2013-11-28
Madam Speaker Purick took the chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 3 and Year 3/4 classes from Malak Primary School, accompanied by Lorraine Kingham, Zowie Sumendra, Jodie Gonzadi and Cathy Mauboy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to parliament. I hope you enjoy your tour and your visit here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to draw your attention to the presence of the Police Commissioner in the gallery. Welcome to parliament, John McRoberts.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for two ministers today. The Minister for Tourism is promoting the interests of the Northern Territory, particularly to England, and the Territory as a tourism site with the cricket game in Alice Springs.
I also seek leave of absence for the Minister for Education, who is interstate at a ministerial council pertaining to his duties.
Questions to the Minister for Tourism can be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister. Questions in relation to Education or Lands, Planning and the Environment can be directed to me.
Leave granted.
Continued from 16 October 2013
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill because it is fundamentally flawed. It is a bad bill; it fails at the very first test. Will an alcohol protection order stop the over-consumption of alcohol which leads to the devastating problems of violence we are experiencing in the Northern Territory? It will not. It fails that test.
Under this proposed law, people who are banned from drinking alcohol can still walk into a store or pub and buy as much alcohol as they like.
There are a number of very specific flaws with this bill, many of which have been covered by the media, and I will use the second reading debate to deal with them in detail.
After claiming there would be no amendments, on the night before the legislation is due to be debated we see two proposed amendments. This bill is beyond the salvation of amendments. This bill fails its threshold question: will an alcohol protection order prevent someone with an alcohol problem buying and consuming alcohol? It will not. This bill will not work. It will not stop people with chronic alcohol problems buying alcohol. It will not stop the violence.
As we have constantly debated in this House, Labor’s policy on alcohol is fundamentally different to the CLP’s. The Labor Party believes we should be doing our best to prevent problems before they happen. That means a comprehensive policy on alcohol, which includes being serious on how we stop the supply of alcohol to problem drunks and how we stop the violence.
The CLP continually presents policy which deals with problems after they have happened. Its policy is punitive. To borrow a phrase, we believe you should build a fence at the top of the cliff rather than park an ambulance at the bottom. The CLP continues to present bottom-of-the-cliff solutions to the problems we have with alcohol in the Northern Territory. This is a bottom-of-the-cliff bill.
This legislation bans people from purchasing alcohol but no one is allowed to know who is banned. Banned drinkers are put on a register, but it is not enforced. Problem drinkers are put on a banned drinker register but, then, are allowed to buy as much alcohol as they like.
This legislation means instead of stopping people from purchasing alcohol in the first place, police now have to chase people after they have been drinking. This legislation deals with alcohol crime and abuse after it has occurred; it does not prevent it. Unless you are controlling alcohol at the point of sale, you are doing nothing to control the sale of alcohol, the spiralling rate of alcohol-related violence and domestic violence.
I do not believe for a second the Northern Territory Police, who have responsibility for this legislation, think we should not be controlling alcohol at the point of sale. The Police Association certainly does not. The President of the Police Association, Vince Kelly, has long advocated alcohol measures, including the Banned Drinker Register. Vince Kelly supports anything which reduces alcohol problems, but has said laws need to be policed at the point of sale. The Banned Drinker Register had a point of sale measure which was having some effect.
There are many options available for governments that are serious about tackling the problems associated with the supply of alcohol. We understand it is a difficult area in which to make policy reform. It is an area which requires courageous decisions, because measures which tackle the supply of alcohol to problem drunks can be unpopular.
The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is the flawed legislation you came up with when you knew the Banned Drinker Register worked but were too pigheaded to admit it – when you want to ban people from drinking but put nothing in place to make the ban work. You are replacing the Banned Drinker Register with a banned drinker register where no one knows who is banned.
The CLP wants to ban people from drinking but cannot find the courage to put in place a measure at the point of sale which would prevent people who are banned from purchasing alcohol. The CLP’s political positioning on the Banned Drinker Register has led to the absurd situation where, in this bill, people will be banned from drinking alcohol but no one will know they are banned.
The CLP’s refusal to tackle the supply of alcohol is the number one reason the CLP has failed in its promise to cut crime by 10% a year every year. Violent crime is up across the Territory. The CLP has broken its promise; it has broken its so-called written contract with Territorians.
The June quarter 2012 was the last full quarter with the BDR. The June quarter 2013 had 11% more violent assaults than last year. Violent crime – assaults – in the Territory has increased by 11% since the BDR was scrapped. Their own yearly statistics, released on Tuesday, confirm this – an 11.4% increase in alcohol-related crime when comparing this year with no BDR and last year with the BDR.
That is why we have this flawed legislation. The CLP promised crime would go down 10% but, instead, violent crime is up by 11%. The CLP says that is okay because property crime has come down. It is not good news that there is less graffiti but more bashings. Police, magistrates, doctors, alcohol rehabilitation specialists, legal groups and Indigenous stakeholders all told the CLP that scrapping the Banned Drinker Register was a mistake and would increase crime. The CLP ignored them. They knew better, apparently.
In a rare act of unity, both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott spoke out about their concern at the CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. The CLP ignored them. It is no surprise the experts were right and the CLP was wrong.
Police said the Banned Drinker Register was the best tool they had to fight crime, but the CLP said ‘Bad luck, you cannot use it’ – 2500 problem drinkers back on the grog free to drink again.
In the Northern Territory, around two-thirds of violence involves alcohol. By scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, the CLP has made it easier for problem drinkers to buy and consume alcohol. That means the CLP is culpable for the increase in violent crime. By failing to tackle the supply of alcohol, the CLP clearly believes the supply of alcohol is not related to alcohol abuse or alcohol crime. That is plainly wrong.
Let us look at the difference between Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. Both towns are remote regional centres and have similar populations and demographics, but Nhulunbuy still, effectively, has the Banned Drinker Register. You have to show ID to purchase takeaway alcohol and an electronic system enforces bans on people. In Tennant Creek, since scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, it is a free for all. Anyone can buy as much alcohol as they like.
In your latest crime statistics, there were 97 assaults in Nhulunbuy. That is a lot until you look at the number of assaults over the same period in Tennant Creek – 660. Without a doubt there are other factors at play in Tennant Creek, having seven times the rate of violent crime than Nhulunbuy. However, the main difference between the two towns is access to alcohol.
One of the major problems the CLP has in developing comprehensive, practical and effective alcohol policy is its refusal to consult and listen to experts in this area. Every expert will tell you that for your policy to work you need a meaningful approach to the supply of alcohol. Yet, consistently, the CLP refuses to consult, refuses to listen to experts ...
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 students from Malak Primary School, accompanied by Amanda Kingham and Melissa O’Hara. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you here to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and your visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER: In this sittings, we are also debating the Advance Personal Planning Bill which is good, sound legislation. The CLP put out a discussion paper, a draft bill, they held forums across the Territory and they invited and encouraged submissions on the draft bill. However, with this bill there was nothing. No one saw it until it was introduced into parliament. The CLP says this bill will help police, but even the Police Association did not see it in advance. The reason for that is simple: they knew police would say it was better to stop banned people buying alcohol in the first place than chase people afterwards.
While we are speaking about consultation, the CLP has a consultation paper out on fishing, fishing access and bag limits. Fishing bag limits is worth extensive consultation but, for the single biggest problem the Territory faces – alcohol crime – there was no consultation at all. Here are some other things the CLP is consulting on: wildlife carers, weeds management, Palmerston hospital – they are reconsulting on the Palmerston hospital – and Rapid Creek flooding, sort of. They say they are consulting but, as the member for Johnston would know, they are not. There are probably more.
I am not saying these things are not important. But if you can consult on them, surely you can consult on how we best stop alcohol violence. What is so hard about putting this bill out and asking people for feedback? It happened with the Advance Personal Planning Bill, it can happen for other bills. It can happen for the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. You hope the CLP would have learnt its lesson from the mandatory treatment bill, where they had to bring in 40 amendments between introduction and passage.
Yesterday, the Attorney-General said in debate on the Advance Personal Planning Bill that it is more important to get it right than push up against your own artificial time lines. The Chief Minister should take the time to get this bill right, to get his alcohol policy right. Instead, we see two late amendments. There has been no attempt to engage with experts or to get this bill right through consultation. When the Police Association says there are problems with the police laws, there is a problem. The Police Association is clearly saying, ‘While we support measures to reduce alcohol problems, there should be something at the point of sale’.
This bill is fundamentally flawed because while people are banned they can still buy alcohol, and there are many specific flaws. Many have been detailed in the press over recent weeks. Let us start with drink-drivers. If you are pulled over in the Territory and blow 0.08 once, or 0.05 for the second time then, by definition, you get an alcohol protection order. This means you cannot enter any licensed premises in the Northern Territory. If someone drinks and drives, it makes sense to ban them from driving. To ban them from going to the supermarket does not make sense. The definition of a licensed venue in this legislation includes every place licensed to sell alcohol. It does not take into account the condition of the licence, so it includes venues when they cannot sell alcohol. They cannot go to the corner supermarket, a licensed caf or a restaurant. They cannot stay in a hotel room. They cannot go to the boat show at the convention centre. They cannot go to TIO Stadium or many other sporting venues.
If someone drinks and drives it makes sense to ban them from driving, but to ban them from going to the supermarket does not make sense. The stupidity of this legislation is that someone on an alcohol protection order is not allowed to enter a licensed premises even when that licensed premises is not allowed to sell alcohol.
For example, you can never go into the Fannie Bay Supermarket, even on a Sunday when the bottle shop is closed. A drink-driver who picks up a copy of the NT News on a Sunday morning at the Fannie Bay Supermarket faces three months in prison under this bill. This is the law, as outlined in this bill. It could easily be changed.
In my electorate of Fannie Bay, every grocery store is licensed, so where does someone on an alcohol protection order, who cannot drive – if they lost their licence through drink-driving – buy their groceries? They cannot. It is logical if you lose your licence through drink-driving and have to walk to a lot of places. You need to walk to your corner store but they cannot. They cannot go to the Cool Spot Caf for a coffee. They cannot even pick up a takeaway pizza from Fannie Bay Super Pizza.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy, the member for Fong Lim, is a convicted drink-driver. Under this legislation, the minister would have been on an alcohol protection order. It is ridiculous that the Deputy Chief Minister would not be able to go into a shop, a restaurant or pick up a pizza. Why not just ban people from purchasing or consuming alcohol? It will be far simpler and far easier to enforce. The Chief Minister will probably say police will use their discretion and not arrest someone for buying bread. Police discretion is not a clause in this bill. The law is the law. Once this bill passes people can face three months’ gaol for buying bread, and that is clearly a mistake. It is the type of mistake that happens when you do not consult. Our job is to scrutinise legislation brought before the parliament, and this legislation allows police to arrest someone for buying bread or for entering a licensed premises.
Chief Minister, if it is not your intention that someone on an alcohol protection order cannot go into a supermarket on a Sunday, when alcohol is not for sale, just to buy bread, then change this legislation. Here is a list of just some of the offences where, if you are affected by alcohol, you receive an alcohol protection order. Before I provide the list, let us understand you do not have to be intoxicated, you do not have to be over 0.05, you just have to be affected by alcohol, which is a very low test:
entering occupied land in a manner likely to breach the peace
Some of these are ridiculous. Under this legislation, if you sing a footy song in a pub, police can immediately put you on an alcohol protection order for singing in public while affected by alcohol – not intoxicated, ‘while affected’.
The test required for someone to go on an alcohol protection order is very low. The member for Nelson has publicly given the example of minor property damage while affected by alcohol. A couple of young blokes who have had a few drinks and knock over a sign outside a shop will go on an alcohol protection order.
We all remember the Eiffel Tower page of the NT News where the guy was naked on his balcony. Had he had a few drinks? Probably. Should he be banned from going to the supermarket? Probably not, but that is what this legislation would do.
The University Rats are famous for heading into pubs to sing their somewhat risqu songs to raise money. If they have a few drinks – and they do - they can be banned. That is what this legislation would do. Those are the types of offences this bill deals with.
The Chief Minister will tell you this bill is all about tackling violence, but it is not. It covers an extraordinary range of other offences. This bill does not give any extra powers to police in relation to people charged with assault, including domestic violence. Police can already immediately ban someone they suspect of committing a domestic violence offence from drinking alcohol. This can occur prior to anyone being charged with an offence. Under the Bail Act, alcohol bans can be issued. People can be confined to certain premises and can be banned from entering licensed venues. They can be ordered – we heard from the Attorney-General before – to wear a GPS bracelet. All this can happen prior to the person being found guilty of an offence.
I will read from the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. In justifying this legislation he said approximately 70% of domestic violence order breaches responded to are alcohol-related. Many people with domestic violence orders are already banned from drinking alcohol, yet 70% of the breaches are alcohol-related. Apparently, banning them again will work.
If someone breaches a domestic violence order the police can already take action. This bill does not even come into play. They have breached their domestic violence order. All the provisions and powers needed to ban that person from alcohol exist right now. Apparently, police will now attend a domestic violence incident – to a breach – and say to the perpetrator, ‘I notice you did not comply with your domestic violence order. We will give you an alcohol protection order. I will ban you from drinking again.’ You are banning them twice.
By the way, even though you are banned twice, the government has decided they will not stop you going to the corner bottle shop and buying as much alcohol as you want because there is no measure at point of sale.
We will have to wait until they have started drinking again then police may find them. All the work in this bill falls onto our police force. The failure to have a measure at the point of sale means all the work in this bill will fall onto our police after the fact. It does not stop the sale or consumption of alcohol; it does not stop the problem. This is clearly an absurd situation.
The Chief Minister’s second reading speech essentially says people banned under a domestic violence order will be banned again under an alcohol protection order. If someone breaches a domestic violence order, police should be doing a lot more than giving them an alcohol protection order. This bill gives police more power to search anyone in the community than any law in the original bill.
Anyone police think might be on an alcohol protection order – they do not need to know – can be searched any time. Police can think they are drinking or have alcohol on them. It is harder for police to search a suspected drug dealer. The Chief Minister has now admitted he got this wrong. He has changed his mind and, in a late amendment, said police have to suspect that person may possess alcohol. It would have been much easier if the Chief Minister had listened and consulted in the first place.
As we have already touched on in great detail, the major flaw in this legislation is that bottle shop attendants or bar staff cannot possibly know if the person they are serving is banned. However, this bill makes it an offence if they knowingly serve a banned person.
If police attend a venue and tell the licensee or manager a certain person is banned, then all they can do is ask them not to serve them. If they do nothing, nothing can happen to the licensee, but the person who served them faces three months in prison. The backpacker working in the bottle shop faces prison, but nothing can happen to the licensee.
There is nothing available to let the person at the counter at the point of sale know if a person is banned. The police have spoken about a wanted-style poster they may give to a licensee for people they believe are especially susceptible to breaching their alcohol protection order, but these have to be kept private; they cannot be placed at the point of sale.
There can be significant turnover in a day, let alone a week or a month, of who is working behind a counter selling alcohol. Under the Liquor Act, if, for example, bar staff serve someone who is clearly intoxicated, then action can be taken against the bar staff and the licensee. The licence can be temporarily suspended, and this does happen. Under this bill, police cannot touch the licensee; nothing can happen to them.
To summarise, someone can be banned but there is nothing to stop that banned person from buying alcohol. Even if police try to tell a venue someone is banned, nothing can happen to that venue’s licence even if they decide to completely ignore the police.
Chief Minister, if you think licensee’s should face sanctions if their venues ignore this legislation and knowingly supply alcohol to someone banned from consuming it, then change this legislation. Of course, most licenced venues are responsible and will comply fully with police requests and attempt to ensure they do not serve banned people, but the point of the legislation is not to deal with responsible people. If everyone was responsible all the time, we would not need the majority of our laws. Legislation is required to deal with people or entities that are not responsible, and this legislation fails that test.
This legislation creates the ridiculous situation where someone can be voluntarily on an alcohol protection order but if they breach it they have committed an offence. I am unsure of any other legislation where you can do something voluntarily, but then be charged for not doing it. People can ask to be banned from the casino, but they cannot be charged if they try to enter.
With the Banned Drinker Register, people could ask to be put on it voluntarily. That meant they could not purchase alcohol. If they tried they had not committed an offence, which was the whole point. We want people to change their behaviour, but under this legislation, if you volunteer and then do not go through with it, they can be charged with an offence and face three months in gaol.
No alcohol counsellor or lawyer will recommend someone voluntarily sign up for this; their addiction means they could go to gaol because they try to do the right thing. The bill clearly criminalises alcoholism. Someone who has not been found guilty of an offence, who may be found innocent of the original charge, has committed a criminal offence if they try to drink alcohol. This bill makes the drinking of alcohol a criminal offence. Worse still, if they are standing in the supermarket looking at alcohol, they have committed a criminal offence.
This legislation sets people up to fail. If they have an alcohol problem and are banned from buying alcohol, but there is nothing in place to stop them buying it if they walk across the road, they have committed a criminal offence and face prison. They do not receive any treatment; they are in prison because they are addicted to alcohol. As I mentioned, they do not need to have been found guilty of any offence.
There are serious health issues presented by this bill. During debate on the CLP’s Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill with the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, it was clearly acknowledged by the CLP that it is dangerous for someone addicted to alcohol to go off it immediately – to go cold turkey. That bill established an assessment process before a person was sent for treatment. Even with those provisions, doctors warned that someone may die. Clearly, the CLP recognised the health implications of that bill.
