Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to present Labor’s position on the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007. Federal Labor gave our bipartisan support for measures to tackle child abuse in the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal communities when they were first announced in late June. Our in-principle support was given because the chronicle of abuse that Pat Anderson and Rex Wild had detailed in their report into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse in the Northern Territory compelled action, as did the litany of reports that preceded Little children are sacred. We believed that to lament that action should have been taken sooner did not lessen the imperative to act now; nor is the reality that child abuse occurs in all communities a reason to sit on our hands in the face of this report.

Over the last decade all sides of politics have failed to ensure children’s safety in Aboriginal communities. In considering our response to the intervention, Labor articulated a simple test when assessing the government proposal: will it improve the safety and security of our children in a practical way? We applied that test to the last legislative package and decided, on balance, to give our support. After consideration of the detail of those bills, we noted that they were deficient in many ways, so the opposition moved several amendments to the bills to strengthen the legislation.

We moved to ensure that ‘just terms’ compensation is paid in all instances of land acquisition. We moved to enable access for traditional purposes to land acquired through the five-year township leasing arrangements. We moved to protect children by retaining and strengthening the Northern Territory land permit system to allow journalists and government agents such as doctors to enter Indigenous communities without permits. We moved to introduce the capacity to review aspects of the legislation after 12 months, including the effectiveness of the township leases and the Territory-specific quarantining of welfare payments, and we moved to clarify that these are special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act and delete the exclusion of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Unfortunately, the government did not accept that these or any amendments to the legislation were necessary. That is the legislation that, by his own admission, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs had not fully read. So it is no surprise to us that we are back at the next sitting of the Senate with amendments to this legislation. Again, the opposition applied the same test of whether these amendments will help protect children in a practical way. These amendments are aimed at stopping sly-grog runners, at stopping the flow of alcohol into these communities, which is critical to protecting children from alcohol fuelled abuse. In this task of protecting children, the government has our support. So, again, we are supporting this bill.

Labor strongly supported the measures in the intervention legislation designed to stop the rivers of grog flowing into and around Aboriginal communities. The scourge of grog is well documented. The many inquiries that have been conducted into family violence and child abuse consistently identify alcohol as a major contributing factor to family violence. The Anderson-Wild reported noted:

... there has been inadequate restriction of the “sly grog” trade, where alcohol is brought in illegally to Indigenous communities by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, exacerbating the alcohol problem, and consequently violence in the communities ...

The report recommended:

... as a matter of urgency, the government makes greater efforts to reduce access to takeaway liquor in the Northern Territory, enhance the responsible use of takeaway liquor, restrict the flow of alcohol into Aboriginal communities and support Aboriginal community efforts to deal with issues relating to alcohol.

We all know that alcohol can facilitate or incite violence by providing a socially acceptable excuse for negative behaviour. It can also act as a disinhibitor, allowing people to do things they would not normally do when they are sober. Grog cultures can and do develop a force of their own, perpetuating disastrous cycles for communities. Alcohol control is critical to achieving community stability. Many Aboriginal communities recognise this and have taken action in the past to declare their towns dry, but it is clear from experience that these are not easy solutions.

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, passed by the Senate just last month, set out a new liquor-licensing regime for the Territory. The act created new offences with harsher penalties aimed at sly-grog runners and new restrictions on takeaway sales of alcohol. The amendments presented here today change these new arrangements in several ways. Specifically, the bill changes the 1,350 millilitre trigger for seeking and recording details in relation to takeaway alcohol and sets a new trigger of purchases of over $100 or the sale of wine exceeding five litres in a single container or two or more two-litre containers. Requirements for storage of these records of takeaway purchases are changed so that the records can be stored at the direction of the Licensing Commission, the implication being that the commission can regularly collect and store the records on the licensees’ behalf. The bill provides certain exceptions to the alcohol offences in relation to tourism operations in national parks, Northern Territory parks and other areas declared by the Commonwealth minister. Thus, there is now a defence if a person is engaged in recreational activities in a park that have been organised by a person in the tourist business and are consistent with any park management plan, and the person is behaving in a responsible manner.

