The Review of the Northern Territory Agreement - December 2002
This report describes the process and findings of the review of progress of the agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments to establish a pre-court juvenile diversion scheme and a jointly funded Aboriginal Interpreter Service (the Agreement). The review covers the 12-month period from 1 September 2000, the date the Agreement came into effect.
The review was not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the programs in place, given the relatively short time that had elapsed since the Agreement's commencement. Rather, it was designed to report on progress in achieving the Agreement's purpose and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the programs and to provide feedback.
The conduct of the review was delayed by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth elections, and by the subsequent holiday period and wet season. As issues emerged during the consultation process, they were discussed with the Northern Territory Government. Accordingly, as part of the ongoing development of both the diversion scheme and interpreter service, a number of the report's recommendations have already been implemented.
On 10 April 2000, the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, and the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon Dennis Burke MP, released a joint statement about the need to:
- reduce the number of juveniles entering the criminal justice system
- alleviate the language barriers faced by Aboriginal persons.
A formal agreement to address these issues was signed by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments on 27 July 2000. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Commonwealth committed $5 million a year for four years to fund a juvenile pre-court diversion scheme and a jointly funded Aboriginal Interpreter Service.
The short timeframe between the signing of the Agreement and its commencement required the Juvenile Diversion Scheme to become operational in a matter of three months. This was achieved through the outstanding effort of the Juvenile Diversion Unit (JDU) team. The Aboriginal Interpreter Service came into operation in April 2000, before the Agreement officially commenced. Again, this was achieved through the dedicated effort of the staff of the Aboriginal Interpreter Service.
The short timeframe for implementation meant there was limited time for community consultation prior to the establishment of the juvenile diversion scheme. This was raised as a concern by many during the review process. It should be noted, however, that the scheme was developed on the basis of research into national and international good practice in diversion, particularly victim-offender and family conferencing.
Although the Agreement formally came into effect on 1 September 2000, juvenile diversions commenced from 24 August 2000 with the introduction of the Police Commissioner's Interim Policy. To ensure parity of treatment, at that time the JDU reviewed the files of all juvenile apprehension cases in the system (around 100) to determine which would be suitable for diversion.
Administration of the scheme is divided between the two juvenile diversion units. The Darwin JDU has overall responsibility for administering the diversion program, as well as managing the scheme in the Northern Region. The Alice Springs JDU manages the program in the Southern Region. During the reporting period, the JDUs assessed, monitored, reviewed and finalised 1,548 apprehension cases in the Northern Territory, involving 1,173 individuals1. One hundred and eleven cases were referred to the JDUs for full management of the case. This included the conduct of 52 victim-offender conferences, 18 formal cautions/family conferences and the facilitating and monitoring of juveniles on 51 programs.
Of the 1,548 apprehension cases, 78 per cent of juveniles were offered diversion and, of these, some 75 per cent2 did not re-offend. During this time there was a reduction in court appearances by juveniles of 31 per cent for property offences and 51 per cent reduction in convictions overall.3 There was also a reduction of 40 per cent in detention/imprisonment orders for juveniles for property offences.
As at 31 August 2001, 94 diversion programs were registered for 27 communities in the Territory. These included programs in communities such as Ali Curung, Alyangula, Gungalanya, Jabiru, Manigrida, Ti Tree, Daly River, Barunga, Nhulunbuy and Yuendumu as well as the major urban centres.
While these achievements represent a positive beginning, there is a range of issues which have been identified as needing immediate attention.
Perhaps the most important is the need for more effective communication about the scheme to stakeholders and the community as a whole. Despite the efforts of a number of individuals, the large turnover of staff in police, the court system and community organisations has meant that many people have received inadequate information about the scheme.
Attention is also required to ensure appropriate access to legal advice for juveniles and their families, and adequate monitoring and reporting of various components of the scheme.
Access to language interpreters is also an issue in need of attention.
Greater attention to the provision of effective support to juveniles and their families in the form of case management is also necessary. This is to ensure that social issues such as education, employment and health and wellbeing are addressed, as well as factors such as violence and substance abuse.
Fifty-six per cent (865) of all juvenile apprehension cases were Indigenous (667 male and 198 female), indicating that Indigenous young people continue to be over-represented in the system. The need for Aboriginal community involvement in program development is acknowledged. This is particularly important in the development of community programs for remote communities. Access to pre-court diversion for those living in remote Aboriginal communities without a permanent police presence is a difficult issue and one which is under consideration by the Northern Territory Government.
The review process indicated strong community acknowledgment and support for the service provided by the Aboriginal Interpreter Service (AIS). The AIS delivers a predominantly oral interpreter service to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory when accessing legal, health and other services provided by government or the private and community sectors. The service covers 104 Aboriginal languages, which caters for the majority of language speakers in the Territory. Between April 2000 and August 2001, the AIS had 1,772 requests and completed 1,346 jobs. When it celebrated its second anniversary in April 2002 it had more than 240 interpreters on its register.
The AIS has established two offices, in Darwin and Alice Springs, with Darwin the main administrative office. In Tennant Creek and Katherine, the AIS generally uses the established Aboriginal Language Centres to locate and provide interpreters. On-site interpreter services have been set up at the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals and duty interpreters are used on bail days in most courts in the Northern Territory and at bush courts sittings.
The review identified a number of administrative and program quality issues which, if addressed, would improve the service provided and the working conditions of those involved. Access to interpreter services was identified as a central issue in the review. The issues of language diversity, vast distances to be travelled and inherent cultural sensitivities, as well as the complexities in legal and health related matters requiring interpretation, mean that the interpreters' role, and that of the service management, is highly sensitive.
Some stakeholders were eager to see a transparent process addressing more substantial issues such as program quality and delivery methodology and a detailed analysis of the program outcomes. It is envisaged that these and other issues will be addressed in the Agreement's evaluation, which is required to be completed six months prior to the end of the Agreement, August 2004. That review will take the form of an independent, comprehensive process and program evaluation with the aim of identifying significant learnings and good practice, as well as measuring the success of the Agreement in achieving its goals.
1 One apprehension case may involve the apprehension of a juvenile on several occasions over a short period of time and may involve several charges for each apprehension. For example, a juvenile may have been apprehended on three occasions in a one-month period and on each occasion the apprehension may have involved three potential charges, such as unlawful entry, stealing and criminal damage.
Where multiple offences are involved, the case is recorded on the basis of the most serious offence.
2 An approximate figure. Re-offending rates are linked to diversion types - Table 7