Under this proposed law, there is no referral to treatment. A person is expected to stop drinking immediately. If they fail to comply, they face three months in gaol. Even under the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill there was recognition of the serious health concerns and implications of the bill. However, the same has not been applied here. This creates a very dangerous situation, a very serious health issue, which our shadow minister for Health will explore in further detail.
The member for Nelson and I received formal written correspondence from Colin McDonald QC. I have his permission to quote from his advice:
Another flawed aspect of this bill is the capacity for someone to appeal an alcohol protection order. Police can issue an APO and you only have three days to seek a review – not three working days, three days. If you are pulled over on a Friday night you must have completed your appeal, in writing, by close of business on Monday. That would be tough for an informed person in Darwin. They really only have one day to find a lawyer who has time, at a moment’s notice, to get their legal advice and lodge an appeal.
Unlike all other legislation, this legislation does not even say what could be taken into account in an appeal. It would be close to impossible for an illiterate person in a remote location to lodge an appeal.
This legislation does not require police to ensure the person understands they are on an APO; they just have to give them the paper. There is no requirement for them to make it clear to the person they are on an APO. People have more rights if they have a parking fine than an alcohol protection order. You have longer to appeal a parking fine than an alcohol protection order. People should have more than three days to appeal. Chief Minister, you should extend this period. It does not prevent anything from occurring; the alcohol protection order applies from the moment it is applied. You should allow people more time to appeal. Three days is clearly insufficient time for someone to appeal an alcohol protection order. That period should reflect a reasonable time for someone, on reasonable grounds, to lodge an appeal.
Let us look at the absurd situation this law creates for people on an alcohol protection order who are banned from TIO Stadium. The only excuse someone on an APO can have for being at TIO Stadium is they live or work there, otherwise they cannot be anywhere in the venue at any time. You are not only banned from the bar areas, you are banned from the area inside the perimeter fence, which includes the playing field. A dad cannot take his family to the football.
Sport often provides a pathway out for people who have gone down the wrong path in life. The law can see someone trying to get back on the right track, engaging in the community and playing sport go to gaol for playing footy, umpiring footy or watching footy. That is clearly the kind of mistake you make when you do not consult. The Chief Minister was quoted in the NT News saying he might look at changes to allow people to play football, but he has not. This bill bans it.
If it is not your intention that someone on an alcohol protection order cannot go to TIO Stadium to watch, play or umpire footy, change this legislation.
This bill will clearly result in more Indigenous Territorians in prison. I am surprised the CLP’s Indigenous members of parliament are not speaking out against this bill. It is concerning that they will support the CLP before they stand up for the people they have been elected to represent.
We have seen, with education and many other issues, including the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act, that they stand with the CLP. The member for Arnhem spoke out against mandatory treatment saying it would not work for many of her people but still voted for it.
NAAJA, in conjunction with CAALAS, wrote to the CLP bush members. They sent me the same correspondence and expressed their concerns. I quote from their letter:
The Royal Commission made specific recommendations that drunkenness should be decriminalised; this law does the opposite. Its effect is to criminalise drinking for people placed on an order. An alcoholic will not stop drinking because they are placed on an APO; that is the nature of alcoholism. This law makes their addiction a crime. NAAJA and CAALAS made the sensible suggestion that this bill be sent to the Law Reform Committee for independent review. NAAJA and CAALAS deal with the people this legislation will target every day, yet their advice is ignored. In fact, their advice was not even requested.
This bill clearly contravenes the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. If CLP politicians vote for this bill today, they can never complain about the high rate of Indigenous incarceration.
The member for Stuart has suggested that some Indigenous people want to go to prison. This bill will help them do that. This is a bad bill.
People have spoken out against the stupidity of this bill in that it bans people, then the ban is not enforced. Trying to defend the indefensible, the Chief Minister claims it is like unlicensed drivers, or people driving when their licence has been suspended. The Chief Minister says it should not be up to licenced venues to enforce the law but police. First, I do not believe for one second NT Police believe licensees do not have a role to play in the service of alcohol to problem drinkers. This bill says instead of licensees being able to control alcohol at the point of sale, police are now responsible after it has been sold. How far will he go with this logic?
We are expecting licensed venues to uphold the law on many fronts. If someone is intoxicated we expect the licensed venue to refuse them service. If someone is under age we expect licensed venues to refuse them service. Why do pubs have bouncers if the Chief Minister believes it should be up to police to enforce laws inside pubs?
Our laws and society expect licensed venues to uphold the law, and the Banned Drinker Register exists to help do that. It still exists in legislation today; they could turn it on tomorrow. When you have a tool available to help enforce legislation you should use it.
The CLP decided to withhold alcohol consumption statistics. Last year, wholesale alcohol data was released in August. We are now in November and have nothing. Is it possible that alcohol sales reduced when the BDR was in place?
We know alcohol-related crime is up since the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped. Are alcohol sales also up? The CLP will not release the data; there is no data on alcohol sales in the Northern Territory since 2011, nearly two years ago.
I know of the frustrations of many stakeholders who have looked at this bill and provided their feedback to government. When they pointed out areas or anomalies, government said it would be okay because they would deal with it by internal policies or systems. If the legislation is wrong then fix it, especially when it has not passed through parliament yet.
I have highlighted many of the areas that are wrong with this bill. We will be doing this in the committee stage clause by clause, but this legislation is flawed beyond individual clauses; it is fundamentally flawed from the start. This flawed legislation cannot be fixed by amendment.
This legislation deals with alcohol abuse after it has happened, and that is the problem. This legislation does not deal with the sale of alcohol at the point of sale and, without that, it simply will not work.
We do not support this bill because it is fundamentally flawed. Under this proposed law people who are banned from drinking alcohol can still buy alcohol; they can walk into a store or pub and buy as much alcohol as they want. The government should take a breath and consult on this legislation. They did it on advance personal planning, they can do it on alcohol protection orders. They should bring forward legislation which does something to tackle alcohol crime and domestic violence. They should consult and listen so their legislation does something to stem the rivers of grog.
Madam Speaker, the opposition strongly opposes this legislation.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013. This is yet another step in this government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
We know alcohol is a major factor in many cases of criminal behaviour in the Territory, and this bill, amongst a suite of initiatives this government has undertaken in a very short period of time, will provide another strong new measure in policing the problem of alcohol-related crime on our streets.
I listened with great interest to the member for Fannie Bay and it was like history repeating. Not so long ago I stood in this parliament and debated with the opposition the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, and the same arguments were rolled out then by the opposition. It would seem blind Freddy could tell you anything we put forward in relation to this, anything the Country Liberals come up with to address the problem of alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory, will be wrong according to the opposition, and the BDR would have been the answer to all our prayers.
I find that completely hypocritical. We have had countless debates on this topic over the last 15 months. Labor had 11 years to address this enormous problem facing our communities across the Northern Territory and came up with their solution after 10 years of procrastinating, thinking about it, scratching themselves wondering what to do and probably undertaking an enormous amount of consultation, if we believe what we hear from the member for Fannie Bay. After 10 years they came up with the Banned Drinker Register, and now they hang their hat on that being the likely answer to the social and crime problems in the Northern Territory.
Alas, it was not the solution and that is why we dumped it. We had the mandate of the Northern Territory. Our consultation in dumping that initiative of Labor was called the Northern Territory general election which was held in August 2012. That was our mandate, our consultation process, knowing we had the authority and right as a new government to scrap what was not a successful initiative. It did not stack up, despite the rhetoric of the opposition. The BDR did not stop the sale and consumption of alcohol, we all know that. We have debated it up hill and down dale. This debate over the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register has been done to exhaustion, and it has now been scrapped for some time.
It is time to move on and look at the future and what we are putting forward. We have a very balanced suite of initiatives. Unlike the former Labor government which put all its eggs into one basket – they had a very narrow view of how to tackle alcohol abuse in our community and it was all about supply measures – our suite of initiatives addresses supply and demand, and we make no apology for that. We have taken a balanced perspective, something Labor could never get their heads around. We still hear it today. This morning we heard that obsessive and narrow, limited perspective on how we should address alcohol problems.
We are very proud of what we are doing. In just 15 months we are putting forward this new Alcohol Protection Orders Bill which is different, new, controversial and very similar to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill just a few months ago. We will not take 10 years to put in our first strategy, like the former Labor government. We will not dilly-dally. We will undertake a consultation process as we did with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, but will not let that carry on for a decade like Labor. We are getting on with the business. We have been given the mandate from the people of the Territory to act and try to address these problems in very lateral, creative ways, which we are doing.
This Alcohol Protection Orders Bill complements what I have been working on since becoming Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation in May. Our alcohol mandatory treatment program is making a difference. Like the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is being criticised by the same cohort of people. AMSANT criticised us for our alcohol mandatory treatment, Vince Kelly from the Police Association criticised it and NAAJA criticised it. Once again, they have criticised this new initiative, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. The same group of people is backing the former Labor government, now in opposition, in their chant to praise the apparent success of the Banned Drinker Register with no facts or evidence whatsoever, and damn anything the Country Liberals put forward.
We accept that. It is called politics; it is called democracy. These people come forward with their very convincing, sometimes intellectual, points and debates, and we welcome their critique. We expect it; it is part of the democratic process. We welcome their analysis, their contribution to consultations and their feedback, and I say that with a great deal of sincerity. It makes what we do even stronger and gives us more confidence that we are doing the right thing.
With the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, as the member for Fannie Bay said, we went through a consultation process. I clearly recall that on the floor of this Chamber, between the hours of 10 pm and about 2 am, we made dozens of amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill because we went through a consultation process, listened to the people and made those amendments willingly. Quite successfully, we went through the committee stage process.
The alcohol mandatory treatment program has been in effect since 1 July. We kicked it off five months ago. It feels like it has been around for much longer than that. Heading up this initiative has been one of the most amazing experiences of my political career.
The first person came into alcohol mandatory rehabilitation on 12 July. The rehabilitation program has been in operation with clients participating for 140 days. It has been a great learning experience for all people involved, and a huge number of people are involved. The Department of Health is running the Darwin alcohol mandatory treatment centre, also referred to as the medi-hotel, and the non-government sector us heavily involved in Katherine, Alice Springs and soon, hopefully, to be rolled out further across the Northern Territory.
People have come on board. Yes, people were apprehensive to begin with and we were heavily criticised. We engaged in many discussions with the non-government sector, and it expressed its concerns about aspects of our alcohol mandatory treatment program.
Those criticisms have almost completely subsided. We are now getting calls from non-government organisations formally critical of this contentious, different, new and exciting program. They are now saying, ‘We want to get on board’. That is a development. It is about getting on with the business and selling it in a very professional way, and that is what has happened across the Northern Territory.
At the end of the last quarter we provided statistics on how many people had come through our alcohol mandatory treatment system. At that stage we had over 100 people - no one had completed rehabilitation then – who had gone into assessment and rehabilitation programs. We still hear the snide comments from the opposition questioning the success …
Ms Fyles: It is not a detailed report.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … of this program. I hear the banter from the member for Nightcliff with suspicious questioning, and we get that; this is part of the process. We will provide more statistics at the end of December, and we will begin a formal review of the entire program after that six-month period has ended ...
Ms Fyles: When will the report come out?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The report will take a number of weeks. It will be undertaken by an independent group and will be made public when it is completed, which will be around the four to six week mark ...
Ms Fyles: About mid-February?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Hold on to your seat, member for Nightcliff, I am aware you are excited about it. It will be tabled and we will be completely transparent because we have nothing to hide. It has been a remarkable experience and we have discovered many things along the way. One of the most gratifying aspects of this program is we are now providing medical treatment and care for the most disadvantaged and sickest people in our community who also have alcohol problems.
We are finding that these people have a range of chronic diseases and, for the first time in many years for some, they are receiving proper medical care. Having spent 12 weeks in the program, when they come out they will have been cared for, dried out in their alcohol consumption, gone through a detoxification process and will have experienced a rehabilitation program which has looked at changing their lives.
After 12 weeks will they go back onto the grog? Will the forces in the wider community they live in entice them back into the lifestyle they left 12 weeks earlier. We wait to see, but I believe that to fully understand the effectiveness and success of this program you have to look at the experience of these people and their lives.
The opposition will only measure the success of this program based on abstinence, because oppositions take a very narrow view of success and failure. This program may not be particularly successful, and we warned about that right from the word go. Within even voluntary alcohol residential rehabilitation programs the outcome of complete abstinence is relatively minor compared to the scenario of going back onto the grog. The success rate we forecast right from the start was around 20% of people either abstaining or significantly limiting alcohol consumption.
However, it is a success. We already know that from the people who work in the program, whether they are employed by the Department of Health or the non-government organisations we have contracted with to provide these services. We are hearing this is a special program. It is identifying special people in our community, the most disadvantaged, the people the Labor Party like to embrace and hold as their own. They are your people. These people are traditionally the people Labor claim to care the most about – the most disaffected in our community. People on the opposite side of the Chamber should be happy to know we are providing an amazing service to the most disadvantaged people in our community.
To conclude, I will talk about what we will be doing in our alcohol mandatory treatment area over the next 12 months. We will continue to roll-out phase two over the next 12 to 18 months, and it will be an extremely exciting year in alcohol mandatory treatment. In Alice Springs, we have 20 beds provided by CAAAPU. They are doing a superb job providing an amazing treatment program. Every time I speak with them, which is reasonably regularly, they talk about the success, the experiences of their staff and the experiences of participants. They are doing a fabulous job and I congratulate them from the bottom of my heart.
We will be rolling out another 20 beds in Alice Springs, not necessarily with CAAAPU but ideally with CAAAPU, to build on the efficiencies of the system they have set up, but that remains to be seen. However, we definitely need more than 20 beds in Alice Springs. Those beds are full and we expect another 20 beds could be easily filled, particularly over the coming summer months, which are always a challenging time for law and order in Alice Springs.
In Katherine we are working hard to plan the establishment of a new facility for alcohol mandatory treatment. At the moment, Vendale is providing community treatment order placements for people coming through our system. It is doing a fabulous job too, but we have a commitment to Katherine to set up a new facility. We do not know what that will look like, but we are going through the planning stages at the moment. We are looking at greenfield sites and existing facilities offered by different non-government organisations and how a new service like this might complement what they are doing. That remains to be seen, but in the next 12 months you will see some activity in Katherine. I hope that towards the end of 2014 something will be in place.
In Darwin we are moving to the Berrimah low-security unit in August. We are moving out of the facility known as the medi-hotel and will definitely be moving to the low-security unit in Berrimah in August/September next year. This will be welcomed by everyone, I can assure you. The medi-hotel has been a godsend. It was a great short- to medium-term solution for our alcohol mandatory treatment, but pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital over the next 12 months will be mounting. We have grown out of that hospital and have made no secret of that. It is another legacy of Labor – a hospital bursting at its seams with nothing done to address it. The medi-hotel was there and available. It was empty when we came to government so we used it for the first 12 months to provide alcohol mandatory treatment, but we will be moving out and we look forward to it.
If anyone has seen the Berrimah low-security unit, it is on a vast piece of land and it is open with plenty of space. The facility is seven years old. We will be making major modifications to that facility, but it will be ideal for our purpose.
Last, Tennant Creek – I heard a remark from the member for Barkly earlier this morning questioning our commitment to Tennant Creek when it comes to alcohol mandatory treatment. We are definitely doing something. The demand in Tennant Creek is significant as there is a problem with alcohol abuse in Tennant Creek. It has been a problem for many years, and the Tennant Creek people need some relief, like other major centres throughout the Northern Territory. We are working on a solution right now and, without giving too much information and pre-empting the plans currently under way, we hope to have some beds available in a facility in Tennant Creek in the first quarter of 2014, which is great news.
With the bill we are debating today, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013, it is an exciting period in the history of the Northern Territory. We are introducing very new creative strategies, unlike Labor, to address alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. We hear the criticisms and understand the politics behind it. We accept that is the way it is but, by and large, the people of the Northern Territory can see we are trying very hard to address this problem. We committed to it leading up to the election in 2012, we explained what we would do, and we are getting on with the job.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was interested in what the member for Araluen said in relation to this bill. In some ways I was happy with what she said about caring for people affected by alcohol. I was also sad – if you are allowed to be sad in this place or even a little down – that she was talking about helping people with a drug of dependency. The bill before us does not mention treatment, and we are dealing with the same people. The only difference is they have committed an offence. That is a shame.
I will read from the minister’s media release in relation to this. This is part of what he said:
Further on he said:
At the start of Question Time today the Chief Minister continued down that vein. You can see how debate on serious issues can get down to the superficial and puerile. This is important legislation dealing with a very important subject. We are told, basically, ‘If you don’t support this legislation you support domestic violence and drunk drivers’.
What is so farcical and shows how close the CLP is to the AHA is that the Chief Minister said we should listen to the advice of the AHA. No wonder you were too scared to implement some sensible changes to closing times in Mitchell Street, changes we know would reduce alcohol violence. Pardon me if I am cynical about the government statement on violence, especially alcohol-fuelled violence, but that is how politics works. It should not be the case but unfortunately it is.
