August 31, 2026 • 15 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Look, this situation over the years of short-term accommodation, it's
getting messier by the day. We know that it's leaving
hundreds of people uncertain about where they're going to be
able to stay. Now, joining us on the line to
give us her point of view on the Commonwealth's offer
is the Northern Territories Minister for Children and Families, Robyn Carl.
Good morning to you, Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Good morning, Katie.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Thanks so much for your time. Now, Minister, we just
had Senator McCarthy outline the Commonwealth Government's offer to go
halves with the Northern Territory to maintain this facility. How
come you didn't jump at that opportunity?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, the offer from the Commonwealth wasn't quite that straightforward, Katie.
So the last offer we received said that she would
consider a Commonwealth contribution in addition to the money that
we said that we had available. And in her previous letter,
there was a string of conditions that before they would
even consider that, which included... guaranteeing that we would lease
(01:02):
the facility for a period of up to 15 years
to a specific provider, that we would actually give the
infrastructure to the provider so we wouldn't own the infrastructure.
So there were many, many caveats. And the one thing
that we didn't get that I asked for is, have
you got absolute confirmation in writing from Ausco that they
(01:25):
would walk away for $ 6. 5 million? And because it doesn't
reflect the correspondence they sent to us.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
So what you're saying is that there are not only
a number of caveats in place, but essentially what you're
telling me is that Ausco haven't actually agreed to this 6.5.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Well, not in a we'll walk away for 6.5. So
the offer that Ausco came back to the department with
was that We'll do a rolling 90-day notice period, so
it's past the October period. If you need to stay there,
we will expect you to continue to pay leasing costs
(02:08):
for minimum three months, and then 6.5 would be the
purchase option at expiry. Really, if they were genuine about
the 6.5, they would have gone, yep, the lease expires.
We don't have tenure beyond October. We would accept 6.5.
The reality is that that's not what the office said.
And then they had a whole range of other rolling
(02:29):
options that they put on the table about. But if
you extend the lease to X date, we would consider
reducing the leasing costs, but we'd still want 6.5 and
so on. And it was a greater down. So the
reality for us is that Ausco don't have tenure beyond October.
They're not in a position yet. to offer or negotiate
anything beyond October because their lease expires in October.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
So they, realistically, they have to make good that land
by October when their lease ends. So what we're talking
about here is $ 6. 5 million to purchase the infrastructure that
Ausco owns, that currently sits on, is it Northern Territory
Government or Commonwealth land?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
It's Northern Territory government land.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
So literally it's that infrastructure, that $ 6. 5 million for that infrastructure.
Can you tell me exactly what that infrastructure actually includes?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
So it's a workers' camp village. It was constructed during
the time that IMPACT was under construction. I think just
from looking at the history of it, I think that
the requirement for it finished much earlier than OSCO probably anticipated.
So they had a facility that's made up of a
(03:46):
number of people have seen workers' camps. They're basically dongers.
So there's a range of dongers there that have a
number of rooms available for people to stay in. They
are about, conservatively, as far as I've been able to ascertain,
around about 12 to 13 years old. So it's infrastructure
(04:06):
that has been, over the last few years, certainly heavily used.
So wear and tear, as you would expect. We've got
kids in the facility. We've got people coming and going.
So the infrastructure is ageing. And the price that was
being asked was deemed not to be fair market value.
The work was done by the Department of Treasury about
(04:28):
what a fair market price would be, which is where
the figure of $ 3 million plus the no need to
make good the site, which is estimated to be anywhere
from $ 2 to $ 5 million. So we were basically saying
to them, We'll forego that. We'll give you the equivalent
of roughly a year's leasing to say thank you, basically,
for allowing us to keep that infrastructure and recognise that
(04:51):
you might be able to recoup some costs from the
sale of that infrastructure. We believe that the $ 3 million
was a fair market offer and they basically said no.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Look, I guess it's a difficult situation right now because
from what you're telling me, Treasury said it's only valued
at like $ 3 million. It's not worth $ 6. 5 million, as
Ausco would like to believe, because presumably it's going to
cost them a heck of a lot of money to
make good that site. But they think it's worth more,
as any seller does. It goes the same, I guess,
(05:24):
when someone's trying to sell their house. But you have
to go with what the market is. So you're saying
$ 3 million basically is what it's valued at. They want $ 6. 5.
