Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now it's being reported that there are plans to make
(00:02):
changes to child protection laws to make it easier for
courts to put Indigenous children in non Indigenous placements. Australia's
National Children's Commissioners have warned against these proposed changes to
child protection laws in the Northern Territory, arguing that they
would undermine basic protections for First Nation's children to be
able to grow up with their culture and community. Now
(00:25):
joining me in the studio for the first time this
year is the Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention
of Domestic Violence, Minister Robin Carl. Good morning to your minister.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Are good morning, Katie, and good morning to everyone out there.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Thanks so much for your time this morning. Now, Minister,
Australia's National Children's Commissioners have warned against these proposed changes
to child protection laws in the Northern Territory, arguing that
it would undermine basic protections for First Nations children to
be able to grow up with their culture and community.
What exactly is being proposed here?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
So, I think, first and foremost, Katie, I think it's
really important to say that the absolute priority in any
circumstance is the welfare and protection of the child, and
I'm not going to make any apologies for putting that
first and foremost. So in the course of the last
two to three months where we've been looking at what's
happening in that space, I've had a large number of
(01:23):
complaints that have been brought to my attention that I've
been looking into, where we've looked at how we actually
make sure that we do put the welfare and safety
of the child first and foremost. There have been some
very rare circumstances where we've identified that the strict application
of what is CALLUS twelve in that particular piece of
legislation has the potential to cause more harm than anything else.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So what are you saying that sometimes culture is being
prioritized over safety.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Sometimes the requirement, the perceived requirement to absolutely consult with
Because what people I need to understand is that clause
just doesn't say about placing children with families. And obviously,
whenever you've got a situation, it doesn't matter what your
background is. The ideal situation is to keep a child
connected to their family. But the consultation process can also
(02:15):
include Aboriginal communities more broadly, aboriginal controlled organizations more broadly,
and we've identified that there have been some circumstances if
that was to happen, then there would be an immediate
risk of harm to the child or an adult connected
to that child. So whilst there's not the requirement for
a strict application of the clause, that's the way things
(02:35):
have developed over the years, and looking into what's happening
in other states and territories, I've identified that every piece
of legislation has a clause which there's best interests of
the child, welfare of the child, and it reinforces that
into coming into clauses that specifically talk about Aboriginal children.
And all we're talking about is that that reinforcement that
(02:56):
over and above all else, the best interests of the child,
the wishes of the child should be put first and foremost.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Now I don't expect you to go into detail of
specific cases, but have there been situations where a child
has been put at risk because it's been more important
to place them, you know, with somebody that's maybe from
their community or that is maybe indigenous, rather than taking
(03:25):
them out of that situation.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I've certainly had people talk to about situations where, particularly
foster cares, where they've had children in their care who
have been returned to a community environment where the outcome
of that child hasn't been optimal, and where particularly, I
think the thing that worried me the most, or has
worried me the most, is where the child hasn't wanted
(03:47):
to go and there hasn't been the ability of the
child's wishes to be taken into account. I'm told that
in the Northern Territory children don't have a right to
independent legislative representation, so that's certainly something looking at as well.
But also where family members of the child have actually
feed in and said, no, we think that keeping the
(04:07):
child with the foster care, we already have a connection,
we're already really happy with the way things are going
would be our preference. But ultimately that's been overridden by
the court.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Yeah, so who's being over zealousy at the court?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
I think again, it comes back to the fact that
there is this growing belief that if you don't put
the welfare of the child or the best interest of
the child above the cultural considerations, we're going to fall
into a trap that occurred almost a century ago now,
and it's paralyzed some of the decision making and I
(04:43):
look at us now, and we're facing a situation where
we're going to be accused of abandoning these children if
we're not careful, and we really do have to make
sure that the welfare of the child is first and foremost,
and of course there is absolutely no intent whatsoever to
not have children remain connected to their culture.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
On that point, we know that the head of Snake
is on records saying that the changes are discriminatory and
go against recommendations in numerous reports intending to prevent further
stolen generations. I mean, has there been consultation with Aboriginal
stakeholders about this.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
There's been some targeted consultation with the department and key
stakeholders where they've discussed with and what the options are.
I understand some people feel that they've seen the draft clause.
