NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT
Growing Them Strong, Together
Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
Report following Second Meeting,
May 26-27 2011
Alice Springs
Executive Summary
The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPEMRC)
was appointed by the Minister for Child Protection, the Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA,
to undertake an independent monitoring role in regard to the implementation of
the reforms agreed to by the Northern Territory Government following the
release of the Growing them Strong, Together report of the Board of Inquiry
(BOI) in October 2010. The Committee reports to the Northern Territory
Parliament through the Minister for Child Protection every six months on the
progress of implementation of the reforms. This is the Committee’s first report.
The CPEMRC has met twice – a day meeting in Darwin in February 2011 and a
two day meeting in Alice Springs in May 2011, during which a number of site
visits were carried out.
The Committee met with the DCF Chief Executive and support staff on
8 February and all day on 26 May. Over this period DCF released its Strategic
Framework for 2011-2015 “Safe Children, Bright Futures”, part of its response
to the BOI recommendations and in April 2011, and the first six monthly
Progress Report on Child Protection Reform was released by the Minister.
During this period, the substantive appointment of the Acting Chief Executive
Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes was confirmed. CPEMRC welcomed this appointment
noting with approval the stability that was provided by her continuance in the
role.
The CPEMRC general impression was that the BOI, and subsequently the
Government as reflected in the Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic
Framework 2011 to 2014, have each recognised that reform of the child
protection and family support system does not occur quickly. The timeframe in
which developments commence within six, 12 and 24 months is appropriately
ambitious.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 1 of 30
There were 34 urgent recommendations in the BOI report that required
implementation to have commenced within the first six months. The
Department indicated in its Progress Report that movement had been made on
all of these. In addition the Report noted progress that had been made on a
further seven recommendations. DCF in its follow-up report to the CPEMRC,
documented progress it had made with respect to 66 recommendations many
of which related to progress with less urgent matters for implementation within
the first 18 months.
CPEMRC noted and supported the Department’s acknowledgement of some of
the key issues to be addressed in the change process:







The degree of cultural change needed within the DCF;
The importance of communication at all levels;
Acknowledgement of the healing process that was needed between DCF
and Aboriginal people;
Staff recruitment issues, including housing and the disparity that existed
for different categories of NT Government employees;
Pressures on frontline staff with a 12% increase in numbers of
investigations;
The need for reform of the Alternative (out-of-home) care system;
Information systems development;
Challenges involved in establishing the Aboriginal peak body
In responding to this range of identified issues the CPEMRC noted:
Priority given in the budget to preventive and early intervention services
with a 41.5% increase in funding in 2011-12 allocated to Family and
Parent Support services;

There can never be too much communication and the current strategy to
enhance this – between head office and other departmental sites and
between the Department and NGOs should be further developed.
Attention also needed to be given to ways of getting positive messages
about the progress of the reforms into the public arena.

