Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020 and to make clear that Labor will be supporting this legislation. The bill amends the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and it builds on changes to the act that were made in 2018 which allow the Supreme Court to sit in a state or territory other than Norfolk Island when it's exercising its civil or criminal jurisdiction on matters concerning Norfolk Island.

Due to Norfolk Island's small population and remote location, the 2018 amendments reflected the view that in some cases the best interests of justice may be served by holding a criminal trial away from the island itself. These 2018 amendments were modelled on similar provisions that were created for Christmas Island back in 1987. They were designed to ensure community confidence in the integrity of the justice system on Norfolk Island.

The bill before us is largely technical in nature, and it makes further provision to ensure the smooth carriage of justice between Norfolk Island and the broader Australian legal system. Specifically, it makes technical changes to amend the definition of 'host jurisdiction' in the provisions authorising off-island sittings of the Norfolk Island Supreme Court in order to remove any doubt that the Supreme Court may exercise its criminal or civil jurisdiction in a state or territory.

The bill also clarifies the basis on which travel allowances are determined for judges of the Supreme Court in order to avoid any ambiguity, and to codify and reflect the existing practices by which judges receive such allowances. Judges of the Supreme Court currently receive travel allowances as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. This amendment will ensure judges are fairly remunerated in the conduct of their duties. The provisions of this bill also seek to remove any doubt that the Supreme Court may exercise its criminal or civil jurisdiction in a state in the absence of an arrangement between the Commonwealth and the state government or authority where no powers, duties or functions are conferred or imposed upon a state officer.

In preparing for this debate, the Labor Party consulted with the Law Council of Australia on this legislation. They have raised concerns about the removal of section 60Q(6), which provides that the fees and allowances of witnesses who appear in civil proceedings held in a host jurisdiction must be paid by the Commonwealth. The government argues in the explanatory memorandum to this bill that it's not appropriate for the Commonwealth to pay these fees in civil matters, where, unlike in criminal matters, the parties concerned are normally responsible for witness expenses. This is a reasonable argument, but it's important for the government to keep an eye on this to make sure that it does not result in parties to civil proceedings incurring unreasonable additional costs, thus creating a barrier for Norfolk Islanders who wish to access civil proceedings.

I'd like to thank my colleague and friend the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, who will follow me in this debate and who is the shadow assistant minister for external territories, for all his work and effort during Norfolk Island's transition to Commonwealth governance. The member for Lingiari is an advocate for the people of Norfolk now as well as prior to the end of self-governance. I think the member for Bean will join us in this debate as well. He has also been, and is, a fantastic representative for the people of Norfolk Island. As the local member since the 2019 election, the member for Bean has always pushed to ensure that the needs of the people of Norfolk have not been forgotten despite their remote location. The member for Bean has been very vocal in his support for the people of Norfolk and works hard to represent the needs of this remote community.

The changes in this bill form an important part of the work that this parliament has been doing to further improve the operation of Norfolk Island administration for the benefit of the community as a whole. I'm very pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this bill, the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020, which makes technical amendments to provisions of the Norfolk Island Act 1979, dealing with the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. The amendments contained in the bill, as well as previous amendments made in 2018, are about enhancing the effective administration of the Norfolk Island justice system. More broadly, they are about improving governance arrangements on the territory, ensuring that Norfolk Island can move forward with solid foundations and providing the same opportunities to the local community that are enjoyed by every Australian.

Over many years the federal government, through the work of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications have been working closely with the inhabitants of Norfolk Island to improve the operation of the island for the benefit of the local community. As the new chair of the national capital and external territories committee, I am eager to continue supporting Australia's external territories, including Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Australian Antarctic Territory, to make life easier for locals and improve the operation of these territories. In recent years the national capital and external territories committee and the department have conducted outstanding work that has led to a number of significant quality-of-life changes for the functioning of Norfolk Island, its local businesses and its residents.

The Norfolk Island Act 1979 established the island as a self-governing external territory. Since that time the need for reform has been hotly debated, with several reports and reviews on governance arrangements and economic development on Norfolk Island completed by the national capital and external territories committee and the department of infrastructure and regional development. The problem with the arrangements established in 1979 was that the Norfolk Island government was required to deliver all local, state and many federal services, including health care, immigration and infrastructure investment. The island's roads were deteriorating, the hospital was outdated and the electricity network was at risk of collapse. It was unreasonable to expect such a small and remote community to deliver these services effectively.

In 2014, the then Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Jamie Briggs, restated the Commonwealth government's intention to integrate the Norfolk Island community into the broader governance, taxation and welfare system of Australia. What followed was a process of integration that led to a complete transformation of the governance arrangements of Norfolk Island. A report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories titled Same country: different world—the future of Norfolk Island formed the basis of this transformation. In light of a significant economic downturn and a considerable budget deficit, this report was commissioned to discover means to broaden the island's economic base and its tourist offerings.

