Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to present Labor’s position on the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007. Federal Labor gave our bipartisan support for measures to tackle child abuse in the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal communities when they were first announced in late June. Our in-principle support was given because the chronicle of abuse that Pat Anderson and Rex Wild had detailed in their report into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse in the Northern Territory compelled action, as did the litany of reports that preceded Little children are sacred. We believed that to lament that action should have been taken sooner did not lessen the imperative to act now; nor is the reality that child abuse occurs in all communities a reason to sit on our hands in the face of this report.

Over the last decade all sides of politics have failed to ensure children’s safety in Aboriginal communities. In considering our response to the intervention, Labor articulated a simple test when assessing the government proposal: will it improve the safety and security of our children in a practical way? We applied that test to the last legislative package and decided, on balance, to give our support. After consideration of the detail of those bills, we noted that they were deficient in many ways, so the opposition moved several amendments to the bills to strengthen the legislation.

We moved to ensure that ‘just terms’ compensation is paid in all instances of land acquisition. We moved to enable access for traditional purposes to land acquired through the five-year township leasing arrangements. We moved to protect children by retaining and strengthening the Northern Territory land permit system to allow journalists and government agents such as doctors to enter Indigenous communities without permits. We moved to introduce the capacity to review aspects of the legislation after 12 months, including the effectiveness of the township leases and the Territory-specific quarantining of welfare payments, and we moved to clarify that these are special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act and delete the exclusion of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Unfortunately, the government did not accept that these or any amendments to the legislation were necessary. That is the legislation that, by his own admission, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs had not fully read. So it is no surprise to us that we are back at the next sitting of the Senate with amendments to this legislation. Again, the opposition applied the same test of whether these amendments will help protect children in a practical way. These amendments are aimed at stopping sly-grog runners, at stopping the flow of alcohol into these communities, which is critical to protecting children from alcohol fuelled abuse. In this task of protecting children, the government has our support. So, again, we are supporting this bill.

Labor strongly supported the measures in the intervention legislation designed to stop the rivers of grog flowing into and around Aboriginal communities. The scourge of grog is well documented. The many inquiries that have been conducted into family violence and child abuse consistently identify alcohol as a major contributing factor to family violence. The Anderson-Wild reported noted:

... there has been inadequate restriction of the “sly grog” trade, where alcohol is brought in illegally to Indigenous communities by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, exacerbating the alcohol problem, and consequently violence in the communities ...

The report recommended:

... as a matter of urgency, the government makes greater efforts to reduce access to takeaway liquor in the Northern Territory, enhance the responsible use of takeaway liquor, restrict the flow of alcohol into Aboriginal communities and support Aboriginal community efforts to deal with issues relating to alcohol.

We all know that alcohol can facilitate or incite violence by providing a socially acceptable excuse for negative behaviour. It can also act as a disinhibitor, allowing people to do things they would not normally do when they are sober. Grog cultures can and do develop a force of their own, perpetuating disastrous cycles for communities. Alcohol control is critical to achieving community stability. Many Aboriginal communities recognise this and have taken action in the past to declare their towns dry, but it is clear from experience that these are not easy solutions.

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, passed by the Senate just last month, set out a new liquor-licensing regime for the Territory. The act created new offences with harsher penalties aimed at sly-grog runners and new restrictions on takeaway sales of alcohol. The amendments presented here today change these new arrangements in several ways. Specifically, the bill changes the 1,350 millilitre trigger for seeking and recording details in relation to takeaway alcohol and sets a new trigger of purchases of over $100 or the sale of wine exceeding five litres in a single container or two or more two-litre containers. Requirements for storage of these records of takeaway purchases are changed so that the records can be stored at the direction of the Licensing Commission, the implication being that the commission can regularly collect and store the records on the licensees’ behalf. The bill provides certain exceptions to the alcohol offences in relation to tourism operations in national parks, Northern Territory parks and other areas declared by the Commonwealth minister. Thus, there is now a defence if a person is engaged in recreational activities in a park that have been organised by a person in the tourist business and are consistent with any park management plan, and the person is behaving in a responsible manner.

The bill also provides that the alcohol measures can be determined not to apply in a particular area if warranted—for example, where comprehensive and effective alcohol management measures are implemented—and makes clear that no past or future Northern Territory legislation undermines the emergency response alcohol measures. The change from the volumetric alcohol measurements to a dollar-value purchase, with the exception of wine casks, makes practical sense. The potential problems in the government’s original proposal were highlighted almost immediately as unworkable. A submission to the Senate inquiry from Woolworths, for example, expressed concern about the difficulty involved in actually calculating the amount of alcoholic beverages which equates to 1,350 millilitres of pure alcohol. The government members’ report from the inquiry noted this problem and recommended explanatory material to assist people to understand what is meant in practical terms by the phrase ‘a quantity of alcohol greater than 1,350 millilitres’. Clearly the government felt that, for the measures to succeed in stopping bulk purchasing of takeaway alcohol by problem drinkers and by grog runners, change was needed, because controls are meaningless unless they can be effectively administered.