The Commonwealth's prepared to kick in. They're saying $ 3. 5 from
what the Senator had said on the show this morning.
I mean, like, I understand both sides of the argument here.
(05:44):
I get it that, you know, we've got a situation
where we've got hundreds of people that need somewhere to stay,
but we also don't want to be bent over, to
put it really bluntly, by Ausco. But what are our options, Minister?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Well, we've been working closely with all the proponents about
what the future would look like, certainly in the interim period.
We have a very solid option on the ground, which
we're just finalising before we make any announcement about. And
the reality is that that facility, we don't anticipate that
it would be fit for purpose for much beyond the
(06:20):
next two to three years anyway. And as you'll know,
there's been lots of discussions over the last couple of
years about what would a long-term solution look like. And
there's certainly work being done on that. And in actual fact,
the Minister for the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment,
Minister Burgoyne, wrote to Malangere McCarthy and said, look, this
(06:43):
is what we're thinking about doing. Would the Commonwealth be
prepared to help us with this? And her answer was no.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
How much were you asking for from the federal government?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, there was no specific amount articulated. It was, this
is what our project is we're looking at in a
particular area.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
You can't really say this is the project we're delivering
but not give them an amount of money though either,
can you?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Well, there were estimates given as far as I'm aware,
but the actual cost of what it would look like.
So it was in principle, we would like to do this.
This is something that we could actually work with you on.
And the response back was, we already give you funding
for homelessness, so, you know. Go find that money there.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Which I guess isn't untrue. Like, we know that there
is plenty of money there in that HASS agreement. So
it's not untrue to some degree. So is the Northern
Territory Government sort of being sensible in terms of how
you do plan for this issue?
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Absolutely, we're being sensible because we recognise that in order to...
to give a longevity in a project that has a
long-term generational timeframe. You need to be able to find
the appropriate site. You need to make sure it's got
capacity for expansion. You need to make sure that it's
(08:06):
in an accessible environment. There's lots of considerations. And the
specific project that has been discussed with the Commonwealth on
and off over the last few years, including by the
former Labor government, was in relation to the work that
St Vincent de Paul had been doing around the Osman
House project. So there were some known quantities there with
(08:28):
some concepts there that were discussed and proposed. I think
the big sticking point for anything in the Northern Territory
is the actual cost of headworks, which are significantly higher
than in other parts of the country. And it's always
been a struggle to get the Commonwealth to recognise that.
But what I really want to say is in relation
to this particular project, the situation with Baton Road is
(08:51):
the last correspondence I had from Mallingerie McCarthy was not
that we will do this. It was we are prepared
to consider.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Well, she put it on the table this morning. She
said absolutely that they would go halves. That was the message.
She said the offer is there. That offer is open.
So are you saying it's an absolute no? No.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Well, I haven't seen that offer in writing and I
haven't seen an offer without any strings attached, Katie.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So that letter that was sent to you, you're saying
it's just got too many strings attached to say yes to?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well, the last letter I got says, in my last
letter to you, I advised that I am prepared to
consider a Commonwealth contribution.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
This is definitely a contribution and the previous letter which
he refers to says that in order for Commonwealth support
to be considered, We would have to commit to an
arrangement on the existing site for between 10 and 15 years,
even though I was very clear when I spoke to
her that the longevity of that site would not support
(09:53):
another 10 to 15 years.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
So the dongers, they're not going to last that long.
You know, what we've got there is just not going
to last that long.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
No, it's not. All right.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
I know that what Malandiri had said to us just
a little earlier was subject to appropriate Commonwealth approval processes.
I am prepared to consider a Commonwealth contribution of up
to $ 3. 5 million in addition to the Northern Territory Government's
proposed $ 3 million contribution to enable the purchase of the assets.