When you hear one-dimensional statements and worn-out clichs like ‘getting tough on crime’, then you know you have an uphill battle to convince the government this legislation is unsound, poorly thought through and needs to be put on hold and looked at again. I will be told by the government I am supporting the perpetrators not the victims, but I expect that. After all, the government would like to deflect attention away from faulty and poorly thought through legislation and put the blame back on those who try to deal with this serious matter in a rational and logical manner – all very sad.
A sensible person reading this bill would understand it needs an overhaul. A politically one-eyed person would refuse to listen or consider an alternative point of view. They would go on regardless and continue blaming opponents by saying they are supporters of domestic violence and drink-driving. Let me make it very clear, I support laws which punish domestic violence offenders and drink-drivers. By the way, we already have laws to punish those people. I also support the member for Stuart in her response in Question Time today.
This bill adds a new and instant punishment which will be handed out by a police officer. A police officer will be able to give an order for a person to stop drinking for three, six or 12 months if they have been charged with an offence which has a gaol term of six months or more, or where the police officer believes alcohol was involved in the offence. If the person breaks that ban it will be regarded as an offence and the person may be sent to prison for up to three months or receive a fine. We know what will happen if the fine cannot be paid.
One of the main reasons I oppose this bill is the lack of consultation with the wider community – the member for Araluen spoke about the amount of consultation that went into the mandatory rehabilitation bill – especially with those who deal with alcohol-related matters, and the lack of a discussion paper to look at alternative programs which already operate. I have spoken to Amity, CAAPS and FORWAARD, and they have not been involved in these discussions.
Could the government tell us where the consultation paper is? Where are the advertisements in the paper asking for comments on this proposal? Outside the police, who did you ask? Did you put this legislation out for independent assessment? How do you expect support if you leave the community out of the discussion? This legislation should have gone to a parliamentary committee, as happens in Queensland, and come back to parliament. Unfortunately, when I mentioned this method I was told by the member for Greatorex that the government is in charge. ‘We will do what we like and we do not need delays through parliamentary committees’.
Besides the arrogance behind that statement, it shows a general disregard for legitimate processes which are normal in many other parliaments – sending legislation to a committee. I ask the Chief Minister, as leader of this government, to consider process in relation to this bill.
A committee could also have looked at alternatives, something I have been doing. Chief Minister, it is not that I am opposed to the philosophy behind your bill, but you should have looked at alternatives and we should have a chance to discuss those alternatives.
For instance, let us examine what happens in South Dakota where a similar program operates called 24/7 Sobriety. Professor Peter Miller from Deakin University sent me this article entitled Repeat Offender Substance Use Sentencing Initiative, an Intervention for People who Have Repeatedly Endangered or Harmed Others under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol: A Promising Intervention Model for Australia? What is it?
The repeat offender substance use sentencing initiative is based on an award winning alternative-to-gaol program implemented in South Dakota in 2005 and recently adopted into UK legislation. The original program is known as the 24/7 Sobriety Project. It is built on a principle that drinking is a privilege not a right, and people who repeatedly offend and endanger the lives of themselves and others when under the influence of alcohol will have the privilege of drinking temporarily removed.
There is growing evidence that punishment certainty is a stronger deterrent to criminal activity than punishment severity. Subsequently, it has been rolled out in other states, including Montana and North Dakota. As mentioned, the UK has also included it in new legislation, and there are potential applications in child abuse and street violence cases.
I rang a gentleman called Art Mabry, coordinator of this program, to discuss how it works. Art works for the Office of Attorney General Vermillion, South Dakota. The first difference between 24/7 Sobriety and this bill is that a judge decides if someone should go onto a banning order, not a police officer. This allows a person to be evaluated by someone who can investigate the circumstances behind the alleged crime, the history of the person drinking and if there are any health problems, etcetera. It is a much fairer system and avoids potential abuse of the process.
This program, 24/7 Sobriety, which now operates in nearly all counties in South Dakota, uses a number of options. First, the banned person could be required to have a breath test twice a day. Second, where it is not practical, and that could certainly be in the Northern Territory, an alcohol brace can be used. It registers through your sweat whether you have been drinking alcohol. Third, interlock devices on a vehicle can be fitted. I am unsure where the government stands on interlock devices; I do not know if they have scrapped the program.
This is the latest I have from Art, so some of the things I said might be a little dated. Art said if a person gives a positive reading the following happens: first offence, 12 hours in gaol; second offence, 24 hours; third offence, the person goes before the judge. According to Art, 55% will violate once, 17% will violate twice and 15% or less will breach three times.
He said, and I believe it is important, that gaol is only used as a very short intervention. Art said the system is not meant to incarcerate people for drinking.
The proposed penalties in the NT are far more severe and will put people in prison for drinking. As we know from the figures on domestic violence, they will be mainly Aboriginal people.
Art also e-mailed me the following:
He went on to say:
There is no mention in this legislation, or in the second reading, of treatment. It is simply the case that if a police officer believes alcohol is involved in an offence, then he can apply an APO. In South Dakota, where a judge makes the decision, treatment can be in addition to the 24/7 Sobriety program.
This bill needs a major overhaul so a magistrate applies an APO with the option he or she already has when putting someone on a bond, bail or parole: that a treatment program must be included.
Another reason the decision should be made by a magistrate rather than a police officer is to stop any potential misuse of the very broad application of ‘believes that a person was affected by alcohol’ and the use of any qualifying offence. A judge can make a decision about an APO in an open court based on all the facts and common sense. In this case, a police officer makes a decision on the spot. It is not a transparent court system, and there is certainly no allowance for treatment.
This is not as simple as stopping someone from driving, as the Chief Minister used as a comparison in his media release, or purely an enforcement tool, as the Minister for Alcohol Policy said in his media release. It is about stopping someone from drinking alcohol, a drug of dependency. There is enforcement and there is a health issue. This bill does not seem to recognise that fact, and there is no mention of treatment.
Here are some practical considerations. How many offences come under the description of having a six months’ penalty or more? A great many, and some of them would be ludicrous if used in this bill. The member for Fannie Bay has already been through some, such as loitering and singing an obscene song. I understand, and was at the briefing, that a policeman may use his discretion, but it does not say that in the bill and that is what we have to deal with today.
If the main thrust of the bill is about drink-driving, domestic violence and violence in general, instead of referring to all offences, why not specify which offences relate directly to the matters the government is concerned about?
We also have the issue of fairness. A person with a one-off moment of madness after having a beer or two with no prior offences puts a dent in the door. He might not even be drunk. He might have a can of beer in his hand and have been a bit silly and kicked the door. Theoretically, that is wilful damage. If he has a can of beer in his hand it could be said the reason he did it is such and such. There is a list of things a policeman can ask, but that person could get an APO for three months. Someone in a drunken stupor who belts his wife or belts up someone in the street also gets three months. That needs adjusting.
I will tell you how it is handled in South Dakota. Some of these offences could have been sorted out through the SMART Court, but it has gone. You have to remember the great Russian purge: there will be no trace of the previous government’s program. The BDR and the SMART Court are off to Siberia. It is sad the SMART Court was scrapped. It may not have been perfect, it may not have been applicable to all things, but the philosophy behind the SMART Court should have been continued by this government.
Instead, we have a bill where a police officer can slap a ban on you for simply believing alcohol was involved in the offence you allegedly committed. This raises another issue. The police officer does not have to test you with a breathalyser; he simply believes the person was affected by alcohol when committing the offence. Strangely, if he suspects you have been drinking – further in the bill – when on an APO he gives you a breath test. In one case you are not breath tested, it is just a belief you have been affected by alcohol, and in the other case you will be given a breath test. There is an inconsistency.
The police officer can ask the person questions on the attached list. I do not know if that has been tabled – we were given it at the briefing – but there is a list of questions the police officer can ask the person. These questions might be very difficult to understand, especially for Aboriginal people if intoxicated and who have little or no understanding of English, or do not understand what we are talking about. The police can tick the right box and that is it. Where in the bill does it say they have to ask these questions in the first place?
If the matter went before a magistrate one would presume the alleged offender would be sober, the judge could make a more fulsome assessment and the person may be able to get legal advice.
To sum up so far, we should have a magistrate instead of a police officer – that is the South Dakota method – and we should have a clear treatment option, as the Minister for Health mentioned when speaking about mandatory rehabilitation. That is not in this bill. We should specify more precisely which offences the law applies to, and we should be using short-term gaol – 12 to 24 hours – when there is a breach, not up to three months.
Another important difference between this bill and the South Dakota version is the definition of alcohol protection order. Clause 5 of the bill proposes that an APO prohibits an adult from possessing alcohol, consuming alcohol or entering or being in a licensed premises. I asked Art how they handled this in South Dakota. He said a person who is banned from drinking in South Dakota is often not allowed in a bar or premises where alcohol is offered for sale and consumption. I presume that means a person could still go to the local store, where alcohol might be sold but not consumed, to buy groceries.
I also said we sell and allow consumption of alcohol at sporting facilities and asked how he dealt with that. His answer was:
He says:
You have to remember these people are on the 24/7 Sobriety program where they are being monitored every day.
The other interesting thing is South Dakota also has a clause including abstinence from drugs. Why have we not included drugs in this legislation? After all, are drugs not involved in drink-driving offences and domestic violence? This is another sign of a rushed and poorly-researched piece of legislation.
The South Dakota program is much more sensible than our version because it says you cannot enter or be in a licensed premise, but at least a person can go to the local supermarket and get some food without being arrested. The South Dakota version makes more sense than ours. One important matter is there is less pressure on police resources because people are required to test 24/7 instead of police looking to see if they have snuck into the local shop.
There needs to be more discussion about licensed premises. If you use the simple South Dakota banning order, supermarkets and corner shops are not part of the banned areas. That would make more sense and people can still get bread and milk without being arrested.
However, we have an anomaly, with 97 continuing special licences in the NT, usually sporting clubs, also classified as licensed premises. According to the bill, you cannot enter or stay in these premises unless you are employed by or live on them. For instance, the Southern Districts Football Club has a continuing special licence. This raises the question: is a paid player allowed to play on the licensed premises, which covers the oval, changing rooms and the bar? One of the exemptions under clause 5 says a person may enter a licensed premises for any period during which entering and remaining in the licensed premises concerned is required for the purposes of the adult’s employment. If a person is being paid to play football, are they allowed on that football ground? Is an unpaid player just playing for fun, or a spectator, on an APO allowed on the oval?
I will show you a picture. This is the boundary of the Southern Districts Football Club licensed area which has been approved by the licensing people. There is a red line drawn by hand around the footy oval. If you go down this path, how can say where a person can or cannot be in relation to this licensed premises? There is no marking, no fence, just a hand drawn red line around the oval. How can you police that?
Mr Tollner: Who cares! They have committed crimes, Gerry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim does not understand. The person will be punished if they have committed a crime, but they may not have been to court yet. He or she may not have been found guilty but placed on bail and waiting to attend court. They are not allowed to go to the footy but have not been found guilty of a crime.
This is what annoys me. These people will go to gaol for domestic violence and for drink-driving. You need a little common sense here. The person has not been found guilty of a crime. They have been put on an APO because the policeman ‘believed’ he had been affected by alcohol when he was arrested.
This legislation has some holes in it that need fixing. That is why it should have gone to a committee to look at these issues.
When we were at the briefing the Police Commissioner said you can take children to a licensed premises when, in theory, they should be accompanied by an adult. If there are anomalies they should be sorted out, regardless of whether they are regarding children or APOs.
There is also the seriousness of it. We are not just dealing with domestic violence and drink-driving, because every offence covered by six months or more is included in this debate. Someone might be picked up for kicking a rubbish bin and the policeman might say, ‘I am putting you on an APO because I believe you did that while you were drunk’. That is a relatively minor offence and not something I encourage, but it is not quite the same as bashing your wife. There are variations in the way we deal with criminal offences by the amount of punishment we give people. It is not just a black and white flat process. Magistrates have to be involved in this, and the issue about what is a licensed premises needs to be defined better than it is.
We have an appeal system in this document. Most people picked up under this law will be Aboriginal, and we know that by the number of Aboriginal people involved in domestic violence. Under the proposed bill, if you wish to appeal against the APO it must be in writing and lodged at a police station within three days. For many people that will be difficult, even impossible for those who are illiterate or have no understanding of the law and have no one to assist them. It may be especially difficult if the banning orders are applied on a Friday night. People should have seven days. You are still banned, but you have time to get your act together and seek help if required.
There is nothing in clause 6 which requires the police officer to tell the banned drinker of their appeal rights. The banned drinker would have to have read this bill, and I doubt the people we are dealing with will. If you use the South Dakota system, where the judge was involved, there would be room for discussion about whether a banning order was to be applied or rejected because the matter would be heard within a court of law. Arguments could be put, and a judge could decide whether there should be an APO and how long the order should be applied.
The government might say there is a Local Court option, but if the written appeal does not get to the police station in time the court option is out. This is too complicated and disadvantages those with limited communication skills compared to those with literary skills and the ability to communicate.
One of the major differences between the NT police-designed APO bill and the South Dakota version is banning orders. As Art Mabry informed me, the shortest banning period he has known a judge to give is two weeks and the longest five years. If you break the ban for the first time it is 12 hours’ gaol and a reminder, not a punishment. The advantage of the decision being made by a judge is evident. Each case is taken on its merits, whereas in the Territory you receive a three-month ban and if you break that ban it is three months’ gaol.
Police in the NT want a blunt tool to fix the problem. This is unproven, with no scientific basis, but it sounds good when you say you are tough on crime. The more enlightened people in Vermillion, South Dakota, would do it a different way.
It is not about whether I support appropriate punishment for serious crime, especially domestic violence and drink-driving. If the member for Fong Lim cannot understand plain English I do not know why he is a minister. I support what the government is trying to do. I have told the Chief Minister I support banning people from alcohol. However, there has not been enough consultation and discussion about alternatives and possible loopholes in this law.
With our unicameral system, we are told we just have to accept it. I am not here to accept the law just because the member for Fong Lim says it is right. I research and I ask people in the know. It is disappointing that the minister does not understand what I am trying to do. This needs more work to make it a better law that is appropriate and deals with people who have a dependency on alcohol. This is about the process involved in placing a person on a banning order. Who does that, the police or a judge? It is about whether punishment is a stronger deterrent to criminal activity than punishment severity – 12 hours or three months. It is about a faulty appeal system – three days and in writing. It is about a deliberately complicated system – what is a licensed premises? The wide powers of search – I am aware they are being adjusted today. It is about the lack of attention to treatment, a serious failing in this legislation.
There is also the lack of consultation with outside groups. The government has discussed it with government agencies, but they should have discussed it with more people. There is also the lack of research into other options.
There is another option. Hawaii has the HOPE program, a system which has been quite successful. It has been used in Hawaii for some time and attempts to deal with the same issue we are dealing with today ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. In the end, this is just window dressing. It is about keeping up appearances, because when this government needed to develop a real science-based approach to alcohol it hid behind the falsehood of personal responsibility. It hides from reality and the fact alcohol is a drug of dependency. We are not talking about milkshakes. Alcohol infiltrates our culture and society to a point where it appears to be normal. That could not be more obvious than when our Chief Minister says it is a core social value.
It is a business controlled by very powerful people who seem to control both the CLP and the ALP. That could not be more obvious than in the lack of fortitude by both parties when not supporting the motion to change closing times, and other matters related to Mitchell Street, based on the science and evidence. When the minister says we should take the advice of the AHA, added to the statement alcohol is a core social value, it is a sad joke.
I wonder if our government has bothered to read the Alcohol Action Plan released on 20 November this year by Dr Herron. These are actions aimed at improving Australia’s response to alcohol-related harms: increase informed public engagement with the harms associated with alcohol; obtain data on alcohol consumption and harms essential to informing effective responses that have currency and are sensitive to change; support local level interventions in alcohol-related harms; recognise the critical role of regulating the availability of alcohol in reducing alcohol related-harms – I wonder how closing hours fits in there, or levelling out the floor price of alcohol – regulate alcohol advertising, promotions and sponsorship – not this free enterprise government – enhance treatment responses for the whole population and for specific high-risk groups; address alcohol-related problems among older Australians; address alcohol consumption and harms among young people.
On that note Dr Herron says:
Here are some real goals our government could aim for if it was serious. Will it? It will not, because they believe in personal responsibility, libertarianism and, of course, the liquor industry. They use the nanny state argument to hide behind. That is why I am so cynical about this legislation. It is a poor attempt at doing something that, on the surface, could make a difference, but unfortunately, it has been put together with advice from the AHA. It should be the AHAA - ha, ha, ha. Of course they are happy. It does not affect them at all. There is no sacrifice on their part with this legislation.
Nothing will change until members of parliament do something to change the culture of grog. You are kidding yourself if you think alcohol affects only a small portion of the population. That is just another excuse not to do anything.
Dr Herron, Chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs said:
Dr Herron is right. Unfortunately, we are just keeping up appearances.
I also spoke to Colin McDonald, who has a lot of experience. I will read the last bit of his letter. He says:
This man has been around a long time and knows a lot about the issue.
Minister, I reiterate, I am not against what you are attempting to do, but this bill will be passed without any real consultation. Compare the advance planning and mandatory rehabilitation bills. It does not deal with treatment and has many anomalies which need fixing. Please send this to a parliamentary select committee for a report by the March sittings and put out something which has been properly checked before it is passed by this parliament.