That came as somewhat of a surprise to me because
the draft clause was only provided to my office a
week or so ago, and it certainly doesn't say anything
about overriding the principles generically, it certainly doesn't indicate that
(05:47):
the intent of the legislation is to do anything other
than make sure first and foremost kids are safe.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So, I mean, we've had the National Children's Commissioner on
the ABC this morning. We've had children's commissioners out saying
that you know, this is not the right move. They're
concerned about these changes. Have you consulted with them and
do you feel like you need to well, do you
feel like we're in a situation here where this needs
to happen regardless of what they say.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, there has been consultation within the territory. The fact
that our local children's commissioner hasn't seen fit to extend
her discussions with the National Children's Commissioner, that's the matter
for her. I understand that any change is scary for people.
I get that. I get the fear that people are
(06:36):
worried about, Oh, we're going to fall into another trap
of a stolen generation. But as I said, that was
a century ago that started. It's been five decades that
we've been working to ensure that that doesn't happen again.
This is about making sure, first and foremost the children
are safe. And I really struggle with a situation where
there could be anybody in any cultural group that would say,
(07:00):
please put my culture above the safety and welfare of
our children. I just cannot comprehend that, Minister.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
The ABC News reported last week that these leaked documents
outline a number of other principles the bill would make
it easier for courts not to follow, including enabling an
Aboriginal child's family members to be involved in the decision
making about them, making decisions about an Aboriginal child that
are healing focused and trauma informed, and placing an Aboriginal
(07:29):
child in care close to their community. I mean, is
this part of the legislative change that is going to
come into place.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I need. The first thing I need to say is
a document that's freely given for consultation is not a
leaked document. I think that's a really important thing to say.
You can't leak something that you've actually given document. There
was actually that there was a document. There is a
document circulated to a targeted group of stakeholders to actually
get the initial discussion going, which was followed up with
(07:59):
in person consco with those stakeholders to talk to them
about why we're looking at this, why we're thinking about
doing this. Clause twelve of that act is quite comprehensive,
and so I think it'd be easy for people to
pick and choose what they think this intent might be.
But the bottom line is, and I would encourage some
of the people who have concerns to look at the
(08:20):
legislation and other jurisdictions where first and foremost, where they
have similar clauses to our Clause twelve preempt that we're saying, yes,
this is the ideal scenario, but more than that, the
welfare and best interests of the child first need to
be considered. And that's the overarching principle of the Care
and Protection of Children Act for every child that may
(08:42):
come into care, and we're just saying that that should
never ever be overridden, that the best interests of the
child should absolutely be first and foremost, and let's be honest,
usually the best interest of the child is to undertake
that consultation and have them placed in family and in community.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Minister, if it is a situation where other states and territories,
you know, do have a similar clause or do have
this in place already, why do you reckon We've got
the national bodies coming out saying that this is not
the best move.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I'd suggest that they've not seen had a really good
look at the other legislation, and I would highly recommend
that they do that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Now I want to move along because there have been
calls growing for the Northern Territory government to act faster
on addressing domestic violence. After the landmark inquest into domestic
violence that we know obviously has looked into the deaths
of four women, and we saw recently the alleged murder
of a woman in Alice Springs, unfortunately marking the first
(09:45):
domestic violence homicide for twenty twenty five. Now, my understanding
is that after that incident you announced eight point four
million dollars for service providers to run vital programs such
as women's safe houses, legal services and initiatives aimed at
venting violence and providing safety. Now is this new money
or is it part of the one hundred and eighty
(10:06):
million previously committed.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So that announcement related to the National Safety Framework. So
it was a co joint announcement in terms of funding
between the Northern Territory and the federal government, noting that
the Northern Territories contribution in that space is around ninety
percent of that funding. And it really is about giving
some flexibility and legal support to victims of domestic and
family sexual violence. So that's in addition to the funding
(10:31):
that we've been talking about, the thirty six million dollars
a year. And I'm actually really pleased to be able
to say to you, Katie, after some lengthy consultations and discussions,
And when I talk about consultation, I'm not actually talking
about sitting in a room with bunches of paper. I'm
actually literally talking about going out there on the ground,
which I've done right across the territory. I'm now in
(10:51):
the next phase of that, which is actually going to
remote community Souls that were a younger last week and
had a fantastic opportunity to talk to some of the
service providers there and the women in the community about
what they see as priorities. So we are now in
a position where we have some guidance around where the
gaps are, guidance around where we need to actually change
(11:12):
the way in which we're delivering some of our programs.