CPEMRC welcomed the breadth of the reforms and recognised the
enormous challenges this places on DCF to keep things moving across so
many fronts. The Northern Territory Government should recognise the
demands this places on senior staff and it is important that the DCF
response be commended for the significant progress achieved to date.
The CPEMRC Meeting with Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory
Council who expressed some concerns about the lack of synchrony between
some of the Commonwealth initiatives and the Northern Territory Government
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 2 of 30
reforms, particularly in the area of family support services. The Council and
CPEMRC have agreed to have ongoing meetings to address issues of shared
concern including ways of monitoring the impact of the reforms, particularly
within the non-Government sector.
CPEMRC met with the NT Foster Carers’ Association and noted a range of their
concerns in relation to the recruitment and support of Aboriginal foster carers.
The Committee was impressed with the openness of the forum and DCF's
evident commitment to open and frank feedback and discussion. The
committee recognises that the partnership between statutory child protection
staff and volunteer general and kinship carers can be complex and challenging,
but was greatly encouraged by the understanding and commitment to
partnership by both the NTFCA and DCF.
This open and candid approach extended to all the committee's meetings with
partner agencies and DCF staff that it held in Alice Springs. These included
visits to some of the town camps where a range of issues were raised and to
the new Youth Hub with which CPEMRC were particularly impressed.
The Committee visited the Alice Springs office of DCF where a number of
concerns were ventilated by staff. The Committee was impressed with the
willingness of staff to express these concerns and the lack of hostility in the
interchanges and the clearly demonstrated commitment of senior management
to listen and subsequently respond to issues raised. In particular we were
pleased that the smouldering issue of the incomplete implementation of the
“Joint Protocol” developed several years ago to provide guidelines for
interactions between DCF and NGO staff which had been raised on several
occasions during the day was addressed by clear and decisive action by the
DCF Executive as a follow-up to these visits.
The CPEMRC in summary noted:1. The significant progress achieved
The CPEMRC considers that DCF is essentially on track with the reform
process and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to
be so. The immediate challenge, however, and one that will continue
throughout the reform process, is for these developments to be felt by
staff and partner agencies in their day to day work on the ground.
In terms of immediate impact, the committee notes the excellent
achievement in largely addressing the issue of the backlog of
assessments and investigations. It also recognises that there has been a
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 3 of 30
substantial increase in Category 1 and 2 notifications and that workload
challenges will remain well into the future.
In this context the recruitment and retention of staff will remain as the
primary challenge for DCF to fulfil its role and achieve reform. It is not
alone in facing this challenge in the Northern Territory. The cost of
housing and the absence of subsidised housing in regional centres
outside of Darwin remains the most obvious impediment.
2. Magnitude and
implemented
breadth
of
the
changes
being
envisioned and
The Committee notes that the changes being implemented affect every
nook and cranny of the child protection system. Changing the system,
including its culture is a challenge comparable with changing course for
an ocean liner. It is something that will take time, and progress will not
be uniform in all areas. Patience at all levels combined with energy and a
clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes are necessary
qualities.
3. The importance of addressing achieving a change of culture within the
child protection system
Numerous stakeholders raised the issue of the need for culture change
within the child protection system, which we felt in many people’s eyes
still equated with changes needed in the statutory authority. Whilst
culture change within DCF is clearly necessary, interagency partners,
NGOs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups also need to be
open to the possibility of change occurring in a Department despite a
history of earlier experiences that have generated negative attitudes and
mistrust towards it. Stakeholders in the child protection system need to
be open to the possibility of positive changes; otherwise there is a risk
that the glass will always be perceived as being half empty. The vision
of DCF being an employer of choice for Territorians committed to Closing
the Gap in Aboriginal disadvantage is inspiring.
4. Communicating with staff, the sector and communities about the new
directions
Change is always most obvious to those nearest to where the change is
occurring. In large bureaucracies, change in the upper echelons, whilst
significant, is often perceived as having minimal impact and relevance at
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 4 of 30
the coal face. It is important that the rationale for change and its nature,
including its benefits for clients as well as staff, is clearly understood.
This poses a significant communication challenge for those charged with
leading change. The Committee have asked DCF to provide a summary
of its existing and proposed communication strategies and how their
impact is being assessed for its next meeting
Much emphasis is being given in current Australian child protection literature to
the importance of a public health approach to protecting children and
promoting their wellbeing. This approach not only recognises the importance
of prevention and early intervention as strategies that complement statutory
and other forms of downstream interventions for children who are at risk of, or
who have sustained significant harm, but the importance of the social context
in which abuse is occurring. Without doubt the Northern Territory provides the
most challenging context in Australia for its communities, organisations and
governments to respond to the scourge of child maltreatment.
Whatever
changes are implemented to improve the formal systems to protect children,
the importance of addressing the social determinants of child abuse and neglect
must not be underestimated. The Committee wishes to support and encourage
the Minister to emphasise the importance of this work with his ministerial
colleagues and the Northern Territory community.
Child maltreatment in the Northern Territory disproportionately affects
Aboriginal children and young people and occurs in a very different context to
most of the rest of the country – a context marked by poor housing, poverty,
remoteness and often intergenerational joblessness; a relatively low ratio of
adults available to care for children; the effects of dispossession of lands on
communities’ sense of wellbeing; the loss of traditional culture; the impact of
intergenerational violence and alcohol and other chemical substance misuse.
Improving child protection response systems to improve outcomes for children,
whose safety, welfare and wellbeing are threatened by adverse environmental
circumstances and the nature of their experience of being cared for, need to be
matched by strategies directed at remediable upstream determinants of the
care they experience. This requires not just a whole of government but,
indeed, a whole of community approach. Without such a broad-based strategy,
any hope that downstream reforms will improve the safety, welfare and
wellbeing of children and young people is likely to be misplaced.
The CPEMRC would like to acknowledge the administrative support provided by
key officials of DCF, especially Samantha Ping-Nam, Pippa Rudd and Clare
Gardiner-Barnes.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 5 of 30
Background
The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPEMRC)
was appointed by the Minister for Child Protection the Hon Kon Vatskalis MP to
undertake an independent monitoring role in regard to the implementation of
the reforms agreed to by the Northern Territory Government following the
release of the Growing them Strong, Together report of the Board of Inquiry
(BOI) in October 2010 and the commitment by the Government of an additional
$130M over five years, an additional $41M being provided in Financial Year
2011-12. The Committee reports to the Northern Territory Parliament through
the Minister for Child Protection and is required to provide a written report on
the progress of implementation of the reforms on a six monthly basis.
The Committee has met twice – an all day meeting in Darwin in February 2011
(after which an interim report was provided to the Minister) and a two day
meeting in Alice Springs in 26 – 27 May 2011 which also provided an
opportunity to visit several NGOs providing services in and around Alice Springs
and foster carers and to meet with the Northern Territory Families and Children
Advisory Council (NTFCAC) and staff of the Department of Children and
Families (DCF). Prior to this meeting the Chair met with the Northern Territory
Council of Territory Cooperation (CTC) in Darwin on 25 May.
This is the first formal report of the Committee.
Committee’s Process
The Committee has been supported by Samantha Ping-Nam and Pippa Rudd
and the Chief Executive of DCF, Clare Gardiner-Barnes. For the first two
meetings the Committee met with DCF people present, and on the second day
of the Alice Springs meeting, although accompanied by DCF staff we met with
many other people. The Committee intends to spend more time in camera from
its next meeting. The Committee is exploring options for better connections
with other groups, such as NTFCAC
Recruitment of new members
Two of the committee members have resigned. Donna Ah Chee from Congress
in Alice Springs advised her resignation after being appointed as CEO of the
National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) in
Canberra and Charlie King also resigned because of his inability to quarantine
time because of other demanding commitments. Replacements for these two
people are currently being considered.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 6 of 30
Meeting with the Department Executive
The Committee met with the DCF Chief Executive on 8 February and all day on
26 May. It was noted that since the February meeting DCF had released its
Strategic Framework for 2011-2015 “Safe Children, Bright Futures”, part of its
response to the BOI recommendations and in April 2011, its first six monthly
Progress Report on Child Protection Reform was released by the Minister.
During this period, the Acting Chief Executive Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes had
also been confirmed in the substantive position. The Committee welcomed and
congratulated Clare on her appointment, noting with approval the stability that
would be achieved by her continuance in the role.
Our general impression was that the BOI, and subsequently the Government as
reflected in the Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic Framework 2011 to
2014, have recognised that reform of the child protection and family support
system does not occur quickly. The timeframe in which developments
commence within six, 12 and 24 months is appropriately ambitious.
There were 34 urgent recommendations in the BOI report that required
implementation to have commenced within the first six months. The
Department indicated in its Progress Report that progress had been made on all
of these. In addition the Report noted progress that had been made on a
further seven recommendations. DCF in its follow-up report to the Committee,
documented progress it had made with respect to 66 recommendations many
of which related to progress with less urgent matters for implementation within
the first 18 months.
The Department’s strategic framework Safe Children, Bright Futures
categorised the need for reform under seven key headings:






Supporting and strengthening families;
Keeping kids safe;
A strong and effective legal framework;
Working together;
Our people;
Healing, growing, walking together;
Building a stronger, better, more accountable system.
The progress highlighted in the first six months included:
Success recruiting 42 professional child protection staff;
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 7 of 30

Secondment of staff from New Zealand to reduce the backlog of 870
cases requiring investigation which was reduced to 31 by 12 May;

