This is the final instalment in a series by Dr Don Fuller examining the failures in the Northern Territory: the moral and integrity failures of politicians and government, the politicisation of, and the instability in, the public service and the police, and the unfair and unjust treatment of lower level employees in the public service compared to the more powerful members.
READ: Failed State Part II – The ethical failures of politicians and senior public servants
An absence of political leadership in critical areas is leading to a multitude of dangers in the Northern Territory. These include economic instability, with growing levels of public sector debt and a lack of confidence in government discouraging private investment, social unrest, and a decline in human rights. These dangers stem from a lack of transparency, accountability, and efficiency within the political leadership and the flow-on effects to the public and police services.
This has created an environment conducive to corruption and undermining the rule of law. The Territory therefore, is taking on many of the characteristics of a failed African State.
If such dangers aren’t to accelerate further, serious reforms are necessary to the public service and the NT Police. The following instalment discusses what needs to be done.
Much of this needs to be led by the Chief Minister who to this stage has demonstrated an inability to grapple with such essential tasks for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory.
The importance of a professional public service
Major reviews have recognised periodic changes in the traditional Westminster system of public service governance are necessary to improve the sector’s ability to deal with new challenges and respond to political direction.
These pressures sometimes lead to structural changes – such as fixed-term contracts for agency heads, and an increase in the number of ministerial support staff.
The way the political and executive arms of government interact has also changed, driven by the higher visibility of political leaders and their greater demands for a responsive, fast-paced public sector.
Taken too far, this risks becoming what internationally renowned political scientist Peter Aucoin has identified to be cases where governments seek to use and misuse, even abuse, the public service in the administration of public resources, and the conduct of public business to better secure their partisan advantage over their competitors.
It is likely that such aspects have occurred with increasing frequency in the Territory.
The challenge is to adapt to pressures while not weakening key principles – the apolitical tradition, merit selection and ethical and equitable procedures for the selection and management of staff in the public sector.
As pointed out in previous examples, there is evidence that such key principles have been ruptured in the case of the NT.
If the NT public service is to be reformed, it is important that there must be a strengthening of the merit principle underpinning a professional public service career. There is also a need to understand the serious implications of insecure tenure for public servants.
Merit-based appointment processes have historically been at the heart of all highly performing public service traditions because the emphasis on excellence based on specific skills, competencies, and previous experience and performance is rightly seen as an important shield against politicisation.
There should also be a serious consideration of how placing senior (and other) staff on contracts affects the willingness of public service leaders to give ‘frank and fearless advice’.
It clearly encourages ‘bad public servants’, since it biases their decision premise towards continuing their career.
In addition, there is a need for far greater clarity in defining and distinguishing roles between political and professional personnel.
Over successive NT governments there has been a troubling pattern reflecting rising failures to enforce the rule of law, overlooked probity and consideration of risk in contracting, capability decline, as well as a failure to heed and learn from previous mistakes.
The important foundations of the Westminster system of governance of merit and tenure have been ejected, which are precisely those tenets that give the public service a separate decision premise from those of politicians.
Such problems have led to decreasing retention rates in the public service. This is leading to substantial losses of institutional knowledge and skills, which exacerbates existing problems with staffing and skill shortages.
Is it any wonder that people throughout Australia, as well as the Territory, increasingly question whether the NT has the capacity and professionalism to govern itself?
And to make matters worse, these problems and their results are escalating rapidly and are increasingly recognised well beyond the borders of the NT.
The need for reform of the Police Administration Act
Under the NT Police Administration Act, the NT Administrator may appoint a person to be Police Commissioner, or a Deputy Police Commissioner. This follows from a recommendation by the Chief Minister and Cabinet.
Importantly, the senior police positions are not under the control of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. This means that the NT police service is not subject to the same rules and regulations as the other main administrative branch of government.
As a result, it could be argued that the Police Commissioner has been given too much power and control compared, for example, to other chief executive officers in the public sector.
The Police Commissioner has power over the control and management of the police force and may, under the Act, delegate these powers to others.
If the Police Minister is to direct the Police Commissioner it needs to be done so formally, in writing.
The problem with such wide-ranging powers is that each new commissioner appears to have a different set of views as to how this power should be exercised. This leads to, and encourages widely different decisions, and a lack of fairness and consistency in the treatment of members of the police force.
I have covered this in other parts of the series.
When the position of Police Commissioner becomes politicised, the problems become far worse, and begin to affect a wider number of people in the community.
It is also the case that commissioners themselves have been involved in major breaches of discipline, and even criminal behaviours.
