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

I am very pleased that this chamber is finally able to debate the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, because unfortunately, despite the very serious and sustained efforts to end it, petrol sniffing is still persistent in some areas of Australia.

Over the past 20 years it has been the subject of reports, coronial and other inquiries and research projects. The impact of petrol sniffing on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and communities is very well documented and well known. The petrol-sniffing inquiry, in fact, was one of the first committee inquiries that I participated in in this place back in 2005-2006. The committee recognised that the situation with petrol sniffing in Australia was dire, and since that inquiry I am very pleased that there has been considerable movement on this issue.

We do now have a petrol-sniffing strategy and we have seen great progress all over Central Australia in dealing with this problem. There are very good programs that are supporting communities in their goal to eradicate petrol sniffing. Most fuel stations in the targeted areas have switched to low-aromatic, non-sniffable fuel or, as it is known, Opal fuel, resulting in a 94 per cent drop in petrol sniffing. That is according to the government's assessment of the success of the program.

But, unfortunately, there is still petrol sniffing occurring, and there are recurring outbreaks. One example that CAYLUS, which is the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service, spoke to Lateline about when they were presenting submissions and evidence to the latest inquiry, the inquiry into this bill, is:

There was one outbreak that sort of spread like wildfire through the Western Desert, which was 12-year-olds, the average age was 11 or 12. A kid came in and showed other kids how to do it and off it took.

When it was managed to be stopped in one community, one of the kids went to the next community and started it up there, and there were another 12 kids sniffing there. It took a couple of months of serious work by a lot of people to bring that one back under control.

As I said, that was some of the evidence that CAYLUS gave to the inquiry.

This occurred because, unfortunately, sniffable fuel is still readily available in some places. These outbreaks are very closely linked to gaps in the rollout of a non-sniffable fuel. These gaps exist because up until now we have relied on suppliers signing up to this process voluntarily. Currently, the government designates target areas under the strategy for non-sniffable fuel use, and then works and lobbies petrol station owners to have Opal or non-sniffable fuel replace regular unleaded fuel. Of course communities and service stations can also receive Opal on request, and this is part of the strategy for rolling it out. However, where petrol suppliers fail or refuse to collaborate, the problem of petrol sniffing and its associated horrors is more likely to occur; in communities close to those petrol stations that refuse to engage with supplying Opal fuel, you can track outbreaks.

CAYLUS provided an example from my home state of Western Australia where, up until the rollout of Opal in Laverton, the owner of one particular service station there had been refusing to stock Opal for a number of years. Fortunately, there was a change of ownership and the new owners agreed to stock Opal. That has had a dramatic impact in reducing the number of sniffers. The association between dealing with petrol sniffing and the rolling out of Opal is very clear.

We have been gathering evidence on this for quite some time. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill has clearly documented the success of the rollout of the Opal fuel program. But it has also shown firsthand that the categorical rejection of Opal fuel by a small minority, with what some witnesses called a 'pig-headed response', is where we have been struggling. As I have articulated, that is where we have the gaps. This is why we believe that it is very important that the government have the power to mandate the use of low-aromatic fuel. We believe it is essential, because we absolutely need that power to be able to plug these gaps in the sniffing strategy.

As of February this year, there were at least eight, and possibly more, retailers who have consistently refused to stock low-aromatic fuel. Evidence collected by CAYLUS suggests that these refusals have resulted in further sniffing incidents. We heard about those during the Senate inquiry.

According to CAYLUS, there have been areas of concern in Papunya, Lake Nash, Titjikala, Alice Springs, Kintore, Ti Tree, Canting Creek and a number of other places. These are the current places where we understand—the evidence has come in over the last six months—that there have been sniffing outbreaks. For example, Lake Nash is very close to a pub over the border in Queensland, Urandangi, which stocks sniffable fuel. That is, sniffable fuel is run into Lake Nash, which is trying really hard to deal with issues around petrol sniffing. Because cars can carry it across the border, it is really easy to bring it into Lake Nash. Because petrol sniffing does not contain itself within state borders, there needs to be a national approach to mandating fuel supply in designated zones rather than leaving it up to individual states and territories, as the federal government has previously proposed. We believe that it is essential to have a nationally coordinated response.

The Senate inquiry heard evidence to this effect from the Warlpiri Youth Development Aboriginal Corporation, who said:

Warlpiri families come and go across state borders so, for maximum impact, we would like to see this legislation applied to Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia as well as the Northern Territory. We know that Opal fuel has proven effective but, unless the sale of Opal is mandated, and across the broader region, there is a real danger of sniffing outbreaks and devastating consequences.

The evidence I have heard for over seven years now clearly shows that controlling access to sniffable fuel can have, and does have, a significant impact on the ability of communities to prevent harm coming to their young people. Organisations in Central Australia, health and drug services, and individuals from affected communities have all voiced their support for this particular legislative approach, and that was very clear through the inquiry process but also from sustained lobbying over a number of years. This has been on the cards for a long time because we know there have been significant gaps in the strategy.

I am not for one minute at all trying to run down what has been achieved so far. It has been an outstanding program of success. It is one of those programs where we can all stand really proudly and say that there has been multiparty support for this and it has been a success. So why not capitalise on that success? We are almost there in dealing with this problem of petrol sniffing.

Although we have had this comprehensive program provided, there are gaps. We know that Opal fuel on its own cannot achieve the stamping-out of petrol sniffing. We know that it has to be part of a comprehensive approach. It is absolutely crucial, because it buys time in order to get in with youth diversionary programs and the other support programs such as drug and alcohol support programs. We know that it is successful but we also know that, unless we deal with these areas of outbreak associated with sniffable fuel, we will continue to undermine that success.

As has been articulated to the Senate inquiry and to me personally, the gains achieved to date through the rollout of Opal fuel are critical and crucial, but they are also fragile. We currently have a generation of children in much of the region who have grown up free of a sniffing culture. However, due to what we believe are the irresponsible decisions of some retailers, the sniffing culture appears to be once again rearing its head in some sites. We know from hard experience that sniffing, once established in an affected community, can rapidly spread. It is an epidemic we do not wish to relive. Again, that was evidence from CAYLUS during the Senate inquiry.

Though the provision of low-aromatic fuel is not on its own a solution, it is absolutely critical to a holistic approach. CAYLUS has had long experience in the field—and I think senators who have had any dealings with CAYLUS will know that they are one of the most respected youth services in Central Australia and that they have played a critical role in dealing with the issue of petrol sniffing. As CAYLUS said:

We were doing this before Opal, and we would try all the other measures. You could start a youth program in a community and you would get a lot of the sniffers to stop but not all of them. But once you have Opal in a community the sniffing stops and then the youth programs can really go because they are not competing against people who are off their faces all the time.

The importance of Opal has been clearly demonstrated. All it has lacked is the final part to ensure that the petrol-sniffing strategy has the capacity to proceed in the face of consistent denial from the petrol station owners. As Andrew Stojanovski, who was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his work at Yuendumu in setting up the Mount Theo Petrol Sniffing Prevention Program, told the committee:

Opal is a solution that governments and communities can readily implement. Its use in Central Australia has really taken the pressure off communities and provides a breathing space where community workers can actually focus on programs that address the personal and social issues underlying petrol sniffing. When sniffing is rife in a community it is near impossible to do this, the power, violence and dysfunction caused by sniffing is too overwhelming.

This is why I have introduced this bill as a private member's bill—because we have spent so long working in a collective effort to address the issues of petrol sniffing. This is the element that the communities have said is missing from the strategy. They have been lobbying for a long time for this. We have had three Senate inquiries. The Senate inquiry in 2009 found that the Opal program was overwhelmingly successful but it identified this gap and said that if retailers were refusing to stock Opal fuel or low-aromatic fuel the government should proceed to mandate the stocking of Opal fuel.

This is why I am bringing this bill to the chamber. The government has not brought it on. There is overwhelming support. I was lobbied very heavily by the communities in Central Australia, who need this vital element to make sure that they can control petrol sniffing in their communities. This is also a very powerful tool. The communities have also been lobbying heavily for this so that they can then implement their other youth programs, the diversionary programs, and work to really address the underlying causes of petrol sniffing.

This bill will give the minister the power to mandate low-aromatic fuel and make it an offence to supply regular fuel in these places. It will also give the minister the power to create fuel control areas by legislative instrument, which will give the minister the capacity to tailor the measures to the particular community—after consulting them.

Consultation and flexibility are at the heart of these measures because this bill is about helping communities affected by petrol sniffing by complementing the existing strategies and programs. Consultation has been a very big part of the development of this bill. I believe this has been an effective process. We developed the bill in consultation with and with feedback from communities. We made sure it got referred to a Senate inquiry. The overwhelming number of submissions to the Senate inquiry supported this bill and very strongly endorsed this approach. We have taken on board the feedback from the Senate inquiry and subsequently will amend the bill. We have consulted again on those measures. We have talked to as many of the stakeholders as we possibly can and, as I said, we have received overwhelming support for these measures.

I will discuss the purpose of the amendments in the committee stage, but I want to acknowledge the many people who participated in the Senate inquiry. We were pleased to see the proper process of consultation and committee inquiry work here—the idea being that, when you bring a bill to the Senate, it goes off to inquiry, you get feedback and you make amendments in response to that feedback. So, where a bill is not perfect, in response to very sensible review and comment you can make amendments that reflect the feedback from the community. I stress again: this bill has the strong support of Aboriginal organisations, health organisations, community organisations, individuals and communities. They want the minister to have the power to mandate the supply of low-aromatic fuel because it is absolutely critical to dealing with the scourge of petrol sniffing.

I have been in communities and seen for myself the impact that taking away sniffable fuel has. As CAYLUS said, it provides the window of opportunity for people to get in and deal with the other, underlying causes of petrol sniffing. During the committee inquiry, some of the concern was that, if you take away sniffable fuel, people will switch to other forms of substance abuse. The evidence in fact does not support that. The evidence supports the idea that this does provide a window of opportunity to give youth in particular another chance to address those underlying causes and have sufficient diversionary programs so that these youths can move completely away from substance abuse.

When petrol stations just pig-headedly refuse to stock Opal fuel, this bill gives the government or the minister, after they have carefully consulted, the capacity to say, 'You know what? You really need to stock non-sniffable fuel.' As the evidence to the committee inquiry overwhelmingly demonstrated, when people can get access to sniffable fuel and run that into communities, that is where you get petrol-sniffing outbreaks. Again, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that that is the case. Once somebody starts petrol sniffing in a community, it is very easy to get other kids sniffing, and then it moves on to other communities.

