Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do support it, Senator McGauran, but I am highlighting to you that I think your policy process behind this is severely flawed. I do not remember you ever actually coming to the Northern Territory—so perhaps you are not in the best position to make informed, intelligent comments on this legislation.

Northern Territory Minister Burns wrote to Minister Brough on 28 August, and one would want to assume that the legislation has now been amended as a result of that letter and representation by the Northern Territory government. As I say, it is a pity that this government is not working closely with the Northern Territory government—whose view, of course, is that they would want to see alcohol reforms on a region by region basis. In that letter Minister Burns highlighted the problem in the industry with having to calculate purchases of 1,350 millilitres of alcohol. Let us picture this. We are talking about liquor outlet by liquor outlet, bottle-o by bottle-o, your takeaway outlet at Woolworths and Coles and—as Senator Siewert correctly pointed out—at garage and petrol stations in the Northern Territory. How on earth could anyone selling that alcohol to you or me calculate that instantly at the time of purchase? That was an impractical, illogical measure, and we have now moved to purchases over $100 or a certain quantity.

The Australian Hotels Association spoke publicly about the lack of consultation on this matter. If my memory serves me right, they sent a submission to the Senate inquiry. The complexity of the calculations at the point of sale and the severity of the penalties for breaching the law are of utmost concern to people in the industry, and the AHA made representations to the government on this matter. This legislation critically affects the industry and the general public. I will go to some comments about the changes to this legislation. People need to know—there should be no doubt now—that, if they walk into a bottle shop on the weekend, as they finish their weekly shopping, and they want to buy $100 or more of alcohol, they will need to produce ID. The ID that is needed is listed in the legislation.

In the Northern Territory, a carton of VB—or, as we say, green cans—is around $48 now. So you will be able to get about two slabs of beer and maybe a $15 bottle of wine before you have to produce your drivers licence or an age pension card; that is, of course, if you have it. This legislation assumes that everybody over the age of 18 has some form of ID. Bad luck if you want to buy a bottle of Jim Beam and you do not have that ID and you happen to be 22. This legislation does not address that situation. If you are down in Alice Springs, a carton of VB is also about $48. So let us picture this. A person may want to buy six bottles of wine—say, when Woolworths has that special where, if you buy six bottles, you get a 20 per cent discount—and that may well come to about $60. That is for the missus. The husband might want to pick up a carton of VB for the weekend, and that will cost $48. Sorry, but you will now have to produce either your drivers licence or some form of photo ID to make that purchase. I think this will cause severe angst amongst the general community.

If you are one of these people at whom this legislation is targeted—and, for the purposes of this legislation, let us assume this government is targeting the middle-aged Aboriginal man—he is still able to go into a bottle shop and buy five litres of wine in a cask, or he can buy a number of containers that have two litres. Let us say he is able to buy five litres of wine in a cask, which of course is pretty cheap alcohol and has fairly major effects. He can do that day after day after day. In fact, if he is smart enough, he can probably run around to the bottle-o at the Coles supermarket in Alice Springs and, within 10 minutes, be at the Todd Tavern and purchase another cask of wine. Who will cop the brunt of that? The workers in the industry will—the 22- or the 28-year-old behind the cash register—who will not have to record this.

There are huge anomalies about who we are really trying to target with these alcohol reduction measures, and the broader non-Indigenous community will be more or less affected by the restrictions in this alcohol bill. Why do I think it is poorly targeted? Because what it does not do is stop the source of supply, as Senator Siewert said. What it does not do is say to the Northern Territory Licensing Commission, ‘Let’s have a Northern Territory inquiry, supported and assisted by the Australian government, into how many liquor outlets there are in the Northern Territory.’ There are 38 liquor outlets in Alice Springs for a town of 25,000. Senator Siewert is right—you can pull up at a Mobil service station, fill up your car with petrol and buy a slab of beer, which is unheard of in most other places around this country. The number of liquor outlets in the Northern Territory is far too many—that is my belief. There is nothing in this legislation that suggests that this government is going to attempt to buy back liquor licences or reduce the supply outlets. Therefore, if you are a person that this government wants to target under this legislation, you will still be able to get the amount of alcohol that you want, that will get you drunk each night. It may not be more than $100 worth—it could be two slabs of VB. I could buy that night after night. This legislation does not do anything to stop, hinder or restrict that. I think it is poorly targeted; it is window-dressing.

The government heard from the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association and is amending this legislation to appease them. The government says, ‘You can now only drink alcohol in Uluru National Park or Kakadu National Park if you are in a certain area’—we would agree with that—‘or if you are behaving responsibly’—we would agree with that—‘but only if you are associated with a tourism business or if you are a part of a tourism venture.’ If I happen to be a family person from Darwin and I head to Kakadu for the weekend and want to sit at Gunlom Falls or Ubirr Rock and have the ultimate tourism experience with a chardonnay and a bit of cheese at sunset, I cannot do it. As a single, individual, family person in the Territory, I cannot do it. I cannot do it if I have driven up from South Australia. I have to be with a tourism association now in order to have a drink at these tourism parks. We have tried to appease the tourism industry, but I do not believe we have quite got there, and I think it is poorly targeted. It is a change to this legislation that has been done on the run and without considering any logistical, logical consequences.