And you'll know, the Circuit Breaker program was a program
that we have piloted in Alice Springs and Darwin and
now Catherine, so I have actually had approval to roll
that out across the territory and commit that to be
funded for the next four years, so that we can
(11:34):
actually see that immediate intervention with kids at that point
where we can address root causes, and that rolling out
of that program across the territory is actually a response
to both Recommendation seventeen and fifteen in the Coronial Inquiry.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Robin to anybody that's saying at the moment that the
Northern Territory government's dragging their fatal dragging their heels when
it comes to taking really serious, meaningful action when it
comes to domestic violence, I mean, what would you say
to those people listening this morning.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
What I'd say is that what we've seen over the
last two decades is an increase in domestic violence. We
have seen in the last eight years an eighty two
percent increase in domestic violence. So clearly we have to
change what we're doing. So it's not saying that the
work that's being done by frontline workers isn't absolutely needed,
but potentially how we're delivering it isn't working. So a
(12:26):
really good example of that is I've been looking really
hard at men's behavior programs because to me, behavior change
is where you start. But not just for men. It's
about our kids. It's about how our communities respond to
domestic violence. It's a really much broader topic than looking
just with the men. And I was astonished to learn
that one of the best funded programs in the territory,
(12:47):
around fifty percent of referrals are rejected. And when I
asked the question, why yes, because of what is required
to be a valid referral, which I was informed was
that they could only accept referrals if the prayer had
been sentenced to a minimum twelve months. So straight away
I'm like, well, that's not what we want to achieve.
We actually want to get in there from the get go.
(13:09):
So my goal is from the minute of charge that
we have people who are then referred to a behavior
change program. So the challenge in that, of course, is
when people in remand they are technically not guilty of
an offense, and so how do you deliver a program
to those people when they haven't been convicted of an offense.
But you can see that potentially there's some support work
(13:32):
that that can be given in that environment, and so
I'm currently working with the Attorney General's Office to see
how we might be able to do that, because, from
my point of view, the minute we get a charge
is the minute we need to step in because even
if at the end of the day that charge isn't
found to be there's been an altercation that's resulted in
that person being taken into custody and charge. So clearly
(13:54):
there's some work to do within that family environment and
we want to be able to get in on the
ground there.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Well, look, no doubt there is a more discussion to
be had in this space. I wish we had more time.
I just want to ask you finally. This morning, the
Northern Territory News is reporting today that Lingiari MP Marion
Scrimjaw says there's a wall of silence concerning crime in
Alice Springs, claiming that the public's got a right to
know whether alleged defenders were on bail when they committed
(14:20):
an offense. Now. The claim comes as authorities remained tight
lipped around the arrest of eight girls who are alleged to
a physically removed a woman from her car before stealing
her vehicle. Now, a thirteen year old, a fourteen year old,
one fifteen year old, as well as two sixteen and
seventeen year olds were arrested. Now, when approached by the
(14:40):
Northern Territory News. Police apparently refused to reveal whether any
of the alleged defenders were known to police or were
on bail at the time of the incident. But essentially
what Miss Scrimdaw is telling the paper is that the
public's got a right to know if there's been an
alleged defender that's out on bail that should have been
supervised but wasn't, or if they were subject to an
(15:02):
order from Territory Families as part of a child protection order,
who was monitoring them? I mean, does the public have
a right to know in these instances.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I think we've made it really very clear, particularly around
when we're dealing with offenders who have been out on bail,
with the changes to the laws that came into play
at the beginning of the Declan's Law, that if any
of these perpetrators, alleged perpetrators were out on bail and
they have been involved in a violent offense, they wouldn't
be released on bail. Again, that's been made very clear.
(15:35):
I think the challenge is how do you balance a
fair hearing and a fair approach with keeping the community safe.
I have certainly been asking the question of the Department
where we have children in our care who are supposed
to be in bail accommodation. How do we actually make
sure and support and ensure that that is actually happening.
(15:56):
There's a lot of work to do in this and
I think you know, Marian Scrimure is correct. The community
does need to know that they're safe. One of the
very strongest messages I had given to me during the
election campaign by a local businessman was we deserve to
be safe today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year.
And we absolutely do and every effort is being made
(16:16):
to ensure that that is what happens. And I know
that the Chief Minister, in her role as Minister for Police,
will be looking very closely at what's happening in this
current situation.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
We are going to have to leave it their minister.
