Kathleen Gazzola and Katie Woolf on scrutiny committee hearing submissions

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Joining me back in the studio, not for a dingo
dongo discussion, but more for quite a serious discussion about
what's going on at the moment in the Scrutiny Committee hearings.
Is our very own Kathleen Gazola. Good morning again, Kathleen.
Kathleen's not only producing the show, but she's also trying
to be a reporter out there as well and getting
all the info from the Scrutiny Committee with the assistance

(00:21):
of our mate Mat Cunningham, letting us know what's going on,
kat What should we know about at the moment as
this hearing is underway.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Well, obviously this is regards to the government's proposal of
some changes around the Child Protection Act, which goes to
putting safety as the number one consideration when dealing with
child protection. So this is a chance for the politicians
who are on the Scrutiny Committee of the Government, Clinton Howe,

(00:51):
Lauri Zio and one other member it escapes me right now,
along with Justine Davis and Durhan Young. They are receiving
oral evidence of some of the people who put in submissions,
whether they are for or against, but one in particular
that's captured some people's attention. Is the NT's most senior
female lawyer, Sally Garan, which you mentioned earlier today, she

(01:14):
actually has supported these changes and she's given a bit
of evidence. She is more speaking from a personal aspect
of being a Territorian and a mother and a grandmother herself,
backing these changes that safety should be the number one
initial consideration. So here's some of her information.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
So, in your view, the current law, the child protection law,
meant that kuman Jai Walker was kept in an unsafe
situation and if the law was changed that would not happen.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
Yes, yes, essentially because of the I don't have the Act,
the proposed legislation in front of me. My understanding is
that when you look at the criteria in the new section,
whatever it is, they are according to their number, the
first thing to determine is this child safe? Now, if

(02:12):
somebody had gone into the situation with Kumen Joie Walker,
they would not have been able to say that that
child was safe.

Speaker 3 (02:20):
Is you're understanding that the current act does not have
child safety as a primary principle. It's not the first
it's not the paramount principle.

Speaker 4 (02:30):
Well, if it did, there would be no need for
this amendment, So clearly there's a lot of people who
think that it does need to happen. If a child
is in a difficult situation, then clearly they need help
and their parents need help. It's a question and just

(02:54):
speaking nows a mother and grandmother, I don't know. I
just think it's really important that that child have every opportunity.
So the earlier the intervention, in my opinion, the better.
And if you go back to the commonjoy Walker matter,
if that child, that little fellow right had had some

(03:14):
assistance instead of everybody just saying, oh, he's a troublemaker,
Oh he's this, or is that that? Doesn't that My
understanding is there were absolutely no attempts to help him.
Now I don't know if there are cases where that
is continuing to occur. I don't know. I mean, but

(03:39):
it should not be happening. These are Australian children. They
are entitled to get all the assistants that a child
in Sydney or Brisbane or anywhere should get. Because they
live on community. They should not be discriminated against in
terms of their entitlements. And that's what I understand is

(04:00):
happening at the moment. And I use that Komen Jo
Walker case as an example of all of the interventions
that did nothing. He just got moved from place to
place to place. And anybody who knows anything about children
knows that if a child is not in a stable,
safe environment, they're going to be damaged. It's not rocket.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
Science, Sally Geern, she did not mince her words there
at all. Kathleen, She's not the only person that they've
heard from though this morning, is she.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
No, she's not. Obviously Cooman Jay Walker was the young
man in Yuendamu who was shot and killed by the
police officer. So obviously, on the other side of it,
there has been criticisms around this government proposal that specifically
putting safety in the legislation can be interpreted, and you know,
claims that there have been evidence in other jurisdictions that

(04:52):
it has been overused to remove children from their families
and place them in care. So Catherine Little from Snake,
which we have spoken to on this show before, she
is talking on the other side of the argument is.

Speaker 5 (05:05):
When there's conflict with the interests, what is the issue
with making it really clear in the legislation that the
safety of the child has to come first.

Speaker 6 (05:17):
So it technically already exists harm and exploitation. It's in
there again, much much broader. The issue is again and
it's their practice failings and interpretation failings, and even the
tussle that you're having in understanding that that's quite common
unless you work in sheld protection or in human rights,

(05:37):
because it is an incredibly complex field. But there is
significant evidence to show that the word itself goes wrong. So,
for example, the legislation that moved to put the word
in in South Australia is in the process of being

(05:58):
repealed right now. The it's repealed is because child removals
went through the roof. An example of how big those
child removals are. We did a consultation there once and
during the course of our consultation three people took phone
calls to say that their children were being removed or
their grandchildren were being removed. In the course of the

(06:20):
month that we were in South Australia, eighty Aboriginal Tour
Australia Lander children were removed and not reconnected. The number
of children removed at birth went absolutely through the roof.
So what was happening is people were leaning in on
the word and scared of ramifications as associated with those
with that word, and we're going, oh, my goodness, there's

(06:43):
a woman over here, and there's domestic violence reported, and
we know that that is a problem and that there
are conditions that contribute to that problem and it needs
to be dealt with. But what would happen is that
would become a mandatory report on safety and the child
is removed. So there were things where the system should
have actually wrapped around families, wrapped wrapped around a child

(07:05):
and ensured that they were safe, and they failed because
of the interpretation of that legislation.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
Do you believe that in the current act children's safety
is paramount.

Speaker 6 (07:16):
Yes, I do believe it's paramount.

Speaker 3 (07:19):
And my other question was if this act does pass
as in its current form, what do you think the
practical impacts will be on our Boriginal children in five
years time? What will we be seeing.

Speaker 6 (07:35):
Numbers of children out of home care will explode. There's
significant evidence to demonstrate that that's what will happen because
the Northern Territory, even if we're saying we're going to
strengthen conditions around children tomorrow, it will take time to
do that. And evidence shows that there are a lot
of blockages for successfully interventioned investing in child and family.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
That was Catherine Little there from Snake, speaking at the
Scrutiny Committee hearings a little a bit earlier this morning.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah, obviously the government has the numbers, so I mean
the legislation in one form or another is likely to pass.
It'll just be interesting to see if the government makes
any changes to your proposal.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Well, and look, it's always very interesting, isn't it to
hear the opposing sides, and you know what some people
think needs to happen and what others do not feel
needs to happen. But the government's been very firm on
saying that they believe safety does need to be the
number one priority in any of these situations. So we'll
wait and see what else is discussed throughout the day.