I do not believe that the bill takes account of any of the work that the Northern Territory government is seeking to do. It does suggest that, where there are alcohol measures in place, they will perhaps remain and will be implemented. I hope that refers to places like Maningrida, although Maningrida, of course, has now been declared a dry community. As I said in my original speech on this legislation, it is a pity that some of those communities that have shown leadership in alcohol management plans and were dealing with it responsibly were not recognised and protected by this federal government or, in fact, encouraged to continue.

The other issue has been about Daly River and the consumption of alcohol by anglers on waterways such as Daly River. The issue was raised by the Northern Territory government, who tell me they have now received advice from the justice department on the subject of consuming alcohol on the waterways in prescribed areas. This advice suggests that the only way anglers can be absolutely sure of not breaching the legislation is to launch their boats from outside the prescribed areas. The advice also indicates a range of popular fishing spots that could be affected in relation to the consumption of alcohol, which includes Daly River. This is because, in some cases, the banks and the beds of the rivers have been granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and are therefore prescribed. In other words, if you are a recreational fishing person and you want to take a slab of beer with you out fishing for the weekend and you decide to launch your boat at Daly River, as Senator Scullion suggested on radio today, you would have to wait until it is high tide, because if it is low tide you will have problems taking your alcohol across the land, across the low tide and into your boat. How illogical and stupid is legislation that would suggest that you have to put up with this in the Northern Territory if you are simply a recreational fishing person that goes out every now and then? No-one is going to wait until high tide to launch their boat, and why should they? Maybe that is what you do, but why should they? No-one is going to want to launch their boat in areas that are prescribed. People in the Territory have a lifestyle which includes having a cool drink as the sun goes down, watching Ayers Rock and launching their boats for fishing at places where they want to. I think that this legislation will prove, at the end of the day, not to be targeted at the people at which it is meant to be targeted.

I have noticed that senators today have also raised the issue that there are no plans under this government to fund drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs or to support youth programs. We are going to turn off the tap but we are not going to assist those people who are most affected by this legislation and who will need the most support. The government should perhaps turn its attention to well-funded, well-resourced and comprehensive alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs. The funding for that is just not in this package.

While I have a few minutes, I want to make a few other comments about this intervention. I have now been to more than a dozen communities—I think that I have lost count—in the last couple of weeks, so I probably have the most immediate and recent experience of how this intervention is going on the ground. Is it a success out in the communities that I went to last week in Central Australia? I have to say to the Senate that it is not all bad. To be honest with you, I have to report that government business managers—except of course for the person at Yuendumu, whose comments are on the public record and which are not supported by anybody—who I met in Central Australia are senior Commonwealth public servants and mature-age gentlemen who have experience in finance, accounting or corporate services and are out there to work with the community and the councils, which was good to see. They have spent their time getting to know the communities—who the senior people in the communities are, how to treat them and how to talk to them. Their attitude has been welcomed and their commitment to making a difference and channelling Commonwealth money into those communities where it is meant to go—such as to getting a childcare centre up and open, refurbishing a respite centre and creating fencing programs—has been welcomed. They will do good work if they are well supported.

In terms of the health checks, we know that in Central Australia a number of kids have been checked. We know that eight of them have been found to have a hole in their heart and will require an operation in Adelaide. The Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government are working to ensure that those kids get the operation that they need. But we also know that there are Aboriginal kids who have gone to Alice Springs town camps and the child health checks do not cover the Alice Springs town camps. I mentioned to Minister Brough this morning that he needs a way around that. He needs to ensure that all Aboriginal kids, no matter where they are—even if they are in the town camps in Alice Springs—are checked and are looked after. At the end of the day, the focus of this intervention has got to be on the children in the Northern Territory.

The children are starting to turn up to school. Is that a good thing? Yes, it is. But for my colleagues who work in the teaching industry, it is a pretty stressful time, I have to tell you. There were 9,315 students enrolled in these 77 remote government schools on 17 August. That is an increase of 360 since last year and since the intervention started there have been a further 290 enrolled. So we have seen 650 additional students turn up in these 77 communities, either in the last year or since the end of June, but we have not seen one additional teacher put out there. In fact, a memorandum from the Northern Territory government says that schools have had to manage with the increased attendance and enrolment.

Schools are funded on a yearly basis, so the Northern Territory government has not got the funding to cope with these kids who are turning up, because they have not been funded for this expectation. DEET tell me that they are yet to be advised on the specific actions that the Australian government may take and the impact on their schools. They are yet to see any kind of correspondence from the Northern Territory government about the impact on these schools. When you have an intervention that suddenly kicks in halfway through the funding year and 290 kids turn up to school, you would have thought that part of it would have been a constructive dialogue between the two governments, with additional money found to support colleagues in the school industry to cater for these children. But that is not happening. (Time expired)