Funding of Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory
(AMSANT) to (a) create an Aboriginal Peak Body and (b) creation of
Aboriginal Child Care agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs and (c)
engage with and consult with NGOs and communities;

Implementing common assessment tools in targeted family support
services in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine;

Funding to establish a Centre for Child Development and Education
through Menzies School of Health Research;

Establishing a Child Safety and Wellbeing Directors Network;

Establishing an Information Sharing and Legislative Reform Reference
Group;

Providing funding to Northern Territory Council of Social Services
(NTCOSS) to facilitate relationships with NGOs and implementation of
specific recommendations;

Development and implementation of appropriate
caseload ratios that take local geography into account;

Development of Child Protection Crisis Response Skills Retention
Allowance to promote retention of Administrative stream staff which
includes numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees;

Introducing an incentives- based package targeting frontline staff;

Hosting a staff forum for 135 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff
to assist with workforce planning and examine ways of improving
contribution of these staff to decision making;

Drafting legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children
Act which increase the powers and functions of the Children’s
Commissioner and increasing funding for the Office.
child
protection
Issues raised
In her updated report to the Committee, with some additional information
requested by the Committee being provided on 17 June, the Chief Executive
noted the following key issues:
The degree of cultural change needed within the DCF. As the CE noted:-
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 8 of 30
“Cultural change represents more than just improving systems and
processes.
It also includes restoring the confidence of our staff,
readjusting practice priorities, investing in training, healing broken
relationships with key partners, promoting high expectations and quality
performance standards, ensuring staff take pride in and are accountable
for the services they provide.
Cultural change and the shift to early intervention and proactive
services which focus on child and safety wellbeing practices and more
rigorous evaluation processes will take time.”
The Committee noted and commended the workforce related strategies,
including streamlined managerial changes, strengthening the
involvement of staff in policy development, giving enhanced recognition
to staff who exhibited standards of excellence in management or
casework innovation and the holding of management forums that
addressed the issue of changing culture and improving communication.

The importance of communication – within DCF, between the
Department and NGOs and carers. It was acknowledged that NGOs
generally have very little awareness of the reforms and their progress
and a stronger external communication strategy was needed.
The Committee noted the range of strategies which had been developed
within the Department to improve communication between members of
the Executive and staff.

The healing process that was needed between DCF and Aboriginal
people in relation to past adverse experiences of many Aboriginal people
as a necessary prerequisite to forming stronger ongoing relationships.
CPEMRC was pleased to note that the DCF has had further discussions
with the Healing Foundation on ways in which this process can be
facilitated. The Committee welcomed the interest being shown in
Canada’s restorative justice programs and noted that trust between the
community and DCF has undoubtedly been affected by the backwash of
community attitudes to the Australian Government’s Northern Territory
Emergency Response. The report of the NTER Review Board noted that
Aboriginal people and government both wanted improved relationships
but went on to state:
“The most fundamental quality defining that relationship must be trust.
And for that to occur at the community level in the Northern Territory
there must be an active re-engagement with the community by
government. As we report, one of the impacts of the NTER was to
fracture an already tenuous relationship with government.”

Staff recruitment issues, including housing
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 9 of 30
The CE noted the increase in staff in Care and Protection services and
the net increase in professional stream employees that had occurred
following substantial investment of $1.03M. This resulted in 41 new
staff from abroad (Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand), and 33
Australians (out of 116 successful applicants) being appointed.
The
continuing high vacancy rate (51 professional and 83 administrative)
continues to affect caseloads and ability to retain staff.
The CE in noting that 75% of the children and young people in the child
protection system were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders stressed the
importance of recruiting more staff from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander background. It was estimated that about one fifth of DCF staff
identified as Aboriginal, and although this is significantly greater than the
NTPS average (8%), the aim was to have Aboriginal staff comprise 30%
of the total, a figure commensurate with their proportion in the Northern
Territory population overall. 58 of the 99 staff who identify as indigenous
are permanent, with 15 on a higher duties allowance.
The Committee welcomed the attention being given to acknowledging
staff contributions and successes and the benefits arising from the
establishment of the seven strand staff incentives package including the
establishment of a Professional Support fund.
The Committee was
particularly impressed with the professional development strategies that
had been undertaken to support staff.
The Committee noted that inequities in the public sector workforce with
regard to access to housing in remote communities remain a significant
impediment to the reforms recommended by the BOI. The Committee
subsequently explored the issue of housing with the Commissioner for
Public Employment who joined the Committee by teleconference on 26
May. The Commissioner noted that Northern Territory Police had an
enterprise agreement that included housing. He advised that the
Northern Territory Government had a policy of not providing housing to
local recruits in remote locations and noted that the problem in many
remote communities was the absence of housing stock. He noted that
the cost to the Northern Territory government of supplying houses for its
local recruits in remote communities would be enormous. He informed
the Committee that Treasury had advised that funding for staff housing
in remote communities had been included in the enhancements and if
further housing funding was needed a further submission to Treasury
should be prepared.
The Commissioner indicated that there was a
prevailing view that salaries for staff in remote areas of the Northern
Territory were not competitive with other jurisdictions. The CE indicated
that with remote incentive allowances Northern Territory salaries were
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 10 of 30
competitive with the other states. Attachment D of the DCF report
provided a comparison of Salaries and other Benefits for Statutory
equivalents to DCF in most of the other States/Territories.
The Committee was particularly concerned at the possibility of the
recruitment and housing of DCF staff making up the innovative
interagency Community Child Safety and Wellbeing teams in five of the
Territory Growth Towns being affected by problems with housing,
particularly as these have such an important community development,
prevention and early intervention role, an important element of a public
health approach to child protection.
The Committee noted discrepancies between the Northern Territory and
at least one other jurisdiction (WA) with respect to the definition of and
benefits of remoteness. In the East Kimberley (Kununurra) equivalent
WA staff receive substantially higher cost of living benefits compared to
the Northern Territory, including free housing, electricity, air-conditioning
and gas estimated to be worth $31,600 pa. (Attachment D). Several
members of the Committee indicated that they would be attending a
meeting in Melbourne with the Hon Jenny Macklin in June and would
raise with her the possibility of Commonwealth funding contributing to
the available housing stock1 in remote areas.