The advantage of a parliamentary select committee is it brings both sides of the House together, because these issues should be bipartisan. Unfortunately, they are not. The advantage of a parliamentary select committee will be to bring all of us together to work through this issue.
I know you are worried about domestic violence, Chief Minister, and drink-driving around Christmas, but we already have laws dealing with those. If the government wanted something more done, it should have done the work earlier in the year and gone out for consultation.
Chief Minister, I support what you are trying to do but believe the manner is faulty and needs fixing. I hope you change your mind on this issue and put it to a committee.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s bill. The focus we have on antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory is to use many prongs. It is not a one-pronged approach; it is many prongs trying to protect the most vulnerable.
People who have alcohol problems and people who violate the law by drink-driving or driving unregistered motor cars – we go to the funerals of these people all the time. If it is not 10 or 15 funerals a month, it is eight.
It is wonderful, Chief Minister, that this government has the many-pronged approach to antisocial behaviour and alcohol problems. This is a bill for all Territorians, but I specifically speak and congratulate the minister for bringing this in because it protects the most vulnerable, my people, Indigenous people.
The member for Nelson spoke about South Dakota, the research done in that area and who he has spoken to. We are not Americans, we are not Indians, we are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory and we are dying in droves from alcohol poisoning. We are hurting our families, our wives and our kids, and something needs to be done. This government is doing something about it.
We cannot wait for research. We cannot let this go for three or six months while people are dying in the creek. Recently, my young sister passed away. She was found dead at the bottom of the creek in Alice Springs. It is a tragedy, and the Chief Minister recognises these tragedies. He has lived in Alice Springs long enough to know and see, from a local member point of view, the people we cross in the streets of Alice Springs every day. They are falling around and asking for smokes. It is consumption minute after minute, day after day, week after week, month after month. This bill gives them an opportunity to dry out and heal.
Our mandatory rehabilitation legislation is another prong. The government focus has always been – when we were talking about what the government is doing in other agencies about the food bowl, it has many agencies, many prongs to ensure all agencies across all jurisdictions are working together to get the best possible outcome for Territorians financially, and, at the same time, healing people so they can become good citizens of the Northern Territory.
People like the member for Nelson will ask for extra time, but it is extra time at the cost of people passing away and women being bashed. At no stage through this bill, or the conversations I have had with the Chief Minister, and the debate I have heard from the Chief Minister in this House, did he say people support domestic violence. This is number one. We have to stop our people abusing their loved ones, whether it is their wives or children. We have to stop them walking around the streets in a daze under the influence of alcohol.
Would we want our children to be in the street walking around in a daze under the influence of alcohol every minute of the day? I do not think so.
We are taking this initiative to ensure we have healthy people walking on the streets of Alice Spring who respect the law and give them an opportunity to heal and make sure through this healing process they can go home and look after their wives, their families and their community. We do not want them to be killing their wives and hurting their children, and hurting each other as friends. We see them all the time. Domestic violence, drink-driving and unlicensed driving is not Aboriginal culture. Domestic violence is not Aboriginal culture, it is a grog culture. It comes from the grog. The grog gives them the strength to bash their loved ones and neglect their families and their children.
The three-pronged approach we have to protect the Northern Territory and save people’s lives is what this government’s aim has always been. If you look at the Chief Minister’s comments when we were in opposition, he was always hammering on in this parliament about the lack of legislative support for these people. How can we take these people off the streets and protect them? How can we give them a chance to heal their own bodies and realise how important their communities, their families and their wives are. That is the opportunity we are giving them to make sure they become humans again, not controlled by the poison alcohol. It encourages them to be aggravated, walk around the streets in a daze, to not look for a job and not eat. We make sure they do not hop in cars, drink-drive or drive unlicensed.
As a government, we have a many-pronged approach to ensure we save Territorians. That is the whole aim of a government coming in. You do not introduce just one bill to say that is what you will do. You guys, through the BDR, had one piece of legislation.
This many-pronged approach has given an extra tool to the Northern Territory Police to use various legislative instruments to help and ease the work of the police. As a resident of Alice Springs – I am sure the member for Barkly can speak about Barkly – we have seen a major difference in Alice Springs.
I do not want what happened to my young sister a couple of weeks ago to happen to anyone else. She leaves behind two young boys. What do we say to those young boys? ‘Do not follow in the footsteps of your mother. Do not walk around in a daze, drink seven days a week and live in Alice Springs when you have a community to live in. Do not follow in her footsteps.’ Do we say that? That is how they grew up watching their mum.
I appreciate, Chief Minister, that you have taken these initiatives, the many-pronged approaches, to stop this kind of ugliness happening in our towns and to make sure we give people time to heal, and so they understand they are good people who can contribute to society, their communities and families, and they can grow their children up without drinking alcohol so their children do not follow in their footsteps.
This bill, and the many other bills we have introduced into this parliament, squarely puts a block in front of people saying, ‘We will not tolerate this kind of nonsense in the Northern Territory’. In introducing this legislation, we want to protect them. We feel they are an important part of the Northern Territory society. We feel they are good people and we want to look after them. We should not get into argy-bargy about who is right. We have to take the opportunity to see how police are working in our communities. I am sure the member for Barkly would have seen it in Tennant Creek. We have seen it in Darwin, and we see it in Alice Springs.
After parliament I have been walking around the streets, and on weekends, observing, and it is clean. This is an opportunity to congratulate the Northern Territory Police and the government for initiatives to make sure our streets are clean and our people are being looked after. All we hear is, ‘It is cruel that you are doing this’. People from AMSANT do not go to all the funerals, people from NAAJA do not go to communities for funerals, but we do.
Alcohol gives people the guts to fight. The poison of alcohol makes them abusive and lets them break the law. If you take alcohol away we are dealing with a human being again. We are dealing with a person who is loved by family, who has children they love and a community that wants them back. We do not want them back in coffins to bury in our communities, we want them back alive, healed and ensuring they contribute to their children’s future and the education we talk about with their children, their homes, their communities, looking after their elderly people and ensuring they do not take the risk of drink-driving. They may be hurt in the process or may hit a pedestrian.
We have taken the opportunity to address these issues, and I congratulate the Chief Minister for introducing this bill. We should be congratulated for being a government which sees a future for participating human beings, healthy, educated and contributing to the Northern Territory.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I have spoken in this parliament many times about the careless scrapping of the BDR by the CLP. The scrapping of the BDR was a mistake which created many problems. Alcohol protection orders are not the solution; there has to be a better solution. I have several issues with this bill. Firstly, it is poorly written, and, secondly, I realise this CLP government has truly lost the plot.
The number of people who could qualify for an alcohol protection order is significant. This month, the NT News estimated more than 4000 Territorians a year could be banned from entering licensed supermarkets, cafs, pubs and TIO Stadium under the CLP’s proposed alcohol protection orders.
This would mean police would be monitoring 4000 people at any one time. That is 4000 people across the Territory being monitored and chased using police time and resources. This legislation is not interested in stopping those on APOs from purchasing alcohol; it is only interested in police catching them when they are drunk. In this bill, the police are given almighty powers. With this bill the CLP is saying, ‘Why have a court when you have the police?’
This is not the Australia I grew up in and not the Australia I believe in. This bill gives police far-reaching powers usually reserved for the courts. A potential result of these powers given to police to search and detain may be to antagonise relationships between the community and police officers. This may lead to pushing alcohol addiction and alcohol-related violence underground, which will solve nothing. For example, the APOs may have the opposite effect of reducing alcohol-related violence against women and children if these offences are pushed further and further from the public eye. This is a real consequence of the bill, as police are viewed more as a threat than a help.
What incentive is there for a group of people on APOs who are drinking to call the police if violence breaks out? Will all those breaching APOs go to the police because they need help? I am unsure. Today they do, but once this bill is passed they may not. When violence erupts someone will say, ‘Call the police’, but when this legislation is in place I doubt that will be the case. Instead, it will be every man and woman for themselves. They will flee the scene and the violence will continue. We must stop the violence and abuse.
Failing to address supply in this legislation is failing those victims. In failing to address supply we are forcing police to have more interaction with people who are already drunk. Dealing with drunks is not fun policing. In fact, it can be outright dangerous policing. I have faith that police know how to do their job but, at the same time, we have a duty of care to think about the situation we are putting police in. I know some of this as my brother-in-law is a policeman and tells me many stories of the dangerous situations they face dealing with drunks on a daily basis.
The Police Association has criticised the CLP’s failure to address the supply of alcohol, and I agree with them. By not addressing supply, we are creating more situations where police confront people under the influence of alcohol.
This will fill our gaols with Aboriginal people, and for that you may as well call it an Aboriginal protection order. You may as well call this legislation racist. We know who it is really targeting. I respect the heartfelt contribution by the member for Namatjira, who speaks with sincerity and much experience.
There has to be a better solution. I quote from a story recently published by AAP Newswire, reporting that APOs will disadvantage Aboriginal people. NAAJA Chief Executive, Pricilla Collins said:
In the meantime, we will see more and more Aboriginal people in our gaol system. I put the Minister for Correctional Services on notice as well: you better protect these people, minister. I do not want an NT News headline about another Aboriginal death in custody. If they are all ending up in gaol, minister, I sincerely hope you look after them.
The CLP has been fairly open about this legislation having no effect on supply. Whilst it will be an offence to intentionally supply alcohol to someone on an APO, the CLP has provided no means to practically identify the person. For most sellers the only practical way to continue their business is to assume everyone is not on an APO. I understand some sellers will be supplied with folders with names and photos of people on alcohol protection orders, but, generally, it will be too busy and impractical to flick through a folder of pictures and names of people to identify them.
Why would a seller want to inconvenience other customers while they scour over a folder looking for names and photos that match? The seller, aware they can sell alcohol to anyone as long as they do not know if the customer has an APO, will make it a priority to not know who is or is not on an alcohol protection order. There is simply no incentive for the seller to be completely aware. The practice will be the seller, even when not certain, will assume the customer is allowed to drink.
Another reason the seller would prefer to simply assume is the fear of wrongfully discriminating against someone. Depending on the nature of the refusal, a customer could be refused because the seller thought they had an alcohol protection order against them when they did not. Would a customer wrongfully refused service be able to pursue the matter through the courts as discrimination? Of course it would depend on the circumstances of the refusal, but it shows sellers, again, would be more inclined to keep selling alcohol and assume the customer is allowed access to alcohol than risk any kerfuffle over refusing the wrong person.
We have a process of identifying those on APOs which is devoid of modern technology and the straightforward system of the Banned Drinker Register. Simply, this legislation makes no real attempt to affect supply.
As the Chief Minister said, it is all about the individual; the onus is on the individual. This CLP government is placing the onus on a person who has already proven they make bad decisions. Stakeholders impacted by this bill have barely been consulted, let alone Territorians across our community. We certainly know who has not been consulted on this bill: the lawyers.
The NT News recently reported, and I quote:
In regard to licensed premises and those on APOs being unable to enter them, the CLP has done little consulting. I have contacted a number of sporting organisations, clubs, bottle shops and supermarkets. It was the first time they had heard of this bill. Licensed premises, as we know, include supermarkets, cafs, pubs and TIO Stadium. It is a sad fact that a number of football stars end up on the wrong side of the law when it comes to alcohol due to celebrations gone wrong, a win or perhaps being caught drink-driving.
This new legislation means football players will face additional penalties in the Territory on top of the fine, conviction or licence ban. In the Territory it will mean they will need to give up their participation in sport as they can no longer step into a licensed premises, which includes a great many football venues and sporting clubs. For instance, someone like Liam Jurrah, who is trying to put his life back together where playing footy is a key to that, will have to give it up because of his history of alcohol-related offences; he will not be allowed to step onto TIO Stadium. Someone on an APO will go backwards as they abide by it. They will break a law by going to a supermarket, they can no longer lawfully have lunch with friends at a caf or dinner with family at a restaurant, and they cannot participate in sport or social clubs where the premises are licensed.
This is poor legislation. So many aspects of this legislation disappoint me. The lack of consultation by the CLP government is truly despicable but, unfortunately, that is how this government operates. For that reason I wish to conclude my comments by reading, in its entirety, the view of the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory. It is an alliance of the Central Land Council, Northern Land Council, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory.
These are organisations whose business it is to look after the interests of Aboriginal people, and I want their views to be recorded in Hansard:
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this bill today, but I thought I should offer my full support for the bill. As a person who lives in the bush and has a lot of involvement with Indigenous people and many European people closer to town, not one of my constituents has complained about the introduction of this bill.
In this debate we have the issue of the BDR. One of the biggest problems with the BDR was it inconvenienced the innocent. This new legislation inconveniences the guilty. On that side, all they are doing is defending the innocent. ‘What are we going to do? How inconvenient for these people.’ Well, bad luck! They have broken the law and that is it.
The other thing I picked up on was derogatory remarks from the member for Johnston in regard to sellers of alcohol, saying, ‘They do not care, they just want to sell some’. I find that offensive. I am a licensee and that is not my view. Perhaps people over there ought to look at these things in reality. If you have never had a licence and do not know the problems, do not talk about it. Do not tell us what to do. I know the problems of being a licensee.
Police need more powers. You people have made it harder for them with much more paperwork. They need more powers. How upset do you reckon they are when they put in hours and hours of work, only to find our lawyers, who are also in the process of selling, get offenders off and let them back on the streets? When you say we have not consulted with lawyers, we need to balance that as they are selling a product as well.
Madam Speaker, I have no sympathy for these people. My parents were killed in a car accident and I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I share the member for Namatjira’s sentiment, ‘I am sick and tired of the grog’. Grog undermines every good initiative and aspect of our community when it is abused. I am from Tennant Creek, and our crime statistics in the past 12 months were atrocious. There is an extreme level of alcohol abuse which is duplicated across the Northern Territory. I am sick and tired of this issue.
We have a new government and it has a sense of urgency. I remind the member for Namatjira that sense of urgency relates to 26 August 2012, when the incoming CLP government, on day one, scrapped the Enough is Enough alcohol policy. This related to the previous Labor government, and the first tool of that policy was the Banned Drinker Register.
They were determined to fulfil an election promise and they left the Territory wide open with no policy or procedures to address alcohol. However, even worse, they reverberated the message right through the regional and remote areas – ‘game on, it is all back on’. It was a populist political decision, driven by the populist CLP for the mainstream community in the Territory as an election promise. To start on that benchmark is bad policy, and since then we have seen a government trying to make it up as it goes along. The member for Namatjira’s urgency now relates to over 15 months of chaos.
The latest crime statistics in Tennant Creek show an increase of 43.7%. The latest crime statistics show the failure of an alcohol policy, with alcohol-related crime up by more than 11% across the Northern Territory. The latest crime statistics are related to assaults, which have increased by 43.7% over the last 12 months in Tennant Creek. There were 162 more alcohol-related assaults, 533 altogether over the past 12 months, and that figure represents nearly 20% of the Tennant Creek population.
There is a sense of urgency all right, because there were some very poor and ill-informed political decisions made based on bad politics, not best practice. In the House of the people, the House of debate, there is an alternative offered by the member for Nelson and supported by the opposition. It is 16 versus eight; the game is over. We know the reality and also understand, after 15 months, the mean-spirited and punitive nature of the good old CLP. I will not go into all my great memories of the 1980s and the 1990s, but it is linked to a DNA reaction.
We have an alternative; we can look at a select committee. We can work through this together to address what is failing legislation. This select committee will be evidence based. It will be based on behavioural science and will take an approach of policy development, not popular politics. It will involve experts in the industry, both within the Territory and interstate, and internationally, as the member for Nelson likes to broaden his research.
This select committee can reflect the bipartisan view we all share, which is being sick and tired of alcohol abuse within our community. It can work on the big ideas to ensure this policy is watertight and we have the best outcome from all parts of this parliament moving forward. There is a clear alternative. Urgency is really a furphy from the CLP when you factor in 26 August 2012, scrap the lot, game back on, a rapid increase in crime statistics, alcohol-related assaults, domestic violence then, suddenly, on 28 November 2013, we have a sense of urgency.
I do not believe that and there is a clear alternative. We are looking for a resolution, through the committee process, based on evidence and best practice. Let us take, for example, the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency and a letter to the Chief Minister on 11 October 2013. I will quote this for the Indigenous members of this House:
The other factor to consider in this debate is that the monetary figure interrogated through the estimates process in 2013 is $100m. The CLP’s forward estimates say by 2016 we will appropriate $100m into this flawed and make-it-up-as-you-go-along alcohol policy trail we are on, fuelled by a populist political opinion to satisfy the opinion maker in our community. That is a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money to make it up as we go along. I do not see any financial constraints when $100m is appropriated in forward estimates to address this alcohol policy of the CLP.
Scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register is only one element of what was taken out of the Territory equation on 26 August 2012. The member for Namatjira had no real knowledge of what the Enough is Enough policy represented. However, being a member of the previous Labor government and a Cabinet minister, she was very involved in that process. Let me remind members the Enough is Enough alcohol policy was not just about an electronic register, it was about a Drug and Alcohol Tribunal, income quarantining and rehabilitation. It was a suite of policy initiatives designed to target the problem drinker. It was very specific and it was rolling out. Unfortunately, it only became a teenager because the Territory changed in its political persuasion. The conservatives got in and cut the legs from under the Enough is Enough policy with nothing in its place. Now we see them make it up as they go along.
