to the bottom of these issues, find out
where the system broke down, particularly around those employment practices.
I've been made aware of issues that I wasn't aware of.
I was aware of two matters and I followed normal process,
had those discussions, looked at what the risks were, looked
at what occurred, what I was told during those offenses.
(08:38):
I decided to give him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself
to get back on track. Now that I have further information,
it's important that we get to the bottom of that
very quickly.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Some people are going to be listening this morning questioning
your decision making skills on this whole situation, and questioning
whether realistically you are up to being the opposition spokesperson
for domestic and family violence given your decision making in
this process.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
What do you say to those people?
Speaker 3 (09:09):
What I say is my decision was made on the
information before me. At the time I made a decision
based on the information, I took that information at face value.
I've lived in Tenant Creek for a long time. I
know lots of people there. I took that information at
face value. As I said yesterday, more information has come
to hand. We'll be getting to the bottom of that
and taking appropriate action where necessary.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I tell you what it is MESSI and I know
that from what I'm seeing on the text line this morning.
To put it really bluntly, people are pissed off with
the level at which our politicians are conducting themselves at
the moment. You know, this is one situation obviously that
we're talking about this morning. They are still annoyed at
the situation, you know, with Brent Potter's posts on social media.
(09:53):
They're still annoyed with Chancey Pake's shares fiasco. I mean, really,
shouldn't you all be operating to a higher standard.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
We certainly should. I agree with it, and I operate
to the very highest standard possible. I've always done that.
I've always put every effort into doing my job to
the very best of my ability ethically, with integrity. What's
happened in this occasion is that I've acted on information
that was presented to me at the time. I have
further information, and I'll be taking appropriate action. And I
(10:22):
want to assure listeners that now that we have further information,
there will be a process to follow. We need to
get hold of a proper, verifiable criminal history so that
we can take the necessary Is.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
That something that's easy enough to do, because I mean
even just looking at looking at what's reported in the Australian,
but now just learning that he's also appeared in court
on a drink driving charge, you know, is it actually
going to be possible for you to get that full
criminal history?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
And you know if you weren't able to do it
before he was employed.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Well, there's a process to follow, and you know there's
I've already spoken to mister Plumber and he's agreed to
consent to that. I've spoken to the department this morning.
We'll be following those processes. What we've seen in the media,
that's a whole range of issues there. But what we
want is a verifiable criminal history in front of us,
(11:12):
and we will follow normal employment practices and deal with
the matter in an appropriate way.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So just to be clear, there is still a possibility
that this boy could retain his job.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
I don't want to speculate on anything at the moment
that these are issues that we need to discuss with
mister Plumber to say that, you know, to preempt the
end of the process. Look, I think when we follow
normal processes normally, the outcome is what people would expect.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Steve Edgington, the member for barclay Or Position, spokesperson for
domestic and family Violence. I really appreciate you joining us
in the studio this morning.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Thank you, Katie, and good morning to everybody.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.