Pressures on frontline staff with the 12% increase in numbers of
investigations. The Chief Executive noted in her May report that as a
result of secondment of New Zealand child protection workers, only 31
of the 804 cases in “the legacy backlog” on 8 December 2010 had
outstanding uncompleted investigations. By 17 June all of these had
been completed.
The process for legacy backlog reduction included removal of cases as a
result of a data cleaning exercise (329) leaving 475 cases allocated to
the backlog team for further investigation. Of these, on review and
investigation by the backlog team 340 were identified as suitable for
closure, leaving 135 referred to a DCF office. Of these, 10 were
currently active with casework occurring at the office, 92 were referred
to an office due to existing case work and closed at the office and in 33
investigations at the DCF office had already commenced before the
backlog team had got to the case.
A further 255 cases arising as a result of notifications in 2011 were
awaiting investigation as at 2 June 2011 of which 14 were in the most
1
Her response to this question was that she would not be able to transfer Commonwealth funding for
Aboriginal to housing for Territory employees unless they were Aboriginal when consideration could be
given.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 11 of 30
serious categories with the remaining 241 being in Category three (child
concern). Over 1,000 more child protection investigations were closed in
the 10 months of the current financial year compared to the whole of
2009-10 an increase in investigation activity of 12%.

Alternative care reform. It was noted that as had occurred in other
jurisdictions there had been a marked increase in the number of children
in care – an increase from 306 in June 2006 to 643 in March 2011 of
whom 80% were Indigenous. The supply of Departmental foster care
placements has not kept pace leading to an increase from one to 151 in
more expensive private (NGO) placements which in the current financial
year are 4.9 times higher per capita than for Departmental foster carers.
The total per capita expenditure in FY 2010-11 for all children in care is
$34,601, amounting to $22.38M in total.
It was noted that a significant investment in the Learning and
Development of foster and kinship carers had occurred as a result of the
reforms, as had support for the development of stronger consultation
and partnership between the Department and carers and better means
of providing carer support and supervision.
The Committee was
impressed with the active project work going on in this area. Upgrading
this information infrastructure is vital to the effective coordination and
delivery of services and the Department’s public accountability. This is
an area of risk requiring attention.

Information systems development. The Chief Executive indicated that
considerable work and investment in updated information systems was
needed. In attempting to find out how many children in care had school
attendance issues, the only way was by a case by case approach.

Challenges involved in establishing the Aboriginal peak body The
Committee noted that DCF is working with the Aboriginal Medical
Services Alliances of the Northern Territory (AMSANT) to develop and
establish three key services – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child, Youth and Families Peak Body and two Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child Care Agencies, one in Darwin and one in Central
Australia. Funding and in-kind support has been provided towards the
establishment of the Peak and its ongoing running costs. The Aboriginal
Peak Body is to focus on the wellbeing and safety of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children, young people and families.
The Committee noted that AMSANT had called for expressions of interest
for interim board membership of the Aboriginal Peak Body and had
advertised nationally for a Chief Executive to work with the interim Board
to establish and guide the organisation through its initial set up and
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 12 of 30
operation. The Committee welcomed the fact that AMSANT has held
community forums across the Northern Territory, including in remote
communities, in order to obtain community feedback on the
development of the new Peak Body.
The Board of Inquiry report proposed that the responsibilities of the
Peak Body would include:o Policy and advocacy;
o Collaboration;
o Development of quality culturally appropriate out of home care
(through the establishment or Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Child Care agencies (ACCAs);
o Support for Aboriginal controlled health services to work with
families;
o Provision of an Aboriginal perspective in individual child
protection cases.
The Committee supported the BOI conclusion that “there are many
functions it could and should have, but there is a risk in initially setting
expectations unrealistically high. Such an agency may well find it
difficult to limit its focus to its core business given the enormity of the
potential takes it will likely want to take on”.
The CPEMRC noted that there are significant challenges for both the
Department and AMSANT which includes ensuring that the new
Aboriginal Peak Body represents all regions and Aboriginal peoples of the
Territory, and gives due attention to ensuring that Body’s membership
will assist it focusing on its key responsibilities by having appropriate
community development, welfare and wellbeing sector representation on
its Interim Board. CPEMRC suggested that further discussions need to
be held with NTCOSS and AMSANT around steps they have been taking
to improve communication between each other and with the sector.
We agree that the Peak Body will also face challenges in gaining
confidence from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector that
quality and inclusive approaches are being adopted to address child
protection and family support issues in the Territory to that ensure the
safety and wellbeing of children in the Territory. The Committee believed
that a policy of “hasten slowly” will provide an opportunity to gain
support from all the stakeholder groups.
In responding to this range of issues, the Committee noted that:Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 13 of 30

Priority given in the budget to preventive and early intervention services
with a 41.5% increase in funding in 2011-12 allocated to Family and
Parent Support services was welcomed;

There can never be too much communication and the current strategy to
enhance this – between head office and other departmental sites and
between the Department and NGOs should be further developed.
Attention also needed to be given to ways of getting positive messages
about the progress of the reforms into the public arena.

CPEMRC notes and welcomes the breadth of the reforms and recognises
the enormous challenges this places on DCF to keep things moving
across so many fronts.
The Northern Territory Government should
recognise the demands this places on senior staff and it is important that
the DCF response be commended for the progress achieved.
Performance Management and Evaluation Framework
A Subcommittee of CPEMRC had been appointed at the first meeting to provide
advice on the development of this framework, which addresses
Recommendations 2, 22, 53 - 55, 59, 100, 135.
The Framework will need to provide guidance on:1. The establishment of ongoing guidelines for the implementation of the
Board of Inquiry report into the child protection system; and
2. The establishment of a longer-term evaluation framework which will
guide an eventual evaluation into the impact the recommendations of
the report have had on the wellbeing of Northern Territory children who
are victims of abuse or neglect (or who are at risk of becoming so).
It is anticipated that it will take 12 months to complete the development of the
Performance Management and Evaluation Framework (PM&EF), a process that
will require extensive consultation.
The Subcommittee provided a report to the Committee which recommended
that:
The process of formulating the PM&EF be commenced immediately;