So that's obviously what she'd said in the letter. But
(10:23):
just to be, I guess, really clear, because I know
that for a lot of people listening, you know, they
may feel like, some may feel like it's a real
waste of money. Others may feel like we have got
to get this right. You know, we are talking about women, children,
families that are staying there, some fleeing from domestic violence
who won't have somewhere to go. I know you've said
they're working through a transition plan, but I mean, the
(10:45):
offers on the table, is it just a no-go or
are you prepared to go back and speak with her again?
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I've asked for her to provide confirmation in writing that
Ausco said they would walk away, no strings attached for
the 6.5. I've asked for that three times. I still
haven't received it. She hasn't given a definitive offer. As
I said, we will consider this, but you need to do,
you need that we would expect you to give ownership
(11:14):
of the assets to a specific organisation, which is not
how these services work. It's not how government works. You
don't commit to do something for that period of time
to one organisation without actually putting it out to market
and giving everybody the opportunity to put their proposals forward
(11:35):
about how they best might operate a facility. So there
are many, many strings attached to this. It is not
the conversation I had with her when she first spoke
to me. which was why I was prepared to have
a discussion with her because the discussion was very clear.
I said to her, this is our situation. This is
(11:56):
the fair market value that we have been advised. And
then she said, well, I might be able to come
up with a balance. What would that look like? And
I said, well, if you can come up with a
balance and Ausco are prepared to walk away so that
we can actually keep going, then that's great. But that
is not what came back to us in writing.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So will you sit down with her again? I mean, look,
it sort of seems to me like maybe we can
come to some kind of agreement.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Look, I'm always open to discussion, but strings are not
something that are going to go down well.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I think that's fair enough. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
And I'm certainly not going to lock into a model
for a decade or more to come. when potentially things
will change in the future.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Well, I also think it's appropriate for there to be
an actual tender process. You know, there shouldn't be one organisation,
you know, getting that facility over others if there isn't
a fair and equitable process gone through.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Especially if the intent, especially when you consider she's saying, oh,
you need to give them the assets.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Well, look.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
They have ownership. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Minister, before I let you go, can you tell me
where are things at for this transition plan for these
300-odd people that are currently staying out there at this
short-term accommodation that are really staring down the barrel of
it closing over the next few weeks?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So what I'm pleased to be able to tell you, Katie,
is that there's been a huge amount of work done
by the service providers who are on that site. So
specifically Mission Australia and Yili Yerung to look at where
they've got people who are ready for tenancy and working
with housing, they've been able to actually accommodate those people.
(13:39):
There are a number of options that have been explored
with other service providers to be able to get people
into more long-term solutions, which is what that facility is
meant to do. It's intended to be a transition process.
But over time, I think there's been a a loosening
of the way in which that service is operated so
(14:00):
that we have had people there living there for two
and three years at a time, which is not good
for them or good for the people who are trying
to come in behind them. So what I can tell
you is as of today, there are 237 people who
are still in the facility. There are a number of
them who are now about to get a second round
of offers from housing for more permanent accommodation. We've identified
(14:23):
some people who really just want to go home and
we're facilitating them to go home. And then we will
work with the remainder. We have made the commitment that
we will support those people, absolutely, and we will make
sure that they are looked after and well cared for.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Just very quickly, so it sounds as though what's going
to happen like that transition is about moving people to
more permanent homes. So you're not looking at building another
big facility, or you are, but not at that site.
You're looking at a whole raft of options.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah, there's definitely a need for transitional short-term accommodation, and
we have absolutely made the commitment to continue to provide
that service. It's just the location may need to change.
And so we've been working on what those options are.
There's a couple that are very, very positive and I'm
hoping that we can make an announcement within the next
two to three weeks. But for those people who are
(15:15):
in that situation currently in the Batten Road facility, I
have absolutely said we will absolutely look after them. We
will not abandon them and we'll make sure that they're
well cared for.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
All right, Minister Robin Carr, we are going to have
to leave it there. Minister for Children and Families, always
appreciate your time. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Thanks, Katie.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Thank you.