In 2013, it was found that economic activity was down 24 per cent on the previous year, approximately 40 per cent of shops had closed and swathes of the population were leaving the island for mainland Australia or New Zealand. Despite its original remit, the report found that economic development was simply not possible without the establishment of new governance arrangements on the island. It found that governance and economic reform must occur together to give the community the best chance at recovery and sustainability.

Just over one year later, the Same country: different world report was followed by a package of bills that reformed the governance arrangements of the island and extended many of mainland Australia's social security, immigration, health and taxation arrangements. The passage of this package of bills meant that, from 1 July 2016, the Norfolk Island community had access to social security and health benefits, including the age pension, family tax benefits, Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

From July 2016, federal taxes replaced a range of inefficient taxes and charges that were levied by the Norfolk Island government, including a local goods and services tax and punitive customs charges. The Commonwealth government also extended the superannuation guarantee to Norfolk Island, helping residents to save for their retirement. The package of bills also transitioned the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly to a regional council, in line with recommendations by the National Capital and External Territories committee, and allowed for a gradual adoption of New South Wales state laws within Norfolk Island, providing a modern body of state law through which the island's economic recovery could be ensured. Finally, the package allowed the Australian migration system to replace the immigration arrangements maintained by the local government. These immigration arrangements were identified as a key barrier to tourism and trade. Simplifying travel arrangements has allowed the island's key tourism industry to flourish once more.

These changes aim to deliver growth and prosperity for Norfolk island while also protecting its unique cultural identity and heritage. They ensure that Norfolk Islanders have access to the same opportunities and support as mainland Australians. Such supports have been crucial to the island during the coronavirus pandemic. Despite its geographic isolation, Norfolk Island has not eluded the impacts of coronavirus. Although the island has been virus free, it has faced strict restrictions. In March, non-essential visits were banned after the local government placed the territory in a state of emergency to protect its elderly population against the spread of the virus. For the tiny island nestled in the Pacific Ocean with a population of close to 1,800, the lockdowns hit hard. While mainland Australians were panic buying toilet paper and pasta, Norfolk Island was suffering a real food shortage due to disruptions in regular shipments. In April, heightened fears led to the introduction of rules to stop people leaving their homes, because some residents recently returned from the mainland were flouting quarantine measures. By May, lockdown measures had eased, and patrons were once again allowed to dine in cafes, restaurants and clubs as well as gather in groups. These restrictions hurt the key tourism and hospitality industries of the island, but many locals saw the validity of the restrictions, given that Australia's winter is an off-peak period for the tourism industry and due to the island's limited healthcare services.

JobKeeper data for the month of April shows that there were 143 applications made for the program on Norfolk Island. Furthermore, 92 people received the JobSeeker payment in the month of May. For an island which is almost entirely reliant on tourism, these federal government supports have helped to limit devastating impacts on the local economy.

In my role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I look forward to the continuing of the Commonwealth government's constructive engagement with the Norfolk Island community. I can't wait to learn more about the island's unique culture and history, and I hope to visit the island when restrictions have been lifted and it is once again safe to do so.

The national capital and external territories committee has completed fantastic work over the years, including an economic development and governance report on Australia's Indian Ocean territories, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; an inquiry into Australia's Antarctic Territory that made several recommendations to government on how best to serve Australia's scientific program and maintain our national interests in the Antarctic; and, most recently, an inquiry into Canberra's national institutions. The final report, titled Telling Australia's story—and why it's important, struck a chord with me as a student of our nation's history. The report considers the shared value of Canberra's national institutions in conserving, interpreting and facilitating engagement with Australia's history, culture and national identity. It recommends that Canberra's national institutions develop and articulate a shared identity that directly connects them with Australia's story. I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues in the national capital and external territories committee, ensuring sustainability and progress for these important parts of our nation.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the fine contribution of the member for Blaxland and thank him for his comments, but I also acknowledge the words of the member for Mallee in her contribution and welcome her to the national capital and external territories committee, of which I've been a member for some many years. I was previously Parliamentary Secretary for Territories in the Keating government and have been visiting Norfolk Island since the early 1990s. Of course, Christmas Island and the Cocos islands, about which the member spoke, are also part of my electorate of Lingiari.