The bill also provides that the alcohol measures can be determined not to apply in a particular area if warranted—for example, where comprehensive and effective alcohol management measures are implemented—and makes clear that no past or future Northern Territory legislation undermines the emergency response alcohol measures. The change from the volumetric alcohol measurements to a dollar-value purchase, with the exception of wine casks, makes practical sense. The potential problems in the government’s original proposal were highlighted almost immediately as unworkable. A submission to the Senate inquiry from Woolworths, for example, expressed concern about the difficulty involved in actually calculating the amount of alcoholic beverages which equates to 1,350 millilitres of pure alcohol. The government members’ report from the inquiry noted this problem and recommended explanatory material to assist people to understand what is meant in practical terms by the phrase ‘a quantity of alcohol greater than 1,350 millilitres’. Clearly the government felt that, for the measures to succeed in stopping bulk purchasing of takeaway alcohol by problem drinkers and by grog runners, change was needed, because controls are meaningless unless they can be effectively administered.

The NPY Women’s Council told the Senate inquiry that the availability of alcohol through outlets in Indigenous communities was actually only one part of the problem. The supply of alcohol from the major towns in the Northern Territory also presents a significant problem, so the opposition hopes that these measures will help to stop the sly-grog runners. The inquiry submission of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation noted that the ready availability of alcohol in centres located close to Indigenous communities can undermine the effectiveness of prohibition measures. They said in their submission:

The majority of illegal drugs and alcohol are brought in by road during the dry season. By opening the roads and townships, there is significant evidence to suggest that these problems will be exacerbated. Another impact of prohibition experienced by Maningrida was an outmigration of residents to Darwin. This had the effect of significantly disrupting local employment outcomes, family structures and also resulted in a number of alcohol related deaths in Darwin.

The opposition remains concerned that other elements of the emergency response will undermine attempts at stopping sly groggers. Labor is concerned that removing the permit system would increase the capacity for sly-grog runners to enter communities. In their submission to the inquiry, the Police Federation of Australia said:

Operational police on the ground in the Northern Territory believe that the permit system is a useful tool in policing the communities, particularly in policing alcohol and drug-related crime. It would be most unfortunate if by opening up the permit system in the larger public townships and the connecting road corridors as the Government intends, law enforcement efforts to address the ‘rivers of grog’, the distribution of pornography, and the drug running and petrol sniffing were made more difficult.

That is why Labor opposed the removal of the permit system in towns and roads in Aboriginal communities—because removing the permit system will make harder the task of protecting children.

The tourism industry in the Northern Territory has the capacity to benefit local Aboriginal communities by being the catalyst for greater economic development. However, there has been concern expressed that the alcohol controls could have adverse consequences on the tourism industry. The Northern Territory government has said that the restrictions will have a great impact on the Territory’s tourism industry and that the measures were not actually addressing the target of the legislation—problem drinkers. The Commonwealth government’s intervention in Aboriginal communities has targeted the supply of alcohol through sly-grog runners. This is critically important and has Labor’s unequivocal support. Labor will also work with the Northern Territory government to review the impact of takeaway outlet hours and locations on problem drinking in Aboriginal communities.

The Northern Territory government’s response to the Anderson-Wild report includes recruiting eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors and two court clinicians, implementing a licensing identification system across the Territory, implementing regional alcohol management strategies and implementing an alcohol education program. In addition to addressing alcohol supply, more needs to be done on the demand side, such as alcohol rehabilitation and diversionary programs.

In the appropriations for the intervention, the Commonwealth committed $16.2 million to child care, early childhood services and alcohol diversionary programs to support young people aged between 12 and 18 living in remote communities; however, the low level of detail provided about the programs being rolled out did not specify how much will be spent on alcohol diversionary programs. I ask the minister in his summing up to detail how much has been provided specifically for alcohol diversionary programs as part of the intervention.