The PM&EF be undertaken by DCF (i.e. not outsourced)

The PM&EF be incorporated into a single document; and
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 14 of 30

Project oversight to be provided by the CPEMRC subcommittee and the
schedule of reporting to the Committee on the project’s progress is
designated as per the project timelines provided at Appendix B.
The Committee endorsed these recommendations.
Meeting with Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory
Council
The Committee met with several members of the Council - Liza Balmer, Jane
Lloyd and Geoff Stewart. The Council members expressed concern about the
lack of synchrony between some of the Commonwealth initiatives and the
Northern Territory Government reforms, particularly in the area of family
support services. They also raised the question as to how progress of the
reforms and in particular, engagement with the NGO sector was to be
measured. Council members were concerned about previously unsuccessful
attempts to share information between DCF’s predecessor and NGOs. They
were particularly concerned to look at ways in which the Council and
Committee could keep in touch and meet together over the life of the
Committee.
Further consideration to this request is being given by the
Committee.
Issues raised at meetings with non-government agencies
The Committee met with a range of NGO groups on Thursday and Friday that
are listed in the appendix.
Northern Territory Foster Carers’ Association Members of the CPEMRC were
pleased to be asked to attend a meeting of foster carers and the Northern
Territory Foster Carers’ Association and DCF staff on both Thursday and Friday
morning, where carers were invited to raise issues of concern to them and the
improvements they want to see. Amongst the issues raised were:





The lack of trained experienced carers;
Poor communication between the Department and carers;
The importance of key paperwork to accompany children taken into
care;
The circumstances under which children were removed was more
disempowering than it needed to be;
The importance of changed practices;
Concerns about the challenges facing unregistered Indigenous carers in
meeting the standards required to register as foster carers.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 15 of 30
There was a clearly expressed hope that management in the Department would
take the leadership in driving the new culture of openness and partnership.
The committee was impressed with the openness of the forum and DCF's
commitment to open and frank feedback and discussion. The committee
recognises that the partnership between statutory child protection staff and
volunteer general and kinship carers can be complex and challenging, but was
greatly encouraged by the understanding and commitment to partnership by
both the NTFCA and DCF.
This open and candid approach extended to all the committee's meetings with
partner agencies and DCF staff that it held in Alice Springs.
The Committee visited a number of the Town Camps on Friday morning
accompanied by Dorrelle Anderson from the DCF office in Alice Springs who
acted as a guide and translator. These included Tangentyere Town Camps (the
learning centre at Yarrenyty Altere, and the community centre at Karnte), the
Hidden Valley Community Centre, and the Akeyulerre Healing Centre in Alice
Springs.
A number of issues were raised. These included: The desire for good relationships between the camps and DCF;
 Difficulties around long term case planning and engagement of families
in planning;
 Confusion in families around what the perceived problem with their care
of their children is and what action is being taken by DCF;
 Concerns around getting vulnerable teenage girls back into the school
system;
 Poor documentation of interagency casework planning meetings;
 Staffing shortages in the DCF office in Alice Springs and the difficulties
this caused for good practice and the handling of complaints;
 The failure to work in accordance with a Joint Protocol between DCF and
the town camps developed about 2007 (see below);
 School attendance issues and transport difficulties;
 Maintaining school attendance in high school;
 School attendance being affected by parental drinking behaviour;
 Continuing community violence;
 Minority of families in town camps are employed (e.g. 6 out of 20 in
Hidden Valley);
 Insecurity of funding of particular camps.
DCF staff drew attention to the challenges for the Alice Springs office in a
number of areas including:Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 16 of 30




Dealing with unregistered carers;
Many changes of management personnel;
Significant vacancies in professional stream staff (eight FTE at the time
of our visit);
Workload issues especially in relation to the fact that reducing the
backlog of investigations has in effect relocated the bottleneck to the
next stages of referral and case management process.
Further information about the Joint Protocol which was developed in 2003 and
revised at the end of 2006 was provided by the CE. The Senior Manager of
Alice Springs Child Protection services noted in early 2011 that the protocol had
not been actioned or implemented satisfactorily. A process for updating and
“re-energising” the protocol is currently being undertaken that will involved DCF
staff and NGOs, which will need to be accompanied by staff training to ensure
ownership, knowledge and participation in its use will occur. Feedback from
community agencies informed about this process has been positive.
Visit to Youth Hub
The Committee also visited the Youth Hub and met John Adams, the Youth
Services Coordinator (DCF) and was also welcomed to the site by the Minister
for Central Australia, Mr Karl Hampton. The Hub is an important component
of the overall Alice Springs Youth Action Plan which was launched in 2009 to
help make the community safer and help young people stay out of trouble.
The CPEMRC was very impressed with what they saw and heard during this
visit.
The Youth Hub aims to provide a safe place for young people to meet, get
information, learn new things and have fun.
It provides a focal point for the coordination of youth services.
Key elements of the Youth Hub include:

An integrated presence and approach between government and the nongovernment sector to deliver support and services to the youth sector and
their families;
Youth related services to be available on site include: the Department of
Children and Families Family Responsibility Support Centre, Youth at Risk
Team and Streetworks Outreach Service;
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 17 of 30