Who then is there to exercise the necessary control over the commissioner and senior staff?
In particular, who is there to undertake an independent investigation into the NT Police, given the ongoing problems at the senior levels?
Such wide-ranging power was no doubt behind the threat of former Police Commissioner Jamie Chalker to contest in a court of law, the right of the Chief Minister and Police Minister to terminate his appointment in 2022.
It is increasingly clear that senior NT Police figures should be subject to similar constraints to that placed upon the NSW Police.
In NSW, a Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has been established as an independent statutory body responsible for investigating complaints against the police.
The LECC was established in 2017, as a permanent independent investigative commission. The commission provides oversight of the NSW police force and NSW Crime Commission. It replaced both the Police Integrity Commission, and the Police Compliance Branch of the NSW Ombudsman.
The LECC is an accountability body that aims to prevent, detect and investigate misconduct and maladministration within NSW law enforcement agencies.
As well as conducting its own investigations, the LECC oversees the way the NSW police force and the NSW Crime Commission respond to complaints and conduct internal investigations.
The LECC investigates and provides oversight for serious instances of misconduct by officers such as: corruption, including soliciting or accepting bribes; perverting the course of justice (for example by planting evidence at a crime scene or interfering with a brief of evidence); serious assaults; releasing confidential police information to criminals; interfering in police investigations; associating with criminals; and manufacturing, cultivating or supplying prohibited drugs.
Such an independent statutory body here would both increase the efficiency and effectiveness of NT Police and substantially improve the community’s respect and confidence in the police force.
Concluding comments
What can be expected following this serious slide in the ethics of good governance in the Northern Territory?
As I have pointed out previously, the evidence is clear that there is likely to be higher levels of corruption, limited economic development, retarded growth and employment, and a higher level of social conflict in the Northern Territory.
A number would argue that such indicators are already obvious. The main concern for many however, is that such problems are increasing exponentially and given the quality of governance in the Territory, they are not likely to be brought under control any time soon.
Less and less companies and organisations will be prepared to risk an environment so badly governed and uncertain, with the accompanying unacceptably high levels of risk.
This can be expected to undermine government revenues further and in turn limit the capacity of the NT Government to protect and develop their residents through the further hollowing out of education, health and police and justice systems, for example.
Basic infrastructure such as power, roads and communication systems are also likely to be affected.
Very importantly, the risks are likely to be even more troubling for the Territory.
The particular demographic structure of the Territory means that rapidly increasing social problems – associated with marginalised Aboriginal societies who are untrusting of government and who are also dealing with collapsing Aboriginal law, culture and social structures – are likely to increase further, with very serious implications for residents of the Territory.
Such increased social dislocation, with the associated problems of disharmony and violence, are likely to gather pace with an important section of the NT community unable to develop strong, ethical and reliable linkages with leadership in government.
Ethical and responsible leadership is vital at the senior levels of parliamentary democracy and government to set the necessary standards and examples to individuals, institutions and organisations in society.
Successful democratic governments also require, and encourage, a high level of community participation rather than operating as a closed, self-interested, separate, ‘them and us’ club.
There is likely to be nowhere more important in Australia that this occurs rapidly than in the NT.
Without such leadership, the NT is bound to fail and the compounding negative consequences are likely to be increasingly severe for Territory residents.
This will continue and escalate until NT political leaders appreciate they are elected to serve all members of the public in an ethical and responsible manner, rather than their own private interests.
The current Chief Minister seems beset by the unfortunate tragedy of modern democratic politics involving the pursuit of office without a guiding vision or understanding of the foundations of good governance.
This inevitably results in a failure of leadership.
While the influence of power has led to corrupt behaviours and a strong sense of self-entitlement amongst some politicians in the Territory, many would argue that these features are increasingly evident within the leadership of NT governments.
These problems are often magnified according to some commentators given the personality types of some people who decide to enter politics.
For example, people who run for political office are often ‘different’ and it has been said that ‘normal people need not apply’. That is, they are unlike most other people.
The pertinent question from a democratic standpoint is whether this abnormality is bound up with a wider set of characteristic differences between the politically ambitious and everybody else.
It has been argued for example, that while some may be genuinely altruistic, some are in it for their own personal advancement, some in hopes of making money and some just want to control.
These less desirable and potentially destructive characteristics to a well-functioning democratic government, unfortunately appear overly-represented in the NT and in the examples presented in this series.
The problems are likely to be magnified in a small jurisdiction such as the NT where the relatively small population restricts the number of people likely to be interested in entering politics and results in politicians not likely to be effective and competent representatives of the different and diverse socio-economic characteristics of the citizens of the Territory.