As I said, this bill has the overwhelming support of the community organisations that we have consulted. We have consulted them extensively and, under the bill, the minister will be required to consult as well. So it is not as if this is something that the minister can apply willy-nilly to the states and territories in Australia. The minister will need to consult under this bill. It is the missing piece to finally dealing with petrol sniffing, which can so devastate our communities. Petrol sniffing has largely occurred in Central Australia, but it does occur elsewhere and it is increasingly occurring in the north of the Northern Territory and in Western Australia around Warburton, Laverton, which I have already discussed, and in some places in the Kimberley. We need the minister to have the power of mandate where we see this sort of thing happening and where service stations are simply refusing to stock Opal. It is not good enough that these pig-headed service station owners can undermine the effectiveness of what is such a good program—where Australia can rightly hold its head up high and say, 'We took action to address this issue.'

Amendments will be circulated in the chamber and will be discussed in the committee stage. I very strongly commend this bill to the chamber. It is that final link in addressing the issues around petrol sniffing, and it has the overwhelming support of the community. I am absolutely and totally convinced of that.

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

I rise to add my contribution to this debate on the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012. I recognise Senator Siewert's passion and endeavours in this area but might use my opportunity this morning to also correct some of her statements.

Petrol sniffing has been around in the Northern Territory for many, many decades. When I arrived at Yirrkala in 1981—and I have spoken about my experience in that community many times in this chamber—I saw firsthand the impact of petrol sniffing. That was over 30 years ago. In fact, in 1983 my husband specifically had a group of 15 post-primary boys in his class who were all petrol sniffers. It was a specific educational strategy that we designed at Yirrkala School to try and stop those boys from sniffing and to get them re-engaged in education. It was very difficult—extremely difficult—because there were no designated youth programs; there were no low-aromatic fuels back then. It was not until the 1990s that avgas was introduced across the Top End, specifically in Maningrida, I think. Chris Burns owes his doctorate to the research he did into avgas and its impact on petrol sniffing. Then, of course, it was not until 2005 that BP finally came up with the low-aromatic fuel that we now call Opal.

So a solution that would actually turn off the tap here has only been around since 2005, and that then led to the first Senate inquiry being initiated in 2006. Petrol sniffing is not just confined to Central Australia—not at all. I have lived with and am related to Indigenous families in north-east Arnhem who have watched their adolescent children diminish mentally, drastically, over the years to the point where they are chronically mentally ill. It saddens those families. It saddens me.

The other thing I want to say, Senator Siewert, is that this is not the last chapter in this book. This is not the last rung in the saga of petrol sniffing, because what we still need to do is have rehabilitation places right throughout Central Australia, the Top End and probably in Queensland and WA that cope with those adolescents and young adults who are mentally ill as a result of petrol sniffing. I know, for example, that the families at Yirrkala struggle because there is no rehabilitation facility in Gove and the ones in Darwin are completely inadequate. We know that in a place like Gove this bill will be very hard to implement because of the town and the situation there. At Jabiru we will have the same problems and similarly in Katherine. So there will be a need to embark on a lot of concentrated work and effort which goes to education, consultation and negotiation in order to get this bill implemented. There are still many years ahead of us to make sure that we do turn off the tap to regular unleaded petrol and just roll Opal out in remote communities.

The other rung that we will need to look at is extending the youth programs. If I had 20 minutes I could spend my whole time singing the praises of the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service and the fantastic work that people like Blair McFarland, Tristan Ray and their co-workers have done in highlighting the impact of youth services, combined with diminishing the reliance and dependence of youth on petrol for sniffing. That is a fantastic youth service and they work really well with people like the Mount Theo mob and Susie Low, but they are also confined to Central Australia. It would be my dream to give CAYLUS enough funding for them to become the Northern Territory youth link-up service, not just the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service, because I think they have the capacity to extend the work they do right up the Stuart Highway and right across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.

I am surprised that there has not been a call to ensure that, as we mandate low-aromatic fuel in petrol stations, we also mandate the funding for an expansion of CAYLUS, so that as we turn off the tap and do not give young men, particularly, a reason to sniff this fuel we also provide them with the alternative. It is fine to have a bill in here for low-aromatic fuel to turn off that tap, but what I also want to see is the other side of the scales being balanced and the additional funding being provided so that an organisation can expand and provide these young people with an alternative.

There are a number of amendments that clearly need to be made to this bill in order for it to be passed. But let me be very clear that this Labor government has worked laboriously and closely with stakeholders to introduce voluntary compliance of suppliers with using low-aromatic fuels. Success in Indigenous health policy takes time, and the voluntary rollout of the low-aromatic fuel Opal over time has made a 70 per cent difference to the plight of petrol sniffers in Australian communities. So we know it works. This bill is about trying to take the next step.

We have worked hard to introduce Opal in areas around Australia. In 2005 the first Petrol Sniffing Strategy was announced; however, the plan was only partially implemented by the then coalition government. Since 2007, when we came into government, we have worked closely with the private sector, with governments at all levels and with NGOs to address those gaps and to achieve implementation of a successful Petrol Sniffing Strategy program. The manufacture and distribution of Opal in Central and Northern Australia has been a story of spectacular success. It has improved Indigenous health by curbing the detrimental curse of petrol sniffing across many of the communities, so in 2009 we expanded the supply and uptake of Opal fuel across the gulf region of Queensland, the East Kimberley and the Top End. Since then, the success has been echoed across many regions.

I do not have time to go through some of the evidence that was presented to the third and most recent inquiry conducted by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. I had been involved in the first two; I missed this one because I had other engagements in the Territory at the time. The inquiry on low-aromatic fuel took evidence from people like Donna Ah Chee at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, who said that the rollout of Opal fuel in Central Australia 'demonstrates what supply-side strategies can achieve'. There was also evidence from Susie Low at Mount Theo, from the NPY Women's Council, and from Andrew Stojanovski, whom Senator Siewert talked about. So there is clearly evidence about this strategy and how it works.

As of July this year, there are 123 sites receiving low-aromatic fuel throughout regional and remote Australia. And since July this year the Department of Health and Ageing have conducted a procurement process to establish increased production and storage of low-aromatic fuel in various places in remote Australia. So a lot of work has been done and is being done. The committee heard that the low-aromatic fuel storage and distribution facility in Darwin is expected to be completed before the end of 2013. That will ensure that there is ready access to supply to roll it out across the Top End, not just in Central Australia.

I am keen to try and wind up my remarks this morning, because I know we want to get through all of the speeches in the second reading debate, move the amendments and get this bill passed. But I clearly say in support of this legislation that I think it is time that we move on ensuring that distributors in the Northern Territory turn to Opal, and only to Opal. I think there is much discussion and there is much work still to be done. While the voluntary scheme is in place, we know that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that distributors switch to Opal and do it confidently and competently. We know that plenty of education work will need to be done to ensure that people have confidence in knowing what the difference between regular unleaded and Opal is. Of course, there is no difference except for the smell, but that education will need to occur. There will be a need to fund and extend those youth programs right around the Territory. My dream would be, as I said, that the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service becomes the Northern Territory youth link-up service.

So this is not the final chapter in the book; this is another chapter in addressing petrol sniffing. There is still a lot more work to be done. There are a lot more education programs to be rolled out, youth programs to be rolled out and work to be done with distributors. But it is another step along the way to ensuring that young Aboriginal lives are not destroyed because the only end of their day is to stick their nose in a can of petrol and sniff it. So we in this government need to play whatever part we can to prevent that occurring and to save one more person's life from spiralling dramatically downward to a tragic ending where they either become mentally ill or die, and this parliament needs to grasp any opportunity it has to prevent that from happening.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to again contribute to the debate on the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, a private member's bill introduced by Senator Siewert. I will probably be somewhat critical of the government and of the Greens today, for a number of reasons that will become evident during my contribution, but I would like to start by saying that I would commend all sides of this place for their motivation. There is no question that the government is well motivated—I do not really understand the backflip of this morning—and I know that Senator Siewert is very well motivated in regard to the introduction of this legislation. I know that Senator Crossin, Senator Moore, Senator Siewert, I and others have been part of committees in the past that looked at this issue, before the committee that looked into this legislation, and we have all been very frustrated. We have had committee discussions. We made a recommendation after a committee inquiry in 2009 that someone act to introduce some legislation. I suspect that Senator Siewert's introduction of this legislation was a function of all of that frustration, but I think I should put on the record that I admire the motivation of all in this matter.

Of course, we are motivated by a very, very damaging substance. I can remember, as a very young bloke, hearing only a couple of times about people sniffing petrol, but it is really not a part of life for those who live conventionally in mainstream Australia. But it is just so damaging. I have been very fortunate, like Senator Crossin, to have spent some of my past living in remote parts of the Northern Territory and have viewed the damage that is caused by this otherwise innocuous substance that helps a car go. It is very damaging to communities and families, because the nature of the substance is that there are quite a spectrum of reactions when people are under the influence of petrol; it affects different people in different ways. Unlike with things like alcohol and other substances of abuse, where there is a general body weight indicator, for some reason—it is unknown, and not a lot of work has been done on it—some people hit this sort of psychotic state and you cannot speak to them or communicate with them. These are otherwise quite ordinary people. Yes, they have had some challenges and they are self-medicating; but, notwithstanding that, quite ordinary people behave in the most unexplainable ways, and it is just so destructive.

It covers a spectrum. At one end, they simply need petrol to sniff, so they will humbug, they will break things, they will hurt people or they will hurt themselves until you give them some more petrol or access to more petrol. That is extremely damaging to a community and to a family. The tragedy at the other end of the spectrum—I almost hesitate to remind the chamber—is shown by the circumstances where an 18-year-old petrol sniffer followed a group of young boys and girls, between the ages of six and nine, down to a billabong. He was in such a psychotic state that he waded into the billabong, grabbed an eight-year-old girl, and sodomised her and drowned her simultaneously. Imagine the psychotic state where that would happen. You can imagine the community's sense of grief and lack of understanding of how this could possibly happen in the community.

These are the sorts of events that we have, I think, managed to ameliorate substantially. It did not come because of some miracle in this place or legislation; it came through the miracle of technology—the miracle of Opal. I would have to commend the previous government and commend Tony Abbott for his leadership in saying to BP, 'We wish to develop a fuel that doesn't have the nasty bits that make you high—a non-aromatic or low-aromatic fuel.' That was done by BP, and I have to say that in my time in this area I have never seen such a change literally overnight. There were people whom I did not recognise. I knew they were sniffers; I would have vague conversations with them, but they were never going to make much sense. They changed into people whom I met for the first time—really wonderful people who had come out of the smog. I think it had a fantastic influence. It was expanded by the Howard government. I would also like to commend the current government, who have taken up that strategy and pursued that with the same vigour. I would also commend Warren Snowdon. He has certainly been very passionate about the continued rollout, and I know he shares the frustration of this place and the commitment to ensuring that we get it right.