The consolidation of recreation, counselling and general education
activities within the precinct.
In addition, CREATE will be opening an office in the Hub once the current
refurbishments are completed which will offer a unique opportunity for children
and young people who have had any out-of-home care experience, to be
consulted and have a voice in service developments.
Governance is provided by a cross-agency group chaired by John Adams that
ensures Northern Territory, Federal, local government and non-government
youth sector organisations are working together to provide the best services
to young people.
Visit to Mobile Outreach Service Plus
The Committee also met with staff at Mobile Outreach Service Plus (MOS Plus),
led by Alistair MacDonald, a joint program being implemented in the context of
the Health Services and the Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory National
Partnership Agreements between the Australian and Northern Territory
Governments. This provides culturally safe counselling and support services in
response to any form of child abuse-related trauma in remote areas, and is The
Australian Government’s commitment to funding a therapeutic response to
neglect and abuse, complemented by appropriate non case-related services to
children and their families and communities. MOS Plus complements the role of
many primary health care providers. The program is also intended to increase
referral pathways through partnerships with the broader remote health and
community services sector. These funds also improve access to remote forensic
sexual assault services. MOS Plus teams consist of professional counsellors and
Aboriginal Therapeutic Resource Workers who provide casework services,
community education and professional development services to Aboriginal
children, families and community members in remote Northern Territory.
The Committee noted the significant challenges in providing therapeutic
services on a mobile basis in what is essentially a cross cultural setting. It was
impressed with the role of the Aboriginal staff in bridging this gap, and
management’s understanding of the challenges inherent in providing the
service.
Issues raised at meeting with Department of Children and Families,
Alice Springs, Mwerre House Alice Springs
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 18 of 30
The Committee, accompanied by members of the DCF Executive took the
opportunity to meet with staff in the Alice Springs office where a number of
concerns were raised in a very open manner. These included:
The importance of staff being listened to and consulted, especially
Aboriginal staff;

Perceived lack of communication about reform, and staff’s high
expectations about big change expected after BOI Report. Change is
happening but staff need to be clearer and realistic about the time it
will actually take;

Salary levels;

Concerns about poor understanding of roles - e.g. Foster Carers all
have a different idea about their job;

Concerns about standards of practice;

The importance of improved orientation, training and familiarisation;

Need to update the staff manual;

Practice models from the southern states weren’t appropriate in
Northern Territory;

No one ever hears about the good things being done in child
protection;

Absence of a substantial well-functioning NGO sector in Alice Springs;

The importance of Inter-agency meetings to develop relationships with
partners (and the successes of these when chaired by Central Lands
Council;

The challenges of breaking down the historical reputation of difficult
relationships with The Department shared by outside agencies;

The protocol for understanding with NGOs worked well to begin with,
but fell over in about two years;

Service being so driven by crises;

Lack of systems or processes;

Huge impact of staff vacancies (currently eight vacancies) and staff
turnover:-
Caseloads are stretched and allocation should take into account
the complexity of cases;
-
Work is needed on unallocated cases to uncover who is most at
risk;
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 19 of 30
-
No time to do what needs to be done;
-
Writing reports on children whom staff know nothing about;
-
Distinct lack of planning around permanency planning;
-
Working in a funnel;
-
Being taken away from core business to attend external inquiries
puts more children at risk;
-
A wall of work is coming in daily.
 . Incentive package needs to be re-jigged;

Difficulties around youth crime and anti-social behaviour;

Desperately need creation of youth court ;

Lack of youth shelters;

Concerns about the Youth Hub’s lack of immediate impact meaning that
Caseworkers may end up with more cases;

Concerns about the number of children who have been in long-term
Foster Care (e.g. 8-9 years) and challenges of reunification after this
period;

Staff perception that there has been more paperwork since the reforms;

Concerns about implementing the specific Remote Teams.
Responses to a number of these issues have been provided by DCF Executive in
the updated June 2011 report (pp 31-32). In particular:
The protocol for information sharing and cooperation with the NGO
sector;

Operation of remote teams;

Consulting with Indigenous staff;