In June 2006, during its summit on family violence in Indigenous communities, the Commonwealth government committed $49.3 million for drug and alcohol services in regional and remote Indigenous communities across three states and the Northern Territory. So again I ask the minister: how much of this money is going to the Territory? This money committed in 2006 was not released by the Commonwealth until August 2007, so I also ask the minister: how much of this $49 million has now been spent? We believe that this delay is totally unacceptable, and I certainly hope it is not an indicator of how the new funding associated with the intervention will be handled.

Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory need a long-term commitment to their future from all levels of government and all sides of politics. So far the government have only funded their Northern Territory emergency measures for one year. The department told the Senate inquiry that there is simply no money for any programs beyond the end of June next year. The government must immediately outline what their commitments are to children’s education, health and safety beyond the next year.

Labor has a long-term commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and right around Australia. Tackling the alcohol problem is a necessary initial step and an ongoing challenge in providing that improvement. But more is necessary. The Anderson-Wild report said that the cycle of alcohol dependency, of having the pursuit of alcohol as the reason for living, needs to be broken. A resident in the western Top End community told the Anderson-Wild inquiry:

At present people are living to pursue grog so they can forget why they are living.

We need to give people much more. We need to rebuild the social and economic infrastructure in Aboriginal communities, to change destructive behaviour and to provide positive pathways. It is dehumanising for Indigenous people to be talked about as just a problem instead of recognising their strength. There are many Indigenous people across Australia taking control of their lives and their communities. There is great strength and resilience in Indigenous communities—in the arts, on the radio, in our schools, in sport and in local businesses. They are smart, resilient people who know that change is achievable.

Labor stand for looking to the future. We want to work with Indigenous communities to turn the fresh ideas that many people have into real change and development. We must all take responsibility for improving the lives of Indigenous Australians: closing that appalling health gap, providing education services and delivering employment, economic development and a future for Indigenous communities across Australia. All of these things are necessary to enable Indigenous children to grow up safe, healthy and happy.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are seeing here the first cracks in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007. Unfortunately, many of us predicted that this would occur, as it does when legislation is rushed through and when you do not adequately consult with the community or adequately subject it to the proper review processes of this place. Although we had the oft-quoted 27 hours of debate in this place, these were five separate pieces of very important legislation and with many details included in that legislation. We were only given one day to review them in the Senate committee, and we barely touched on the alcohol provisions. The alcohol provisions were one of the three areas that the Greens did not oppose in this place. I will come back to that a little later. We did not oppose them because we thought that they were at least a step in the right direction. However, we said at the time that we did not think that they would work properly because they were ill-conceived, they had not been adequately discussed with the community and the community did not have any ownership of the provisions. It is hardly surprising that we are back here, and I fully expect that we are going to be seeing more problems with this legislation as it is rolled out.

Unfortunately, these changes seem to be driven more by industry concerns, in particular the tourism industry—and that is why we are back here so urgently—rather than by the government going out and speaking to alcohol experts and the community to see what actually works in a community, what works overseas and what changes could be put in place which might be unpopular but which need to be put in place. The Greens have, in the limited time we have had available, taken the opportunity to talk to experts in alcohol and alcohol consumption reduction, Aboriginal communities and people working with communities to see what they think would work better and to use that opportunity to try and finetune this legislation. Perhaps I should say ‘coarse-tune’, because it is going to need an awful lot of tuning to get this legislation to deliver what the government wants it to deliver and which of course we all want—that is, a reduction in child abuse and violence in the Northern Territory and a reduction in alcohol consumption.

The question we are asking ourselves is really quite simple. What alcohol reduction strategies actually work? What strategies are there to prevent excessive alcohol consumption and the harm caused by excessive drinking? This must, we believe, be strongly evidence based. There is plenty of evidence internationally, within the Northern Territory and in Australia that shows what could work and what is likely to have the most chance of success. The international evidence that we have looked at is quite clear and is confirmed by the success or failure of measures and pilot programs in the Territory in the past. Unfortunately, what the evidence shows is that, by and large, the popular measures do not work and what works is not popular—which you could probably understand if people are reducing their consumption. The evidence has found that alcohol education programs and demand reduction programs—which are popular with the hotel industry, the hotel industry lobby and some governments—have largely had no impact on alcohol consumption. This comes from 300 independent international studies.