Look, this situation over the years of short-term accommodation, it's
getting messier by the day. We know that it's leaving
hundreds of people uncertain about where they're going to be
able to stay. Now, joining us on the line to
give us her point of view on the Commonwealth's offer
is the Northern Territories Minister for Children and Families, Robyn Carl.
Good morning to you, Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Good morning, Katie.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Thanks so much for your time. Now, Minister, we just
had Senator McCarthy outline the Commonwealth Government's offer to go
halves with the Northern Territory to maintain this facility. How
come you didn't jump at that opportunity?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, the offer from the Commonwealth wasn't quite that straightforward, Katie.
So the last offer we received said that she would
consider a Commonwealth contribution in addition to the money that
we said that we had available. And in her previous letter,
there was a string of conditions that before they would
even consider that, which included... guaranteeing that we would lease
(01:02):
the facility for a period of up to 15 years
to a specific provider, that we would actually give the
infrastructure to the provider so we wouldn't own the infrastructure.
So there were many, many caveats. And the one thing
that we didn't get that I asked for is, have
you got absolute confirmation in writing from Ausco that they
(01:25):
would walk away for $ 6. 5 million? And because it doesn't
reflect the correspondence they sent to us.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
So what you're saying is that there are not only
a number of caveats in place, but essentially what you're
telling me is that Ausco haven't actually agreed to this 6.5.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Well, not in a we'll walk away for 6.5. So
the offer that Ausco came back to the department with
was that We'll do a rolling 90-day notice period, so
it's past the October period. If you need to stay there,
we will expect you to continue to pay leasing costs
(02:08):
for minimum three months, and then 6.5 would be the
purchase option at expiry. Really, if they were genuine about
the 6.5, they would have gone, yep, the lease expires.
We don't have tenure beyond October. We would accept 6.5.
The reality is that that's not what the office said.
And then they had a whole range of other rolling
(02:29):
options that they put on the table about. But if
you extend the lease to X date, we would consider
reducing the leasing costs, but we'd still want 6.5 and
so on. And it was a greater down. So the
reality for us is that Ausco don't have tenure beyond October.
They're not in a position yet. to offer or negotiate
anything beyond October because their lease expires in October.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
So they, realistically, they have to make good that land
by October when their lease ends. So what we're talking
about here is $ 6. 5 million to purchase the infrastructure that
Ausco owns, that currently sits on, is it Northern Territory
Government or Commonwealth land?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
It's Northern Territory government land.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
So literally it's that infrastructure, that $ 6. 5 million for that infrastructure.
Can you tell me exactly what that infrastructure actually includes?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
So it's a workers' camp village. It was constructed during
the time that IMPACT was under construction. I think just
from looking at the history of it, I think that
the requirement for it finished much earlier than OSCO probably anticipated.
So they had a facility that's made up of a
(03:46):
number of people have seen workers' camps. They're basically dongers.
So there's a range of dongers there that have a
number of rooms available for people to stay in. They
are about, conservatively, as far as I've been able to ascertain,
around about 12 to 13 years old. So it's infrastructure
(04:06):
that has been, over the last few years, certainly heavily used.
So wear and tear, as you would expect. We've got
kids in the facility. We've got people coming and going.
So the infrastructure is ageing. And the price that was
being asked was deemed not to be fair market value.
The work was done by the Department of Treasury about
(04:28):
what a fair market price would be, which is where
the figure of $ 3 million plus the no need to
make good the site, which is estimated to be anywhere
from $ 2 to $ 5 million. So we were basically saying
to them, We'll forego that. We'll give you the equivalent
of roughly a year's leasing to say thank you, basically,
for allowing us to keep that infrastructure and recognise that
(04:51):
you might be able to recoup some costs from the
sale of that infrastructure. We believe that the $ 3 million
was a fair market offer and they basically said no.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Look, I guess it's a difficult situation right now because
from what you're telling me, Treasury said it's only valued
at like $ 3 million. It's not worth $ 6. 5 million, as
Ausco would like to believe, because presumably it's going to
cost them a heck of a lot of money to
make good that site. But they think it's worth more,
as any seller does. It goes the same, I guess,
(05:24):
when someone's trying to sell their house. But you have
to go with what the market is. So you're saying
$ 3 million basically is what it's valued at. They want $ 6. 5.
