Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the brief amount of time left to me, I would like to also rise to make a few comments on the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007. As I remarked in this place when we considered the initial complex package of legislation, no matter what personal difficulties those of us, particularly on this side of the chamber, confront when dealing with these issues, we will not allow those difficulties to stand in the way of offering assistance to children in need. That has to be our first priority in considering these matters. If there is any good to come of considering this legislation or the previous legislation, it is the increased awareness that all of us in this place now have of some of the challenges that those communities face.

Like Senator Scullion and Senator Crossin, I have been to some of the communities in the Northern Territory, because that is where I spent my childhood. I have very fond memories of all of my visits to those communities. In my time in Western Australia, I have also visited a lot of regional and remote communities there. I have some understanding of the challenges faced by those communities. One of the complexities confronting us in both the first bill and this piece of legislation—and Senator Crossin and Senator Siewert went part of the way to explaining this—is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The issue of the use and abuse of alcohol is complex. It is complex if we are talking about white individuals in metropolitan areas. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution in remote and regional Indigenous communities either. I hope that this amendment that is before us today is a considered amendment and an amendment that is going to be practical and is going to work in all of those communities. I hope that this is the last amendment that we will see.

When the Prime Minister first announced his intervention, he hinted that he would recall the parliament because this was a matter of such urgency. None of us on this side quibbled about that, because it is a matter of great urgency and for some of us it has been a matter of great urgency for a considerable amount of time. However, it is also a complex area and sometimes it is best to get it right in the first place rather then putting a package of legislation out there and having to refine it because of its unintended consequences. So I hope that there has been consultation on and thoughtful consideration of this, given that dealing with alcohol use and abuse in remote and regional communities is a very complex and sensitive issue. I hope that that has all been taken into account by this government and that this is a framework that will work. We owe it to those communities to make this work and to not come back here every fortnight that we sit with another piece of legislation, another consideration, another refinement to the package in the hope that it will work. I note Senator Crossin’s comments about what needs to go with a legislative framework.

I will not detain the chamber for much longer, as I am sure we are almost ready to move into the committee stage in considering this legislation. Before we were interrupted by the dinner break I was saying that when we are dealing with issues to do with alcohol use and abuse, particularly in remote and regional communities, it is important to consider not only the legislative impact when there is no one-size-fits-all solution but also that we cannot solve these issues by legislation alone. It is just one part of what should be a holistic approach. Every individual, as I said before, deals with these challenges in their own way. They arrive at the challenge in their own way; they confront the challenge in their own way; and they and their families deal with it in their own way. So to enable them to do that we need to put some money into service delivery as well. It is one thing to be in this place considering legislation that determines how, when and what quantity of alcohol can be sold; it is another thing to actually provide the services the communities need when they decide that alcohol abuse is a challenge for them.

The government has come in here with a last-minute rushed amendment on a complex issue. We on this side of the chamber believe that we should not impede any measure to protect children and therefore we will support this legislation. But we say to the government that you need to put money into funding the services that these communities so desperately require. I would have thought it could not be too hard to do that. Given the amount of money that the government has appropriated to address some of the other issues involved in the initial package of legislation, it is passing strange that there is no discussion about funding for sobering-up shelters or for other services that these communities so desperately need in order to address this issue.

This issue is not going to go away in 12 months. This is not going to be just the 12-month appropriation that we dealt with in the last sittings. This is a long-term struggle. It is a struggle that Senator Scullion, Senator Crossin and others of us who have been out in remote and regional communities know has been there for a long time. Some of us have been aware of it for an extremely long time. It is not a new issue, but it is a struggle that each community deals with its own way—and it takes a long, long time. Alcohol has a very insidious effect on some of those communities. But to determine that controlling the sale of it is our only solution is, I think, very short sighted. There are people—and we like to think that includes us in this place—who can responsibly use alcohol. So saying that your measure for addressing this particular challenge is to control only the sale of it and the quantity of it—although now you are putting a numerical value on it rather than a quantity, which is probably a good change in terms of the simplicity of enacting the legislation—is not enough. What you need is the funding for the service delivery. You also need real service delivery that is accountable to the local communities and that those communities feel will address their specific problems, rather than a model of service delivery that is determined either by us sitting in this place or by those in the mainstream bureaucracy. It needs to be relevant service delivery that is locally based and that is accountable. We cannot deal with this piece of legislation in isolation. We need an acknowledgement and a commitment that there will be some support, some encouragement and some funding for service delivery for the individuals and communities who decide they want to address this issue.