The Central Australian Youth Link Up Service has been mentioned often in here, as it should be. If I could build on the other compliments that Tristan Ray and Blair McFarland have had, for me as a very practical person—and I know Tristan and Blair would understand—they provide minute feedback about what works and what does not. I know they run a great link-up service.

They are able to tell me forensically what is actually happening out there in the communities. They can say that to a person. They can say, 'There are eight people now, but four of them actually went last time in the football round that went over hundreds of kilometres. We now know as a consequence that there are another seven more. Four live here and three live here.' Such is the nature of their intelligence network on the ground that it gives us the capacity to be able to deal quite forensically with this issue which is so very important.

Despite the fantastic work of the previous government, this government, the innovation of BP and the rollout of Opal at a cost of between $23 million and $28 million over forward estimates over years, we are now, tragically, seeing substantial leaks in the system. We have reports now from CAYLUS on the spectrum of people engaging in petrol sniffing and the horror that comes with it. In an incident in the last couple of weeks, an 18-year-old petrol sniffer stabbed an eight-year-old boy in the head. It was not good. It was not just a poke. I do not want to go into the details, but this never would have happened otherwise. We have seen these communities rise up with people free of that stuff and it has now just started to come back. I share the frustration. We have to get this right.

One of the reasons that it has started to come back is the recalcitrance of a number of petrol stations. The government and the opposition have done all sorts of things. We have all worked together to support initiatives. One of the initiatives of the current government is to ensure that we provide a petrol station that only sells Opal across the road from one that does not. I wrote to the then Northern Territory Chief Minister and said, 'Don't let any Territory cars fuel up at this service station.' The Commonwealth agreed. We have gone to every possible length within the law to lever people who are not playing the game into doing so, but because there are leaks in the process that is always going to be the case. That is why it is absolutely essential that we get this right.

We have had a careful look at this legislation. I approached Senator Siewert and said we would support her in a bill that did pretty much what this bill is doing. Sadly, for whatever reason, Senator Siewert decided pretty shortly afterwards that the Greens would move it on their own. I had a private meeting with Minister Snowdon. He was frustrated. He believed that the way forward was, in fact, for the states and territories to legislate because it was more effective legislation and we need it to be part of a national framework. I was convinced that was probably the way to go. He had some frustrations. The flavour of government changes. We have the coalition in power in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland, while South Australia is Labor—but that might have been a bit of challenge. Certainly, in terms of this particular legislation, I think there has to be a better way.

This legislation came through a very comprehensive committee process, and once again I would like to commend the wonderful Senator Moore for traipsing around the countryside and taking evidence in all sorts of places from all sorts of people and for a wonderful report. A significant part of that report was recommendation 6, which, in light of the preceding five other recommendations, recommended that the current bill not proceed.

I know we will hear from the other side about it being all workable or whatever it is going to be. We will be listening carefully to that, but we certainly will not be supporting this legislation for a couple of pretty significant reasons. We do not think it is going to work. It will not work because it effectively relies on corporation powers. I can tell you right now, without naming any players—and I know Senator Siewert indicated this in her report—that, whilst there was no evidence given that they were not all covered by the Corporations Act, there is in fact a place that is a partnership and not a corporation power that would not be caught under this. I also got some legal advice about how convoluted but easy it would be for an organisation to change status to escape those sorts of processes. Whether you become a sole trader or a partnership, you are simply not going to be caught under this legislation. So there will still be leakage.

There has to be a better way, and I think the better way is through framework legislation. There is legislation in the Northern Territory. It was put in by the previous Labor government, and I commend the government. A lot of work went into it. It not only deals with petrol but with all volatile substances. That is the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2005. When the new Northern Territory government came into power, I had better access so I said, 'We have had this piece of legislation, but in the context of petrol it has not been used.' I will not go into the intricacies of it—there is no mischief. There are further amendments required. I have spoken to the new minister. They have sought advice on a new amendment and I understand that new amendment is going to be introduced to enable these things. This is an act that does not rely on the corporations powers. This is an act that enables us to forensically take a lease on a petrol station. I am not sure you can draw a moving line around one person, but this is the closest piece of legislation to doing that. It is ultimately as flexible as you can get it. We can actually effectively prohibit the sale of a particular product in a particular area for a particular amount of time. Nobody wants legislation smashed for a long time. I very much commend this legislation to this place.

There is another matter, and it is not my word you have to take on this. Sadly, as I have indicated, there have been a number of deaths associated with volatile substances. The coroner at a West Australian coronial inquest said:

The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 2005 (NT) has been an effective tool in the NT for ensuring that chronic solvent users who are at risk of severe harm undergo suitable treatment at appropriate facilities.

The coroner went on to recommend that.

In similar circumstances, a South Australian inquest recommendation was that the South Australian minister for health consider introducing legislation before the South Australian parliament similar to that encompassed with the Northern Territory Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2005.

For those who are concerned about moving forward on this, I can provide some hope to this place. I know we are in opposition but, because this is such a bipartisan issue, I spoke yesterday to the Labor minister in South Australia, and they are engaged in assisting me and others in having a look at this framework in the Northern Territory. If they have any amendments to it, we will seek to provide that information to the Northern Territory government, and they could include those in their amendments. I have spoken to the office in Queensland and they are also engaged in ensuring that they can provide some feedback on the framework. Sadly, I missed a call from WA's Peter Collier last night, but I spoke to his adviser on this matter and hopefully we will be speaking today. Substantially this is not just a matter for the Northern Territory. I think it is a good framework that will work. The reason I was talking to them today was not because I needed to tell you all that today. I actually thought I would be coming in today and saying: 'Sorry, Rachel, but, as I have already indicated to you, we are not supporting this. We think there are some flaws in it. But we are not giving up. We're off and working. We're off doing some practical things, talking to people and getting some things done.' But, sadly, we have come in here this morning and heard this. I heard about it at 20 past eight when Minister Snowdon rang me. I am not saying he was tardy about that, as I understand that must have been pretty much when either he heard or he changed his mind. It was hard to know from our conversation.

But, given the fact that the minister had told the Northern Territory government that they were not supporting the proposed act and asked me not to support the proposed act, I was very surprised to hear this morning from Minister Snowdon that the government was in fact supporting this proposed act and was not opposing it and moving in another direction. This backflip goes against the report recommendations, after the excellent work done by Senator Moore, Senator Crossin, Senator McKenzie and Senator Smith—who are in the chamber—and Senator Siewert. To me it really beggars belief that, on this very important issue on which we have had such a bipartisan approach, we have suddenly had a backflip. I am a bit cranky about it. I do not know the detail and I do not know what happened.

Senator Siewert may be able to throw some light on it when she makes her contribution in the committee stage. I know that our First Australians will be dying to hear what the issue was that they were traded off against. There is no other reason apart from such a deal that I would have got a phone call this morning—at 'two minutes to midnight'—telling me: 'Oh, by the way, we've just changed our mind completely on this. Come and get a briefing from someone,' someone who did not even know the Corporations Act seemed to appear in it. It was all pretty pathetic. So it is obvious to me that you have done a deal, and I think the Greens need to come clean. They have to put their hands up and say, 'This was part of the deal.'

We know—and I say this without mischief—that this is a second-class solution. We have a first-class solution, in the volatile substances act, and we should not offer a second-class solution to our First Australians because we have done some grubby deal about something. I do not know about it. Perhaps the Greens would let us know. Perhaps it is not grubby—some deal on Malaysia or tax—but who would know? But these circumstances cannot be interpreted in any way other than: 'We're going to do a backflip.' I have to say to those on the other side that you do have a bit of form on this. Perhaps that is the way of things. I have forgotten how long ago it was that I was in government, and I am not really sure, but perhaps that is the way. Scrapping immigration policy because it would be popular—but not necessarily in our national interest—might have been one of the things. Just the other day, we had the supertrawler issue. There was a bit of a Twitter go, so it was 'We'll just change our mind on that.' Poor old Joe over here, who just the day before had been saying, 'Absolutely not; we've got to protect good science,' had to roll up here and then say—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, you know that you should address—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Ludwig—it was a term of affection. Of course, we have been stuck since then. We saw it again with the carbon tax. I am sure that the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' because that was popular and that was what people wanted to hear. But, with what they delivered, again, it is the Greens corner that seems to have this commonality. Every time the government stroll into the Greens corner, they suit their own purposes of staying in power but they lose sight of looking after Australians.

In this case, this place has been pretty good. I am very proud of how we have all dealt with this matter in a bipartisan way, given the challenges that face our First Australians. I am very proud of the way we have gone about doing that. But, as has been shown historically, inevitably behaviour will out. Today we are faced with something upon which we could have had a first-class solution that everybody agreed to. In fact, the committee made this recommendation:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to consult with the relevant state and territory governments on the possibility of national legislation …

That recommendation is before us now. But this legislation is only enabling legislation. You may believe that this legislation will make some changes tomorrow. It will not. But the thing that saddens me most, and it is a great sadness—and we have all been dragged into this reluctantly, I suspect, including the minister—is that for the first time we are definitely using the interests of our First Australians as currency in some grubby trade-off. I think the Greens should come clean and tell us exactly what that trade-off is.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I object to the use of the term 'grubby trade-off with our First Australians'. I think that is really an offensive way to discuss what is going on in the Senate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, I think you are reflecting on the Greens and the senators in the Greens party. I think you should withdraw.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak to the point of order, if I may.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually reflecting on the outcome. As I said, I think it is a grubby deal, the deal that was done. I was not saying that the Greens did a grubby deal.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, I do not accept that. You should withdraw.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I believe the Greens should come forward and tell us what the deal was. Was it that uncharitable word I used? They need to come forward on this. We will not be supporting this legislation for two reasons: firstly, it will not work and, secondly, it is a part of a particularly unsavoury deal.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one thing that keeps this chamber together is the consideration of the welfare of our community, and I object to what Senator Scullion said. Senator Scullion and this side of the chamber have worked very closely together in a shared commitment to ensure that our First Australians receive strong services in our community. We share that. In terms of the process around the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, this is not the first time that the Senate's community affairs committees have considered the issues around petrol sniffing. In fact, we have had three inquiries on the issue. Everybody acknowledged that there needed to be action. Everybody acknowledged that the use of Opal fuel was one of the key strategies that was going to make a genuine difference.