It is essential that bodies established to constrain corrupt behaviours by politicians and officials, such as the Office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, are effective and operate in the public interest if a democratic Westminster system of government is to survive in the Territory.
Currently, this organisation appears mired by incompetence and unacceptable ethical behaviours as well, due to a lack of direction, further confounding the challenges facing governance in the NT.
Further reading by Don Fuller:
READ: The vice-chancellor needs re-focus to make CDU a high quality university
READ: Rising social conflicts and escalating debt mean a bleak outlook for the Northern Territory
READ: Northern Territory – Failed governance, cultural clash and an uncertain future
READ: How not to manage government finances – The case of the Northern Territory
READ: The Gunner Government: A collision between Budget misuse and democratic responsibilities
Dr Don Fuller holds a first class Honours degree and PhD in economics from the University of Adelaide and has worked as a senior public servant in the Territory and as Professor of Governance and Head of the Schools of Law and Business at Charles Darwin University. He grew up in Darwin and attended Darwin High School.
He was also involved with the establishment of the first NT medical school under the leadership of Flinders University vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb.
Dr Fuller was also an adviser to the former CLP MLA Maralampuwi Francis Xavier, was briefly the senior private secretary to Chief Minister Paul Everingham, and is a former member of the CLP and the ALP.
~From the East African Times May 2025, page 5:
“We will be, therefore, if we are not careful our brothers and sisters, taking on many of the characteristics of the Failed Northern Territory of Australia.”
‘A profesional public service’
~The NT has been so far away from this oxymoron that they wouldn’t recognise what one looks and functions like now.
It has a history from both ALPCLP Coalition of Chaos partners of being used to enrich the few and punish anyone who speaks up against that.
Still happening today, unabated and unabashed.
To borrow Cory Doctorow’s new word:
The total enshittification of the NT Government is complete.
It’s going to take much much more than tweaking a few extra contracts and enforcing the merit principle especially when you have career Status Quo Members like Alastair Shields From The Public and Greg Shamahan telling the politicians what to do and how to do it. And by no means are they the only ones, just the most out front at the moment.
Many of the problems you list, as we have said many times, are deliberate. It suits the big party in power to keep it that way.
We’ll skip complaining about the Police ad nauseam as their issues and problems run certainly as deep as the NT Public Dis-Service’s does, maybe deeper.
When we remind ourselves who the Police Minister is then it’s part of the reason why it’s currently in such bad shape.
Her public and patronising refusal to legally punish lying Police Officers should be a criminal offence itself.
There shouldn’t be a discretionary principle in play here.
So, in summary, your ‘answer’ is:
‘get better people in
change back to merit selection
extend contracts to encourage proper public service advice
strengthen regulatory and corruption bodies’
Not one mention however, in your whole series (well written with some decent points we think) of changing The Game itself.
Don’t worry though Don, you’re in good company as you’re not the only one who thinks we should keep playing the same Game over and over and ask the ones abusing the rules to please stop and/or change their behaviour. Pretty please?
When we say The Game, we mean, for example, but not limited to:
Changing the voting system which elects people to make sure it is genuinely more representative of the population – this can be done with one flavour of true Proportional Representation.
This will help reduce overall majority Government power plays which allows the current CLP bastardisation of the Political sphere.
Why haven’t you suggested, as we do all the time, to overhaul the Legislative Landscape here in the NT? Not tinker, Don, overhaul.
These people don’t listen to you or us, they only listen to legal action. They don’t even really listen to budget blowouts, we have to start prosecuting them, then they’ll stop.
If it’s consequences you’re after then write them into law.
After you do that, ENFORCE THE LAWS YOU’VE JUST CHANGED, FOR BETTER Governance.
Extend certain statutes of limitations backwards to cast your legal net wider and then punish people like Andrew Shirkman?
Reclaim all the money spent on protecting him. Watch behaviour change in an instant.
Can’t do it with current laws? Great, there’s an easy fix: Change them.
Instead of complaining about ICAC being useless, which it purposefully is, why not suggest that it be disbanded, cleared out, the ICAC Act rewritten, ban any more secret Government reviews about it, ban any NT Government people from working in it (if current legislation prohibits this then change that too), start again from scratch using best practice from around the world, introduce a new Whistleblower Act which incentivises whistleblowing and really protects them from retaliation, be legally strong and come down hard on anyone who even breathes in the wrong direction of someone who has blown the whistle on corruption.
Change the legal definitions in favour of the small man/woman then ENFORCE THEM. Vigorously. And publicly.