Links with the Youth Hub.
The Committee was impressed with the willingness of staff to express their
concerns and the lack of hostility in the interchanges and the clearly
demonstrated commitment of senior management to listen and subsequently
respond to issues raised.
Issues raised at meeting with Northern Territory Council of Territory
Cooperation.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 20 of 30
The chair met with the Northern Territory Council of Territory Cooperation the
day before the meeting. A number of issues were raised and questions taken
on notice. A separate response to the Council has been provided.
Committee’s analysis of progress based on information gathered from
multiple sources.
1. The significant progress achieved
The CPEMRC considers that DCF is essentially on track with the reform
process and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to
be so. The immediate challenge, however, and one that will continue
throughout the reform process, is for these developments to be felt by
staff and partner agencies in their day to day work on the ground.
In terms of immediate impact, the committee notes the excellent
achievement in largely addressing the issue of the backlog of
assessments and investigations. It also recognises that there has been a
substantial increase in Category 1 and 2 notifications and that workload
challenges will remain well into the future.
In this context the recruitment and retention of staff will remain as the
primary challenge for DCF to fulfil its role and achieve reform. It is not
alone in facing this challenge in the Northern Territory. The cost of
housing and the absence of subsidised housing in regional centres
outside of Darwin remains the most obvious impediment.
2. Magnitude and
implemented
breadth
of
the
changes
being
envisioned and
The Committee notes that the changes being implemented affect every
nook and cranny of the child protection system and the relationships
between the statutory agency, other government agencies (both
Australian and Northern Territory) the Non-Government sector and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups. Changing the system,
including its culture is a challenge comparable with changing course for
an ocean liner. It is something that will take time, and progress will not
be uniform in all areas. Patience at all levels combined with energy and a
clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes are necessary
qualities.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 21 of 30
3. The importance of addressing achieving a change of culture within the
child protection system
Numerous stakeholders raised the issue of the need for culture change
within the child protection system, which we felt in many people’s eyes
still equated with changes needed in the statutory authority. Whilst
culture change within DCF is clearly necessary, interagency partners,
NGOs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups also need to be
open to the possibility of change occurring in a Department despite a
history of earlier experiences that have generated negative attitudes and
mistrust towards it. Stakeholders in the child protection system need to
be open to the possibility of positive changes; otherwise there is a risk
that the glass will always be perceived as being half empty. The vision
of DCF being an employer of choice for Territorians committed to Closing
the Gap in Aboriginal disadvantage is inspiring.
A quote from the Review Board established to enquire in to the NTER is
pertinent
“One thing very clear to the Review Board: the way forward from the
Intervention can not be based on a return to ‘business as usual’. Both
Aboriginal people and the Australian Government want a new
relationship. The most fundamental quality defining that relationship
must be trust. And for that to occur at the community level in the
Northern Territory there must be an active re-engagement with the
community by government. As we report, one of the impacts of the
NTER was to fracture an already
tenuous relationship with
government.”
4. Communicating with staff, the sector and communities about the new
directions
Change is always most obvious to those nearest to where the change is
occurring. In large bureaucracies, change in the upper echelons, whilst
significant, is often perceived as having minimal impact and relevance at
the coal face. It is important that the rationale for change and its nature,
including its benefits for clients as well as staff, is clearly understood.
This poses a significant communication challenge for those charged with
leading change. The Committee have asked DCF to provide a summary
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 22 of 30
of its existing and proposed communication strategies and how their
impact is being assessed for its next meeting.
Concluding thoughts
Much emphasis is being given in current Australian child protection literature to
the importance of a public health approach to protecting children and
promoting their wellbeing. This approach not only recognises the importance
of prevention and early intervention as strategies that complement statutory
and other forms of downstream interventions for children who are at risk of, or
who have sustained significant harm, but the importance of the social context
in which abuse is occurring. Without doubt the Northern Territory provides the
most challenging context in Australia for its communities, organisations and
governments to respond to the scourge of child maltreatment.
Whatever
changes are implemented to improve the formal systems to protect children,
the importance of addressing the social determinants of child abuse and neglect
must not be underestimated. The Committee wishes to encourage the Minister
to emphasise the importance of this work with his ministerial colleagues and
the Northern Territory community.
It is very clear that the gains achieved by the Department of Families and
Children in addressing the priority recommendations of the BOI will be very
difficult to sustain without an equivalent investment in upstream preventive and
early intervention strategies by other human services agencies such as Health,
Housing and Education and the community controlled and NGO sectors. It is in
this regard that Minister can ensure that the implementation of Northern
Territory Early Childhood Plan, now in development by the across-government
Early Childhood Steering Committee, is given the level of support it requires
from his ministerial colleagues, their departments and the broader Northern
Territory community.
Context of the system to protect children’s safety, welfare and wellbeing in
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory faces unique problems in grappling with the promotion
of the safety, welfare and wellbeing of its children and young people. In 2004,
the Territory’s population (excluding Darwin) was the youngest of all Australian
jurisdictions, with the median age at 28 years (compared to a median age of 36
years across Australia). Children and young people thus make up 28% of the
total population of 227,000 and a third of the total population are Aboriginal.
43.3% of the Territory’s children are Aboriginal rising to 84% in remote areas.
This creates enormous difficulties for the provision of human services, including
health, education, child protection and policing.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 23 of 30
“A higher number of remote communities are located in the Territory compared
to other jurisdictions — in Northern Territory there are over 96 remote
communities. With over three quarters of the Indigenous population living in
either remote or very remote areas, the effect of servicing the population is
that resources, including policing resources, are required to be spread over vast
remote areas. This is therefore a responsibility of proportionately greater
logistical complexity and a higher cost per capita.”
(Allen Consulting Group 2010, Independent Review of Policing in Remote Indigenous
Communities in the Northern Territory.)
Teenage birth rates are 3.8 times greater than in Australia generally, with
Aboriginal rates 4.3 times higher than non-Indigenous Territorians. Low birth
weight rates are 50% higher than elsewhere in the country, reflecting the
higher proportion of Aboriginals in the population rather than comparatively
higher rates to the rest of the country in either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal
rates. Death rates in children under one year of age living in remote or very
remote locations are over 60% higher than similar locations elsewhere in the
country.
Recent data from the Northern Territory Department of Education and Training
show that 65% of Aboriginal children in very remote locations attended school
for less than 60% of the time in 2010, a proportion that has increased from
44% in 2006; only 13% attended school for more than 80% of the time a
decline from 23% over the same period.
47% of Aboriginal children
commencing school are developmentally vulnerable on two or more domains of
the Australian Early Development Index.
As the recent Allen Consulting Group reports, The Northern Territory has a
higher population in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic areas — 34 per
cent compared to a national proportion of 13 per cent of the population. Of all
jurisdictions, the Northern Territory has the lowest proportion of Indigenous
residents owning or purchasing their home. The gap between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous people living in a home owner/purchaser household was the
largest in the Northern Territory (SCRCSP 2009). Only 10.3% of Aboriginal
people in the Northern Territory own or are buying their own home compared
with (a) 28.9% for Australia generally and (b) 72% for the non-Indigenous
Northern Territory population.
Allen Consulting also note that reported crime rates in the Northern Territory
are significantly higher than those in other states and territories. The following
points illustrate the prevalence of reported crime in the Northern Territory
according to the latest ABS figures (2005 & 2009b):
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 24 of 30
•
In terms of personal crimes, which include robbery, assault and
sexual assault, the Northern Territory has the highest victimisation
prevalence rate of 6.6 per cent (followed by Queensland with 6.1 per
cent);
•
Compared to every other Australian jurisdiction, the Northern
Territory has the highest imprisonment rate at 658 prisoners per
100,000 adults, which is over three times the national average.
Given that a third of the population are Aboriginal it is not surprising
that 81.8% of prisoners in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal.
Anthropological studies also report evidence of comparatively high rates of
contemporary and pre-colonial interpersonal violence, particularly involving
women in remote Australia compared to other populations. In Neolithic British
and Iron Age Italian remains, between 7% and 13% showed skull fractures
compared to 20% or more in Australian pre-colonial remains, with female rates
being up to double this (Sutton P, 2011). Minister Macklin reports (June 6,
2011) that Indigenous women and girls currently are 35 times more likely to be
hospitalised due to family violence assaults than non-Indigenous women."
Aboriginal men in Central Australia have acknowledged and apologised for the
violence perpetrated against Aboriginal women:
“We acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt, pain and suffering caused by
Aboriginal males to our wives, to our children, to our mothers, to our
grandmothers, to our granddaughters, to our aunties, to our nieces and to our
sisters ...” (Inteyerrkwe Statement Aboriginal Male Health Summit, Ross River,
June 2008)
Given the absence of police on many remote communities until the NTER, it
would be surprising if crimes related to interpersonal violence were not
underreported.
However since the NTER, crime rates have diminished. Confirmed aggravated
assault incidents recorded by police in NTER communities dropped by 31 per
cent between 2009 and 2010 following an increase of 15 per cent between
2008 and 2009. Moreover convictions for assaults have also decreased by 15
per cent between 2009 and 2010 despite a 28 per cent increase between 2007
and 2009. These data give some cause for optimism.
In terms of child protection issues, in 2008-09, the Northern Territory had the
highest number of children who were subject to a substantiation of a
notification received (for child protection), with 12.9 substantiations per 1,000
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 25 of 30
children. This rate was well above the national average of 7.6 substantiations
per 1,000 children. It should, however, be noted that each jurisdiction employs
different policies and approaches to child protection (AIHW 2010).
Alcohol consumption and deaths attributable to alcohol are significantly higher
in the Northern Territory with Territorians consuming an average of 14.3 litres
per capita (16.1 litres per capita in Aborigines) compared to the Australian
average of 9.88 litres. Death rates attributable to alcohol are twice the national
average in non-Aboriginals and 9-10 times higher for Aboriginals. These figures
do not include the documented higher rates of alcohol-related hospital
admissions and the effects of alcohol ingestion during pregnancy on the
prevalence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and its accompanying
developmental deficits.
Thus, child maltreatment in the Northern Territory occurs in a very different
context to most of the rest of the country – a context marked by poor housing,
poverty, remoteness and often intergenerational joblessness; a relatively low
ratio of adults available to care for children; the effects of dispossession of
lands on communities’ sense of wellbeing; the loss of traditional culture; the
impact of intergenerational violence and alcohol and other chemical substance
misuse. Improving child protection response systems to improve outcomes for
children, whose safety, welfare and wellbeing are threatened by adverse
environmental circumstances and the nature of their experience of being cared
for, need to be matched by strategies directed at remediable upstream
determinants of the care they experience. This requires not just a whole of
government but, indeed, a whole of community approach. Without such a
broad-based strategy, any hope that downstream reforms will improve the
safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people is likely to be
misplaced.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 26 of 30
CHILD PROTECTION EXTERNAL MONITORING AND REPORTING
COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0
OVERVIEW
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
RESPONSIBILITES
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
(CPMRC) will oversight the reform process and implementation and will
be chaired by a prominent person with content expertise.
It will draw together the necessary partnerships and expertise required to
deliver on the intent of the Board of Inquiry Recommendations.
The Government will report to Parliament through the Minister for Child
Protection, twice yearly, on the effectiveness of the reform delivered.
Report to Parliament through the Minister for Child Protection, on a twice
yearly basis, in relation to the progressive implementation of the agreed
Board of Inquiry Report Recommendations.
Consider and respond to matters raised by the Chief Executive’s taskforce.
Provide expert advice to government to inform the implementation of
reform initiatives.
Raise issues as required directly with the Minister for Child Protection.
The Committee will make recommendations to the Minister for Child
Protection in relation to any matters that are critical to achieving the
required outcomes.
STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Membership will comprise of eight members including prominent child
protection experts.
The term of the membership will be 3 years with the option of an
extension. The Committee will meet four times a year.
The Committee will provide a written report on the progressive
implementation of the Reform initiatives to the Minister for Child
Protection twice yearly.
The Committee will conduct high level consultations as required to
achieve a whole-of-government approach and a public engagement in
relation to the progress of the reforms.
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 27 of 30
Northern Territory Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting
Committee
AGENDA
Meeting Details:
2nd Committee
Meeting
Time:
10.30 – 6.00pm
Location:
Crowne Plaza Alice Springs
Committee Members:
Professor Graham Vimpani (Chair), Terry Murphy, Jacqui Reed, Frank
Hytten, Teresa Neihus, Dr Sven Silburn
Secretariat:
Samantha Ping-Nam, Secretariat
Other meetings attendees
Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Pippa Rudd, Fran O’Toole, Danyelle Bodaghi, Sue
Trembath, Dorelle Anderson, John Adams, Ken Simpson
Item
Time
Date of
Meeting:
Thursday 26 & Friday 27 May 2011
Description
Notes
DAY 1
10:30 – 10.45
1
Morning Tea on arrival