In 2006, the first inquiry looked at hope in our communities, and the stunning title of the report was, Beyond petrol sniffing: renewing hope for Indigenous communities. One of the recommendations from that committee inquiry was a call for people to work together to ensure that Opal fuel was available across the areas of need. We called on state and territory governments to work with the Commonwealth to ensure that Opal fuel was available and used so that those communities were protected.

In the limited time I have I am not going to talk about all the other recommendations that we have had from our inquiries year in, year out. I acknowledge the reverence with which Senator Scullion refers to our committee and refers to the recommendations that we make. But, as we in this chamber all know, we make lots of recommendations and they are not all acted upon. In terms of the work that we do in our committee, I think that we would have had strong policy if governments of all flavours had taken up every single recommendation of every single community affairs committee inquiry of which I have been a member but, to my sorrow, that has not happened. What happens is that committees work together. They look at issues and bring forward recommendations for governments of all flavours, and decisions are made and work continues around them.

In terms of petrol sniffing, in 2006 we said that there needed to be coordinated work into the future to look at the way that Opal fuel could be developed, distributed and used effectively in the communities. Then we move forward to 2009, when the committee again looked at the issue of petrol sniffing across Australia. There were very encouraging issues that came forward in 2009. I know other senators talked at length about the wide range of issues that work together, including the importance of community empowerment and diversionary programs, but the petrol-sniffing strategy in which Opal fuel is key continued to be a major plank of work across the parliament to ensure that petrol sniffing was addressed.

In 2009, our committee was so frustrated by the continued lack of clarity around what was happening with Opal fuel. In fact it was that committee that, in 2009, recommended that there should be a process across governments to look at mandating the use of Opal fuel. It is there in our recommendations—I believe it was recommendation 5. In 2009, to my disappointment, we did not get that recommendation taken up immediately. But the issue continued to be discussed, and all of us who are interested in this area continued to work with communities and community organisations. One of the things that was on the agenda the whole time was frustration that there continued to be so much misinformation perpetrated by a range of individuals. We have never been able to actually find someone to talk to who raises these issues about the damage that Opal fuel can do to cars and the fact that it would be difficult to have financial advantage if you used Opal fuel in communities. These things continued to happen. We noted that in 2009 and we said that there needed to be changes into the future.

Senator Siewert, in putting forward her bill, referred to the recommendations of the 2009 committee inquiry. She said that there had been a lack of action. She said that we know things have continued to happen but we need something to cut through to address the frustration that we all share about the fact that we have a tool that we know works. There is no debate about the fact that the use of Opal fuel reduces petrol sniffing in communities. No-one even argues that point. It is clear and it is documented; the evidence is there. The issue with which we continued to struggle is the fact that, seemingly, we could convince some people in the business community that the use of Opal fuel was something that should be part of their business model and that working in Aboriginal communities where there could be danger had with it in many ways a community responsibility to provide the services that would best suit their communities. That was something with which we were struggling.

As people have pointed out in this debate, there continues to be ongoing work with the federal and state governments to move towards getting responses to this process. That was the discussion we had throughout the recent inquiry which finalised in September this year. When we put forward our recommendations, we said that the work needed to continue. We accepted that a process needed to happen. We said that the bill put forward did not meet some of the legislative processes and that it needed to be amended. As you can see, there have been a number of amendments drafted to address the issues that we raised in the committee recommendations. If you look at the minority report from Senator Siewert, you can see that she picked that up. She acknowledged that there needed to be changes to the draft legislation that was put before us.

Now that work has been done and, again through due process, we have come back to this place to say that this is one step that can be taken. It will not solve all the problems. No-one pretends that one step will solve all the problems. But we have a process that we are putting before the parliament that says that, if you follow this act, a framework could be implemented, a trigger could be implemented that the minister could use to say, 'In this circumstance, we're going to step in.'

It is not to stop the other issues. It is not to stop the valuable work that continues to happen amongst governments to work towards agreements to ensure that they can maintain the positive steps that they have taken up till now. I think one of the reasons for putting this legislation forward is to give that a bit of impetus and to say, as we have to in many cases when governments need to work together: 'Get a move on. This needs to be done.' There needs to be an urgency about the process because, while we are waiting and discussing and reviewing, people continue to have the horror of petrol sniffing in their communities. That was the evidence we had before our committee, and no-one denies that.

Communities sat before us, telling us about the horrors of petrol sniffing—the fact that, with all the efforts that have happened up to now, there are still outbreaks of sniffing—and that people continue to have that awful virus that seems to spread so quickly and everyone has been struggling to find out what stimulates it and how it continues. As long as there is petrol available in the community, petrol that allows the sniffing to happen, sniffing will happen.

The legislation that is before us is not perfect. In fact, I cannot remember a single piece of legislation placed before this place that has ever been perfect, so we continue to look at how things evolve and how we can make things better. What we are asking the government and the parliament to do is to take this step as one step along the road: to maintain the discussion, to maintain the debate, to maintain the commitment. When that happens, we can genuinely say that we have made a difference. We are not imposing this; we are engaging in it. We are responding to the need that has been put before our committee, before each of us individually. Everyone who is part of this debate has been working with communities and is dealing with people on a weekly and monthly basis.

I reject that this is something that is being rushed through. I think we have waited, I think we have encouraged continuing action and I think that this is one step that parliament can take to address the issues that we all know about. If we do not take this step, I am wondering how much longer we do have to wait.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012. As a member of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, at the outset of my contribution I would like to say how grateful I am for all those who have taken the time to make a contribution to the committee's inquiry on this important subject and add my commendation to those of other senators on the work of CAYLUS, the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service, which gave a very fulsome presentation to the committee over numerous days and was quite instrumental in making sure that the committee had an opportunity to hear from those most affected by the damaging consequences of petrol sniffing.

On a more personal note, the issue brought to the fore for me the central role that women will play in resolving many of the social issues we confront in Indigenous communities, but also the very important and urgent need to make sure that young Indigenous males across Central Australia and my home state of Western Australia have the necessary support and encouragement to avoid the temptation of petrol sniffing.

Petrol sniffing is a problem that has bedevilled areas of Northern Australia since the 1950s. Since the 1980s there have been a number of inquiries and solutions proposed to address petrol sniffing and its harmful, indeed tragic, social consequences. The most significant step at a Commonwealth level came, I am pleased to say, in 2005 when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, was the Minister for Health and Ageing. Mr Abbott's passionate, genuine and ongoing commitment to the welfare of Indigenous communities is well known to most Australians. In March 2005, as health minister, he worked with industry to commence the rollout of a form of low-aromatic fuel, more commonly known as Opal, across parts of Central Australia that had been identified as areas with particularly high instances of petrol sniffing.

Opal was developed by BP Australia and is a form of unleaded fuel that contains low levels of aromatic hydrocarbons. That means that a petrol sniffer will not be able to obtain the high from this form of fuel that they would from regular unleaded petrol. Opal fuel is produced by BP's facility in Kwinana, in my home state of Western Australia, but other petrol-retailing companies have agreed to distribute it through their own retail outlets.

The Howard government committed $42.7 million over five years to make Opal available to more and more communities throughout Central Australia. The Howard government invested a total of $55.2 million over four years on its whole-of-government Petrol Sniffing Strategy. And I join with Senator Scullion in commending also the efforts of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments for the continued rollout during their tenures. As at 1 July this year, there were 123 sites across regional and remote Australia that were receiving low-aromatic fuel, and 67 of those sites were within zones identified as high risk for petrol sniffing activity. Focusing on my own state of Western Australia, the East Kimberley region has been identified as an area with a significant petrol-sniffing problem. In Western Australia there are 26 sites currently receiving low-aromatic fuel, with a further 18 sites targeted for rollout in the near future.

I am disappointed and saddened to say that only yesterday we heard of a firsthand account of the dangers and perils of petrol sniffing, when a 13-year-old boy unfortunately had almost 40 per cent of his body burnt after setting himself alight while sniffing petrol. The boy is believed to have inflicted the injuries on himself when his family found him sniffing in a shopping centre car park in South Hedland—and South Hedland is a place where I spent much of my youth, as my father was a police officer there in his early years. The boy was subsequently flown to the Princess Margaret Hospital. This incident points to the fact that this is a recurring issue.

But, while it is a recurring issue, I want to remind all of us that we must acknowledge the success of the low-aromatic fuel initiative. Universally it is accepted as having made a valuable and significant contribution to reducing the incidence of petrol sniffing. In the committee's report, I am pleased to say, we take some time to draw attention to the fact that the introduction of Opal has been significantly successful. In our report we mention:

The story of the manufacture and distribution of low aromatic fuel in central Australia, to substitute for sniffable fuel, is a story of spectacular policy success. It is a rare and precious achievement in the challenging field of Indigenous health policy. The initiative has involved a partnership between the private sector, including both large and small businesses, governments at all levels, non-government organisations, and Indigenous communities.

This statement in this latest report is consistent with previous findings. People will be familiar with the fact that the committee concluded in its 2009 report that 'the supply of Opal fuel has been a resounding success in helping to reduce petrol sniffing'.

I think it is fair to say, and I echo the comments of other senators, that the majority of submissions have noted the success that has been achieved to date with the voluntary rollout of low-aromatic fuel. I would like to draw specific attention to the contribution of Mr David and Mrs Margaret Hewitt, who have been activists in Indigenous communities and have committed themselves for a very long period of time to supporting the work of Indigenous communities.

Mr and Mrs Hewitt in their submission to the committee noted:

… the introduction of the Opal low aromatic fuel has had the biggest single positive impact on the health and welfare of Indigenous people in the 48 years of our work in remote regions.

What we are being asked to deliberate on today is not the suitability or the appropriateness of low-aromatic fuel as a means of containing petrol sniffing but instead what is the most appropriate legislative mechanism to deal with recalcitrant fuel suppliers across Central Australia—and, I might add, other parts of our country—that for reasons perhaps best known to themselves are not yet able to commit themselves to the introduction of Opal fuel. It is the legislative mechanism that requires our careful deliberation.

The committee's report as a result of its most recent inquiry found that the Commonwealth's efforts to communicate to outlets the benefits of selling low-aromatic fuel during the last 3½ years have not yet yielded great success. It was interesting to note that some of those who presented to the committee said they had never been asked about the possibility of supplying Opal fuel through their outlets. That suggests to me that the problem may not be outlets refusing to stock Opal, as some of the commentary around this issue has suggested, but at least in some instances it is a case of operators not having access to the information about the benefits or some of the assistance available to them in terms of moving from regular unleaded petrol across to Opal fuel.

