Cunningham: Sense must prevail to prevent an avoidable death
It’s sensible if an Aboriginal child must be removed from their parents, they be placed with a family member or another Indigenous family. But adhering to this principle at the expense of the child’s welfare, as has happened in the past, is madness.
News
Don't miss out on the headlines from News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
When a child has to be removed from their parents due to abuse or neglect, the first priority of authorities should be the safety of that child.
This should be an uncontroversial statement.
But welcome to 2025, where ideology often trumps common sense, despite the beginnings of a global correction on this front.
And so we’ve had the controversy in the NT over the government’s plan to change child protection legislation.
A draft bill that has been circulated to stakeholders would remove a requirement for strict adherence to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle.
The principle states that a child who is removed is first placed with an Indigenous family member, with another Indigenous carer if no family member is suitable or available, and only with a non-Indigenous carer as a matter of last resort.
This principle has previously created situations where the safety of children has been jeopardised with serious, or even deadly consequences. (More on that later).
Child Protection Minister Robyn Cahill says the legislative change is necessary because she is aware of six cases where strict adherence of principle would result in harm to children and adults associated with those children.
The minister has now put forward a draft bill that states: “It is proposed that the amendment be made to ensure that even if it is practical to uphold a principle … a court has discretion to not uphold the principle in special/exceptional circumstances where upholding the principle may adversely impact the safety and wellbeing of children and/or adults within a family or community.”
This all seems perfectly reasonable and sensible.
But it hasn’t stopped a wave of outrage being directed at the government, much of it from places far beyond the borders of the NT.
National Children’s Commissioner Anne Hollands was among those to raise her concerns about the proposed changes.
“Along with the recent lowering of the age of criminal responsibility by the NT Government, these new measures are not based on evidence, and they risk harming vulnerable children. This will not help the broader NT community,” Commissioner Hollonds said.
“Evidence shows that connection to culture, family and community is a key protective factor for children and helps prevent crime.”
Let’s consider some of the evidence that exists around this issue.
The piece of mandatory reading on this subject should be Coroner Greg Cavanagh’s report into the 2007 death of 12-year-old Aboriginal girl Deborah Melville.
She spent a week in agony after suffering a leg infection before dying in the dirt of the Palmerston backyard at the home she was living in with her four siblings and their aunt, Denise Reynolds.
Melville and her siblings had been removed from their parents after years of neglect.
They were placed with Reynolds, who was deemed the only suitable carer for the children.
In the following seven years, leading up to Deborah’s death, the coroner found there were a “number of signs indicating patterns of neglect of the Melville children or indications that were at risk”. But even though Reynolds expressed her desire to give up the children, the department did not explore options because they did not want Aboriginal children placed with non-Indigenous carers.
In some cases, concerns about the abuse or neglect of the children were deliberately downplayed or ignored.
In 2002, Heather Matthews from the department compiled a report detailing this potential neglect, but later provided evidence to the family court that the children were being adequately cared for.
Cavanagh noted that “Matthews was criticised by Karu (the now-defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander childcare agency) for raising the concerns she did and was told not to import her white middle-class values on Aboriginal families.”
“She was told the by raising those concerns she was contributing to the development of a second stolen generation,” Mr Cavanagh wrote.
“Such criticisms, which were entirely misplaced and worked against the children’s best interests, had the desired effect of producing a form of self-censorship in Matthews.”
It was only after Deborah’s horrific, painful death that her siblings were moved from their aunt’s custody.
“After Deborah died, the Melville children were removed from Denise without the disastrous consequences predicted by some,” Mr Cavanagh wrote in his report.
“Natasha Tenholder, who is neither Aboriginal nor related to the children, has been the children’s carer for some time. Anthea Motter stated that the four Melville children have a good relationship with Natasha, and she provides good care for the children. They are happy, well-adjusted children.”
It’s sensible that if an Aboriginal child must be removed from their parents, they be placed where possible with a family member or another Indigenous family.
But adhering to this principle at the expense of the child’s welfare, as has happened in the past, is madness.
If the government’s planned changes to the child protection act prevent another death like Deborah Melville’s, then they should be applauded.
Those criticising the move because it’s not based on “evidence” need to do a bit more reading.
Originally published as Cunningham: Sense must prevail to prevent an avoidable death
Size matters as new incentive could land fishos more cash
There’s plenty of reasons to cast a line in February particularly with an exciting new twist to the Million Dollar Fish, which could see one lucky fisho walk away with an extra $40k.
How many Territory businesses went bust in 2024
Nightclubs, kids play spaces, wilderness expeditions: Fresh data has revealed just how many businesses in the NT went belly up in the last year. Read the names.