In Question Time today I made a comment across the floor to the Minister for Health when the talk was, ‘We care about rehabilitation. We care about alcoholics.’ I said, ‘What about Tennant Creek?’ The answer was, ‘Just wait’. That minister was part of a government which took power over 15 months ago but I have to wait!
How many more deaths in Tennant Creek? How many more assaults? How much more domestic violence? I am told there is now a sense of urgency and, by another minister, to just wait.
It is a very frustrating position to be in; therefore I present a united and considered response in regard to an alternative: a select committee to look at evidence, to deal with experts and to work on this together before we appropriate any more taxpayers’ cash, waste any more time, and before we go down a road fraught with problems. Essentially, the problem with this legislation is regulation. If you want to talk about good legislation, talk about the whole package and how it will roll out in the community. What will it be like in the real world? The member for Namatjira spoke about the real world.
This legislation fails in its regulation. It is clumsy, flawed and lacks the technology base the member for Port Darwin spoke about in Question Time today regarding electronic monitoring. Now I am back in the House and able to speak, I congratulate the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Correctional Services, for continuing the incredible work done by the Department of Correctional Services in building that knowledge base, that evidence base, that research around electronic monitoring and delivering that into Correctional Services and community policing.
That is a good outcome, member for Port Darwin, and I congratulate you for continuing that work. I emphasise continuing, because the Department of Correctional Services really did the groundwork you are able to base your advice to this House on.
In regard to regulating an APO, there was talk that electronic monitoring could be used. When I discussed that in the community I live and work in, it became quite a joke. One suggestion was it should be a bracelet the size of a dinner plate worn around your neck and coloured in fluoro orange so when you entered a licensed premises or went to a bottle shop the licensee could immediately identify you as being on an APO. That was the level of humour around that comment.
Since then, electronic monitoring, in regard to regulation of the alcohol protection orders, has dropped out of the CLP rhetoric. What is it? It is a piece of paper which can be enforced by the law enforcement agency; however, it, essentially, represents a piece of paper.
The member for Namatjira wants to talk about the real world. Let us talk about the real world because I took myself to the Tennant Creek Hotel recently to do some research. I spoke to the licensee and reminded him why I am not a regular at the Tennant Creek Hotel. I told him straight out and rather brutally that for me there are more sharks there than the south Pacific.
The humbug I cop in licensed venues in Tennant Creek is phenomenal. I chose to remove myself from that environment so I will not have patrons humbugging me and driving me nuts. I had an unfortunate experience recently when I went to a live music venue in Tennant Creek to support a musician. I was soon surrounded by ex-students, all now in their thirties. We shared some great stories then talk turned to me shouting beers. I shouted a couple of beers. I had my son with me, he was having a few beers, I drank a coke, and suddenly I had more friends and associates joining me at the table. I got a tap on the shoulder from a young woman asking me for a schooner of VB. This young woman was not one of my ex-students; she was an ex-student’s daughter. In relation to the kinship arrangement, it was okay for me to shout a schooner of VB. When I investigated the situation it was apparent this young woman was in the final trimester of her pregnancy. I was immediately challenged morally and ethically and chose to remove myself from the situation.
I went to the pub the other day and saw the cohort that starts drinking at 12 pm. It is a lively atmosphere and a lot of drinking happens. Cans and glasses are shared, cigarettes are shared, and it is a very convivial environment. It only lasts for a couple of hours because once the bottle shop opens most of that convivial atmosphere of having a drink – I will not talk about employment, training, responsibility or any of those mainstream issues, just the convivial atmosphere, a bit of backslap, a few jokes and a lot of laughs. I had a couple of serious bites but did not hand over a cent. I had a good opportunity to talk to the licensee about all sorts of issues, including this legislation. The place cleared out at 2 pm.
It was interesting to go to the next stage of my research and look at the takeaway culture. Let us face it, 70% of alcohol in the Northern Territory is consumed as takeaway alcohol. In Tennant Creek, the community policing strategy has started to place officers at bottle shops on the main street to monitor them. The licensees are not happy with it, and I will quote one piece of anecdotal evidence I was given: the return for a Tennant Creek bottle shop on the main street when police are present can be reduced from $19 000 to $9000 on a Thursday – a $10 000 drop on a Thursday.
This policing strategy is obviously working. Are the police officers happy about that strategy? No, it does not represent good community policing. I imagine it would be rather challenging. Professionally, it must be extremely challenging. However, it is an effective tool.
There is also the related drop in police overtime in Tennant Creek because of that community policing strategy. There is an extreme drop in the licensee’s income and a drop in the police appropriation with a reduction in overtime. You can see it is an effective measure.
I discussed with some licensees whether it would be more sensible to have an electronic method of monitoring customers as opposed to police officers standing in the full sun working the beat outside bottle shops, having to deal with rather aggressive people hell-bent on getting what they want immediately; they have a real sense of urgency. It is game back on because there is no BDR and no electronic register. The licensees, while not totally agreeing, see some merit in taking police out of the equation and having the situation monitored by return of the Banned Drinker Register. When we talk about 70% of alcohol consumed being takeaway, starting at 2 pm and going pretty frantic for the rest of the day, I see some merit in that. Unfortunately, that was taken away.
The question from licensees to me was, ‘Can it be turned back on?’ I said, ‘Absolutely, it is a piece of technology like the member for Port Darwin’s electronic bracelet. It can be turned back on.’ It would be a good tool to monitor the problem drinker, then perhaps this government might be interested in revisiting the tribunal, income quarantining and the rehabilitation methods. This would immediately target supply. Without that direct target on supply an alcohol policy fails. That is accepted by most stakeholders involved with alcohol and alcohol rehabilitation.
What I would like to do, with regard to a select committee, is ask Territorians if they are inconvenienced by presenting photo ID to purchase takeaway alcohol. You will find the minority mainstream cohort the government pitches to has changed its attitude, because in Tennant Creek it certainly has. I am talking about mainstream punters who support the CLP and have said to me, ‘No, we should go back to that because we could see a difference’. This happened when the flag went down, when the word went out to the bush, ‘Game on’.
We are talking about the real world and takeaway alcohol in Tennant Creek, not a cohort of 3500 people. We are talking about a regional cohort of up to 10 000 people who come to Tennant Creek to access services, sport and recreation, and involve themselves in the town. It relates to family and underpins issues of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse.
With a high mobility factor, better roads and transport infrastructure, a lot of cars on the road, Tennant Creek is the centre point to deal with that. At the moment, nothing is in place. This government has $100m to appropriate and will issue a document with a stern talk telling people they must not access alcohol or they will be in serious trouble. If they do, they will go to gaol for three months. I am sure that message, in the cohort I am talking about, will be really effective. Let us face it, it is not a passive environment; it is ‘game on’.
There is serious active resistance to mainstream culture in the Territory which relates to party, party and party. Unfortunately, work, family and all those responsibilities come second to many of the people we are talking about, and this is across the Northern Territory. I am told today this is another element of the policy, another solution for the area I live and work in. It will be the silver bullet; it will be part of a suite of initiatives which will be the game changer in the Northern Territory.
This is far too important to be left to the government. I remember the member for Port Darwin teaching me, when challenging the new era in Corrections initiatives, saying, ‘It is a matter of ‘trust us’? Trust the government?’ At the moment, that is about all we have.
Let us get real. Let us get organisation into the parliament and create a select committee. Let us work off the research the member for Nelson has done and put forward. Let us get to the bottom of what will deliver the best way to address supply of alcohol. I keep referring to 70% of that being takeaway alcohol.
Let us really nail this so everybody who is sick and tired of alcohol abuse and the grog, dramas, heartbreak and fatalities it brings can be satisfied we are moving forward.
That is a pragmatic suggestion. That is a peace offering. That is a bipartisan opportunity. It certainly challenged the CLP’s sense of urgency after 15 months of nothing.
Let us not make it up as we go along. Let us not let the rivers of grog continue to turn into the rivers of blood. Let us really tighten up the evidence-based approach, the science-based approach. Let us hear from the experts, and let us use the word the member for Fong Lim does not like: consult. Let us get it right. That is what this debate is about, and there is an opportunity in this House to make that change.
For the young woman who was in the last trimester of her pregnancy I did not say anything to – gee, I lectured her brothers. I gave them a serious talking to and cut the grog off. I stopped shouting after that episode and left. I hope I sent that message because, as I have brought to this House before, one of the huge issues I have been monitoring over 35 years in education is foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
In relation to education and this debate, where $100m has been appropriated in forward estimates by the government, I believe by 2017, from the statistics I have seen, there will be about 8000 Aboriginal children turning five and entering our education system. Alarmingly, up to 30% of those will have been affected by alcohol while in utero. This brings with it a series of special education challenges, and for anybody who wants to follow through with the research, there are direct links to foetal alcohol syndrome and a life of ruin and being in corrections.
We have to be serious. I agree with the member for Namatjira. We are all sick and tired of it. We have a sense of urgency relating to today as much as it relates to 2017 and beyond. We cannot afford to continue experimenting based on popular politics. Let us put it back to the people. If the CLP is so concerned about the mainstream punter who does not want to show photo ID through reinstatement of an electronic register to monitor takeaway alcohol sales and be one tool in a suite of policies to direct the problem drinker down the road of income quarantining, education, rehabilitation and responsibility, let us take it back to the people and ask them. You will find there has been a change of opinion across the Territory. It is not about a political backflip; it is a bipartisan approach to get this right.
The member for Daly said not one person in his constituency mentioned this legislation is bad. Member for Daly, I bet not one of your constituents mentioned it was good legislation either. I suggest not many constituents know about it. I have taken a long time and put a lot of effort into continuing the discourse about alcohol and alcohol abuse throughout the constituency I have lived and worked in for more than half my life. I have now taken it to the next level, and that is about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Once again, I encourage this government to be preparing and delivering policy that works, because we are in for a rough ride and cannot afford the loss of more generations of Territory children.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. This is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol, and we will fight to reduce it.
The bill offers new powers which will provide police with law enforcement tools to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime. Under this legislation, an adult who is charged with committing an offence and is believed to be affected by alcohol can be issued with an order which will ban them from consuming or possessing alcohol or attending any licensed premises unless it is their place of work or residence. Further, the orders can be issued to anyone charged with an offence, attracting a possible gaol term of six months or more, while they are under the influence of alcohol. People can also sign up voluntarily.
We are committed to reducing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. What I have heard in this House today from a number of people opposite is what they want to portray as correct. I would like to take a number of issues raised by members and put our view in relation to those statements. First, I will quote from the member for Fannie Bay’s comments in the House this morning:
I constantly hear about the Banned Drinker Register, ‘We banned people from drinking alcohol’. It banned them from buying takeaway alcohol. You could still sit in a bar provided you behaved yourself and, provided you demonstrated to staff in the premises you were not intoxicated, you could continue to drink.
Some people have a low tolerance of alcohol, some have a high tolerance, and there is something called an ‘alcohol dump’. It may come as news to members opposite, but an alcohol dump is where people sit and drink and the alcohol stays in the upper portion of the digestive system in what is referred to as the bread basket. It sits there; it does not pass through. You can drink and drink, and it is not until you stand and walk around that the liquid transfers into the main bowel where it is processed.
One of the most easily absorbed substances through the stomach wall is alcohol. You get a big alcohol dump into the main part of the stomach, the alcohol is sucked out carefully, and people can get a very high alcohol reading very quickly. If you sit in a bar and drink, then go outside and have this alcohol dump, in a very short period of time you could be, as some people call it, smashed.
What happens to people in licensed premises is not necessarily what happens in their body. People may believe they are sober but might be building up for a big alcohol dump.
Let us move on. The member for Fannie Bay said:
Mr Elferink: He was a member of the chairman’s lounge and the frequent flyer club.
Mr STYLES: Absolutely! He would probably be the chairman – 117 times.
Many other people, whilst on the Banned Drinker Register, had free access to alcohol.
I have also heard the opposition say once you were on the Banned Drinker Register you could not buy takeaway alcohol. Maybe you could, maybe you could not. I heard many stories. Some people had a number of driver’s licences in different names and would keep trying until one worked. Technically, that is an offence and the people at the hotel should have twigged. They would say ‘That is the old licence’, or ‘This is the new one’. They would find one that worked. One guy had 12 different driver’s licences. That was a common problem.
On the other side of inconveniencing people, one licensee had a box under the counter with over 250 licences which people had left – a lot of inconvenience for people who had to obtain a new driver’s licence.
We listened to the community and reacted. Those amendments are a result of talking to people, listening, consulting people and saying, ‘We will do that’. To not do it would be arrogant and to not listen. We do.
The member for Fannie Bay’s said:
No, but it gives that person, if they wish to change their behaviour, the first option. We should always try to help people help themselves. If you have an alcohol protection order it is up to you; you make the decision. It is about giving people the choice. If people make bad choices we, as a government, are quite prepared to help them make better choices. If that is through mandatory rehabilitation or alcohol protection orders, so be it.
The nanny state on the other side wants to wrap everyone in cotton wool and say, ‘The reason this person bought alcohol and got smashed is everyone else’s fault, so we should all be responsible for that person’s decision’. Some people in our community struggle to make good decisions, and we acknowledge that. However, the majority of people who want to buy and consume alcohol do so in the right manner.
If you have been a naughty person and get an alcohol protection order, you can buy a truckload of alcohol at the bottle shop and sit it in your back yard. If you sit there quietly and consume that alcohol, over whatever period of time, do not commit an offence, do not beat up your wife, husband, dog or cat, do not annoy your neighbours, do not throw rocks at anyone and behave yourself because you do not want to breach an alcohol protection order, so be it.
What people opposite do not realise is lots of people sit in their homes at night and consume alcohol. Should we go into their lounge rooms and say, ‘You are drinking too much’? They do not inconvenience their neighbours, turn the music up, kick the dog, beat anyone up or annoy the police; they get on with their lives, albeit they may be consuming too much alcohol.
You see people sitting at bars who have their own seat and their own glass at the pub. They have a few drinks in the evening. They might have too many drinks according to some people in this House, but they wander home, go to sleep and get up the next day. Have they been out annoying people? No, they drink responsibly. However, the Banned Drinker Register would say if they wanted to get a six-pack on the way home they cannot do it responsibly.
I recall hearing stories about people from overseas having to take their passports with them. A government department in Canberra is telling people, ‘Be careful with your identity, there is identity theft all over the place’. They had to take their passports. They say, ‘Lock it in your hotel safe’, but they had to take them to buy a drink.
This inconvenience went around the world and onto websites. Grey nomads were saying, ‘Do not bother going. When you get to Katherine, turn left and go to Western Australia because if you want to have a drink it is impossible.’
We have a major issue with people in the community committing offences whilst under the influence of alcohol. That is a tragic situation so we have to do this, but the Banned Drinker Register, sadly, did not work.
I quote the member for Fannie Bay:
There are several licensed premises in my electorate and the Banned Drinker Register did not stop people buying alcohol because they got someone else to do it. There were some very entrepreneurial backpackers around town who realised the Banned Drinker Register was a gift from God. They said, ‘Mate, can you buy that alcohol?’ ‘No, I cannot.’ ‘We will buy it for you. Give us $100 and we will buy you a slab.’ That was occurring.
There was a guy running around town on a push-bike with a trailer on it selling alcohol in the early hours of the morning. I think he has been caught by police because I passed that on to a few people I know.
These things were occurring. We created a black market in alcohol where the wrong people were making the money. The people with the problem were taking money they might spend on food or whatever and transferring it into expensive alcohol.
Of course, the other problem we had near the water park was when people were put on the Banned Drinker Register they said, ‘I don’t want to bother about that,’ so they changed to marijuana. The criminal element would deliver. You did not need an esky, ice or a driver’s licence. They would wind the window down, people would hand over an enormous amount of cash, they handed over a bag of marijuana and people were soon plastered. That was not fixing the problem.
The member for Fannie Bay said:
The member for Fannie Bay also said:
If someone sits at home drinking alcohol and does not do anything to anyone you never hear about it. What happens when that person decides they want to punch someone, kick the dog or throw rocks at the neighbour’s roof? Should we have someone sitting in the lounge room? Some of the examples given might win a few brownie points, but they do not tackle the problem.
Reading further:
What is the difference between the Banned Drinker Register and what we are doing? There was the issue of secondary supply with the Banned Drinker Register. I asked police prosecutors, ‘How do you get a conviction for secondary supply?’ They said, ‘With a lot of trouble’. If someone says, ‘Mate, can you buy me a slab? I have a bung foot and cannot get out of the car.’ I say, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’ He says, ‘No, not me’, I have to take his word for it. How do I check? ‘I do not have my driver’s licence with me.’ Does everyone do that? Is everyone in the Territory expected not to do that? You could not find out who was on the Banned Drinker Register. If you walked in with the driver’s licence of someone who looked like you – if you look at my driver’s licence it is nothing like me, it is a much better photograph – you have problems …
A member: Better looking?
Mr STYLES: No, it has been airbrushed. No one knew who was on Labor’s Banned Drinker Register; you could not check. I used this example before and was howled down when in opposition: do I set up a gate at my home when I am having a barbecue? If I gave someone on the Banned Drinker Register a beer I was in breach. Was I supposed to say to visitors if I had a big barbecue, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’ If they said no, how could I check? Could I ring police and ask if they were on the Banned Drinker Register? Sorry, that is protected under privacy. We could not get access to that information.