My concern and the concern of other coalition senators in relation to the current bill is that, whilst it has honourable intentions, it has overlooked some important issues and may produce unintended consequences. Firstly, the Commonwealth government is already working with state and territory governments to address some of the issues outlined in the committee's report. There is goodwill from all parties and a determination to work through the issues cooperatively and comprehensively. To simply impose Commonwealth legislation now would merely bring that process to a halt.

I share Senator Scullion's suspicions about what might have motivated a change in the last 24 hours in regard to the government's consideration of and attitude to this private member's bill. I think it is worth reflecting that the minister, Mr Snowdon, has said previously how wrong this proposed approach would be. On ABC back in February of this year Mr Snowdon said the Commonwealth legislation as proposed in this bill:

… creates, I think, a potential legal minefield.

Again, he said:

If the Northern Territory government had in its mind that it ought to regulate it could, as could a Western Australian government, as could the Queensland government.

In July of this year he also said the same to his state ministerial colleagues, as reported by the Australian:

He told the ministers it was difficult to see how a commonwealth ban on unleaded fuel—which he has previously described as a "legal minefield"—would have a greater impact on addressing petrol sniffing and state and territory legislation.

So what we are dealing with at the moment is a situation where, by the government's own admission, the proposition before us is not a worthy one—or at least is a second-class one.

The Greens say that the constitutionality of their bill is underpinned by the corporations power. The problem with that approach is that some of the bodies involved in the rollout of Opal fuel maybe unincorporated traders. As a result, the bill may be creating a loophole through which traders within petrol-sniffing zones can go on selling regular unleaded petrol—the opposite outcome to the one the bill seeks to remedy. Furthermore, what is contained in this bill will not do anything to actually address supply issues. BP's capacity to produce Opal fuel will not simply be increased as a result of passing legislation. Storage facilities for the distribution of the Opal fuel will not magically appear merely because this parliament passes a piece of legislation. Even the Greens who have authored this bill appear to have acknowledged this point. It is right there in the Greens minority report, which says:

This bill introduced by the Australian Greens does not in itself cause anything to take place.

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the Greens' intentions in terms of what they have brought to the Senate, but I do question the merits of passing legislation in this place when even its proponents admit it will not cause anything to take place. Australia needs to make sure that its legislative approach is focused on getting outcomes. I am not convinced that this bill passes that simple test.

But there is a better way. There is already a process of discussion and negotiation under way between the Commonwealth and the relevant state and territory jurisdictions to deal with many of the issues that were raised during the committee's inquiry into this bill. For instance, I know that my coalition colleague Senator Scullion has met with the recently elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to discuss this very issue. During the committee's inquiry I actually raised the idea of replicating some of what the Northern Territory has done and fostering a coordinated approach across other state jurisdictions. That would seem to me to be a solution far preferable to additional Commonwealth legislation in this circumstance.

The indication in the Northern Territory is that the new Country Liberal Party government will be open to further amending the Northern Territory's volatile substances act to deal with this issue. There is no reason why that approach could not then be replicated in other relevant state jurisdictions. I am confident that the coalition government in Western Australia will be speedy in its response to this important issue. I acknowledge that sometimes the Commonwealth may be forced to legislate when states actively refuse to address a critical issue. That is not the case in this issue. No-one is denying that action must be taken. I think there is merit in allowing a solution based on state and territory legislation to proceed. It will allow for a more flexible and better targeted approach. All of us in this place want to see the supply of Opal fuel expanded and the problem of petrol sniffing eliminated. However, I do not feel that this bill will achieve that in the most effective way and in fact risks the creation of other difficulties. That is why I am opposed to it.

In this debate I think it is important to acknowledge that the commitment to improving the lives of Indigenous Australians is genuinely a matter that transcends party politics. We hear a lot of talk in this place about bipartisanship. Sometimes that is opportunistic but, fortunately, this is not one of those times. During my six months as a senator for Western Australia I have been struck by the genuine commitment of all my Senate colleagues to improving Indigenous lives, especially those in remote communities.

The hearings that the Community Affairs Legislation Committee held in regard to this specific bill were a powerful demonstration of that commitment, and I am grateful to senators from all parties on that committee for their efforts. Here was an example of the Senate and its committee process working at their best. Yes, there is now a discussion about the best way forward on this critical Indigenous social issue; however, I want to make it clear for the record that what is at issue merely amounts to a question over the best route, not the ultimate destination.

The coalition agrees with the need to stop petrol sniffing but believes this bill will be ineffective on the issue and that the issue is best handled at a state and territory level. In the Northern Territory many will be aware that the Territory's Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act—which could be enabled in other jurisdictions, with minor amendments—does enable supply of sniffable fuel to be banned in certain areas. This act could form framework legislation in other states, allowing effective anti-sniffing measures that better reflect local circumstances and differences amongst different Indigenous communities.

The Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended the bill not proceed. It recommended that the act should not rely on the corporations power. It recommended that ongoing coordination with state and territory governments to prevent supply issues with Opal should be pursued. It also suggested that a review of Opal production and distribution subsidies should be more closely undertaken. The bill before us relies on the corporations powers under section 51 of the Constitution. It will have no effect on unincorporated traders. This means that any sole trader, partnership or other trading entity would not be covered. We know from the current situation that one point of leakage is enough to allow sniffing outbreaks in large surrounding areas. I think we are all agreed on that significant point. Therefore, a bill that does not cover every trader in the area would be all but ineffective.

Our alternative is a simple one but a highly effective one. The Northern Territory's Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act can, subject to minor amendment, be used to tackle the problem. Under this act a group of 10 or more residents of a locality or a community council could seek to prevent supply of a particular substance, including petrol, in that location. In the Northern Territory the department of health would then lead a process that would take account of interested parties' contributions to develop a management plan that would be able to specify restrictions on supply and use of regular unleaded petrol and other sniffable substances at that location.

This approach is worthy not least because it is one that has been advocated by coroners in other jurisdictions. This approach was endorsed in a Western Australian coronial inquest into a tragic circumstance. That inquest said:

… the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2005 (NT) has been an effective tool in the Northern Territory for ensuring that chronic solvent users who are at risk of severe harm undergo suitable treatment at appropriate facilities.

In similar circumstances in South Australia an inquest recommendation stated:

That the Minister for Health consider introducing legislation before the South Australian Parliament similar to that encompassed within the Northern Territory Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2005 …

Senator Scullion has been actively working with the Northern Territory government to bring about this solution. I am sure that other senators, including me, from Western Australia, can use their energies and motivations to ensure that other jurisdictions follow suit in a speedy and effective manner.

It is very clear that what we have seen in the last 24 hours is a step back from what would have been a highly effective first-class solution to a less than perfect solution that unfortunately could compromise the future welfare of young Indigenous Australians. In conclusion I again would like to congratulate the committee on their deliberations. I also congratulate CAYLUS for its work in fostering the development of young people across our Indigenous communities.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to wholeheartedly support the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, which is currently before the Senate. This is an excellent bill that Senator Rachel Siewert needs to be congratulated for. She has shown tremendous leadership on this issue, and her commitment has been long running, from her first speech, which I had the pleasure of listening to, back in 2005. She spoke then about the scourge of petrol sniffing and the need to deal with it. I congratulate her on that and on her participation in the initial petrol-sniffing inquiry, in 2006. She has continued to lead on this issue, always consulting with Australia's Indigenous people and always listening to their responses. It was Senator Siewert who initiated the 2009 Senate inquiry to follow up on the 2006 report. It was those inquiries that prompted the government's first comprehensive petrol-sniffing strategy, which did include a voluntary rollout of the low-aromatic fuel. She has now consistently followed that rollout, visiting communities, talking to stakeholders through the estimates process, and she has continued to push for a better outcome for the communities that could benefit from the broader rollout of Opal fuel and a ban on sniffable fuel. I really congratulate my colleague. As I have just said, it has been seven years in the Senate to the point where we now have a bill before us that I think ought to be supported by the Senate. I think it demonstrates what can happen when you have no one party having all the power and there is a capacity to negotiate outcomes, in which case you get outcomes for the community.

I heard Senator Scullion speaking in a most derogatory manner earlier suggesting that there had been some trade-off of the interests of Australia's Indigenous people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Greens have had at the forefront of all our work in the Senate, always, the interests of Australia's Indigenous people. I just want to go through that for a moment.

It was my former colleague Senator Bob Brown who worked very hard to have Indigenous recognition as part of the opening of the parliament every day. That is a real improvement and recognition. It was in our agreement with the Prime Minister that we try to secure recognition in Australia's Constitution for Australia's Indigenous people. Furthermore, all our work trying to protect James Price Point, trying to secure substantial new cultural heritage listings, has always been to protect not only the environment but also the cultural aspects. The Burrup Peninsula is another place where we have worked very hard to protect the cultural heritage of Australia's Indigenous people when it has been set upon and undermined by the gas industry in Western Australia—something that is supported by the coalition at every turn, I might say, which destroys that heritage that is so precious to us.

Another example is that during the negotiation of the Carbon Farming Initiative I was very keen to make sure that one of the earliest methodologies we recognised in carbon farming permits was savanna burning, because Australia's Indigenous people in the Northern Territory have very important knowledge and skills. Getting that change to savanna burning not only is good for the planet in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also is actually providing money and employment to people living in Indigenous communities.

So the Greens at all times try to work for better outcomes for Indigenous people. I remind the Senate that it was the Greens who stood strongly opposing the Northern Territory intervention. We believed it was bad for Indigenous people, and we still do. We also stood up and opposed the so-called Stronger Futures legislation, which the government introduced, because we think it provides weaker futures for Indigenous people. I very proudly stood in the courtyard here with a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders saying that this Stronger Future legislation would be a disaster for them. So I will not have on the record anywhere a suggestion that the Greens are not acting in the bests interests of Australia's Indigenous people when we are informed by those people of what they want.

And that is the key point on which Senator Scullion is wrong. It is the communities themselves who are asking for this legislation, and it is ridiculous to suggest that a better process would be to go and talk to each of the states and territories and try to negotiate with them to legislate, because that is a recipe for never getting an outcome. Anyone who has been into a community and seen the appalling outcomes of long-term petrol sniffing knows not only that it can kill but that it damages internal organs, the brain and the nervous system. People who sniff petrol can become disabled and ultimately die. It does not just damage the health of the individual; it leads to family breakdown, domestic violence, community breakdown, vandalism and all sorts of shocking outcomes in communities. I think everyone recognises that if we can get rid of petrol sniffing we can at least enable people in Aboriginal communities to take up other opportunities for a positive engagement with life—with education, culture and music and so many wonderful things that can be achieved.