It would only take one or 2 high level Government employees on Executive contracts in jail to change behaviour, trust us.
Crime issues? Then change the whole Prison/Crime Game.
Justice Reinvestment.
Violence Reduction Units.
Long Lasting Community Engagement.
Stop putting more people in prison, spend your time and money to communicate and collaborate about keeping more people out of prison instead. Make the commitment to set up a society that all people want to participate in, that’s how you reduce crime.
Start genuinely thinking about how to stop the cycle of offending and recidivism and get it through your thick skulls that creating more criminals, at younger and younger ages, will, amongst other things, keep those cycles going for longer.
There is not one shred of evidence provided by any of these dummies where criminalising younger and younger children has any impact on the crime figures of an area, in the world.
Do you know why there isn’t any? Because it doesn’t work.
How do we know it doesn’t work? Because if it did then everyone would be doing it and there would be reduced crime figures the world over. It would be headline news, the world over.
It is so stupid and so obviously shortsighted an idea that the idea itself should be criminalised.
You want real change? You have to start changing The Game Don.
A completely new and aggressive Legislative Change too.
The current Game has been taken over and is being openly abused, while we are being forced to watch it, on repeat.
The only people who won’t suggest these kinds of serious systemic changes needed are the ones who benefit and profit from either doing nothing or simply just tinkering.
There is no reason, anywhere, which says we have to have the kind of majority voting which recycles the 2 big parties election after election here in the NT.
There are many different kinds of voting systems which would produce many different kinds of local results.
Where is the Government review of those with a view to changing it so that more variety in politics is the outcome?
The ALP don’t want it changed because they benefit from how it is not when they are in power.
And where are all the other smaller candidates shouting on the rooftops that they want a fairer voting system?
Nowhere. Because they have all been brainwashed to accept the rules of The Game as it is played now which benefits none of them.
Change For Better Party will change The Game for the benefit of the people, not the politicians.
And they’re the only ones making any noise about doing it.
They think of the big solutions.
Once you see how easy it actually is then you’ll wonder why no one suggested it or actually did it before they did.
We have the system we are willing to tolerate. If the current one isn’t working for us anymore, then we have to change it to a completely different one.
Last note:
now that it was obvious that the DWC Public Accounts Committee hearing was
a) set up to fail by its Terms Of Reference and
b) infected with appended bias through CLP Brain O”Gallagher loves Alastair Shields From The Public,
where are the calls for changing That Game?
Eg:
~Collaborative cross party effort on writing proper Terms Of Reference.
~A more representative variety of MLAs, not 3-1-1.
~Asking for it to be redone, due to this bias infection, with different people who haven’t worked with any of the witnesses.
~Asking for evidence to be submitted to support any claims, otherwise those claims would hold no weight.
~Making sure that it ran for its allotted time.
~Etc
There are no calls to change not only that particular pantomime we were forced to watch but neither to put a new Game in place to prevent such a pantomime from happening in the future.
The people with the power to change that Game have just accepted it and moved on. To everyone’s detriment except those abusing the system. They love the Silence from Selena and Co.
~Game Changer For Better.
PS: yes we are aware that laws can be changed back or deleted to favour the muppets again should legislative power be rescinded but there are ways to make that more difficult in the future and tied into systemic things like voting systems so that a simple slim majority can’t just change laws they don’t like.
Think of multi-factor authentication systems used to secure assets like passwords or gold bars at the Swiss bank and apply that to law making in the future. Easy.
In the Northern Territory, we have Australian Federal Police Officers who are based and work in the Northern Territory who are covered by the Fair Work Act (Cth) and their enterprise agreements are approved by and dealt with and lodged in the Fair Work Commission.
In the Northern Territory, we have Northern Territory Police Officers who are based and work in the Northern Territory who are not covered by the Fair Work Act (Cth) and their Northern Territory Police Force Consent Agreement is not lodged in the Fair Work Commission but is lodged in the Northern Territory Police Arbitral Tribunal.
Is it not time to ensure that all Northern Territory Police Officers are covered by the Fair Work Act (Cth) and that their enterprise agreements are also approved by and dealt with and lodged in the Fair Work Commission?
Why is the Northern Territory Police Association and all our Northern Territory politicians in the Northern Territory Parliament are not calling for and legislating for the abolishment of the Northern Territory Police Arbitral Tribunal so that Northern Territory Police Officers’ employment matters can also be dealt with by the Fair Work Commission as is the case with Australian Federal Police Officers?