The one thing that has been shown to have a direct and significant impact is reducing the supply of alcohol. Supply reduction strategies have an immediate impact on heavy drinkers and provide a circuit-breaker that offers a breathing space while other strategies, like education and employment programs, can begin to work. This is exactly the same strategy that we have talked about from the findings of the Senate’s recent inquiry into petrol sniffing. The Senate has recently heard some success stories of how reducing the supply of sniffable fuel through the Opal roll-out has dramatically reduced petrol sniffing and created a space in which youth diversionary programs can give people an opportunity to turn their lives around. We have articulated some of those very successful stories in this place.

The international evidence shows that the most effective way to reduce alcohol consumption and harm is through a price mechanism. The review by the World Health Organisation’s international experts group looked at 53 appropriate studies across 17 countries and data spanning 121 years. They all showed that increasing the price decreased consumption. Price is the only intervention strategy to which the WHO report gave three stars for all of its outcome measures. Price based interventions have been successfully trialled in the NT and have been shown to be effective. This is why, any moment now, the Greens will be introducing an amendment to this bill which directly targets—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we are working as fast as we can—the price of cheap takeaway grog. This measure will not affect the price of standard or premium takeaway liquor and will not affect the price of alcohol consumed on licensed premises. International evidence shows that heavier drinkers and younger drinkers—which is exactly the group we need to be targeting with this intervention—respond more to price controls. Other data, from the Northern Territory Living with Alcohol Program—which ran from 1995 to 1997, where there was a levy on cask wine—showed that there was a one-third reduction in the consumption of alcohol and no shift to other types of alcohol. I understand that the federal government cancelled this particular program because only the Commonwealth can levy a tax. In Tennant Creek, they removed four- and five-litre casks, which worked well until industry brought in two-litre casks of cheap port in 1999. In the past, where we have had effective strategies, either industry or, unfortunately, in the other case, government have acted to undermine the effectiveness of these programs.

After increasing the price, the most effective supply reduction mechanism is to reduce takeaway trading hours. To this end the Greens are also proposing an amendment to this bill to introduce two takeaway-free days a week: Sunday—which is already a quiet day in the Northern Territory, with some restrictions in place—and Thursday, which is commonly known, particularly in some places, as ‘Thirsty Thursday’, which is the day on which many people still receive their Centrelink payments. Thirsty Thursday programs have been successfully run in the past in the Northern Territory—for instance, in Tennant Creek. While changes which allowed those on income support to change the day they received their Centrelink payments have, to some extent, reduced the impact of takeaway-free days, we believe that can be relatively easily dealt with by returning to making regular income support payments on one prescribed day a week. We understand that the Northern Territory police support the idea of having takeaway-free days. Even without synchronising dry days with pay days, we believe that simply by having a couple of quieter days a week could make a major difference to the level of alcohol consumption and alcohol related harm and its consequent cost to the community.

After increasing the price of takeaway alcohol and reducing the number of days on which takeaways are available, the third most effective strategy would be to reduce the number of outlets where takeaway alcohol is available. We understand that this is not a matter for Commonwealth legislation. However, it is a matter on which the Commonwealth government, working together with the Northern Territory government and the community, could make a significant impact by buying back liquor licences from inappropriate outlets, such as petrol stations, corner grocery stores and fish and chip shops. You can buy grog almost anywhere in the Northern Territory. We believe that the best way to proceed would be for the communities concerned to identify problematic licences with the NT government, which the NT government could buy back, perhaps with Commonwealth support.

When the Northern Territory intervention program was presented to the Senate, the Australian Greens did not oppose the provisions relating to alcohol supply, because we believed they were a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. However, we were not convinced and remain unconvinced that by themselves the current measures will be successful in making the kind of impact on drinking in the Territory that is needed to deal with the problems there.

The Northern Territory, per capita, has by far the highest rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol related harm. Territorians consume, on average, 15 litres of pure alcohol per person per year, which is around 1,300 green cans, as compared to the national average of nine litres. It is estimated that 80 per cent of Territorians drink in a high-risk manner, according to the NHMRC guidelines. The high level of drinking costs the whole community through higher rates of injury, including homicide and suicide, and through higher rates of accident, particularly motor vehicle accidents.