So I am wholeheartedly supporting this legislation. The scourge of petrol sniffing is still with us, because of recalcitrant petrol stations that refuse to stock non-sniffable fuel. This bill gives the minister the power to declare areas where it will be an offence not to supply non-sniffable fuel. It enables the minister to target suppliers in relation to specific communities that are being devastated by sniffing, and I am wholeheartedly in favour of giving the minister that power. To Senator Smith, who just suggested that this will not provide an outcome, I say: what other outcome do you want than to give the minister the power to go in an make it an offence to not sell this low-aromatic fuel?

This is actually providing an outcome. A talkfest with the Territory is never going to get you an outcome, because we see what goes on at COAG year in, year out. COAG is a great big black hole where the states frustrate action on a whole range of issues. What we want here is action to actually deal with the issue—the final piece of the jigsaw to deal with the issue of petrol sniffing and to end it. I cannot understand the mentality of petrol station owners who are prepared to exploit people and deliver horrendous outcomes in Aboriginal communities for their own benefit. But, since the mentality exists and there are recalcitrant petrol station owners, then something has to be done. I think it would be a thing to celebrate in this parliament if all political parties could join together and say: 'Let's do it. Let's just close this last gap in relation to this particular issue and let's give young Aboriginal people and their communities the chance that we want them to have.'

Anyone who has not been in the communities may have seen the film Samson & Delilah. If ever you want to see what is going on in communities, have a look at that film and come away and tell me that it is now not time to actually deal with this issue. It is essential that we deal with the issue. Let's do it. I do not think there is any justification in saying, 'No, this isn't the right mechanism.' Giving the federal minister the power is the right mechanism. I congratulate my colleague and again say that one of the real benefits of a parliament where outcomes have to be negotiated—where one party cannot just deliver something and have it rubber-stamped—is that you get collaborative outcomes. Senator Siewert's work over seven years in this place has finally led to a collaborative outcome whereby we are going to see, I hope, this legislation passed and the Greens able to deliver—with the government, it would seem—an outcome that will close that gap of disadvantage in relation to petrol sniffing in Australia's Indigenous communities.

I think it is a very positive step. So much is said about the way parliament behaves or does not behave. This is an opportunity for the Senate to show that we can demonstrate the leadership that is so essential and that is being asked for. That is the critical thing that is being asked for by Indigenous communities saying, 'Help us to do what we need to do to end petrol sniffing.' The Greens are very pleased to respond to that by saying: 'Yes, we will help you. Yes, we will legislate.' I again congratulate my colleague Senator Siewert for doing just that.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to congratulate those who are involved. Certainly, as I look around the chamber, the contribution over a long period of time by Senator Siewert must be recognised, as must that of Senator Scullion and also Senator Crossin.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you would have thought that this would have been a fine opportunity to demonstrate the very best elements of the combined roles of federal, state, territory and local governments and the private sector in trying to resolve this horrific issue. But, as we know in the case of the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, should it actually be passed, it is only ever facilitation legislation anyhow and will not achieve its goals. I, too, recognise Senator Siewert's passion over time for this particular area. But initially, if I may, I acknowledge the work of the then Minister for Health in the Howard government back in 2005, Minister Tony Abbott, who first introduced the concept of this low-aromatic fuel. The package, along with negotiations with the BP company on this occasion, also included activities to support communities and to engage in youth diversion programs, rehabilitation, policing, communication and education strategies. It remains today, as we know, critically important that we do have that broad approach in trying to solve this issue.

From a straight epidemiological point of view, the fact that there has been a 70 per cent average reduction in the incidence of petrol sniffing and the fact that in areas where there is no provision of regular unleaded petrol that it is even more effective—up to 94 per cent—are wonderful stories and must be supported. But what this shows is the need for the engagement of different sectors at different levels.

Let me give you an instance: at a local Aboriginal community level back in 2004-05, what would the capacity of that community have been to go to the fuel majors and say, 'We need the introduction of a low-aromatic fuel'? Their capacity would have been zero, and the capacity of local government in those areas equally zero. Even a state or a territory would not have had that capacity. So here was an example, quite correctly at federal level, where the then Minister for Health was able to go to the senior management of the fuel industry—the fuel majors; on this occasion, the BP company—and convince them of the need for what would have been an incredible cost to change a regular unleaded product into a low-aromatic fuel.

That is a prime example of where we did need the intervention of the federal government at a level senior enough and persuasive enough to be able to get an international fuel major to change the composition of its fuel. And so there is a prime example of where federal government intervention is needed. But, equally, in this particular instance it is patently obvious that the most effective roles will be those of the states of Western Australia, possibly Queensland and South Australia, and especially the Northern Territory to enact legislation to give effect to a solution that will work.

It was only in July of this year that the minister for Indigenous health, Minister Snowdon, was urging the states and, presumably, the Territory to tackle petrol sniffing by matching the Territory's legislation that relies on community involvement and tougher policing powers to tackle volatile substance abuse. That is the appropriate role for the federal minister; it was in July, it was yesterday and why it is not today seems unusual to me, and I think it deserves explanation.

At that time in July, Mr Snowdon was favouring the approach driven by local communities. He told ministers that it was difficult to see how a Commonwealth ban on unleaded fuel, which he had previously described as a legal minefield, would have a greater impact on addressing petrol sniffing than state and territory legislation. I have heard nothing in the debate this morning to cause me to understand why Minister Snowdon would have a different view today, 22 November, to that which he had at the time these comments were made, and I will come back to some of his other comments.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report itself recommended that the bill not proceed—not proceed!—for several reasons. One is not relying on the corporations power, and my colleague Senator Smith eloquently made the point that so many fuel retailers would not fall under corporations law. Maybe sole traders and maybe partnerships would not fall under the jurisdiction of corporations law. We know, as the committee itself said, that there are different definitions of fuels to which legislation applies. The committee said that there is a need—and I agree—for ongoing coordination with state and territory governments to prevent supply issues. And I wish to come back to supply issues; having in fact been a fuel distributor and retailer in one of Australia's states, it is an area of which I do have some understanding. A further recommendation of the committee was that there should be a review of Opal, the low-aromatic fuel, production and distribution subsidies, to which I will also refer.

So we have the committee saying that the legislation at federal level is not appropriate. We have the minister saying that it is appropriately a state and territory issue. Until yesterday, the Labor government were of the view that it was properly a state and territory issue. I do not know why there has been this change of heart, and it needs to be explained to this chamber— again, because this legislation is only facilitating legislation and of itself will not have the desired effect. I emphasise again, as others have in this chamber—and it would be no different for any reasonable-minded, thinking Australian—that we should be able to grasp and complete the study of this exercise and remove regular unleaded petrol from sale.

The position of the coalition is simply this: first of all, the bill itself will not stop sniffing, for the reasons that I mentioned. You have only got to have a sole operator or a partnership and the legislation does not apply to them. In the light of the preceding matters, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the current bill not be proceeded with. As a consequence, we would say that this is the wrong instrument, that it is inappropriate to use a Commonwealth arm of the law. In fact, I repeat what Minister Snowdon said in February this year—that the Commonwealth legislation creates 'a potential legal minefield'. Let us avoid the potential legal minefield and let us come up with a solution that will actually work. There is a better, more effective way.

I know that, only in the last few days, Senator Scullion, who has responsibility in this area from the coalition's point of view, has been in contact with the ministers or their senior executives in each of the states of South Australia and Western Australia, and of course with the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory and the Minister for Health and Alcohol Policy, to move all of this forward. So we are all working in concert. There is nobody working at variance with our end objective. We simply plead for a circumstance where we can bring this home, where we can give effect to this particular legislation and make sure that we eliminate petrol sniffing.

The bill does not address the Opal fuel supply and subsidy issues cited in the committee report. The committee itself recommended—and this is recommendation 4:

… that there be further examination of the wording of the explanatory memorandum, consultation and exemption clauses, to ensure that fuel manufacturers are properly included, and the bill does not have unintended consequences—

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

Read the amendments!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, I will pay particular attention to the amendments, Senator Siewert. Recommendation 4 continues:

in the event of supply bottlenecks or disruption—

of supply. Recommendation 5 says:

The committee recommends that the Australian government conclude as soon as practical a subsidy review that covers production of up to 100 million litres per annum of low aromatic fuel.

Where does the funding come from for this particular exercise? As most people would be aware in Australia, about one-third of the cost of all retail fuel is fuel excise tax and GST. So, in a typical $1.50 per litre price that somebody might pay here in Canberra, about 38c of that will be fuel excise tax and 13.6c is GST—totalling 51.74 per cent. So more than a third of the actual retail price does go to government in some form or another. So there certainly is adequate funding to be able to give effect to this, and that should not be, and has not been, presented as a barrier.

I now come to a well-understood point in most areas for people associated with the emergency services—and I would see addressing the issue of petrol sniffing as being in that category of emergency—and that is that problems are best solved closest to where the affected people are. Unfortunately—much as we think the federal government and everything it does is important and that Canberra is the seat of power as it relates to this area—the simple fact of the matter is that we are a Federation of states and territories, and it has been my experience, especially in the emergency services area, that the more remote you are from where decisions are made the less effective the outcomes of those decisions will be.

This provides us with a tremendous opportunity in my view for locals to own the issue. That is why I plead for a continuation of the process, where the matter is dealt with at state and territory level, so that they have ownership of the problem and can then drive it through to local communities. We know of course that the areas that are the subject of the proposed legislation at the moment are those in which the highest concentration of petrol sniffing occurs. But then, as has been recorded this morning again by Senator Smith, we had the regrettable circumstance only recently in Port Hedland in Western Australia—which of course is well outside the area of this proposed jurisdiction—where a young person suffered burns to 40 per cent of his body because he was apparently trying to obtain fuel for this sniffing. So we have got to come up with a wider solution, one which will actually expand beyond the high-concentration areas to pick them all up. I plead again for a situation in which we drive this to the local level, where there is the greatest demand and the greatest impetus for this to happen.

We all know, and those of us who are associated with local and small communities do know, that when those communities own the issue they also own the solution and they commit to its implementation. Where they see that issues are related to remote decision-making, they will turn off and they will not have that sense of ownership, which I think all of us would agree is required in such circumstances.