We are putting responsibility back on the person. If someone has not been a nice person and we put on APO on them and they behave themselves – they do not kick the dog – what is the problem? That is a huge measure of success. If criminals do not like this they are free to leave the Territory. If you do not like us putting responsibility back on the person, then leave the Territory. Go somewhere you will not have to be responsible for your actions.
The member for Fannie Bay said:
That is an amazing statement. I want to repeat that:
Many people who drink too much alcohol do it at home and do not commit offences. If you commit offences you will come to the notice of police and will be held to account. If you cannot make good decisions we will give you some help. We have a mandatory rehabilitation centre for people who are addicted.
Reading further, the member for Fannie Bay said:
Reading further, the member for Fannie Bay said:
I have spoken to many of my former associates and friends who tell me police, when the opposition was in government, said this was a great tool. I will not comment on what the police said or did not say, but I can comment on what they are saying now. They are saying if people thought the Banned Drinker Register worked and was good, what they will have with the alcohol protection orders is fantastic. They are seriously looking forward to being part of a system which will prevent people from committing offences and, if they do, they will suffer the consequences.
Moving along:
The next sentence was:
I have dealt with that before; we never knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register.
Further on the member for Fannie Bay said:
There was an article in the newspaper from Dawn House, the women’s refuge centre, saying its statistics for domestic violence went up by 7% as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. An old mate gets himself on the Banned Drinker Register but still gets plastered because he could. Then, when he went to buy alcohol, he could not. He went home – generally it was male against female – and asked his wife, girlfriend or partner to buy alcohol. She said, ‘I don’t want to do that’, so he would assault her.
That is not us, not you, but people who deal with this at the coalface keeping statistics. There was a 7% increase in domestic violence as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. That is part of the reason it did not work.
When we came to government we had consulted with people who said it did not work. They could not see why we had inconvenienced the entire population for the behaviour of a few. They said people were still getting – the same people, day after day. I remember the member for Fannie Bay talking about shopkeepers at Fannie Bay shops complaining about unruly behaviour, etcetera. I spoke to a number of those shopkeepers recently and the situation has gone quiet. I then spoke to the police saying, ‘Why are there fewer people in places like Fannie Bay?’ They said, ‘They do not like the mandatory sentencing idea. We know the guy who went in and out four times did not want to be there either.’
There are people who do not want to go, and that is their choice. Their choice of not going is not sitting around in public getting smashed to the point they commit offences, annoy people, harass and humbug people using the shops at Fannie Bay or other supermarkets in the Northern Territory.
I am mindful of the clock, Madam Speaker, and would like to move to matters the member for Johnston raised.
He said, amongst other things, there is no effective way of tracking someone on an APO. There is, and it is called coming to the notice of the police. It might surprise the member for Johnston that people’s behaviour, when poor, normally attracts the attention of someone in the community and, eventually, the police.
It may be police on patrols or it may be someone who phones the police and gives them the information. When the person is apprehended they end up at the police station and, lo and behold, the police have a great computer system with lots of information and they say, ‘Billy Smith has an APO on him. You are breached, you are in trouble.’
It is really easy. If people do not want to be inconvenienced by an alcohol protection order, do not commit the offence in the first place. If you do, as a community and a government, we will help you rehabilitate. If you choose not to be rehabilitated, or you continue to choose a lifestyle which will impact on everyone in the community, you will suffer some consequences. That is life. We have that across our legal system, whether it is driving cars, in the accounting field or stealing, there are consequences.
The member for Johnston also said we are talking about 4000 people. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned this as well:
They were never off the grog!
If we have 4000 people on APOs who all modify their behaviour, that is great outcome. What is the problem? This is about holding people accountable for their actions. Generally, some people choose not to be accountable. We will help them be accountable, educate them, and rehabilitation programs will help.
The member for Barkly had a go at us for scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. Anecdotally – and statistics prove it – it did not work. I do not blame them; this was their great policy. I do not blame them for trying to prop it up and support their view, but it did not work. We know it does not work but, as we go forward, we will make it work.
He had a go at us for spending $100m in the forward estimates. If you have a major problem in your community, sometimes you have to spend money to fix it. Would he have us not spend the $100m and let the problem continue, which is what they did?
I sat on the other side in opposition listening to the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, say, ‘We spent $672m on the effects of alcohol’ – a terrible amount of money. We plan to spend some money but reduce that number.
I have not done the calculations, but 16% or 17% of $672m – if we can reduce the problem by 20% we save money. We will spend that money and see outcomes with people rehabilitated. We will change people’s behaviour, and we are looking forward to it.
The member for Barkly asked why not bring it back in – do a backflip. Why would we do a backflip for something that did not work? It did not work! I am sorry to say, member for Barkly, we will not be doing a backflip because we will not go back to something that did not work and failed miserably.
The member for Johnston said we will have 4000 people drinking whenever they like. They will not because they will be on APOs and, if they want to continue with that behaviour, they will struggle to stay out of rehabilitation.
You say it is terrible putting people on APOs and making them accountable, and we are giving the police way too much power. Let us get rid of traffic infringement notices and go back to putting in full briefs and going to court. The member for Johnston would be asking why it takes six years to go to court. The answer would be simple: because we do not have money to spend building lots of courts and employing staff and magistrates. We cannot do that because we have a $5.5bn debt. We are struggling with many essential services thanks to that legacy.
However, if you take away some of the things you give police the power to do – we need to take it. What about demerit points? Let us get rid of demerit points and go back to court where, apparently, the member for Johnston thinks this should be. Let us get rid of home detention. Let us lock everybody in gaol and get rid of home detention.
The community has said we can change the way we do business. Again, perhaps the member for Johnston wants to stay in the dark days and keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. They did it with education; they want to do it with this as well.
I will go further down the list. It talks about the situation police will be in regarding alcohol protection orders. I struggle to understand that. He said he had a relative in the police force, and I accept that. Perhaps the relative has told him different things. I suggest he talks to other police officers to get their understanding of this because the police are keen to work with the community to prevent these people committing offences …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I would like to give the opposition some food for thought with a number of scenarios. These are case studies and names have been removed to protect the guilty. This is a male person known as Mr H, 32 years old:
This offending would have qualified Mr H for an alcohol protection order given the links between his intoxication and violent conduct towards police. I have done this and know what it is like; it is not very pleasant. We are adding more consequences for this poor and unacceptable behaviour. Our police officers work extremely hard on a day-to-day basis. There are a number of people in our community who you can never pay enough. You cannot pay police officers, nurses or doctors enough. They are at the front line and we should be protecting their working environment by putting the onus on the offender and making them responsible. An individual being responsible for their own behaviour may be a novel idea for those on the opposite side of the House.
I cannot remember my mother telling me everyone in the community was responsible for my behaviour. My parents taught me that I was, my grandparents taught me that and I taught my children that. Parents of most people in this House would have said the same thing, so when did it change? When did we all become responsible for someone else’s behaviour? If the member for Johnston wants to give his spiel, am I responsible for the fact he is supporting a failed policy? I am not. It is his responsibility and we are all responsible for our actions.
On 14 November 2013, same case:
If there was an APO you cannot stop people committing offences totally, but you can ensure they are held accountable.
Here is another example. A male person, Mr G, 35 years old:
If these people were in mandatory rehabilitation for alcohol abuse they would not be committing these offences. That is a novel idea, is it not, to get people some help? Here is another case study. Mr F, 22 years old, male:
That offending would have qualified him for an alcohol protection order on the basis he had been drinking all afternoon and was intoxicated when he assaulted his partner.
Time does not permit me to continue, but there are some fabulous case studies about people who, if not in mandatory rehabilitation, would be served with alcohol protection orders. When they breach those orders, they can go to court and suffer serious consequences for their behaviour.
I do not hear from the other side about the good parts of this, only that it will not work. We have not started yet. We have consulted a great deal with the community and police, and are of the opinion it will work. That is why we introduced this legislation. We are about protecting the community from people who choose to indulge in criminal conduct. Assaulting people is not nice; it is terrible. Some of these things are horrific.
I have witnessed some of the bashings. As an ex-police officer, I would have loved this. I can understand why my former colleagues are saying, ‘Good on you guys, get it done. When can we have it?’ They are complaining, and people who have been assaulted are saying, ‘The sooner you get this in the better’.
A simple way of avoiding these restrictions is do not drink then commit a crime: do not drink then bash your wife or husband, do not drink then punch someone at the pub. It is simple. These orders are issued by police when a person is charged and they attract a gaol term of up to three months if breached. We can have a solid deterrent in place with solid consequences for people who break the law.
I ask members opposite to have a good look at this legislation. I ask them to look at some of the things I said in relation to the Banned Drinker Register and the real evidence, and talk to people to see if things have changed.
I have heard a few stories but cannot comment because I am not from the place they mention. However, in my electorate, in the northern suburbs and around Fannie Bay the situation has changed. People are taking note of the mandatory rehabilitation process and will take note of this. It may take a few weeks to get around, but once the message is out it will change people’s behaviour.
I ask the opposition to take a good look at what we are proposing and to support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013. I commend the Chief Minister for his continued dedication to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour in our community which is so often linked with the abuse of alcohol.
Reflecting on opposition members’ contributions to the debate, it was interesting to hear them criticising the government for not knowing what was happening in the real world. The Opposition Leader famously said she had never seen the drunks in State Square during the 11 years they were in government. Talk about being out of touch. The drunks in State Square were as frequent as the plovers. The hypocrisy from the other side is amazing.
Supporting this legislation is easy for me; there are numerous reasons why the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is a positive for the Northern Territory. This government’s vision for a strong society is built on valuing an individual’s freedom to participate in society and ensure they have equal access to opportunities, supporting the most vulnerable people in our community and working hard to make the Territory a safe place for every person whether they are at work, school, out socialising or in their own home. This bill is a landmark piece of legislation which assists us in realising our goal of creating a strong society for every Territorian and every visitor to this great place.
Alcohol protection orders, or APOs, will be another tool among a collection of instruments this government has put forward as a means of reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. There is no quick fix, regardless of what the opposition tells you, when targeting crime in any jurisdiction. Successful campaigns around the world designed to fight crime use various measures, not just one bandaid solution on top of another. The previous government’s Banned Drinker Register, not only being onerous on law abiding citizens and licensees, was very costly and not strategically packaged with other legislation to make a real difference.
The former government knew there was a problem in the Northern Territory with excessive drinking and antisocial behaviour. Despite what they thought were good intentions, Labor let substandard legislation grow like a suffocating weed which the Country Liberals government has had to prune back to let new, productive results occur. In my electorate alone, property crime spiked because people on the Banned Drinker Register were smashing people’s windows to steal their grog. It was a disgrace. It was not a Banned Drinker Register; it was the banned buyer register.
This side of the Chamber is committed to restoring faith in the Northern Territory government’s ability to respond to social problems. The alcohol protection orders legislation is different to the failed BDR in that it should not cause concern to law abiding residents, who make up the vast majority of people. Under this legislation, if you are not bound by an APO you do not need to show identification when you buy a six-pack after work, and your details are not scanned by a computer to prove you are not a criminal.
A multipronged approach to building a strong society is what we are witnessing. As previously stated, this bill is one mechanism among others introduced by the current government to curb the trend of alcohol misuse and social dysfunction, including violent and dangerous crime. They are thoughtful laws which meet the expectations of honest, hard-working Territorians, including the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act and the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. It is no coincidence that both of these acts were legislated by a strong, determined government in tune with the public. These two acts serve to sit side by side with the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill and will work towards addressing the highly complex issue of alcohol-related offending.
We previously heard about the Banned Drinker Register in remarks from the member for Fannie Bay. That is, essentially, all we heard about. Their pride and joy was the BDR, which is why the opposition has nothing else to talk about. We have not heard about any other solutions introduced during their time because there were none. For a decade, Labor sat on their hands while alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour continued to plague the Territory, its streets and homes. All of a sudden, at the end of their time in government, the BDR was haphazardly introduced leaving Territorians puzzled. It is no wonder the BDR did not work, given Labor’s inherent soft on crime attitude. We are seeing that attitude displayed in full force today.
The BDR was brainstormed during a time when most people in our community had already decided Labor had failed them. The Labor Party invented the BDR when someone finally decided, ‘Hey, it might be a responsible idea to address the alcohol problem everyone in our community keeps talking about’. Sadly, no one on either side of the Chamber can identify what Labor did in this area before the Banned Drinker Register. I am sure somewhere on the hard drive of a Labor member is a file titled, ‘Important Alcohol Reforms for the Northern Territory – to be advised’. It is probably located next to the file, ‘Stella Maris – A Work in Progress’.
The BDR was Labor’s first and only attempt to solve the grog problem and, therefore, is all the opposition can talk about. Our election commitment to ditch the BDR was welcomed by voters – the many people excited about this addition to our suite of comprehensive legislation targeted at reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. The Chief Minister and I hosted a meeting of the Council of Churches, and when we discussed with the several members of that council in the room the APO, the consensus was it was welcomed. You need a number of tools in your chest to fight this problem, and it was very encouraging to have the council’s support.
I also support this legislation because it reflects the attitude within the community that criminals have had it easy for far too long. Why should offenders be granted the same luxuries as their victims? What stops a drunk assaulting an innocent person in one pub only to visit a different pub the next night and, potentially, carry out the same attack? For years, all we have heard about in regard to the justice system is how the offender was somewhat sorry for his fourth or fifth charge of assault. The key question has revolved around the rights of the criminal.
The community has had enough. Instead of searching long and hard for mitigating circumstances, or trying to find legitimate reasons for drunken criminality, Territorians are now asking, ‘What about the rights of society? Why do we try to protect the offender not the victim?’
This bill is a milestone in many ways. Significantly, victims and those vulnerable in our community can now have more confidence in living their lives. We all agree a strong society values an individual’s right to freedom. One definition of freedom means the state of not being subject to, or affected by, something undesirable.
People who have been attacked by drunks or have witnessed antisocial behaviour due to alcohol abuse will tell you they do not feel they have the freedom to go to a pub, nightclub or major event. Something undesirable, like seeing a previous attacker drinking a couple of metres away or fearing witnessing grog-fuelled criminality impedes on people’s decisions to enjoy their lives and go out. Now, thanks to this legislation, people are able to attend events or social gatherings with less chance of running into their offender and can have greater confidence that those on an APO are deterred from drinking alcohol as well as remaining in licensed areas. Just like other privileges in life, if you thumb your nose at society’s rules, privileges will be revoked.
I support this legislation because of the possible benefits it can provide for the person subject to an alcohol protection order. Abstaining from alcohol for a length of time can bring enormous benefits to one’s health, even if it is for a short period of time. The member for Namatjira commented about that at length and how it will benefit her people.
APOs force a person to re-evaluate their attitude towards alcohol and will provide many with a clearer head to focus on what they value in life, and whether they think their alcohol consumption is negatively affecting them and their loved ones.
Away from alcohol, people are more likely to participate in sport and recreational activities, and there is a greater chance for someone to find gainful employment when they are sober rather than intoxicated.
I struggle to understand why the opposition cannot see the benefits of this legislation. In fact, on ABC radio, the shadow Police minister, the member for Fannie Bay, labelled it ‘quite an odd bill’. Member for Fannie Bay, is it really that odd? Does anyone find it odd that the Chief Minister, the Police minister, wants to empower police officers with a landmark law which allows for alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour to be tackled head on?
Is it odd to restrict the consumption of alcohol to those who have broken the law while intoxicated, often as repeat offenders? Is it odd to care about creating safe pubs and clubs where hard-working Territorians want to relax with fewer troublemakers nearby? Is it odd to think about what our victims want in our society? I ask the opposition, is it really an odd bill – a progressive law enforcement tool your party would deny the police force if you were in power?
While we are talking about the opposition’s stance on this bill, it is important to reflect on one point the member for Fannie Bay made on ABC radio where he said, ‘Nothing in this bill stops someone going into a store and buying alcohol’. This might be the first and only time I say the member for Fannie Bay is 100% correct. Technically, he is right. Technically speaking, under the BDR – the failed bandaid of yesteryear - it was possible for a banned drinker to have their wife, brother, friend or a stranger go into a store and buy alcohol for them. Even better, they could just walk into the pub.
The member for Fannie Bay is also the shadow Attorney-General, and I do not need to remind him laws cannot stop someone doing illegal or unethical things; it is physically impossible. Nothing physically stops people driving a motor vehicle while drunk, but Part V of the Traffic Act says it is illegal. Nothing physically stops someone stealing money, but Part VII of the Criminal Code Act forbids it ...
Mr Elferink: You have noticed that, have you?
Ms FINOCCHIARO: I did notice that, Attorney-General. Your shadow colleague has missed the memo that came around.
What laws do, shadow Attorney-General, is set rules and boundaries for citizens and, if the laws are strong enough, they successfully act as deterrents.
The member for Fannie Bay, the shadow Attorney-General, thinks the legislation is unfair because if police decide to serve an APO on a person it applies from the moment they are arrested, served or summonsed, as he put it. In fact, I will outline what the shadow Attorney-General said on ABC Radio on 7 November this year:
There are two reasons why the member for Fannie Bay’s argument is flawed. As shadow Attorney-General, it is of upmost importance to have some grasp on legislation which has been around for years. Forget about APOs, I draw your attention to when someone is currently charged at the police watch house and released on bail. That person’s bail conditions can state they must not consume alcohol. They breach bail if they do and can be arrested. They have not gone to court yet, as the member for Fannie Bay stated, as if it was peculiar.