Welcome and introduction from Committee Chair
Professor Graham Vimpani
10.45 – 11.30
2
DCF

Update on Department of Children and Families and
the Response to the Board of Inquiry
Clare Gardiner-Barnes, A/Chief Executive
Pippa Rudd, A/Senior Director, Strategic Reform
and Accountability
Item
Time
Description
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Notes
Page 28 of 30
3
11:30 – 12.00
Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Employment
– Telelink
~ Ken Simpson PH: 8999 4104
4
12:00 – 1.30

Remote area conditions

Workforce
Reporting and Evaluation

Performance Management Evaluation Framework
External Monitoring & Reporting Sub-Committee
- Sven Silburn, Jacqui Reed, Frank Hytten

Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Teams

Strategic Investment Framework
Fran O’Toole and Danyelle Bodaghi, DCF
5
1:30 – 2.00
Lunch
6
2.00 – 3.00

Foster Care Reforms
Sue Trembath, DCF
7
3.00 – 4.00
Committee planning and discussion

Endorsement of TOR

Items for follow up

3rd committee meeting proposed dates
8
4:00 – 4.15
Afternoon Tea/refreshments
9
4.15 – 5.15

Meeting with representatives of the NTFC Advisory
Council
10
5.15 – 6.00

Day 2 planning and Agenda
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 29 of 30
Item
Time
Description
Notes
DAY 2
1
07:30 – 8:15am
Hotel Breakfast (Crowne Plaza meeting room)

2
08:15 – 8.45am
Together with Dorelle Anderson of DCF Alice
Springs
Agency presentation (Crowne Plaza meeting room)

Foster Care Alice Springs
Teresa Neihus
3
Agency visit
Tangentyere
4
09.00 – 10.00

Yarrenyty Altere Learning Centre
10.00 – 11.00

Karnte Camp Community Centre
11.00 – 11.30am
Morning Tea Break
5
6
Agency visit
11.30 – 12.15

Hidden Valley Community Centre
12.15 – 1.00

Akeyulerre (Healing Centre)
1:00 – 2:30
Lunch
Agency visit

Youth hub
John Adams, DCF
7
2:30 – 4.00
Agency visit

Department of Children and Families
Dorelle Anderson
Report of Northern Territory Child Protection
External Monitoring and Reporting Committee
July 2011
Page 30 of 30