We have had recently some wonderful contributions, in my view, from Aboriginal women especially who are providing leadership in this country. I wish to reflect on them for a moment because it comes back to the point I was just making about local ownership, local responsibility and local determination to solve problems. Initially I go to the text of a letter from a Kimberley Aboriginal elder, Rita Augustine, which was sent to then Senator Bob Brown. She makes some wonderful points which I would like to repeat. She said:

We are proud of our history of caring for this country over thousands of years. The country tells us who We are. It gives us strength and determination. But now we face great challenges; not only about our country and our culture, but about our survival as Indigenous people.

Whilst not all the comments made were in relation to the question of petrol sniffing, so many of her comments are relevant to this debate. She speaks of the need 'to face up to our own challenges, and to build a better future for our children, our people, our culture, and our country'. Whilst I was not going to refer specifically to Dr Bob Brown, to whom she had written this open letter, as a result of Senator Milne's comments a few moments earlier I think it is reasonable that I do so. She said:

Dr Brown, it is hard for us to understand why you think it is necessary for you to speak on our behalf, about our country, our culture, and our futures.

The only thing We need saving from, is people who disrespect our decisions and want to see our people locked up in a wilderness and treated as museum pieces.

We are a living people and a living culture. We have faced severe change over the last 200 years, and most of it has been far beyond our control.

All of us in this chamber would agree that the issue that is before us now, that of the impact of petrol sniffing on young people, certainly has been beyond the control of that community of people. She went on to say:

I am an old woman now and I have witnessed and lived the despair and hopelessness of many Kimberley Aboriginal people.

She reflects on watching 'children grow up in despair, die before they are 50, or even worse, take their own lives before they get to their 20s', a very, very passionate statement. She also speaks of the need for her own community in that particular case to be the ones to actually make their decisions.

In the same theme, I would like to go very briefly to the farewell speech last week, on 14 November, in the assembly in Western Australia by the member for the Kimberley, Mrs Carol Martin—I think, the first Aboriginal lady in the Western Australian parliament. Whilst her speech was very comprehensive and wide ranging, she made a plea, in the same context of what I am saying. She said:

The Department of Indigenous Affairs is my bugbear forever. It is a colonial structure that is still in place in this day, in this age and in this country where Aboriginal people are given second-class service.

Get rid of it, please. … Give Aboriginal people the rights of citizens like any other citizens.

She made that plea. I do not think it is any coincidence that it is Aboriginal women who are the ones who speak so eloquently for the Aboriginal community.

My final comment in relation to this are the comments and the quotations of Northern Territory minister Alison Anderson, who is one of the nation's most senior Indigenous politicians. Rebuking her own people earlier this month—which was widely publicised—for relying on welfare, she said that they need to grow up and stop resorting to the 'dangerous conversation of endless complaint' and that she 'despaired at the reluctance' of some of her community to take available jobs. She was talking of people in Yirrkala not being prepared to drive the 20 kilometres to Nhulunbuy 'to earn excellent money in the mine and the processing plant there'. She went on to reflect the loss of adults. She said that there were 'less than half as many adults per child as for the non-Indigenous population,' and she asked: 'Where are the missing adults? There is no way to put this gently: they are dead.'

In conclusion, I say that there is unanimity in this chamber on the solution of this problem. I plead that we come up with a solution that works, that we drive ownership of the issue to where it can actually be addressed—and in this case, legislatively, that is correctly the states and the territories—so that they own that problem, they own that responsibility and they get financial support from the federal government. If there is a further need for communication between the federal government and, for example, fuel majors, that is appropriately the role of federal government instrumentalities. The issue is state. The issue is territory. The issue is local. Please can we have a solution that reflects the locality of the issue?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak on the bill before us today, the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012. The intent of this bill is to change the Corporations Act to mandate the use of the low-aromatic fuel known as Opal in some areas, to prevent petrol sniffing—a terrible problem in our Indigenous communities. Other senators have spoken eloquently today and at other times on the problem that petrol sniffing is for our First Australians. The bill aims to ensure that communities with serious petrol-sniffing problems can contain and hopefully turn their situation around—and I do not think anybody in this chamber disagrees with the intent of this legislation as stated.

There are 123 sites in remote Australia selling Opal fuel, and a substantial increase in this number is foreshadowed. That is a positive step. Opal fuel is produced by BP and it has very low levels of aromatic hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are the chemicals which give sniffers their high. They are also the same type of molecules as those used in spray cans, which is what some young people use in other areas.

There are often tragic consequences for the sniffers, for their communities and for those who love them, and it is a particular tragedy when young people are petrol sniffers. However, some petrol stations within this area refuse to sell the low-aromatic fuel, and that goes to the crux of this bill. The Greens are attempting to go it alone on solving the issue of dealing with the remaining retailers in remote Australia who are selling regular unleaded petrol rather than Opal fuel. Senator Scullion made very clear his desire to work collaboratively with the Greens on coming up with a legislative solution to this scourge of our society.

I come from Victoria, where we do not have a large Indigenous population, and I had only heard about petrol sniffing; I had not experienced it. I was not part of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee when they went to remote Australia and heard directly from the communities, but I did go and see the movie Samson and Delilah and was very challenged by what I saw. It follows the lives of two Indigenous teenagers, one of whom becomes a petrol sniffer, with tragic consequences. In the last scenes, the young woman, in order to save the man she loved, drove the car out into the bush and drained the petrol onto the ground so that there was no way of getting back, in order to get him away from the substance that was changing him so significantly and as a way of recovery and rehabilitation. I think that film took the issue out into the wider community.

The community affairs committee conducted the inquiry into the bill. They travelled to Alice Springs to see and hear firsthand from some of the stakeholders with intimate knowledge of this issue, and it was not the first time the committee had done that. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all those who contributed to the inquiry, who submitted, appeared and participated in any way, and the secretariat staff who worked so hard to put it all together under the leadership of Senator Moore and Senator Siewert, who are great advocates in the community affairs committee space for our First Australians.

The committee made a number of recommendations which included that this bill not proceed, and the Greens submitted a minority report. There were specific details around why the bill should not proceed, and one of them was that the legislation should not rely on the corporations power. Another was that different definitions of fuels to which the legislation applies should be addressed, and I note that through an amendment that has been addressed. Ongoing coordination with state and territory governments was also recommended to prevent supply issues with Opal. That goes to the crux of some comments I will go to later and the modus operandi, I guess, of the Greens in continuing to ignore and be frustrated by the fact that state governments exist in our Federation. The committee also recommended a review of the Opal production and distribution subsidies. I understand where the Greens are coming from when you look at the excellent results from the rollout of the Opal fuel. I appreciate the interest of Senator Moore, Senator Siewert and many others in this issue and I acknowledge that there is bipartisan support for ensuring a positive solution for affected communities. A solution that works around this issue is always going to be cross-jurisdictional.

The original rollout of Opal fuel and the development of the Petrol Sniffing Strategy was the initiative of the Howard government under the leadership of Tony Abbott as the then minister for health. The initiative was implemented through collaboration with industry and with some incentives to ensure that industry took up the opportunity to sell a product that would have such a positive benefit out there in Indigenous communities. The package also included activities to support communities—youth diversion, rehabilitation, policing, communication and education strategies. I am pleased to say that, as a result of that and of ongoing initiatives by the current government, Opal fuel is now available in 106 sites across Australia. This is a great step forward and one that not just the coalition but all Australians can be pleased with.

The results speak for themselves. Research indicates that where Opal fuel has been introduced it has been effective in reducing sniffing by, on average, 70 per cent. The result has been even better in areas where there are no retailers selling regular unleaded petrol, with a 94 per cent average reduction. So we know it works, leading to some fantastic results out there in communities. Although Opal fuel is subsidised, the savings to communities and individuals, in health care and otherwise, from Opal fuel are significant.

The community affairs committee heard from Mr Andrew Stojanovski, who spent 11 years in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory working on petrol-sniffing issues and was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his work. He told the committee in his submission:

Up until Opal was introduced in Central Australia I expected that I would spend my career working on petrol sniffing, community by community … Over my career the best I could hope for using this approach would be to eradicate sniffing in four communities over a period of forty years.

It would have been a long and slow process. He also said that, following all of his hard work, the introduction of Opal had not only changed the reality for Indigenous communities and petrol sniffers and those who love and care for them but also changed his life and how he saw his contribution to this problem.

The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies has found that there would be a $780 million benefit in shifting from regular unleaded petrol to Opal fuel in the area of their analysis. You will have heard from my colleagues here today about the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service. The service told the community affairs committee:

We consider the low aromatic fuel rollout to have been a great success to date. It has completely changed the focus of our work.

Fantastic! So we know the strategy works. It is a very impressive story from a Canberra policy sense and from a community sense out there on the ground.

No-one is arguing that we do not need to solve the problem and no-one is arguing with the fact that decreasing access to regular unleaded fuel assists with the problem. However, the bill before us today relies on the corporations powers under section 51 of the Australian Constitution. As such, it will have no effect on unincorporated traders. This means that any sole trader, partnership or other trading entity will not actually be covered, and there are a few petrol stations around our nation that are so constructed in the way they have set up their businesses.

We know from the current situation that one point of leakage or availability of regular unleaded petrol is enough to allow sniffing outbreaks in a large surrounding area; there is a black market in unleaded petrol in these areas. So it is a serious flaw that only certain traders and petrol stations are actually going to be covered. There are some traders who will stock and sell regular unleaded petrol—and we have seen that growing. That indicates that, if they see a commercial advantage in restructuring their businesses to continue to do so, they are going to do it. So the bill will end up being ineffectual as a result. The committee heard that there are even a number of traders who falsely believe that Opal fuel results in performance impacts and has a negative effect on engines. So there is a real issue around education. The belief in performance impacts has been proven to be untrue, but it is still up to traders to make their own decision on whether they choose to sell Opal. So the bill, which does not cover every trader in the area, will be all but ineffective. As this bill will apply only to incorporated traders, as I have said, there will still be regular unleaded petrol available from any petrol station trading as a sole trader or partnership or under another business model. In addition, a service station that has so far refused to stock Opal for whatever reason would only need to change its corporate structure to continue to sell regular unleaded fuel. The committee came to that same conclusion, recommending:

… that a legislative scheme for low aromatic fuel not be confined to reliance upon the corporations power.

Yet here we are today.