The Commonwealth's prepared to kick in. They're saying $ 3. 5 from
what the Senator had said on the show this morning.
I mean, like, I understand both sides of the argument here.
(05:44):
I get it that, you know, we've got a situation
where we've got hundreds of people that need somewhere to stay,
but we also don't want to be bent over, to
put it really bluntly, by Ausco. But what are our options, Minister?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Well, we've been working closely with all the proponents about
what the future would look like, certainly in the interim period.
We have a very solid option on the ground, which
we're just finalising before we make any announcement about. And
the reality is that that facility, we don't anticipate that
it would be fit for purpose for much beyond the
(06:20):
next two to three years anyway. And as you'll know,
there's been lots of discussions over the last couple of
years about what would a long-term solution look like. And
there's certainly work being done on that. And in actual fact,
the Minister for the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment,
Minister Burgoyne, wrote to Malangere McCarthy and said, look, this
(06:43):
is what we're thinking about doing. Would the Commonwealth be
prepared to help us with this? And her answer was no.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
How much were you asking for from the federal government?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, there was no specific amount articulated. It was, this
is what our project is we're looking at in a
particular area.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
You can't really say this is the project we're delivering
but not give them an amount of money though either,
can you?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Well, there were estimates given as far as I'm aware,
but the actual cost of what it would look like.
So it was in principle, we would like to do this.
This is something that we could actually work with you on.
And the response back was, we already give you funding
for homelessness, so, you know. Go find that money there.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Which I guess isn't untrue. Like, we know that there
is plenty of money there in that HASS agreement. So
it's not untrue to some degree. So is the Northern
Territory Government sort of being sensible in terms of how
you do plan for this issue?
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Absolutely, we're being sensible because we recognise that in order to...
to give a longevity in a project that has a
long-term generational timeframe. You need to be able to find
the appropriate site. You need to make sure it's got
capacity for expansion. You need to make sure that it's
(08:06):
in an accessible environment. There's lots of considerations. And the
specific project that has been discussed with the Commonwealth on
and off over the last few years, including by the
former Labor government, was in relation to the work that
St Vincent de Paul had been doing around the Osman
House project. So there were some known quantities there with
(08:28):
some concepts there that were discussed and proposed. I think
the big sticking point for anything in the Northern Territory
is the actual cost of headworks, which are significantly higher
than in other parts of the country. And it's always
been a struggle to get the Commonwealth to recognise that.
But what I really want to say is in relation
to this particular project, the situation with Baton Road is
(08:51):
the last correspondence I had from Mallingerie McCarthy was not
that we will do this. It was we are prepared
to consider.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Well, she put it on the table this morning. She
said absolutely that they would go halves. That was the message.
She said the offer is there. That offer is open.
So are you saying it's an absolute no? No.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Well, I haven't seen that offer in writing and I
haven't seen an offer without any strings attached, Katie.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So that letter that was sent to you, you're saying
it's just got too many strings attached to say yes to?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well, the last letter I got says, in my last
letter to you, I advised that I am prepared to
consider a Commonwealth contribution.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
This is definitely a contribution and the previous letter which
he refers to says that in order for Commonwealth support
to be considered, We would have to commit to an
arrangement on the existing site for between 10 and 15 years,
even though I was very clear when I spoke to
her that the longevity of that site would not support
(09:53):
another 10 to 15 years.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
So the dongers, they're not going to last that long.
You know, what we've got there is just not going
to last that long.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
No, it's not. All right.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
I know that what Malandiri had said to us just
a little earlier was subject to appropriate Commonwealth approval processes.
I am prepared to consider a Commonwealth contribution of up
to $ 3. 5 million in addition to the Northern Territory Government's
proposed $ 3 million contribution to enable the purchase of the assets.