Robin Carl, thank you so very much for your time
this morning. We'll catch up with you again soon.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Thanks Katie, thank you
Now it's being reported that there are plans to make
(00:02):
changes to child protection laws to make it easier for
courts to put Indigenous children in non Indigenous placements. Australia's
National Children's Commissioners have warned against these proposed changes to
child protection laws in the Northern Territory, arguing that they
would undermine basic protections for First Nation's children to be
able to grow up with their culture and community. Now
(00:25):
joining me in the studio for the first time this
year is the Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention
of Domestic Violence, Minister Robin Carl. Good morning to your minister.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Are good morning, Katie, and good morning to everyone out there.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Thanks so much for your time this morning. Now, Minister,
Australia's National Children's Commissioners have warned against these proposed changes
to child protection laws in the Northern Territory, arguing that
it would undermine basic protections for First Nations children to
be able to grow up with their culture and community.
What exactly is being proposed here?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
So, I think, first and foremost, Katie, I think it's
really important to say that the absolute priority in any
circumstance is the welfare and protection of the child, and
I'm not going to make any apologies for putting that
first and foremost. So in the course of the last
two to three months where we've been looking at what's
happening in that space, I've had a large number of
(01:23):
complaints that have been brought to my attention that I've
been looking into, where we've looked at how we actually
make sure that we do put the welfare and safety
of the child first and foremost. There have been some
very rare circumstances where we've identified that the strict application
of what is CALLUS twelve in that particular piece of
legislation has the potential to cause more harm than anything else.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So what are you saying that sometimes culture is being
prioritized over safety.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Sometimes the requirement, the perceived requirement to absolutely consult with
Because what people I need to understand is that clause
just doesn't say about placing children with families. And obviously,
whenever you've got a situation, it doesn't matter what your
background is. The ideal situation is to keep a child
connected to their family. But the consultation process can also
(02:15):
include Aboriginal communities more broadly, aboriginal controlled organizations more broadly,
and we've identified that there have been some circumstances if
that was to happen, then there would be an immediate
risk of harm to the child or an adult connected
to that child. So whilst there's not the requirement for
a strict application of the clause, that's the way things
(02:35):
have developed over the years, and looking into what's happening
in other states and territories, I've identified that every piece
of legislation has a clause which there's best interests of
the child, welfare of the child, and it reinforces that
into coming into clauses that specifically talk about Aboriginal children.
And all we're talking about is that that reinforcement that
(02:56):
over and above all else, the best interests of the child,
the wishes of the child should be put first and foremost.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Now I don't expect you to go into detail of
specific cases, but have there been situations where a child
has been put at risk because it's been more important
to place them, you know, with somebody that's maybe from
their community or that is maybe indigenous, rather than taking
(03:25):
them out of that situation.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I've certainly had people talk to about situations where, particularly
foster cares, where they've had children in their care who
have been returned to a community environment where the outcome
of that child hasn't been optimal, and where particularly, I
think the thing that worried me the most, or has
worried me the most, is where the child hasn't wanted
(03:47):
to go and there hasn't been the ability of the
child's wishes to be taken into account. I'm told that
in the Northern Territory children don't have a right to
independent legislative representation, so that's certainly something looking at as well.
But also where family members of the child have actually
feed in and said, no, we think that keeping the
(04:07):
child with the foster care, we already have a connection,
we're already really happy with the way things are going
would be our preference. But ultimately that's been overridden by
the court.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Yeah, so who's being over zealousy at the court?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
I think again, it comes back to the fact that
there is this growing belief that if you don't put
the welfare of the child or the best interest of
the child above the cultural considerations, we're going to fall
into a trap that occurred almost a century ago now,
and it's paralyzed some of the decision making and I
(04:43):
look at us now, and we're facing a situation where
we're going to be accused of abandoning these children if
we're not careful, and we really do have to make
sure that the welfare of the child is first and foremost,
and of course there is absolutely no intent whatsoever to
not have children remain connected to their culture.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
On that point, we know that the head of Snake
is on records saying that the changes are discriminatory and
go against recommendations in numerous reports intending to prevent further
stolen generations. I mean, has there been consultation with Aboriginal
stakeholders about this.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
There's been some targeted consultation with the department and key
stakeholders where they've discussed with and what the options are.
I understand some people feel that they've seen the draft clause.