The NPY Women’s Council told the Senate inquiry that the availability of alcohol through outlets in Indigenous communities was actually only one part of the problem. The supply of alcohol from the major towns in the Northern Territory also presents a significant problem, so the opposition hopes that these measures will help to stop the sly-grog runners. The inquiry submission of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation noted that the ready availability of alcohol in centres located close to Indigenous communities can undermine the effectiveness of prohibition measures. They said in their submission:

The majority of illegal drugs and alcohol are brought in by road during the dry season. By opening the roads and townships, there is significant evidence to suggest that these problems will be exacerbated. Another impact of prohibition experienced by Maningrida was an outmigration of residents to Darwin. This had the effect of significantly disrupting local employment outcomes, family structures and also resulted in a number of alcohol related deaths in Darwin.

The opposition remains concerned that other elements of the emergency response will undermine attempts at stopping sly groggers. Labor is concerned that removing the permit system would increase the capacity for sly-grog runners to enter communities. In their submission to the inquiry, the Police Federation of Australia said:

Operational police on the ground in the Northern Territory believe that the permit system is a useful tool in policing the communities, particularly in policing alcohol and drug-related crime. It would be most unfortunate if by opening up the permit system in the larger public townships and the connecting road corridors as the Government intends, law enforcement efforts to address the ‘rivers of grog’, the distribution of pornography, and the drug running and petrol sniffing were made more difficult.

That is why Labor opposed the removal of the permit system in towns and roads in Aboriginal communities—because removing the permit system will make harder the task of protecting children.

The tourism industry in the Northern Territory has the capacity to benefit local Aboriginal communities by being the catalyst for greater economic development. However, there has been concern expressed that the alcohol controls could have adverse consequences on the tourism industry. The Northern Territory government has said that the restrictions will have a great impact on the Territory’s tourism industry and that the measures were not actually addressing the target of the legislation—problem drinkers. The Commonwealth government’s intervention in Aboriginal communities has targeted the supply of alcohol through sly-grog runners. This is critically important and has Labor’s unequivocal support. Labor will also work with the Northern Territory government to review the impact of takeaway outlet hours and locations on problem drinking in Aboriginal communities.

The Northern Territory government’s response to the Anderson-Wild report includes recruiting eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors and two court clinicians, implementing a licensing identification system across the Territory, implementing regional alcohol management strategies and implementing an alcohol education program. In addition to addressing alcohol supply, more needs to be done on the demand side, such as alcohol rehabilitation and diversionary programs.

In the appropriations for the intervention, the Commonwealth committed $16.2 million to child care, early childhood services and alcohol diversionary programs to support young people aged between 12 and 18 living in remote communities; however, the low level of detail provided about the programs being rolled out did not specify how much will be spent on alcohol diversionary programs. I ask the minister in his summing up to detail how much has been provided specifically for alcohol diversionary programs as part of the intervention.

In June 2006, during its summit on family violence in Indigenous communities, the Commonwealth government committed $49.3 million for drug and alcohol services in regional and remote Indigenous communities across three states and the Northern Territory. So again I ask the minister: how much of this money is going to the Territory? This money committed in 2006 was not released by the Commonwealth until August 2007, so I also ask the minister: how much of this $49 million has now been spent? We believe that this delay is totally unacceptable, and I certainly hope it is not an indicator of how the new funding associated with the intervention will be handled.

Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory need a long-term commitment to their future from all levels of government and all sides of politics. So far the government have only funded their Northern Territory emergency measures for one year. The department told the Senate inquiry that there is simply no money for any programs beyond the end of June next year. The government must immediately outline what their commitments are to children’s education, health and safety beyond the next year.

Labor has a long-term commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and right around Australia. Tackling the alcohol problem is a necessary initial step and an ongoing challenge in providing that improvement. But more is necessary. The Anderson-Wild report said that the cycle of alcohol dependency, of having the pursuit of alcohol as the reason for living, needs to be broken. A resident in the western Top End community told the Anderson-Wild inquiry:

At present people are living to pursue grog so they can forget why they are living.

We need to give people much more. We need to rebuild the social and economic infrastructure in Aboriginal communities, to change destructive behaviour and to provide positive pathways. It is dehumanising for Indigenous people to be talked about as just a problem instead of recognising their strength. There are many Indigenous people across Australia taking control of their lives and their communities. There is great strength and resilience in Indigenous communities—in the arts, on the radio, in our schools, in sport and in local businesses. They are smart, resilient people who know that change is achievable.

Labor stand for looking to the future. We want to work with Indigenous communities to turn the fresh ideas that many people have into real change and development. We must all take responsibility for improving the lives of Indigenous Australians: closing that appalling health gap, providing education services and delivering employment, economic development and a future for Indigenous communities across Australia. All of these things are necessary to enable Indigenous children to grow up safe, healthy and happy.