It also affects the whole community through higher rates of chronic and acute health problems, through lost productivity, absenteeism and injury in the workplace. The Northern Territory consistently scores the highest rates of harm on all these measures. There is no doubt that there is a drinking problem in the Territory which is not just an Aboriginal problem. Changes which can reduce the level of problem drinking for all Territorians will benefit the whole community.

We need to recognise that alcohol misuse is not just a symptom of social isolation, poverty, poor education and employment but also a cause of serious social problems. The government bill introduces some amendments to the trigger for seeking and recording details of takeaway alcohol purchases and for how these records are stored. We do not have a problem in changing from the difficult-to-administer 1,350 millilitre trigger to a purchase price of over $100 or to the specific volumes of the commonly known ‘chateau cardboard’.

However, the Greens note the concerns of alcohol experts and the Northern Territory community organisations that simply requiring sellers to record sales may not of itself have an impact on grog-running into Aboriginal communities if there is not timely action to follow up large and suspicious purchases. To this end, the Greens are seeking to amend the bill to add provisions that would require liquor retailers to immediately report large or suspicious purchases to the Licensing Commission. In this case, the provisions to require reporting of suspicious purchases are similar to those provisions already in place to report suspicious purchases of fertilisers. ‘Large purchases’ are simply defined as twice as large as those which would trigger an obligation to identify and record purchases.

In relation to the new provisions in the bill relating to tourist activities, as we note there are probably very few members of the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities facing drinking problems who are likely to be booking themselves on champagne cruises. It probably will not affect their consumption of alcohol. As I have articulated, there are other measures to address these problems. Interestingly, the stated intent of the new provisions which amend section 19 to give the minister discretion to lift some or all of the emergency alcohol provisions for some or all of a prescribed area is where there are comprehensive and effective alcohol management plans in place.

As senators would be aware from our previous comments in the chamber, the Greens are very supportive of community based alcohol management plans and initiatives. We have been critical of the government’s approach in the past for failing to recognise and support these kinds of community initiatives and for failing to consult with communities about what strategies they believe would most effectively help them to manage alcohol related problems.

To this extent we welcome these provisions. But we are keen to see that they are followed up, as we are well aware of a significant number of communities where efforts to put in place alcohol management plans to limit alcohol sales or to declare communities dry have been undermined by a lack of resources and policing, have simply not been supported by governments or have been undermined by the alcohol industry. A significant number of prescribed areas in the Northern Territory are in fact declared dry communities. We hope that this indicates a willingness on behalf of the minister to engage with these communities to help them implement their alcohol management plans and to effectively police ‘dry’ community by-laws.

To sum up, we believe there are three approaches to reducing the harm caused by alcohol. There is supply reduction. We could enhance what the government has already done by putting in a price and availability trigger. I fully expect industry not to like this, because it reduces the sale of alcohol and the places where you can get it. We need demand reduction after we have created space through supply reduction. We need effective education, treatment and rehabilitation. We need harm reduction, through night patrols and sobering-up shelters, for example. The challenge is to ensure that there is action in all of these three areas. There need to be comprehensive and complementary community based action plans that balance these three elements.

On a recent trip to the north-west, I heard stories in a number of places of concerns about individual and isolated measures failing to make a real difference. Over and over again it was articulated to me that people needed comprehensive, continuing programs. For instance, during that trip last week I heard that there are in place sobering-up shelters where you can get a feed, a shower, clean pyjamas and a clean bed for the night but you do not actually get help to reduce your alcohol consumption. The people running the shelters are now questioning whether they are contributing to the problem by simply providing a bed. In three towns that I visited there were no rehabilitation services for the people seeking the shelter services, so these people were not getting help to overcome their alcohol addictions or treatment when they were coming off alcohol. There were also no provisions for counselling or for support to help the families of the people that had alcohol problems.