Perhaps the Greens could consider looking to the state governments, who have jurisdiction over these sorts of issues, to help find some constructive solutions. But I note Senator Milne's comments during this debate around the black hole of COAG and the disrespect that is continually shown to state governments and any collaboration that COAG or the state governments seem to do in developing national cooperative approaches that take into account the fact that they are separate entities. I look to Senator Waters's issues around the EPBC Act and state governments coming together with a framework on how we are going to go forward on dealing with environmental issues. I think the disrespect for the COAG process and the states as a consequence is the modus operandi for the Greens and does not always deliver the best policy solutions, as Senator Back outlined in his contribution with respect to localism. Similarly, Senator Scullion commented on the Northern Territory legislation that could be used as a framework for going forward. A further recommendation of the committee was, in fact, just this:

… that the Australian Government continue to consult with the relevant state and territory governments on the possibility of national legislation to mandate the supply of low aromatic fuel to ensure that there is agreed and coordinated action to address petrol supply.

I am really looking forward to the committee stage of this bill to ensure that we have actually consulted with state and territory jurisdictions and to establish what form that consultation has taken. It is inappropriate to use Commonwealth law in an area which should be governed by state and territory law. Commonwealth legislation will be open to challenge and will apply only to incorporated traders, as I have already gone over.

The coalition has been seeking to address this issue. The Deputy Leader of the Nationals and coalition shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Senator Scullion, has made very clear his intent to work collaboratively with the Greens and with the government on issues of improving the plight of our First Australians and to seek a bipartisan solution, because that is the only solution that is going to work going forward. Senator Scullion himself met with the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Terry Mills, as recently as 23 October to discuss petrol sniffing and associated issues. It was agreed that the Northern Territory's Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act could be used to stop the sale of regular unleaded petrol in certain areas, and the Chief Minister agreed that Senator Scullion could go on to discuss appropriate amendments.

So in the Northern Territory, where this problem plays out in communities most keenly, the wheels are already in motion to deploy the legislation against petrol sniffing—legislation, Senator Siewert, that will actually work. Under this approach, a group of 10 or more residents of a locality or a community council could seek to prevent supply of a particular substance, including petrol, in that location, which goes back to Senator Back's comments on communities taking control of their area. The Greens are right: in a previous contribution, Senator Milne, I think, said again that communities are screaming out for this issue to be addressed, but they are not screaming out for this bill and this approach.

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

Oh, yes, they are. That's where you're wrong.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, please! Senator Siewert, could you not shout across the chamber.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue to outline the Northern Territory approach. The Northern Territory Department of Health would then lead a process that would take account of interested parties' contributions to develop a management plan that could specify restrictions on the supply and use of regular unleaded petrol or other sniffable substances in that community. Senator Scullion has also written to the other states involved to propose that they consider adopting similar legislation. State and territory legislation based on the Northern Territory's can be more targeted and more flexible, will be more legally robust and will actually be a solution that provides confidence to those communities on the ground to take action when they experience a problem, instead of Commonwealth legislation being thrust upon them from Canberra.

The coalition has been proactive about developing a long-term, effective solution to this problem and has been attempting to work with both the government and the Greens—unfortunately, as of this morning, to no avail. Even the Greens themselves acknowledge that the bill would be ineffective. As they said in their minority report in the community affairs inquiry report:

The bill introduced by the Australian Greens does not in itself cause anything to take place. It is enabling legislation.

My concern, and the concern of the coalition, is that the Greens' decision to go it alone on the legislative approach to the scourge of petrol sniffing has meant the imperfect bill before us today. Petrol sniffing will not be stopped by this bill, not because of a lack of good intent in the bill but because it uses the wrong legislative mechanism to achieve the outcome. The Greens and Labor know this. I go back to my commentary on traders and how they will structure their businesses if there is a commercial advantage in doing so. We all know that they are capable of doing that.

Labor, as part of its opportunistic deals with the Greens, changed its mind. We do not know what the deals are; we just know that we are now debating this bill before us. Minister Snowdon changed his mind and now this bill is before us. It would be fantastic if the community and the Senate understood the price of getting this legislation onto the agenda this morning for debate with the government support. I guess we should not be surprised, because evidence based, effective policy for this government is shelved for political expediency, something we have seen time and again. We are here in the second-last week of our sitting year with another backflip as we have seen a political fix occur. I hope the details are going to be outlined somewhere. We have a couple more speakers. I hope that a little gold nugget will come forward. We saw it with the supertrawler, we saw it on live cattle exports, we saw it with the excising of the migration zone and we saw it with the carbon tax. With science and evidence based policy, a legislative approach that uses mechanisms that will work is shelved for short-term political gain.

My strong desire, in terms of addressing this problem, was that the Greens would choose to use being highly effective with this Labor government, rather than this strategy, to get the bill on the agenda and get the government's support. The Greens chose to mobilise their highly effective e-campaigners—the 76,000 that changed the minds of Minister Ludwig and Minister Burke. They could mobilise them to get consumers and industry to get behind them by running their businesses and purchasing the products that will lead to long-term and effective change in Indigenous communities as Opal becomes the only fuel sold. I am not sure what really happened in the past day or so to change the government's mind. Obviously, the bill is being done. I wish that the— (Time expired)

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Petrol sniffing has apparently been around or known of since about 1951, but it was not until the 2000s that action was taken. Certainly, Senator Rachel Siewert, who was instrumental in getting the first inquiry held, deserves congratulations on doing that, as do many organisations, such as CAYLUS, and many elders, particularly the women, in rural Aboriginal and remote communities that pushed for something to be done about the scourge of petrol sniffing. As a member of the community affairs committee I have been involved in two of the three petrol-sniffing or low-aromatic fuel inquiries that the committee has held. It has been very instructive to visit communities and to see what is being done and what cannot be done because of the problems not just with petrol sniffing but with chroming and glue sniffing, with the substitution of marijuana, or ganja, for petrol when it is not available.

We are looking at a more serious problem and an underlying and complex problem around why petrol sniffing happens. Just recently the ABC reported that there had been an outbreak of petrol sniffing in Tennant Creek, with 10 young people sniffing petrol. It is really a very serious issue. Some of the things that have happened have certainly improved the situation, and the development of Opal fuel by BP is one that needs to be lauded and celebrated. In itself Opal fuel, the low-aromatic fuel, has made a major difference to the number of petrol sniffers.

Part of the original inquiry that sought to push the introduction of low-aromatic fuel said that youth programs needed to be established in many of the communities where petrol sniffing happened because it was a result of loss of self-esteem, it was a result of boredom and it was a result of lack of cultural connection. On the second inquiry that the committee held, we went to a number of remote communities, met people undertaking youth work programs and saw that there were some benefits beginning to develop.

I must admit the one thing that has concerned me in many cases in regard to the sorts of programs that we as governments—federal, state and territory and even local—impose on Aboriginal communities is that we do not have a component to try and build local social and community capacity. We tend to still have the situation, which was obvious in one community we visited, where the youth worker leaves after a few months, as they are expected to do when their contract expires, and the program stops. I am very happy to accept that someone with a degree in youth work is probably far superior at setting up a youth development program than someone without a degree. But I certainly know of many communities throughout Australia where locals have seen a need and simply filled it, perhaps not as expertly as someone with a degree. But what we are not doing is giving communities the sense that they are in control of their own destinies and that they are the ones who should be working out how to fill the gaps.

The other consequence of petrol sniffing and other substance abuse is that in many cases in some of these communities we have a semi-literate generation of young people who are not able to assist their own children with their education. They do not see the benefits of education and do not support education for their children, which, of course, creates an ongoing problem that may yet affect another generation. It has really become a serious problem that needs very complex solutions and I congratulate all those who are working in the area to try to develop some of those solutions.

I note, in the outline accompanying the amendments to the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill that have been provided to us today, that the government says:

The Government recognises the devastating impact of petrol sniffing on young lives and the importance of action to reduce the incidence of petrol sniffing and its impact on families and communities. In this context these Government amendments are in keeping with the Bill’s object to reduce the potential harm to the health of people, including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, living in certain areas from petrol sniffing. The amendments also provide clarity on a number of technical issues to facilitate the clearer administration of the Bill.

If this is true, I cannot imagine that anyone would have any concerns with this bill. But when you get a virtually rewritten bill, with 25 substantial amendments attached to it, 10 minutes before the debate begins, with no notice to the coalition, naturally one suspects a rat. I noted that Senator Siewert interjected a number of times during speeches, saying, 'Read the amendments.' This was in terms of some of the coalition's objections to this bill. The amendments do in fact include a change so that instead of the bill saying 'a corporation must not supply regular unleaded petrol in a low-aromatic fuel area' it now says 'prohibiting the supply of regular unleaded petrol in a low-aromatic fuel area'. If this had been discussed and gone through with the coalition and if it had been suggested that this was a good way to get around objections to the Corporations Act not covering sufficiently the concerns and the organisations that are involved in ignoring the low-aromatic fuel position, that would be fine. But, of course, we have nothing except those words written on a piece of paper and Senator Siewert interjecting, 'Read the amendments.'

As I think everyone in this place knows very well, Senator Nigel Scullion has been at the forefront of trying to ensure that low-aromatic fuel is available throughout the Northern Territory, and many others in this place have been keen to ensure that low-aromatic fuel is available in my own home state, particularly in areas of Western Queensland where it currently is not available and in the APY Lands. This is not just a problem for Indigenous communities, but the main areas of concern have been in Indigenous communities, and that is where the change to low-aromatic fuels has made a very large difference. If in fact those amendments overcome the objections that were made by all parties when this bill was before the committee, then certainly let's look at them; let's consider them. However, given that there are currently negotiations going on with the states and territories and given that this bill appears to say that the minister will only legislate if states and territories do not, surely the best way to go ahead with this is through negotiation and discussion.

As I said, if the bill would do what the government now says it would do, let's have a proper look at it. Let's certainly look at going ahead with the legislation if it will reduce the incidence of petrol sniffing and therefore the devastating impact of petrol sniffing. We have no problems with that, but why would these amendments simply be rushed into the chamber with no discussion with the coalition, who I think both the Greens and the government know have strong concerns in this area about reducing and then eliminating petrol sniffing? Certainly it would be our strong intention to go ahead in that way, and the government and the Greens certainly owe it to us to sit down with us and look at this. Also, they should be talking to the communities and the state and territory governments involved. Without their involvement, it is a ridiculous proposition to suggest that this bill should simply be passed because the government and the Greens say: 'You don't need to read the amendments. You just have to accept our word that they do exactly what we say they do.' This is certainly not acceptable to the coalition but we are certainly open to discussion on the topic.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired.