The Northern Territory’s Country Liberal Party (CLP) government is pushing through with amendments to a law on child removals that critics say will endanger First Nations children.
The CLP is fast-tracking its bill following the alleged abduction and murder of Kumanjayi Little Baby in April. Government MLAs have justified the bill on the grounds that children’s “safety” had to be elevated above “culture”.
The Legislative Scrutiny Committee published its report on the Care and Protection of Children Legislation Amendment (Every Child Matters) Bill 2026 on July 8.
The bill includes several harmful changes, including weakening the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, which recognises the importance of reducing the risk of long-term trauma and disconnection by prioritising the placement of First Nations children with Aboriginal family, kin or community.
The NT’s Children Commissioner told the inquiry that while 89% of children in out-of-home care are First Nations, only 16.7% of these children are placed with relatives or kin. It is the lowest rate in Australia, revealing that the Aboriginal child placement principle is not being implemented as it should.
Government MLAs are justifying the bill by saying that children’s “safety” has to come before “culture”.
CLP MLA Laurie Zio put this question to a witness: “Do you agree that these reforms continue to recognise the importance of culture, family and kinship, but make it clear that when those considerations conflict with a child’s safety that safety must come first?”
The Northern Territory Legal Assistance Forum said the law already makes child safety the primary consideration in child removal decisions. Many witnesses emphasised the need to see cultural connection as an integral part of safety.
The Aboriginal Resource and Development Services Corporation told the committee: “We don’t want our children to lose their language, their culture, their identity.”
SNAICC, the national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, believes CLP’s attempt to pit safety against culture is misleading. It told the committee that when governments remove children they have a “profound responsibility” to ensure children are protected and safe. “One of the biggest misconceptions about child protection systems is that they inherently do that. The evidence tells a very, very different story. The reality is that many children in care experience harm, abuse and trauma. The out-of-home care system is particularly unsafe for Aboriginal children.
“This was a finding of the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Aboriginal children are more likely to be victims of substantiated abuse in care. Residential care in particular is a place of neglect, abuse and extreme vulnerability.”
Another harmful change included in the bill is the two-year deadline for family reunification, after which the department does not need to make more efforts to place children back with their family. SNAICC told the committee that this would significantly increase the number of children permanently placed outside their family.
The Australian Medical Association told the committee that the hospital only has eight detox beds, the only free service of its kind, meaning a family might be waiting for weeks before accessing detox, while the child removal clock is ticking.
The social housing wait list in the NT is between six and ten years’ long, making it hard for families living in overcrowded housing to progress plans to reunite because that requires stable housing. Aboriginal Housing NT told the committee: “Parents may lose the opportunity to reunify with their children not because they are unwilling or incapable of caring for them, but because they cannot access housing that simply does not exist.”
More than 100 of the 150 committee submissions by those with lived experience of removal, representative organisations, experts, advocacy groups and Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations warned against passing the bill, saying it would weaken the necessary protective mechanisms for First Nations children.
Despite this, the three CLP representatives on the committee recommended the bill be passed — with no amendments. Labor MLA and Yaegl man Dheran Young and independent MLA Justine Davis opposed it presenting dissenting reports.
Young said the bill “seriously misunderstands the circumstances of families who come into contact with the child protection system”. Davis said the bill “weakens important safeguards … without addressing the structural conditions including insecure housing, healthcare, and support services, that continue to place children at risk.”
The NT’s Children’s Commissioner Larrakia woman Shahleena Musk resigned on July 9, after the report was tabled. She said she was concerned about the “effective sidelining” of herself in the development of the bill. Musk said she was not willing to support the NT government’s “wide-reaching changes to child protection laws” and said there is growing concern about the lack of “independent oversight, evidence-based policy development and transparent decision-making” in the NT.
The committee’s report will be tabled in the NT Legislative Assembly on July 21.