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

I understand Senator Scullion is on his way to Borroloola, so we are all representing people who are elsewhere this evening. It might surprise the chamber to note that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments and therefore withdrawing our own I understand almost identical set of amendments that follows on the running sheet.

Under this bill a licensed premise can be investigated if the minister believes that the sale or consumption of liquor is causing substantial alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people. Our question, as Senator Payne just outlined, is why should this apply to Aboriginal people only? Surely a premise should be investigated not only if it is causing harm to Aboriginal people but also if it is causing harm to non-Aboriginal people. That is why we are supporting this amendment. If the coalition had not brought it forward, we would have been moving and voting for our own amendment to change the reference from 'substantial alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people' to 'substantial alcohol-related harm to the community'.

Dr Boffa, the Public Health Medical Officer of People's Action Alcohol Coalition, noted during his evidence to the Senate inquiry:

… it would be preferable to remove the reference to Aboriginal people in the provision that gives the Commonwealth the powers to intervene and ask for an independent audit on particular alcohol outlets. It is not a racial issue. I think that could be amended to read that where any particular outlet is deemed to be causing excessive problems for 'the community', and not for 'Aboriginal people' … In the Northern Territory, non-Aboriginal people drink at twice the level of other Australians and have much higher rates of alcohol related problems. Non-Aboriginal people who are addicted to alcohol are just as likely to gravitate towards the cheapest forms of alcohol as Aboriginal people are. There is nothing racially based about the message we are proposing and we do not think the bill should single out Aboriginal people in that way, although we do support very much the intent behind giving the Commonwealth minister the powers to order an independent review …

So, while investigating harmful retailers is important, it is not what will end the damage caused by alcohol in the Northern Territory. What is really needed is supply reduction measures. I will briefly note a submission to the Senate inquiry from the People's Alcohol Action Coalition. They said:

… unless excessive alcohol consumption in the NT is addressed through supply reduction, other measures that the Australian (and the NT) Government may put in place in order to improve the situation of Aboriginal people will not be as effective as they might.

… the most effective supply reduction measures which the Commonwealth can and should take to reduce alcohol consumption in the NT are:

(i)   a minimum floor price on take-away alcohol at the price of full strength beer ($1.20 per standard drink); and

(ii)   a take-away alcohol-free day preferably tied to a set welfare benefits payment day, but in any event to have one day a week on which take-away alcohol is not sold.

We put up a second reading amendment which did not pass the chamber, but I am pleased to note that the forthcoming amendments probably will. Quite clearly, we are removing unnecessary discrimination. Perhaps it was not the government's intention, but it is there in black and white. Clearly, other parts of our community have problems with alcohol, so we do not understand why the government chose to specify that harm must be caused to Aboriginal people only. It could be seen to be evidence of the view of alcohol related harm as a problem affecting only Aboriginal people. It is a highly discriminatory view. That is why we move this amendment. Effectively, it is to make racist and discriminatory legislation slightly less awful. I thank Senator Scullion, on his travels, for bringing these amendments to the chamber and indicate our strong support.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Ludlam. Before I call the minister, just to clarify: you withdrew the amendment and then you indicated that that is why you are moving these amendments, but you are supporting the opposition amendments. I clarify that for the Hansard record.