Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate has before it the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007, which already seeks to make amendments to the federal government’s so-called Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act. It is the first sitting week since the Senate finished debating that legislation and a range of other legislation related to it and already we are back here amending it. You could not get a starker example of the unseemly and, I might say, unnecessary rush involved in the legislation being forced through the Senate so quickly in the first place. That legislation was forced through in a way that did not allow adequate scrutiny—not just adequate scrutiny by senators but adequate scrutiny by affected parties including, and most particularly of course, Aboriginal people in the Territory.

The point has to be made that it was the Democrats specifically that sought to defer final consideration and debate on this legislation until this very week so that there would be the opportunity to identify flaws and unworkable aspects and try at least to increase the chances of this legislation operating in a way that would maximise the prospects of its achieving some of the stated intentions. It should be said that that is an approach the Democrats continually try to make. Even if we are not in agreement with aspects of legislation, even if we think that the policy intent is not matched by the processes being put forward, we do try to engage in a way that at least makes it as likely as possible that the final outcome will be workable and that there will be minimal unintended consequences. A key part of doing that is not allowing just the Democrats to have a say but allowing the community and affected people within the community, along with people who have direct expertise and experience in the relevant areas, to say to the Senate: ‘Hang on, that is not going to work that way. You should do it this way. If you really want to achieve outcome X then this approach will be better than the one you put forward.’

The government’s arrogance and contempt for due process and the views of anyone other than themselves, and their total certainty that they are the ones that know best, have meant that that approach was not taken. They just bulldozed everything through, in many cases smearing along the way anybody that even expressed any concerns. I am not saying that Minister Scullion did that, but certainly many of his colleagues were quite happy to do that. I repeat my outrage at being quite flagrantly and falsely defamed by Minister Brough in his Press Club speech and in his responses at the Press Club about our supposed lack of interest in the Little children are sacred report. That is the sort of attitude we have had from many in the government—thankfully, again, not from Minister Scullion but from many of his colleagues. That is the reason why, having rushed through the legislation, on the next sitting day, pretty much, you come back saying, ‘Hang on, we need to fix some of that up.’

The second point that needs to be made, as is specifically stated in the government’s second reading speech on the legislation, is that some of the changes before us have been put forward by the liquor industry and the tourism industry. That is fine—I am quite comfortable with our taking on board the views of relevant industries to make sure the impacts on them are minimised—but it just sends another signal that, as soon as the government do something which causes a problem for the liquor industry, they are there in a flash saying, ‘We’ll fix that up.’ If the tourism industry says, ‘Hang on, this is going to hurt us,’ they are in like a flash saying, ‘We’ll stop that.’

There was an amendment put into the original legislation because recreational fishing people were worried. The amendment was made to ensure that they were not inconvenienced, but is there any listening to the concerns of Aboriginal people? It seems as if there are instant responses when concerns come forward from everybody else but, when the concerns come from Indigenous people, the government just bulldoze straight ahead saying, ‘We know best.’ There has been open celebration of the new—or ultra-old—principle of paternalism being a justification for some of the government’s approaches. That is not to say that every Aboriginal person in the Territory is opposed to what the government is doing, but, even among those who support the government’s actions, almost every single one of them would come up with areas where they think things could be done better and where they would call for different approaches.

Those people are not being listened to, and that is of extreme concern to the Democrats. It is a concern because of the negative and discriminatory signals that it sends, but I have an even greater concern than that. I could live, extremely reluctantly, with those sorts of things if it meant the legislation would provide results on the ground but, as we all know, it actually increases the chances that the results on the ground will not be achieved. I think the legislation has to be seen in that context.

I turn now to the changes within this bill. There are changes to the trigger requiring details to be kept of takeaway alcohol sales. Questions about this were raised in the Senate committee process very fleetingly. There was minimal opportunity for them to be raised because the legislation was bulldozed through the single-day hearing, with minimum opportunity for people to put in submissions let alone for questions to be asked or answers to be provided. But, even within that ridiculous, contemptuous, truncated time frame, concerns were raised about the workability of a trigger of 1,350 millilitres of total alcohol content within an alcohol purchase. Those concerns were raised in the Senate committee process by the Democrats and I think by pretty much everybody else—the Greens and Labor as well.