I would like to quote the comments of Professor Robin Room, President of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, who said, in an article in the Age in May, that there is a recurring problem in the attempt to reduce alcohol harm. He said:

“What’s popular doesn’t work and what works isn’t popular ...

The article continued:

High-profile media campaigns urging the public to drink responsibly are far less effective than reducing density of alcohol outlets, restricting trading hours and increasing taxes, he argues.

But despite international evidence proving the success of such measures, the industry is not supportive.

“I don’t think it helps that the Federal Government put $5 million into Drinkwise, an industry-funded organisation meant to educate the public about responsible alcohol use. Fundamentally, the industry’s interest is in channelling any concerns about alcohol into strategies that won’t affect their bottom line,’’ said Professor Room.

It is time that we stopped caring about the interests of the industry and actually looked at other measures besides those that have already been put in place and are the subject of this legislation. We believe that we urgently need to reduce the supply and that evidence suggests that we do this through price and availability. When are we going to be tackling these problems and making a real difference as to alcohol consumption? We believe that more work needs to be done to develop proper alcohol strategies—that is, if the government is serious about a comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol related problems in the Northern Territory. Obviously, that requires consultation with industry experts, alcoholism experts and the community.

Unfortunately—and, as I said before, we are deeply concerned about it—this legislation seems to have been driven more by the concerns and complaints of the tourism industry that it will hurt business than by what is actually going to be effective in turning around the alcohol problems that nobody is denying are in Aboriginal communities and in the Northern Territory. That is why the Greens, given that the government have recognised the flaws in their legislation—albeit not all of them—are urging the government to support our amendments to improve how to deal with alcohol in the Northern Territory. We hope that they will see the rationality of these amendments.

I am hoping they have actually read the evidence that shows what does in fact help to reduce alcohol consumption. This is coming from the experts; this is not something that we have dreamed up. We have taken the trouble to read the literature and talk to people and the communities about what they think has worked in the past. We would also encourage the government to put funding into programs on a continuing basis. The other thing you hear continually, when you go to talk to community based organisations, Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal communities is: ‘Oh, yeah, we had funding for that program for a year or two and it stopped’; ‘Oh, yeah, we had funding for that shelter but it stopped’; ‘Oh, yeah, we did have funding for that education program.’ I heard last week of an excellent education program that was being run in Derby and actually addressed Aboriginal students’ needs. As I understand it, people were going to it from all over the Kimberley. But it stopped, and truancy numbers have gone up again. Programs that have been working have not continued to be funded, and that is a major problem too. So let’s get it right this time. Let’s put the proper provisions in place, fund them and try to deal with this problem once and for all.

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

I rise to provide some comments in relation to the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007. I am not sure if we are seeing the first cracks in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act, which we dealt with about four or five weeks ago, but I do think we are seeing the result of a lack of consultation with the Northern Territory government and a lack of willingness by the Australian government not only to inform the Northern Territory government about what it is doing but also to consult with the Northern Territory and form a genuine working relationship and partnership in relation to this matter.

This bill changes the 1,350 millilitre trigger for seeking and recording details in relation to takeaway alcohol. These details will now be recorded for purchases of over $100 or five litres of wine in casks or containers of over two litres. The bill makes changes to clarify the storage or records of takeaway purchases so that they can be stored at the direction of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission—the implication being that the commission can regularly collect and store the records on the licensees’ behalf. That is yet to be determined and the implications of that are yet to be seen, I would have thought.

The bill also provides certain exceptions to the alcohol offences for tourism operations in parks, and other areas if declared, it being a defence if a person is engaged in recreational activities in a park if the activities have been organised by a person in the tourism business and are consistent with any park management plan and the person is behaving in a responsible manner. It provides for the alcohol measures to be determined not to apply in a particular area if warranted—for example, where comprehensive and effective alcohol management measures are implemented—and makes clear that no past or future Northern Territory legislation undermines the emergency response alcohol measures.