That came as somewhat of a surprise to me because
the draft clause was only provided to my office a
week or so ago, and it certainly doesn't say anything
about overriding the principles generically, it certainly doesn't indicate that
(05:47):
the intent of the legislation is to do anything other
than make sure first and foremost kids are safe.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So, I mean, we've had the National Children's Commissioner on
the ABC this morning. We've had children's commissioners out saying
that you know, this is not the right move. They're
concerned about these changes. Have you consulted with them and
do you feel like you need to well, do you
feel like we're in a situation here where this needs
to happen regardless of what they say.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, there has been consultation within the territory. The fact
that our local children's commissioner hasn't seen fit to extend
her discussions with the National Children's Commissioner, that's the matter
for her. I understand that any change is scary for people.
I get that. I get the fear that people are
(06:36):
worried about, Oh, we're going to fall into another trap
of a stolen generation. But as I said, that was
a century ago that started. It's been five decades that
we've been working to ensure that that doesn't happen again.
This is about making sure, first and foremost the children
are safe. And I really struggle with a situation where
there could be anybody in any cultural group that would say,
(07:00):
please put my culture above the safety and welfare of
our children. I just cannot comprehend that, Minister.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
The ABC News reported last week that these leaked documents
outline a number of other principles the bill would make
it easier for courts not to follow, including enabling an
Aboriginal child's family members to be involved in the decision
making about them, making decisions about an Aboriginal child that
are healing focused and trauma informed, and placing an Aboriginal
(07:29):
child in care close to their community. I mean, is
this part of the legislative change that is going to
come into place.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I need. The first thing I need to say is
a document that's freely given for consultation is not a
leaked document. I think that's a really important thing to say.
You can't leak something that you've actually given document. There
was actually that there was a document. There is a
document circulated to a targeted group of stakeholders to actually
get the initial discussion going, which was followed up with
(07:59):
in person consco with those stakeholders to talk to them
about why we're looking at this, why we're thinking about
doing this. Clause twelve of that act is quite comprehensive,
and so I think it'd be easy for people to
pick and choose what they think this intent might be.
But the bottom line is, and I would encourage some
of the people who have concerns to look at the
(08:20):
legislation and other jurisdictions where first and foremost, where they
have similar clauses to our Clause twelve preempt that we're saying, yes,
this is the ideal scenario, but more than that, the
welfare and best interests of the child first need to
be considered. And that's the overarching principle of the Care
and Protection of Children Act for every child that may
(08:42):
come into care, and we're just saying that that should
never ever be overridden, that the best interests of the
child should absolutely be first and foremost, and let's be honest,
usually the best interest of the child is to undertake
that consultation and have them placed in family and in community.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Minister, if it is a situation where other states and territories,
you know, do have a similar clause or do have
this in place already, why do you reckon We've got
the national bodies coming out saying that this is not
the best move.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I'd suggest that they've not seen had a really good
look at the other legislation, and I would highly recommend
that they do that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Now I want to move along because there have been
calls growing for the Northern Territory government to act faster
on addressing domestic violence. After the landmark inquest into domestic
violence that we know obviously has looked into the deaths
of four women, and we saw recently the alleged murder
of a woman in Alice Springs, unfortunately marking the first
(09:45):
domestic violence homicide for twenty twenty five. Now, my understanding
is that after that incident you announced eight point four
million dollars for service providers to run vital programs such
as women's safe houses, legal services and initiatives aimed at
venting violence and providing safety. Now is this new money
or is it part of the one hundred and eighty
(10:06):
million previously committed.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So that announcement related to the National Safety Framework. So
it was a co joint announcement in terms of funding
between the Northern Territory and the federal government, noting that
the Northern Territories contribution in that space is around ninety
percent of that funding. And it really is about giving
some flexibility and legal support to victims of domestic and
family sexual violence. So that's in addition to the funding
(10:31):
that we've been talking about, the thirty six million dollars
a year. And I'm actually really pleased to be able
to say to you, Katie, after some lengthy consultations and discussions,
And when I talk about consultation, I'm not actually talking
about sitting in a room with bunches of paper. I'm
actually literally talking about going out there on the ground,
which I've done right across the territory. I'm now in
(10:51):
the next phase of that, which is actually going to
remote community Souls that were a younger last week and
had a fantastic opportunity to talk to some of the
service providers there and the women in the community about
what they see as priorities. So we are now in
a position where we have some guidance around where the
gaps are, guidance around where we need to actually change
(11:12):
the way in which we're delivering some of our programs.
And you'll know, the Circuit Breaker program was a program
that we have piloted in Alice Springs and Darwin and
now Catherine, so I have actually had approval to roll
that out across the territory and commit that to be
funded for the next four years, so that we can
(11:34):
actually see that immediate intervention with kids at that point
where we can address root causes, and that rolling out
of that program across the territory is actually a response
to both Recommendation seventeen and fifteen in the Coronial Inquiry.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Robin to anybody that's saying at the moment that the
Northern Territory government's dragging their fatal dragging their heels when
it comes to taking really serious, meaningful action when it
comes to domestic violence, I mean, what would you say
to those people listening this morning.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
What I'd say is that what we've seen over the
last two decades is an increase in domestic violence. We
have seen in the last eight years an eighty two
percent increase in domestic violence. So clearly we have to
change what we're doing. So it's not saying that the
work that's being done by frontline workers isn't absolutely needed,
but potentially how we're delivering it isn't working. So a
(12:26):
really good example of that is I've been looking really
hard at men's behavior programs because to me, behavior change
is where you start. But not just for men. It's
about our kids. It's about how our communities respond to
domestic violence. It's a really much broader topic than looking
just with the men. And I was astonished to learn
that one of the best funded programs in the territory,
(12:47):
around fifty percent of referrals are rejected. And when I
asked the question, why yes, because of what is required
to be a valid referral, which I was informed was
that they could only accept referrals if the prayer had
been sentenced to a minimum twelve months. So straight away
I'm like, well, that's not what we want to achieve.
We actually want to get in there from the get go.
(13:09):
So my goal is from the minute of charge that
we have people who are then referred to a behavior
change program. So the challenge in that, of course, is
when people in remand they are technically not guilty of
an offense, and so how do you deliver a program
to those people when they haven't been convicted of an offense.
But you can see that potentially there's some support work
(13:32):
that that can be given in that environment, and so
I'm currently working with the Attorney General's Office to see
how we might be able to do that, because, from
my point of view, the minute we get a charge
is the minute we need to step in because even
if at the end of the day that charge isn't
found to be there's been an altercation that's resulted in
that person being taken into custody and charge. So clearly
(13:54):
there's some work to do within that family environment and
we want to be able to get in on the
ground there.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Well, look, no doubt there is a more discussion to
be had in this space. I wish we had more time.
I just want to ask you finally. This morning, the
Northern Territory News is reporting today that Lingiari MP Marion
Scrimjaw says there's a wall of silence concerning crime in
Alice Springs, claiming that the public's got a right to
know whether alleged defenders were on bail when they committed
(14:20):
an offense. Now. The claim comes as authorities remained tight
lipped around the arrest of eight girls who are alleged to
a physically removed a woman from her car before stealing
her vehicle. Now, a thirteen year old, a fourteen year old,
one fifteen year old, as well as two sixteen and
seventeen year olds were arrested. Now, when approached by the
(14:40):
Northern Territory News. Police apparently refused to reveal whether any
of the alleged defenders were known to police or were
on bail at the time of the incident. But essentially
what Miss Scrimdaw is telling the paper is that the
public's got a right to know if there's been an
alleged defender that's out on bail that should have been
supervised but wasn't, or if they were subject to an
(15:02):
order from Territory Families as part of a child protection order,
who was monitoring them? I mean, does the public have
a right to know in these instances.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I think we've made it really very clear, particularly around
when we're dealing with offenders who have been out on bail,
with the changes to the laws that came into play
at the beginning of the Declan's Law, that if any
of these perpetrators, alleged perpetrators were out on bail and
they have been involved in a violent offense, they wouldn't
be released on bail. Again, that's been made very clear.
(15:35):
I think the challenge is how do you balance a
fair hearing and a fair approach with keeping the community safe.
I have certainly been asking the question of the Department
where we have children in our care who are supposed
to be in bail accommodation. How do we actually make
sure and support and ensure that that is actually happening.
(15:56):
There's a lot of work to do in this and
I think you know, Marian Scrimure is correct. The community
does need to know that they're safe. One of the
very strongest messages I had given to me during the
election campaign by a local businessman was we deserve to
be safe today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year.
And we absolutely do and every effort is being made
(16:16):
to ensure that that is what happens. And I know
that the Chief Minister, in her role as Minister for Police,
will be looking very closely at what's happening in this
current situation.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
We are going to have to leave it their minister.
Robin Carl, thank you so very much for your time
this morning. We'll catch up with you again soon.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Thanks Katie, thank you
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.