No! We are our own masters
Mired within our own lack of Community leadership? Could that be due to an awareness that corruption so embedded within Public Services / Governance, that even a legal fraternity within; may not guarantee transparency, accountability? As allegedly has occurred within NT Police? Legality may not always work in favour of community needs, expectations? Law and lawyers are competitive beasts?
@Graeme Bull: different tools in the toolbox for different problems, sometimes a multi-tool approach is needed and sometimes a more carrot less stick approach is better, we understand the differences.
Leadership has a huge part to play on expected behaviours.
If NT Political Leadership openly announces to the public that it’s okay for Police Officers to LIE, not make a genuine mistake, we mean LIE, in Statutory Declarations, knowing that it is a criminal offence under the Oaths Act, and to suffer NO legal consequences for doing that then this sets the bar for expected behaviour in the future.
Actually, the bar is now LYING on the floor.
People would be well within their rights to say: “Those Police Officers LIED and suffered no consequences so I want to LIE in my legal statements to Courts/Tribunals/Coroners Proceedings/ICAC investigations and I too should suffer no legal consequences.”
At which point, your whole legal system implodes.
If anything, Police should be held to a higher standard not lower.
And if you, as the Leader, assist those Police Officers in escaping prosecution, then you should be subject to criminal sanctions.
It is actually already in the NT Criminal Code Act 1983 as a criminal offence.
Section 13: Accessories after the fact
(1) A person who receives or assists another who, to his knowledge, has committed an offence in order to enable him to escape prosecution becomes an accessory after the fact to the offence.
(2) The rule of law under which a wife cannot be an accessory after the fact to an offence committed by her husband is abolished.
Here is a political example we’ve mentioned in previous comments on here that we fully support.
Problem:
Lying politicians, specifically in this example:
Candidates who lie before being elected in order to obtain the benefit of being a paid politician.
Possible Solutions:
~Reminding them of public expectations/values/ideas of transparency, decency, accountability, responsibility etc
~Asking them nicely not to lie
~Asking them sternly not to lie
~Showing how unfair it is when those pre-election promises are broken
~Showing how much the public’s trust in the Institution of Politics is damaged when budding politicians lie to the voting public
~Public exposure of lies in different media
~Reminding them about Codes of Conduct and general Guidelines for excepted behaviour in political life
Now, looking at all of these possible solutions to this problem, have any of them worked to stop the behaviour? Nope.
If they had stopped it, then Wales, in the UK, would not have had to start the discussion about making it a criminal offence for political candidates to lie to the public to try and get voted into public office:
https://londondaily.com/politicians-who-deliberately-lie-could-face-removal-from-office-in-wales
‘Proposals from the Welsh Parliament aim to address trust in politics by potentially removing politicians caught lying.’
Elected politicians in Wales who are found to deliberately lie could face removal from office under new proposals designed to restore trust in politics.
These radical changes, suggested by the Welsh Parliament’s standards committee, would also make candidates liable to criminal prosecution for making false statements to win votes.
The Welsh government has committed to introducing legislation aimed at making lying in politics illegal by next year.’
~One other option is to remove the incentives that makes them choose lying over being honest.
If they are lying because the salary and benefits are just too good not to lie for then maybe think about changing that so the detriment from being caught lying outweighs the benefits if you get away with it.
Or you go down the legislative route and make it a new offence.
Think of it like a fraud offence: fraudulent misrepresentation in order to obtain a benefit.
Then the consequences change to criminal ones, but as with all laws, they are only as useful as their enforcement.
You give people plenty of opportunities to do the right thing and the reasons why making that choice is also the right thing.
Help them make those choices if they are struggling. Offer support. Warn them of impending consequences.
Then, if after all that, as adults with agency and choices, they still choose lying over being truthful with the public and other public officers/employees, punish them.
Clearly Wales was concerned with the behaviour of a certain class of people and had tried other things but just couldn’t stop the rot. So they got creative.
We’re in full support of that decision to begin the discussion of criminalising that kind of behaviour, no matter how difficult it would be to formalise.
Sometimes just the threat of impending legal enforcement works to change behaviour but people have to know you’re serious and not bluffing.
Wales’ choice is very interesting to us and definitely worth exploring and implementing in our household’s opinion.
We understand this is not a panacea and won’t stop everyone, the same way life in prison or the death penalty doesn’t stop all serious crimes, but we feel as a statement of intent it is definitely worth looking at, especially here in the NT.
You could even tack on the conviction that if caught, part of your punishment is to publicly apologise and to repay all the financial benefits you stole by lying, back to the public.
Find a way to do it.
Accepting the Status Quo is not an option, unless you love the Status Quo that is.