Actually, it's not Lingiari anymore; it's now the Northern Territory, but there are two members: one the member for Solomon and one the member for Lingiari—get that for an absurdity! We believe that we should be two seats not one, and we are hoping, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that you and your party colleagues will see the merit of a piece of legislation, a private member's bill, which was in the Senate today, supported by your National Party colleagues, the Greens and the crossbenchers. It's now only up to the Liberal Party to show that they acknowledge the need to have two seats, as a minimum, for the Northern Territory, and to understand the idiocy of the arrangement that would make us only one seat yet again. I was formerly that single member for the seat of the Northern Territory for 12 years. I understand the difficulties that confront a person wanting to look after an area of 1.4 million square kilometres, plus Christmas and the Cocos islands. In this case, now, it would be the largest electorate in the country, by population, by 25 per cent. How absurd! That's not to, at all, ignore the diverse nature of the Northern Territory population, of which 42 per cent in the seat of Lingiari are Aboriginal people, mostly living in very scattered, remote communities.

This is not the purpose of this bill before us, the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020, but, as I was invited to talk about external territories by the previous member, I think it's only appropriate that this House understands that the external territories, the Indian Ocean territories, sit now in the electorate of the Northern Territory, and should remain in, as it was, the seat of Lingiari, divorced from the seat of Solomon, so that we have two seats in the Northern Territory. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, in your wisdom, will be counselling your colleagues in the Liberal Party party room, and the Prime Minister, most importantly, to support a piece of legislation—which I don't mind if you introduce, quite frankly—which guarantees us a minimum of two seats. Let's just appreciate what this looks like.

Currently, the Constitution guarantees malapportionment. It does that by providing a minimum of five seats for every state and territory—and of course that includes Tasmania. With a population of roughly 530,000, and a bit over twice the size of the Northern Territory, it's guaranteed five members of the House of Representatives. We will go back to one. They're guaranteed 12 senators. We have two. So they will have 17 members of parliament for 530,000 people; we will have three for 250,000. Is that reasonable? I see you're nodding your head—in affirmation? I'm assuming you agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough.

I want to talk about this bill. As the member for Blaxland has outlined, this bill has as its purpose amending the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to make three changes to the operation of the Norfolk Island Supreme Court. I'm indebted to the Bills Digest and I recommend it to those members of this House who are interested in this subject for, in part, its very brief historical analysis, giving a summary of why we're in the situation that we're in.

The member for Mallee spoke about the importance of normalising the relationship between the Norfolk Island community and the Australian parliament, which has been done as a result of legislation in 2015. This is a bipartisan exercise which has been going on since the mid-1990s. We're now in a position where we've got legislation which would normalise those relationships and set up processes for legislative reforms for Norfolk Island.

An area which was quick to earn concern was the justice system, particularly in relation to family violence, sexual assault and the protection of relevant witnesses. The 2018 amendments to allow the Norfolk Island Supreme Court to empanel juries on the mainland, which this bill seeks to confirm, are one element of the effort to reform Norfolk Island's justice system. As the Bills Digest said:

It sits aside measures that did not require Commonwealth primary legislation, such as the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable People) Ordinance 2018, which made various changes to the criminal justice system in terms of witness protection and sentencing.

The explanatory memorandum to the current bill explains the rationale for the changes which are being made through the provisions allowing the Norfolk Island Supreme Court to exercise its civil or criminal jurisdictions in host jurisdictions and to empanel juries in those possible host jurisdictions, which, as you would imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, are the states, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. I go back to the explanatory memorandum, which described it in these words:

These provisions were intended to address concerns that there may be cases where holding a criminal trial on Norfolk Island, given its small size and remote location, is not consistent with the interests of justice.

These amendments are important. They redefine 'host jurisdiction' in section 4 of the bill, including all states, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory, regardless of whether the Commonwealth has an arrangement with the state. They repeal the old definition of 'host jurisdiction'. They confirm that the Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with state governments to enable the Norfolk Island Supreme Court to utilise elements of the state judicial or correctional system in either criminal or civil matters and they confirm that any arrangements with host jurisdictions reached under the current statutory scheme remain in force both in criminal and civil matters.

The bill also addresses appropriately the issue of travel allowances for judges, because, for the travel allowance, judges of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island are required to be judges of another Commonwealth court. This will fix the arrangements of a separate scheme of travelling allowances with the four or so federal judges who hold the commission of Norfolk Island Supreme Court justice. I commend the bill to the House.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the members who've participated in the debate on the Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020. This bill makes technical amendments to provisions of the Norfolk Island Act of 1979 dealing with the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.

Amendments made to the act in 2018 authorised the Supreme Court to sit in a state or territory other than Norfolk Island in the exercise of its civil and criminal jurisdictions. These amendments allow for a matter to be heard and a jury to be empanelled in another state or territory. The measures were modelled on similar amendments made for Christmas Island in 1987. The amendments in the bill address some technical issues regarding the regulation of off-island sittings of the Supreme Court. These amendments also clarify the basis upon which travelling allowances are determined for its judges. These amendments will enhance the effective administration of the Norfolk Island justice system, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.