The response was, ‘We’ll have an education campaign.’ Clearly, on closer examination it was decided that that will not be good enough and the government have introduced another mechanism which is just a flat purchase price of $100 or more, a base quantity of cask or flagon wine exceeding five litres, or two or more two-litre containers. That is certainly simpler. Anybody who spends more than $100 on grog or buys over five litres of wine in a single container or two or more two-litre containers will trigger it. That is obviously a lot easier than figuring out when the 1,350 millilitres of total alcohol content gets triggered. It is more workable for the retailer and it should be more workable for the customer.

It is certainly an improvement to the workability. Whether it is an improvement to the overall effect of reducing grog running and stemming the flow of alcohol into remote Aboriginal communities by tracking large purchases we will see. This legislation is certainly more workable in terms of ease for the customer and the retailer; whether it is also more workable for the grog runner and whether it has more loopholes for the grog runner and any retailers that are not interested in complying with the spirit of the legislation, we will see. I can certainly see some more easily circumvented potential loopholes with regard to this legislation.

I think the intent is appropriate. The intent is broadly in line with the problems that were identified in the Little children are sacred report, so let us roll it out there. Let us give it a go and see how it works. The Democrats are prepared, as we were with the original legislation, to give this a go and to see what the impact is. But let us not forget that the core aim of these changes and the core aim of this part of the legislation is to try and reduce the problems caused by severe alcohol abuse—the issues of violence and chronic health problems in particular.

This legislation is not about making life easier for retailers or consumers—if you were going to make life easier for them you would not have the restrictions in the first place; it is a matter of getting a balance. Let us roll it out there and see how it works but let us not forget the core aim of it.

In some states and in some circumstances where alcohol controls have been put in place it is very hard to come to any other conclusion than that they were just a veneer so that governments could say, ‘We’ve put in alcohol restrictions,’ and could be seen to be doing something that they could point to while the focus was diverted elsewhere. They have not really thought about whether it will work.

Let us face it: making these things work—controlling and containing the flow of alcohol or any other substance that is prone to be abused—is chronically difficult over a prolonged period of time. The key issue is not whether you have a trigger of 1,350 millilitres or a trigger of $100; the key issue is whether you have the support of people at the community level—the reinforcement of those restrictions by the community’s support, and the culture and mores of that local community adopting and reinforcing it by virtue of social and peer group pressure. That is what makes the difference in the long term. That is one of the reasons the Democrats continually re-emphasise the necessity for consultation, involvement, control and ownership by people at the local level, in Indigenous communities in particular.

I notice that in the explanatory memorandum the government have once again relied on and given specific mention to the Little children are sacred report, which the sweeping measures of the national emergency response act were in response to. Again, we get this continual mixed message where on the one hand the government are saying, ‘We’re doing all these sweeping measures’—to use their terminology—‘and this extreme intervention in response to the Little children are sacred report,’ and on the other hand, as we heard in this debate in the last sitting week, they are saying: ‘The Little children are sacred report’s recommendations are inadequate. They are the past and we need to go way beyond them.’ I really think it is about time that the government make it clear whether they are doing things in response to the Little children are sacred report or the report is inadequate and they have decided to go down their own path.

Stop using it as a cover, because we know that the authors of the Little children are sacred report are strongly condemnatory of the government. We know that despite the fact, and it needs to be repeated, that the Senate committee inquiry—the truncated, disgraceful, inadequate one-day hearing to look into these measures, which, in the government’s own words, were put in place in response to the Little children are sacred report—refused to hear from the authors of that report. Stop trying to use that report as a cloak for what you are doing when you would not even allow the Senate committee examining the response to hear from the authors of that report.

It is that forked tongue approach that massively increases the cynicism about the government’s motives and massively increases the difficulty in achieving success with what the federal government and many other people in the community are trying to achieve. There are many people that disagree with the process the government has chosen but support the stated intent of what the government is doing. If there was more effort put into trying to unite people who disagree with the method but very much agree with the goals then we would maximise the chances of success.

That is the approach the Democrats will continue to take. We will criticise aspects of the government’s approach that we think are wrong. Whether it is the policy detail; the false, misleading, slanderous and grossly politicised rhetoric that we are getting from some in the government; or their refusal to work together with people, we will keep criticising those things because we think they get in the way of success for the goals that we agree with. But we will also maintain an overarching long-term aim of maintaining the momentum that the government, to their credit, have started, and, together with people across the political spectrum and people across the community, keeping our eye on the ultimate goal. Along the way we will complain about or point to areas we disagree with and put forward alternatives that we believe will work—that is part of the process—whilst always keeping our eye on the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is the same as what the government say their goal is, and that is to reduce and ideally eliminate violence and abuse against children and other family violence in Aboriginal communities in the Territory and elsewhere. But it would be irresponsible of us not to criticise aspects of the government’s approach that we think will not work, because that is part and parcel of maintaining the accountability of the government, maximising continuing community debate and focus on the ultimate goal that we all share and along the way, I hope, improving the process so that it does move more towards where it needs to.

It also needs to be reinforced repeatedly that the key component of the Little children are sacred report, and the response that the authors believed needed to occur, was not specifically about alcohol measures or anything else; the key component was that every aspect of the response needed to be done in conjunction with Indigenous communities in the Territory. The government can keep saying as much as they like that their medical teams are welcomed with open arms. I am sure they are in some places—I know they have not been in other places. I am sure it is a mixed picture; that is human nature. It is a reality that in Aboriginal communities, as with every other community, there is a diversity of opinion. But, unless you continue to try to do better at working with people—whether it is with the alcohol measures or any of the other restrictions, the CDEP changes, the construction of infrastructure or the relationships with organisations on the ground—then you will fail. That failure will hurt Indigenous people in particular and children most of all, and that is something we should not forget either.

Another part of the changes here is to provide exceptions to alcohol offences in relation to tourism operations in parks and other areas if declared. Again, if you look at this measure in isolation it appears to be a reasonable one. I have had the enormous privilege of going to Uluru as part of a Senate committee inquiry into national parks and protected areas, and I have to take this chance to say to people who have not been there that, if there is one place you need to get to before you die, that is one of them. You really need to get there; it is an amazing place. Looking at the rock at sunset is part of that experience.

If I could go off on a tangent just briefly, it is a real tragedy that there is not a fuller opportunity for a more comprehensive experience for visitors to the Uluru and Kata Tjuta National Park because it is far, far more than just looking at the spectacular vista of the rocks and surrounds, whether at sunset or any other time of the day. The cultural richness of the place is extraordinary and, frankly, grossly underutilised by many of the people that go there, and that should not have anything to do with whether or not they can have a glass of champagne while they watch the rock while the sun goes down. I do not begrudge them the opportunity to do that. Nonetheless, it is very hard not to think of the double standards involved—rich, non-Indigenous tourists from all over the world pour in and get to have their alcohol but the people whose land it actually is do not. It is a bit hard not to think of the double standards there, frankly.

Whether that double standard is going to impede the ultimate goal of reducing harm towards children and reducing family violence and the like, I do not know. That may be a double standard that is worth wearing because of the undoubted benefit to the tourism industry and the resources it brings to the region. Those resources flow in great proportion to a lot of people other than the actual owners of Uluru, but there is no doubt that they get some economic benefit out of it. It is very hard not to contrast the extraordinarily opulent resort just outside the national park with the conditions that many of the traditional owners live in. The measure itself, in isolation, is an understandable and appropriate response to the concerns raised by the tourism industry, but it is hard not to see the double standards involved.

There are other components of this bill that seek to make things more workable and which, in isolation, are understandable, but there is no reason why we could not have done this properly in the first place had we simply delayed the original bill an extra few weeks to properly examine it, as the Democrats proposed. We were not seeking to hold it up until after the election, as others were; we were repeating the wishes of the Indigenous people of the Territory who simply asked that it be deferred until the first sitting week in September and debated then. At least it would have given us a bit of an opportunity to hear not only from Indigenous people in the Territory but also from the tourism industry and others. We could have got it right the first time around, saving ourselves the trouble. (Time expired)