Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I would like the Greens' opposition to that bill to be recorded.

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (5), (6) and (11) to (15) on sheet 7221 revised together:

(1)   Clause 3, page 3 (lines 1 and 2), omit "(which are particular areas of the Northern Territory that are prescribed by the rules (see section 27))", substitute "(see section 27)".

(5)   Clause 5, page 5 (lines 4 and 5), omit the definition of alcohol protected area, substitute:

alcohol protected area: see subsections 27(1) and (2).

(6)   Clause 6, page 8 (lines 6 to 8), omit "(which are particular areas of the Northern Territory that are prescribed by the rules (see section 27))", substitute "(see section 27)".

(11)   Clause 17, page 24 (line 26), at the end of subclause (1), add "before the end of the period of 30 days starting on the day the application is made".

(12)   Clause 17, page 24 (line 27), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(13)   Clause 17, page 24 (after line 28), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note 2:   The 30 day period is extended by the number of days in any submission period that applies under section 18 in relation to the application: see subsection 18(5).

(14)   Clause 18, page 26 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

(5)   The period of 30 days referred to in subsection 17(1) is extended in relation to the application by the number of days in the submission period.

(15)   Clause 27, page 31 (line 2) to page 33 (line 19), omit the clause, substitute:

27 Areas that are alcohol protected areas

Areas that are alcohol protected areas

(1)   An area in the Northern Territory is analcohol protected area if, immediately before the commencement of this section:

  (a)   the area was a prescribed area under section 4 of the repealed Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007; and

  (b)   there was not a determination in force in relation to the area under paragraph 19(1)(b) of that Act.

Ceasing to be an alcohol protected area

(2)   However, an area in the Northern Territory ceases to be an alcohol protected area when the earliest of the following events occurs:

  (a)   the Minister approves an alcohol management plan under subsection 17(1) that covers the area (whether or not the plan also covers other areas);

  (b)   the area is prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph;

  (c)   the period of 3 years starting on the commencement of this section ends and the area is not prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3)   A rule may only be made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) if the Minister is satisfied that a majority of the people ordinarily resident in the area to which the rule relates support the making of the rule.

(4)   The Minister must make a rule revoking a rule made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) in relation to an area if the Minister is no longer satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3) in relation to the area.

When rules may be made

(5)   A rule may be made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) or (c), or subsection (4):

  (a)   on the Minister's own initiative; or

  (b)   following a request made to the Minister by, or on behalf of, a person who is ordinarily resident in the area to which the rule relates; or

  (c)   following approval of an alcohol management plan relating to the area under subsection 17(1).

Community consultation

(6)   Before making a rule for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) or (c), or subsection (4), in relation to an area, the Minister must ensure that:

  (a)   information setting out:

     (i)   the proposal to make the rule; and

     (ii)   an explanation, in summary form, of the consequences of the making of the rule;

     has been made available in the area; and

  (b)   people living in the area have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Minister about:

     (i)   the proposal to make the rule; and

     (ii)   the consequences of the making of the rule; and

     (iii)   their circumstances, concerns and views, so far as they relate to the proposal.

(7)   Subsection (6) does not apply if the rule is proposed to be made following the approval of an alcohol management plan.

Criteria for making rules

(8)   In making a rule for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) or (c), or subsection (4), in relation to an area, the Minister must have regard to the following matters:

  (a)   the object of this Part (see section 7);

  (b)   the wellbeing of people living in the area;

  (c)   whether there is reason to believe that people living in the area have been the victims of alcohol-related harm;

  (d)   the extent to which people living in the area have expressed their concerns about being at risk of alcohol-related harm;

  (e)   the extent to which people living in the area have expressed the view that their wellbeing will be improved if this Part applies in relation to the area;

  (f)   whether there is an alcohol management plan that covers the area or part of the area (whether or not the plan is approved under Division 6);

  (g)   any submissions of the kind referred to in paragraph (6)(b);

  (h)   any other matter that the Minister considers relevant.

Effect of area ceasing to be an alcohol protected area

(9)   If an area ceases to be an alcohol protected area under subsection (2), then:

  (a)   the area can never again become an alcohol protected area after that cessation; and

  (b)   this Part continues to apply in relation to that area, after that cessation, in relation to things done, or omitted to be done, before that cessation.

These amendments relate, as the running sheet indicates, to alcohol protected areas and, in particular, alcohol management plans. The amendments put in place a recommendation that alcohol protected areas, or APAs, should be phased out in favour of alcohol management plans where the community wants them. I did foreshadow that I would bring these amendments to the chamber in my contribution to the second reading debate. The amendments state that APAs will expire within three years, or before that time if one of two things happens: either (a) the minister approves an AMP, an alcohol management plan, or (b) the minister makes a decision that the area no longer needs to be an APA.

In making this decision, the minister must be satisfied that people living in the area support the decision that he or she is making. There is a consultation process for this outlined in our amendments. The amendments also provide that the minister must consider a host of factors in making this decision, including the object, the wellbeing of the people in the area, the incidence or the risk of alcohol related harm, any submissions that might have been made and any other matters that are relevant that should be taken into consideration.

We move these amendments because we believe that blanket bans on alcohol such as those imposed by the intervention and its successor, whatever it ends up being called, are not the most effective way of tackling alcohol abuse, particularly as the necessary supports such as adequate access to rehabilitation services may not have been provided. We share the concern of the Australian Human Rights Commission, which states:

… the Commission is concerned that the Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill automatically transitions prescribed areas under the 2007 NTER into 'alcohol protected areas'. Existing licences and permits are also transitioned. Accordingly, the Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill will continue to impose alcohol restrictions on communities previously determined to be 'prescribed areas' without the need for the proposed consultation processes to be complied with.

That is a fairly serious criticism from a fairly serious institution. The Australian Greens support measures to address alcohol abuse, obviously, but such measures must be developed in partnership with the community. If there is a single theme that runs through the amendments that we have proposed to this suite of bills this evening, it is handing the tools back to the community and not trying to run the show from Canberra. So you will note a theme that runs through these amendments is that not necessarily just of partnership but of empowerment and allowing these communities to make their own decisions. This is a very important instance of where we are proposing to do that.

We are concerned that the measures contained in the Stronger Futures legislation do not adequately address alcohol abuse and may indeed have unintended consequences. We support the emphasis on locally developed alcohol management plans described in the bill, but we share community concerns about the increased layers of bureaucracy involved in developing them. The legislation automatically transitions prescribed areas into alcohol protected areas and it imposes alcohol restrictions without consultation. That is not acceptable, particularly if we do not have any evidence as to their effectiveness. I suspect that is where this debate will end up as well—with the inability of the government, as advised by the minister's advisers, to provide any kind of peer reviewed material or anything at all that can point to the effectiveness of the way that these bans have been implemented. As Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory explain:

I think on all sides of this chamber we probably know the different forms that the undermining of these bans can take. This is supported by the submission of the Australian Human Rights Commission to the inquiry. They put to the committee that:

… evidence indicates that interventions imposed without community control or culturally appropriate adaptation and which stigmatise alcohol users do not work and can be counterproductive.

For measures to be effective, they must be developed and implemented in partnership with Aboriginal people.

The Australian Greens support alcohol controls where they have community support. The focus of the approach should be on phasing out alcohol bans and supporting communities to develop alcohol management plans. We have saved the government the trouble of drafting amendments to give that concept effect by providing these amendments which I strongly commend to the chamber.