So that's obviously what she'd said in the letter. But
(10:23):
just to be, I guess, really clear, because I know
that for a lot of people listening, you know, they
may feel like, some may feel like it's a real
waste of money. Others may feel like we have got
to get this right. You know, we are talking about women, children,
families that are staying there, some fleeing from domestic violence
who won't have somewhere to go. I know you've said
they're working through a transition plan, but I mean, the
(10:45):
offers on the table, is it just a no-go or
are you prepared to go back and speak with her again?
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I've asked for her to provide confirmation in writing that
Ausco said they would walk away, no strings attached for
the 6.5. I've asked for that three times. I still
haven't received it. She hasn't given a definitive offer. As
I said, we will consider this, but you need to do,
you need that we would expect you to give ownership
(11:14):
of the assets to a specific organisation, which is not
how these services work. It's not how government works. You
don't commit to do something for that period of time
to one organisation without actually putting it out to market
and giving everybody the opportunity to put their proposals forward
(11:35):
about how they best might operate a facility. So there
are many, many strings attached to this. It is not
the conversation I had with her when she first spoke
to me. which was why I was prepared to have
a discussion with her because the discussion was very clear.
I said to her, this is our situation. This is
(11:56):
the fair market value that we have been advised. And
then she said, well, I might be able to come
up with a balance. What would that look like? And
I said, well, if you can come up with a
balance and Ausco are prepared to walk away so that
we can actually keep going, then that's great. But that
is not what came back to us in writing.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So will you sit down with her again? I mean, look,
it sort of seems to me like maybe we can
come to some kind of agreement.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Look, I'm always open to discussion, but strings are not
something that are going to go down well.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I think that's fair enough. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
And I'm certainly not going to lock into a model
for a decade or more to come. when potentially things
will change in the future.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Well, I also think it's appropriate for there to be
an actual tender process. You know, there shouldn't be one organisation,
you know, getting that facility over others if there isn't
a fair and equitable process gone through.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Especially if the intent, especially when you consider she's saying, oh,
you need to give them the assets.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Well, look.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
They have ownership. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Minister, before I let you go, can you tell me
where are things at for this transition plan for these
300-odd people that are currently staying out there at this
short-term accommodation that are really staring down the barrel of
it closing over the next few weeks?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So what I'm pleased to be able to tell you, Katie,
is that there's been a huge amount of work done
by the service providers who are on that site. So
specifically Mission Australia and Yili Yerung to look at where
they've got people who are ready for tenancy and working
with housing, they've been able to actually accommodate those people.
(13:39):
There are a number of options that have been explored
with other service providers to be able to get people
into more long-term solutions, which is what that facility is
meant to do. It's intended to be a transition process.
But over time, I think there's been a a loosening
of the way in which that service is operated so
(14:00):
that we have had people there living there for two
and three years at a time, which is not good
for them or good for the people who are trying
to come in behind them. So what I can tell
you is as of today, there are 237 people who
are still in the facility. There are a number of
them who are now about to get a second round
of offers from housing for more permanent accommodation. We've identified
(14:23):
some people who really just want to go home and
we're facilitating them to go home. And then we will
work with the remainder. We have made the commitment that
we will support those people, absolutely, and we will make
sure that they are looked after and well cared for.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Just very quickly, so it sounds as though what's going
to happen like that transition is about moving people to
more permanent homes. So you're not looking at building another
big facility, or you are, but not at that site.
You're looking at a whole raft of options.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah, there's definitely a need for transitional short-term accommodation, and
we have absolutely made the commitment to continue to provide
that service. It's just the location may need to change.
And so we've been working on what those options are.
There's a couple that are very, very positive and I'm
hoping that we can make an announcement within the next
two to three weeks. But for those people who are
(15:15):
in that situation currently in the Batten Road facility, I
have absolutely said we will absolutely look after them. We
will not abandon them and we'll make sure that they're
well cared for.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
All right, Minister Robin Carr, we are going to have
to leave it there. Minister for Children and Families, always
appreciate your time. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Thanks, Katie.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!