We know that alcohol is a factor in a very high number of welfare and criminal justice interventions in Aboriginal families. It is well known that it is associated with the incapacity to care for children and it can lead to violence, lack of money for food and other essentials, stealing, poor health and many other problems. The Little children are sacred report recognised that, alcohol having been identified as such a critical problem for some time, many programs have already been tried and implemented—and many programs, such as the Northern Territory government’s alcohol framework, which are aimed at supply, harm and demand reductions, are continuing and, in fact, on a region by region basis, are having some success.

I think it should be widely noted that these proposals are not new; nor are they comprehensive. Although the Labor Party has now determined that it will support the bill, on my first reading of this bill I found the proposals illogical and inconsistent. Because the government has done this without extensive consultation and without thought about its implications, I do not believe that this legislation will reach the areas or the people it is targeted at. I think it will create an enormous backlash throughout the wider community in the Northern Territory. Senator Scullion, you know the Territory like I do—and better than anyone else in this place—and you would know that this legislation will cause many problems, mainly in the regional centres.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you support it or not?

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The follow-up bill to the government’s recent legislation to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory is to make minor consolidating amendments to the alcohol measures that were central to the reforms. We want the alcohol provisions to be as practical as possible, particularly for people from the liquor industry who are working with the government in this very important area. The legislation currently has a trigger for when licensees must seek and record details of takeaway alcohol sales. This trigger is currently a sale of 1,350 millilitres of pure alcohol. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Amendment (Alcohol) Bill 2007 changes the trigger so that the record-keeping requirement cuts in for the sale of a quantity of alcohol with a purchase price of $100 or more, including GST, or more than five litres of cask or flagon wine. It was the liquor industry itself that suggested this change to simplify the away that the threshold was calculated. The new trigger will make sure the vast majority of larger alcohol purchases, over 1,350 ml, will be covered. It will be easier for customers to understand, and quicker and easier for takeaway sales staff to apply. However, the intent and effect of the original provisions will not be undermined. We will still be stemming the flow of alcohol into remote Aboriginal communities by tracking large purchases to help us locate and prosecute the grog runners.

A second measure in the bill will help some liquor licensees who may find themselves faced with a simple on-site document storage problem under the new provisions. This may arise because of the requirement on licensees to store records of takeaway alcohol sales for at least three years and then produce them to an inspector upon demand made on or at the licensed premises. Licensees will now have the flexibility of storing these documents not necessarily on site but at a location directed by the Northern Territory Licensing Commission. This will still meet their obligations under the legislation.

New defences will be introduced to an offence applying under the alcohol grants. Under these defences visitors to national and Northern Territory parks will be able to take alcohol into a prescribed area in the park in certain circumstances. This will apply if the alcohol is to be consumed in a responsible way as part of recreational activities undertaken with a tourist operator and consistent with any management plan or similar document that may be in place for the park.

As an incentive for communities to work towards their own sustainable alcohol management plans, the bill will allow for alcohol measures to be turned off in relation to a particular prescribed area or part of an area. This may be activated, for example, if a particular community demonstrates that it has developed appropriate alcohol management measures and is winning the battle with alcohol. In that case the Commonwealth minister may decide, after seeking advice from the Northern Territory Emergency Response Task Force, that it is desirable to stop applying the alcohol bans to that area. These measures to consolidate the emergency response legislation follow discussions with industry and show the government’s openness to reasonable adjustments while ensuring the thrust of the legislation is realised.

I will take this opportunity to deal briefly with some of the issues in the original speeches on the second reading. I would like to thank Senator Stephens for her contribution. She posed, as part of that contribution, several questions in relation to matters outside the legislation we are dealing with now, but, in the spirit of support and of how this is being progressed, I will undertake to get answers to Senator Stephens on notice rather than trying to provide it at this moment.

Senator Crossin spoke of a number of issues which I will touch on in a moment. One of the principal issues was that we should consult closely with the Northern Territory government. It is interesting to note that the ABC reported today:

The Northern Territory’s chief minister has supported changes by Australia’s federal government to alcohol bans ...

I think that is pretty comprehensive support, in a nutshell. There are a number of issues about which I think Senator Crossin was a little confused. I will be very restrained, and perhaps if she wishes to quiz me further on some of those matters in committee I will be happy to take them up with her at that time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.