NTG ‘considering its options’ after NAAJA deputy chair Colleen Rosas gave ‘dubious’ evidence in court

The Territory government says it is ‘monitoring the matter closely’ after NAAJA’s board doubled down on its decision to sack former CEO Priscilla Atkins in the face of a scathing judgment.

The Federal Court found NAAJA deputy chairwoman Colleen Rosas ‘sought to avoid confronting questions about her knowledge of objective facts by denying them outright’.

June 29: The commonwealth and NT Attorneys-General have refused to say whether they still have confidence in NAAJA deputy chairwoman Colleen Rosas after she gave “dubious” evidence in the Federal Court.

Meanwhile, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency has doubled down, maintaining it was “justified” in sacking its chief executive Priscilla Atkins, while the NT government is “monitoring the matter closely”.

On Thursday, Justice Natalie Charlesworth ruled Ms Atkins’ sacking was unlawful and found Ms Rosas gave “dubious”, “implausible” and “startling” evidence under oath.

NT Attorney-General Chansey Paech did not respond to a request for comment as to whether he maintained his confidence in NAAJA’s board, while his federal counterpart Mark Dreyfus sidestepped the question.

“The (commonwealth) government has made clear that we are concerned about governance issues at NAAJA and its ability to maintain these services,” his spokesman said.

“We are working with the NT government on these issues.”

Deputy Chief Minister Chansey Paech refused to say whether he maintains confidence in NAAJA’s board. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

NAAJA receives federal funding via the Territory government and Mr Dreyfus’ spokesman said the commonwealth was considering a review of all legal aid funding by former productivity commissioner Warren Mundy.

A spokeswoman for the NT Department of Attorney-General and Justice said the government would “consider its options and any further action” after Justice Charlesworth’s full decision was published late on Friday.

“AGD and the commonwealth government do not have the power to remove the NAAJA board,” she said.

“We will continue to work with the commonwealth government and NAAJA to prioritise service delivery to Aboriginal Territorians through the transparent and accountable use of public funds.”

A spokeswoman for NAAJA’s board, of which Ms Rosas remains deputy chairwoman, said it would review the judgment and “seek legal advice regarding our next steps”.

NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said ‘bad leadership’ would not resolve the troubled legal aid service’s issues. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

“NAAJA maintains a strong view that the board was justified in its decision to seek to

terminate the employment of the former CEO and, as a result, we are surprised and

disappointed by today’s decision,” she said.

Opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman and Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said there was “no evidence that the Albanese government has any meaningful desire to improve the management and leadership of NAAJA”.

“Bad leadership was what started the problems at NAAJA, and to think the problems will be resolved with equally bad leadership is nothing but laughable,” she said.

(Indigenous Australians) Minister (Linda) Burney cannot suggest she has any desire for this organisation to serve our most marginalised when she refuses to take any meaningful action.”

Ms Burney was contacted for comment.

NAAJA director gave ‘dubious’, ‘implausible’ evidence under oath, court finds

Friday: The deputy chairwoman of the NT’s biggest law firm gave evidence under oath that was “dubious”, “implausible” and both “startling and unconvincing in equal measure” the Federal Court has found.

Former North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency chairwoman Colleen Rosas was a key witness in a successful lawsuit brought by NAAJA chief executive Priscilla Atkins challenging her purported dismissal last year.

In a judgment handed down on Thursday, Justice Natalie Charlesworth gave a scathing assessment of the now deputy chair’s testimony, labelling her “an unimpressive witness”.

Justice Charlesworth found NAAJA failed to prove Ms Rosas had a “bona fide belief” Ms Atkins had forged her signature after the CEO made a complaint about chief financial officer Madhur Evans.

“There are so many problematic aspects of her testimony that I cannot be satisfied that in making the signature allegation she was not relevantly motivated by the complaint,” the judgment reads.

In her evidence Ms Rosas claimed she engaged an external auditor to conduct two investigations, one into alleged “misconduct” by Ms Atkins, and another relating to her complaint.

But Justice Charlesworth found that testimony was “dubious” and “contradictory to Ms Rosas’ affidavit evidence”.

“Ms Rosas’ assertion that there had been a second investigation by BDO (Australia) was startling and unconvincing in equal measure, and I cannot accept it,” she said.

“Considered in the context of her testimony as a whole, I consider Ms Rosas made that assertion to avoid confronting the problem that the issues raised in the complaint were indeed serious and because she perceived it would somehow assist NAAJA’s case.”

Colleen Rosas accused Priscilla Atkins of forging her signature but the court found NAAJA had failed to establish that was a ‘bona fide belief’.

Justice Charlesworth also found Ms Rosas’ testimony that she had made copies of Ms Atkins correspondence with the auditor which she distributed among directors and then destroyed was “implausible”.

“I am positively satisfied that Ms Rosas did not in fact distribute the correspondence at the January meeting or at all,” she said.

“I formed the impression that Ms Rosas gave that evidence in cross-examination to avoid confronting questions about why she did not disclose the correspondence.”

Justice Charlesworth said she “simply cannot accept” Ms Rosas’ “could have a genuine belief” Ms Atkins had “tampered with” board minutes recording approval of a salary increase for the CEO, as she claimed in court.

“I consider that aspect of her evidence to form a part of a pattern in which she sought to avoid confronting questions about her knowledge of objective facts by denying them outright,” she said.

“In this instance by making a very serious allegation that the person who prepared the minutes (who she suggested was Ms Atkins) had fraudulently manipulated them to record a resolution that had not in fact been made.”

NAAJA has been contacted for comment.