Secondly, after the initial court date, you are no longer on bail so the non-drinking condition ceases, as APOs can. What about the restrictions placed on a defendant when they have been served with a section 41 police Domestic Violence Order? There are often provisions stating the person must not consume alcohol, or even be intoxicated while in the company of the victim. This is another case where a person can be apprehended for breaching a ‘do not consume alcohol’ condition well before their court date. When their court date arrives, this condition can be revoked and the person can drink once more.
I repeat the shadow Attorney-General’s first revelation:
This applies to many people on bail and some who have been served a police DVO. However, it all sounds like a surprise to the opposition.
We have the next sentence, where the member for Fannie Bay said:
Once again, it should not be surprising to a shadow Attorney-General that bail conditions and DVO conditions can also be altered at the court appearance. This is Law 101, and I urge the opposition to not muddle the facts when speaking publicly on important matters designed to positively change the lives of Territorians.
I return to the conversation about police domestic violence orders. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned DVOs and appears to believe there is a confusing duplication. This is simply not the case. Unfortunately, common sense appears to be missing from the opposition’s approach to this debate. They have, as usual, led with their chin with this criticism.
Let us look at what happens on the ground. At the moment, if police attend a domestic violence incident or are made aware of one, they can issue a police Domestic Violence Order. Where appropriate, they can make it a condition of the DVO that the alleged offender not possess or consume alcohol.
This power was created to address the impact of alcohol in domestic situations, and the prevalence of alcohol in violent domestic situations. The APO is a much broader tool to address alcohol-related criminal behaviour. The police who attend a domestic violence incident will now not duplicate the alcohol aspect but, instead, will issue two distinct orders with distinct purposes. The Domestic Violence Order will contain conditions such as the alleged offender not contact or approach the alleged victim, or the perpetrator not go to certain homes, suburbs or towns. The role of a DVO is to prevent domestic violence incidents and protect vulnerable people. An APO would also be issued in this case. The purpose is obvious: to address the alcohol component of the criminal behaviour and restrict future access to alcohol.
This is a practical approach to real problems by government giving tools to police. Let us be sensible in this debate, not negative just for the sake of it.
I support this legislation because it will inevitably make licenced venues a safer place. Simply stated, APOs are placed on adults who are charged with committing a serious offence while under the influence of alcohol where the punishment is a possible six months or more in prison.
People bound by an APO are banned from possessing or consuming alcohol and, importantly, are banned from being on most licensed premises.
This is one reason the bill is favoured by many people in the community. People in the NT who have been arrested, issued a summons or a notice to appear in respect to a qualifying offence are banned from entering pubs and clubs. This will make licensed venues safer places. Not all people subject to an APO will be those violent offenders who make us cringe when we read about a glassing or pub bashing. I envisage alcohol protection orders will be effective in deterring that violent minority from frequenting places of leisure such as pubs, clubs and other types of bars.
If I go to a bar with my friends in the future, we will be much safer under this legislation than under the BDR. The BDR ensured violent perpetrators were afforded the luxury of hanging around in bars, waiting to start trouble.
With this legislation, entertainment precincts, particularly Mitchell Street in Darwin city, will be safer destinations, and that is part of what makes a strong society. It is being able to travel, work, live and play in safety and without fear of drunken violence. A clear message is being sent to those who have flouted the laws and enjoy the reckless life of getting drunk and breaking the law. Your time is up. Your time drinking to excess and putting yourself or other people at risk is up.
This legislation will be the foundation of a cultural change in regard to consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory. As such, it would be foolish to expect results overnight. Changing attitudes is a slow process, but is possible with this legislation. People served with APOs will have time away from drink and licensed venues to contemplate how they got into that position, and how to avoid it in the future.
Family members and friends who tire of the intolerable actions of recidivist drunken offenders will have a break from the routine and the chance of a better life. The victims, the forgotten ones, who for a decade have been yearning for a community where they feel safe and the law is there to protect them, will have comfort once again.
Legislation like this sets us apart from the previous government. We are tough on crime while Labor was not. We care about the victim while Labor did not. We introduced meaningful legislation where Labor did not.
I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 and am proud to be part of a government which is as responsible and pioneering as this one. Thank you.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on alcohol protection orders.
In his second reading speech the Chief Minister said the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt the reduction of alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour is a real goal of the government, as well as the previous government, along with every member of this House.
A solution to the problem is something we all want to see. As Territorians we see, day to day, the hideous effects of excessive drinking. We see it in every electorate, and we all want to see a change for the better. We know many Territorians are capable of having a few drinks and keeping their alcohol consumption under control. They like to go out, catch up with their mates or their family at a barbeque after work, have a few drinks and live a balanced and productive life. Unfortunately, in the Territory we see many people with horrendous drinking problems who, as a result, get themselves into all sorts of trouble.
We have heard great tragedies recounted by some members in this debate. We also see them for ourselves, and we witness the consequences and awful realities some people live with as a result of excessive alcohol consumption. It is downright terrible and we all want to see this tackled. We all want to see better lives ahead for these people deeply affected by alcohol and its consequences This issue ignites passionate debate in this House and, clearly, there is a lot of work to do.
Around 60% of offences against a person and about 70% of domestic violence order breaches in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. These numbers speak volumes about the problems some people have with alcohol, but it certainly does not tell the whole story. There is more to the story of alcohol-related harm than crime statistics. For the worst affected, alcohol addiction can mean the loss of family, friends, livelihood, and time in rehab or prison. For many, this is accompanied by major physical or mental health problems for the rest of their lives.
We all agree the social and economic impacts of alcohol in the Territory are huge. Alcohol-related crime is not new to the Territory. I doubt there is any community in the world where alcohol is available that is free from the problems it can cause. We have seen some hideous alcohol-fuelled violent incidents in recent times, and it is sad to say it is likely we will see these incidents continue.
As elected representatives in the Northern Territory parliament, we need to think deeply about this. We have a responsibility to make the right decisions, try to minimise the harm caused by alcohol and provide help for drinkers who need assistance. This bill certainly misses the mark.
I cannot help but mention the Banned Drinker Register. In debate today we have heard many different views about the Banned Drinker Register, and it is clear we are talking to many different people in this House. There are many different views, but one thing for sure is the government is still very much opposed to the BDR. It was not the silver bullet for alcohol-related problems, but it was making a difference.
The only reason the BDR is no longer in operation is because the CLP decided to oppose it early and loudly. The police thought the BDR worked, Territorians knew it worked, and Territorians I speak to tell me they felt the BDR was having a positive impact. Since removal of the BDR on the day after the election, I saw chaos break out across the Territory. We saw many people back on it. You only need to go down the Esplanade at 7 am to see plenty of people having a good old time.
We have seen, since removal of the BDR, police being gagged, and it was not because they did not like it. I suspect those on the other side of the Chamber know it worked in some ways, but I doubt we will see you admit it.
The Banned Drinker Register was once described by police as the most effective tool they had been given to combat alcohol-related crime, a tool that interrupted supply of alcohol to those who broke the rules rather than this flawed plan of the CLP. The BDR was a tool to help reduce consumption and, therefore, help reduce alcohol-related harm. There were around 2500 people on the BDR when the CLP scrapped it, their first action after being elected. That is 2500 people who could not walk into a bottle shop and buy grog because there was a system in place identifying problem drinkers at the point of sale.
Under this new legislation of APOs we have a system meant to stop people from drinking, in theory. APOs are meant to be in place so a person on one cannot buy alcohol from a bottle shop or walk into a pub and have a beer. The problem is only a person on one and some police know they are on an APO. There is very little in the way of stopping a person buying alcohol at a bottle shop or drinking at a pub.
It is ridiculous to expect police to keep tabs on thousands of people to ensure they are not drinking, have not had a beer early in the day or are not waiting for the police to leave so they can get the grog their friend is hoarding for them. The CLP’s plan to stop people from entering licensed supermarkets if they need to get milk or bread, or just get a newspaper, is bizarre. The plan will stop people from going to venues with their families, such as the football, their local sporting club, or a restaurant to have a meal. The CLP’s plan is to ban people from buying alcohol and not tell anyone they are banned. The only way it can work is if police follow the banned drinkers around all day to catch them in the act.
Once they have had an APO issued, that person is not allowed to enter a licensed premises and it is an offence for anyone to supply them with alcohol. However, there is no way for anyone to know who has had an APO issued. Security does not know who has an APO so will not stop anyone entering licensed premises. Shop owners will not know when they walk in to get the paper, and the waitress will not know when they are sitting in the restaurant ordering a meal. This is not a practical solution and places more pressures on vital police resources.
The Chief Minister, in his second reading speech, said the bill would provide police with a law enforcement tool to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime. I do not see how this will work. Our police are the best in the country and the Chief Minister wants to send them out every day to chase people on APOs. We already appreciate that demands on police are extremely high in the Territory and this will mean more work and more pressure on their precious and valuable resources.
The effectiveness of the BDR was most evident immediately after it was scrapped. We all saw the rivers of grog running again and an increase in antisocial and nuisance-type behaviour. The antisocial behaviour continues across the Territory. This is disturbing enough, worse still is the increase in violent crime in the Territory, a dismal failure by a dismal CLP government which promised to cut crime by 10% in its first year and every year after that. It was their airtight commitment in television advertisements, media interviews and policy papers.
In the latest crime statistics released this week, alcohol-related crime and domestic violence is skyrocketing. Alcohol-related assaults are up across the Territory in the last year, roughly for the same 12 months since scrapping the BDR. Alcohol-related assaults in Darwin are up by 12.3% under the CLP. In Tennant Creek, this figure is a horrific 43.7%. In Alice Springs, alcohol-related assaults are up 11.2%, and in Katherine that has increased by 4.2%. Domestic violence alcohol-related assaults are truly hideous statistics – up by 4.2% in Tennant Creek. There has been an increase of 18.6% in Darwin, and in Katherine and Alice Springs it has increased by 11%. These are not good statistics and are driven by consumption of alcohol.
This is putting more pressures on hospitals and organisations that support the victims of domestic violence. Alcohol-related emergency admissions at Alice Springs Hospital went through the roof after the BDR was scrapped. We also know RDH’s emergency department has been under immense pressure. It had the practice of double-bunking in place, which is now a regular occurrence, because of admissions and bed block.
The CLP has failed miserably. It has broken its contract with Territorians and its policy to scrap the BDR was not taken from a health perspective for these people.
More than 12 months since scrapping of the BDR, I talk to plenty of people who would like to see it reinstated. These are everyday Territorians, mums and dads, business owners, doctors, nurses and police, Territorians young and old from all walks of life.
It is true the ID system impacted on everyone who chose to buy alcohol but, after speaking to people, it was not much different to paying via your credit card using the EFTPOS machine. People became used to it pretty quickly and did not mind showing ID at the point of sale.
When the Chief Minister says the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, it raises a question. With violent crime, hospital admissions, antisocial behaviour and public drunkenness on the rise under the CLP, how does the Chief Minister rate the government’s progress on this commitment so far?
Because of the CLP’s arrogant refusal to admit the BDR was achieving results, we have ad hoc pieces of legislation such as the one we are debating today. We have already undergone lengthy debate around mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. We now have another bill which appears unworkable in real life and has no care or consideration for the health issues of alcoholics.
Under this legislation, if a person is placed on an alcohol protection order they must stop drinking immediately and consume no alcohol from the moment they are on an APO. There will be many alcoholics on APOs with chronic drinking problems. They drink every day because they are addicted, they are sick. It is a pretty miserable life. When people are addicted to alcohol, they will continue to drink even if it causes problems. They may start to miss work. It may be impacting on their closest personal relationships, and they are more likely to get into trouble with the law and end up on an APO.
Alcohol addiction is a very serious health condition and there can be severe effects from sudden withdrawal. The fight against withdrawal can be an enormous struggle and can become life threatening. Once the misuse of alcohol reaches the point of dependence it can be incredibly difficult to recover. At this stage, clinical treatment may be necessary. Withdrawal from alcohol can be very difficult. It is clear many people placed on APOs will break them given the alcoholism they are battling. They will not adhere to the conditions of the APO and will end up back on the grog. There will be nothing to stop them getting alcohol as there is no system to stop them at the point of sale.
There has been no word from the government on what support they intend to give alcoholics placed on an APO. Will they be looking at best practice to ensure chronic alcoholics on an APO will be in touch with the appropriate support to help them stop drinking in a way which will minimise harm to them?
Will chronic alcoholics – someone dealing with a very severe illness – be put in touch with health professionals to ensure they are placed on an appropriate plan to assist them safely through the withdrawal process? Responsible measures need to be in place to treat someone who is alcohol dependent.
The government seemed to understand alcohol withdrawal was a dangerous prospect when they went through their Mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Bill. However, with APOs, there is nothing in place to deal with withdrawal issues. This will place the lives of chronic alcoholics at risk. There is no word, from what I have seen, of referral services, not even a mention of treatment services for those at risk.
There is a range of different ways to treat alcoholics. In some instances, it is recommended they reduce drinking in the first instance to help minimise the impacts of withdrawal. When a chronic alcoholic on an APO ends up drinking, as many will, their sickness will be criminalised and they may end up in gaol.
Genuinely sick people ordered to cease drinking immediately, with no support to help them, will be exposed to potential harm through the withdrawal process if not managed properly. When many revert back to drinking because of their sickness, they will end up in gaol.
The bill before us is another example of a chaotic CLP government. This legislation comes out of a rushed Cabinet and is ill conceived. This bill is a kneejerk reaction to a problem made much worse by this government’s arrogant refusal to admit the BDR was making a difference. It was a great tool for police and was helping make a difference.
The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is impractical to enforce and may even have dangerous implications for people with severe alcohol dependence. The government needs to rethink this legislation as it has flaws and lacks the required support for people battling alcoholism.
The government has stated today that it is ignoring advice received from key organisations around the Territory. It is not listening because it believes these organisations, like AMSANT, NAAJA and the Police Association, are playing politics.
There are definite flaws in this legislation. We all want to see changes for the better in the Territory. We want to see less alcohol abuse in the community, the urban centres, towns and remote communities. We all want to see a difference. However, there are some real flaws in this legislation and I hope the government examines it further.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, one could be forgiven for thinking the member who just spoke has not read the bill. There is nothing in this bill about alcoholism. Whilst I hear the member and agree with many of her observations on alcoholism, it is not what this bill is about. She predicates and presumes a lecture on alcoholism automatically translates into some strident rebuttal of a legislative instrument that has nothing to do with alcoholism and everything to do with conduct.
I listened carefully to the member for Fannie Bay, who described an Orwellian world in which the police spend their lives crushing humanity under the heel of their boot. I use that reference advisedly because it was George Orwell who once said if you want a picture of humanity’s future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
That is the world of the member for Fannie Bay. I explored that concept and listened carefully to what he said, and he runs into several small issues. Let us begin with the assertion that people who sing bawdy ballads will not be able to visit Fannie Bay Super Pizza …
Mr Gunner: It is in the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I hear that. He has read the bill, and then someone has read the Summary Offences Act. Because the top threshold in the Summary Offences Act touches on the bottom threshold in this legislation, he is assuming it automatically follows that people will be banned from going to Fannie Bay Super Pizza because they have been charged with these offences.
I sought advice from the Police Commissioner earlier on this assertion. We are both speculating without doing the research; however, I asked him how many people had been charged with a criminal offence for singing an obscene song or ballad in the last 10 years. Between the two of us, we could not recollect a single instance of such a thing.
That raises a few realities. The first is, if you take the Summary Offences Act as your base for this argument, you have to understand how this is interpreted. If you walk into a public house such as Shenannigans, hear a bunch of footballers singing a bawdy song and are offended by it, it does not automatically follow that the singers of the bawdy song have committed an offence under the Summary Offences Act. I would be astonished if such a matter were prosecuted by a police officer, and it would be very unlikely a court would determine a bawdy ballad in Shenannigans on a Friday at 11 pm would automatically qualify as a breach of the offence because of the requirement for a person to be offended. Anyway, such is life, and that is the link made by the member opposite.
If this conviction occurs or a charge is laid and the police officer makes an order as envisaged by this act, the member for Fannie Bay says the offending person can no longer go into Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. The problem with that argument is neither Fannie Bay Super Pizza nor the Cool Sport are licensed premises ...
Mr Gunner: They are.
Mr ELFERINK: No, they are not licensed premises. This is one of the problems we have with members opposite. They are long on accusations and allegations but short on facts. These institutions allow for liquor to be brought into the establishment and consumed on site, but they are not licensed premises. I am advised there is no such thing as a BYO licence.
The member is saying things on radio which are not true. Does that sound familiar when it comes to the Labor Party and the way they deal with Territorians? It is starting to sound all too familiar to me. They do not do their homework and ask these questions.
I understand the member for Fannie Bay was briefed on this issue. I wonder if during that briefing he raised this issue or decided to run the fabrication in public and deliberately not seek advice on those two locations. Let us start being sensible in the way we run these arguments.
The other component is the police will create orders and instructions around this legislation which will take up the idea of subordinate legislation. I can tell you how subordinate legislation works in this House. Any legislative instrument, regulation or instruction given under legislation cannot exceed the authority of the chief act. However, it may well, can do, and often does, diminish the authority or the power granted or restrain the authority or power granted by the enabling act. This means the orders from the Police Commissioner to his troops – I would not be surprised if he says, ‘In spite of the fact the act enables something to occur, we will not do that because it is patently absurd. We will operate to make certain the legislation targets those people we want to target as a police force and a government.’ Guess what, here is a stunning idea, perhaps we could trust our police to make those determinations at an operational level all by themselves, because I reckon we can.
It also enlivens another issue that concerns me in the way the member for Fannie Bay is unreasonably representing what is happening. He wants to paint the worst scenario he can to justify the shortcomings of this legislation. That is the nature of this place, and I understand the politics of that. However, their decision to not support this is based on arguments indicative of an hysterical rather than considered position.
I understand the argument about the BDR; I get where you guys are coming from. It was not supportable on the numbers because, during the period of the BDR, crime rates went up for the same reasons you …
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol-fuelled went down.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it did not …
Ms Lawrie: Read the reports. Don’t let the facts get in the way. Keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: You certainly did not let the facts get in the way, you stopped publishing them. ‘We have some facts. Oh, my God, stick them in a draw. Nothing to see here folks, just move on.’ Then, sitting in opposition, ‘Look at that; we had all the facts.’ You are not credible so forget it.
We have a wonderful construct being created by the member for Fannie Bay. That then takes us to where he said, unless I misunderstood him, ‘You only have three days to lodge an application. You have to get a lawyer,’ and do all these other things …
Mr Gunner: Three days to appeal.
Mr ELFERINK: Three days to appeal, then you said you have to get a lawyer, is that correct?
Mr Gunner: Three days in which to get a lawyer. If you are done on Friday you have until close of business Monday.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us read the legislation. I pick up where you have three days in which to get a lawyer. Okay, here we go. I will read clause 9:
Mr Gunner: It is clause 10, John. You are reading the wrong clause. Clause 10(1):
Mr ELFERINK: Wait, wait, wait.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are not in committee stage yet.
Mr ELFERINK: We are getting there:
Why would you need a lawyer for that? It is not a court house. It is going to the police station and saying to the local copper who dropped this order on me, ‘Hang on, I want you to review this’. As evidence to …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it is that simple.
Mr ELFERINK: It is that simple. That is what the law requires. Once again you make a little interjection. The Leader of the Opposition is aware the shadow Attorney-General is in trouble with his arguments and has to interfere. She cannot let him do his job without this urge to protect because she is genuinely embarrassed by him. His argument is that a lawyer has to be involved. Why would walking into a police station and asking for a decision to be reviewed require a lawyer? It does not. Guess what? I checked with the police and asked them how they will do this. It turns out the police orders I referred to earlier – the instructions surrounding how this will be rolled out – will be written in the following terms. If a person who happens to be illiterate fronts up at the police station and says, ‘I am unhappy with this alcohol protection order,’ the police officer behind the counter – I presume that extends to constables in bush stations or ACPOs, or Police Auxiliaries in the major centres – will write the application on behalf of the applicant. What happens then? Within three days after an application is lodged under section 9 in respect to an alcohol protection order, a senior officer must reconsider the decision to issue the order and give the adult or a person to whom a senior officer reasonably believes to be the adult’s legal representative – first reference to a lawyer – a notice in writing about the senior officer’s decision. The first reference to a lawyer is already in the four- to six-day period. That is only if that person has a lawyer. Guess what? The senior officer can also give it to the person directly.
There is then a continuing review process, because clause 11(1) takes people through:
You may want a lawyer by that stage, but six days have passed and the application must be made within seven days of the notice about the decision being given under section 10(1). That means it is not three days to get a lawyer, it is at least 13.
The member opposite would not let the truth get in the way of a good yarn. Goodness gracious me, we are creating an Orwellian world, remember, and we cannot let the truth apply! His arguments are spurious, hysterical, and wrong ...
Mr Gunner: It does not change the three-day period, John, which was the point.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I will not do this again, member for Fannie Bay, but you have fundamentally misrepresented the process. It was mischievous, or negligent because you do not understand what is contained in the bill.
I am comfortable the bill is well drafted for its purposes, despite the fact I know, for the sake of completeness, there are some amendments. I also take up the issue of consultation with the community.
All the information the members opposite have supplied or have heard about and all the information the Northern Territory government has received has been because this bill was tabled in the parliament of the Northern Territory. This is not a secret society. It is not a furtive group gathering or a star chamber; it is a parliament which deals with its business in the open glare of public examination. One does not furtively walk into a parliament and secretly table a bill for consideration. One places the bill on the table so the public may examine it. Were the public aware of the bill? My goodness they were because members of the public, including various institutions, contacted the opposition. Members of the public and certain organisations contacted the Northern Territory government.
In the secret process we stand accused of, the process of this House which has been around for a long time, the public seems aware. We also secretly issued a number of media releases and furtively engaged in communications with a number of organisations in the public domain secretly – sort of, I think. No, it must have been secretive somehow. Once again, the opposition calls the government arrogant for not going through processes. The processes have been well established and, by the evidence adduced from the various contributions in this House, those processes have worked. It is a facile argument bordering on the flaccid to say there is a secret approach in what we are doing. We are proud of this legislation. We announced it publicly and said we would do it. It has been spoken about in this place on a number of occasions. It is hardly secretive.
I want to touch on a couple of other issues in relation to the offences. We heard from members opposite in relation to a person working behind a bar being exposed to this legislation. Because the licensee was not exposed, it must have been the bartender’s fault. Let us read this onerous section in regard to exposing bar staff to this wicked legislation aloud. Let us look at clause 24:
You have to do it knowingly. It is not a case of somebody walking into a bar and saying, ‘I would like a beer, please.’ ‘Here is your beer, I will take your five bucks,’ or whatever a beer is worth nowadays and, all of a sudden, that bartender is guilty of an offence. That bartender is guilty of nothing if they did not know the alcohol protection order was in place. They have to be aware of it, and that is a matter for evidence which means any prosecution in this area has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the bartender has, with knowledge, committed a criminal offence. That is not what was described by the members opposite.
The other component I draw members’ attention to is clause 23(4):
This is a vehicle by which a person has a defence if they act reasonably when committing an offence against this legislation.
Subsections (1) and (2) are offences associated with the alcohol protection order. I am confused as to the hysteria, other than that it is politically motivated.
This legislation enables the police to have another tool in their toolbox. It enables police to take control of those people who continually offend in our community and continue to cause us strife, and it aims to enable the police to go about their business. Their primary function is to serve and protect. I have full confidence in the Northern Territory Police Force and its ability to serve and protect.
Before I conclude, I place on the record that I erred earlier. The Cool Spot is licensed; Fannie Bay Super Pizza definitely is not ...
Ms Lawrie: A mistake.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, an honest and reasonable error on my part. Shock, horror, and guess what? I immediately moved to correct it. I wonder if the correction will come from the shadow Attorney-General in relation to mistakes, errors and falsehoods he has peddled today. At least I have the courage to respond. Will your shadow Attorney-General do that? I suspect not.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): It was interesting that both the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister jumped at the same time. Were you trying to wrap then, Chief Minister, and shut down debate? I am pleased you gave me the opportunity to contribute.
I have been listening to the debate while working on other matters in my office. More than anything, this legislation starkly contrasts the approach of the current government against the approach of the previous one.
The previous government, and everyone in this Chamber today, shares the common goal of harm minimisation when it comes to the scourge of alcohol in our community. I imagine everyone in this Chamber today shares the goal of saving lives. That is a common view, I expect, between all of us. We see too often the harm and damage occurring to individuals and their families. We are so concerned about the impact on the families and children. We see the effect it has on our community with antisocial behaviour but, at the very worst end, the tragedy of alcohol-fuelled violent crime. I expect we share a common perspective in that.
That is where the common perspective ends. Labor’s approach to address this formally in government and create a new policy was to talk to people on the front line. We had to gain information about what they thought would work.
Police Commissioner, I am pleased to see you in the Chamber today and know you will fulfil your duty to the government of the day with great professionalism. I wanted to acknowledge that.
As Alcohol Policy minister, one of the first people I approached when trying to create new ground in policy to deal with the scourge of alcohol-fuelled violence in our community was the Police Commissioner. I had some ideas. I had looked at what we learnt from evaluation of the alcohol management plans and permits in Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land. I note that those permits are still in place, providing recognition that a point of sale tool works. Let us put that aside for a second.
We had some ideas and tested the workability of those ideas with the Police Commissioner because police are front line in this debate. It is their day and their night. We gleaned a lot of useful information from the Police Commissioner in those discussions, and he was supportive of new policy in this area. He was generous in giving the time of capable subordinates to work constructively with my alcohol policy team to create the ultimate policy. We brought in the justice stakeholders, engaging not only with the policy officers within the Department of Justice, but with CAALAS, NAAJA and others involved in dealing with alleged perpetrators of these crimes. They do not want to spend day-in day-out dealing with this tragedy and would rather see prevention too.
We then consulted the alcohol treatment sector, doctors and the Department of Health. We started to put together policy we felt had some genuine robustness to it. We created a discussion paper which went around and draft legislation that went to the parliament. The draft legislation was a result of the discussion paper provided to all the stakeholders. We held community forums and stakeholder specific forums and, when we discuss consultation, this is our point of difference.
We heard the Attorney-General say that if you put out some media releases and have some letters go backwards and forwards between a few organisations that is consultation. We set a different bar for consultation. Our view of consultation is bringing people into informed forums and engaging with them.
That is what the member for Fannie Bay was, quite appropriately, pointing out to the government – the paucity of consultation over these important changes to the law before us today.
Underpinning everything was harm minimisation, which is why we had a point of sale tool. That is, again, the fundamental difference between the parties in the Chamber today. We want to support people on orders because people were on orders under the previous alcohol tools we provided with police, but they do not work unless you have a point of sale tool.
These laws, which will pass today because the government has the weight of numbers, are fundamentally flawed because you have no way, at point of sale, of preventing the person on the order purchasing alcohol. The person who has a chronic problem with alcohol and is damaging themselves, affecting their family and affecting our broader society and community can still purchase alcohol even though they are on an order.
How is the government explaining its way through? A list and wanted style posters will be provided to licensees. The realty of the retail sector – again, in consultation drawing up our alternative, we worked with the Australian Hotels Association and the liquor industry in corner shops to find the workability of that point of sale engagement. There is such a turnover of staff, such a turnover of rosters and multiple staff at major bottle shop takeaways. Look at Liquorland, go to the counter at Nightcliff. There are four points of sale at that counter with a huge rotation of staff. They will not know the list out the back and will not know the wanted style posters. It will not work at point of sale because they will sell grog to people.
However, under this law they run the risk of going to gaol if someone is arguing they knew because there was a list out back, because Dave Tollner’s wanted style poster was sitting out the back because he was a DUI person. This is why this legislation is so fundamentally and deeply flawed. We oppose it because it will not work. We do not oppose it because we oppose orders, we had orders but ours worked because they were point of sale. That is the difference between the parties in the debate today.
There are more fundamental and intrinsic differences around where you set the bar of tests around suspicion. It is getting into really difficult water, guys. The government has been accused of creating quite racist legislation from the Indigenous sector, and that is really difficult …
Mr Tollner: This is racist?
Ms LAWRIE: … really dangerous stuff. To laugh and dismiss it, as the member for Fong Lim is, shows the approach is flawed in the elected officials of the government. If someone says, ‘This is what the Indigenous organisations are saying’ and you laugh at it ...
Mr Tollner: What you are saying, you dropkick. You silly fool!
Ms LAWRIE: … you really have some serious denial issues ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim withdraw that. It is not a comment normally allowed in parliament.
Mr Tollner: What?
Mr WOOD: You know what you said.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, would you like to withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw the comment that Delia is a silly fool.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In withdrawing you are meant to just withdraw. You do not repeat the comment.
Mr Tollner: Do you want me to withdraw?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: As I said, I withdraw the fact I called Delia a silly fool.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we need a straight withdrawal if that is all right please, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I query calling this government racist and putting up racist – goodness me! I withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the protections from the Chair, thank you.
In regard to the fundamental flaws and the genuine concerns Indigenous organisations have about this legislation, they have said they believe there is some concern this could lead to racist overtones. That is not me, member for Karama, Leader of the Opposition saying it. I am repeating what Indigenous organisations are saying …
Mr Tollner: Who are you calling a racist?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, the problem, fundamentally, is you are always dismissive of what people have to say of your government. If it does not fit your view, you dismiss it out of hand rather than take a considered approach and say, ‘That is a perception people have; how do we deal with that because we would not want that? That is not the way of the Northern Territory. That is not the way, as a government, we want to govern in the Northern Territory.’ Instead of taking a considered approach and view, you are very dismissive. That is the cloak of arrogance that sits on your shoulders, and you will have to deal with the consequences of that.
Do not dismiss out of hand the views of the Indigenous organisations of the Northern Territory. That is foolish. They have a genuine voice and deep-seated desire to ensure we are enacting good law. NAAJA and AMSANT have said to your government, ‘Do not do this, this is bad law, this is flawed,’ and you have completely dismissed it out of hand …
Mr Tollner: You are the one peddling it; tell us where it is racist.
Ms LAWRIE: Dismissing something ...
Mr Tollner: No, you cannot say anything like that, can you? Explain yourself. Where is the law racist?
Ms LAWRIE: I am waiting for the interjections to cease.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order!
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. To dismiss NAAJA, AMSANT, and CAALAS out of hand is a foolish thing to do because they are front line in this sector, just as police are. The Police Association has raised concerns that there is no point of sale tool. The Police Association is a voice for police. They are not the only voice …
Mr Tollner: Excuse me. Tell me where AMSANT is front line in all this.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, if he cannot control himself.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order, please? We are not in committee stage so it is not time for questions.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. With the Police Association saying this is flawed because there is no point of sale tool, and NAAJA, CAALAS and AMSANT all expressing deep concerns with this bill, you pursue it regardless because you removed something that, despite your views, was working. You could see it was working because, within days of the BDR being removed, the streets were awash with drunks.
To see the tragedy of that, go to Tennant Creek. Compare the alcohol-fuelled violence occurring in Tennant Creek, a regional centre, to the relative peace of the Nhulunbuy community where a permit system still exists. It is a stark and clear difference within our Northern Territory borders, right here, right now, today. Compare the fact Groote Eylandt has a system in place, to what is happening in some of our larger communities that do not. It is a stark, clear and tragic contrast. If you remove point of sale, you remove the most effective enforcement tool there has been. You chose to do that rashly and too quickly. This has been your response. In Territory lingo, it is gammon. You are pretending to have a tool but it has no enforcement capability. People will be relying on a list somewhere in the licensed premises, with maybe some wanted posters, with a changeover of staff and a clientele very good at shopping around when they want to because we have many licensed premises. What a tragic gammon farce.
The questionable aspects of this legislation have been questioned in detail by NAAJA and CAALAS and, quite appropriately, pointed out in detail by our shadow Attorney-General. You bristle at that, but that is democracy in a Chamber like this where we point out the issues around the detail.
I listened carefully to what the member for Nelson had to say. He, with us, has been on a long journey when it comes to alcohol policy. He, with us, shares a genuine desire to have things that work, things that will minimise harm. We have consistently called for a parliamentary committee. You consistently ignore it.
This bill will increase the number of Aboriginal people in our cells, our watch houses and, ultimately, in our prisons. This directly contradicts the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody recommendations. The Territory is going backwards under the CLP. The test for someone affected by alcohol is extremely low when you apply it to an alleged offence. There is no requirement to ensure a person can understand the notice or that it is explained to them in a language they can understand. The provisions allowing for reconsideration and review of decisions in relation to an APO are woefully inadequate.
Nothing will stop the headlong pursuit of the CLP to pretend they are doing something after they dismantled something that was working. It is gammon, it is flawed and roundly criticised by experts in the sector, yet you pursue it.
There are stark differences between the parties. We listened to and took on board what experts said. We incorporated it into what we were trying to do and delivered on expert advice. The CLP, in stark contrast, rows its own boat and is dismissive, arrogant and nasty when people raise genuine concerns.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, if anybody needed confirmation that Labor was soft on crime, the Opposition Leader just proved it.
They suggest this is racist legislation. According to the Leader of the Opposition, we are a racist government. She cannot back it up with anything of substance, but she throws it out there and says we are all a pack of racists and expects everyone to accept that.
Where is the racism in this document? She could not explain it. This bill is far from racist; it is about treating everyone the same. If you commit a crime which carries a penalty of six months or more, while affected by alcohol, you will have an APO slapped on you. It does not matter what skin colour, sex or age you are; this is non-prescriptive in that regard. This is about people, irrespective of their background or ethnicity, who commit serious crimes which carry a penalty of six months or more while affected by alcohol.
You come to this Chamber, you listen to the arguments from the opposition, and I put the member for Nelson in this category as well – it is all about sympathy for the perpetrator. These are people who commit serious crimes while affected by alcohol ...
Mr Gunner: They are not all serious.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take up the interjection from the member for Fannie Bay. He says if you commit a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more it is not a serious crime.
What do you have to do, in the eyes of the Labor Party, to commit a serious crime? If a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is not serious, what does the member for Fannie Bay considers a serious crime? When do you start treating people who commit crimes seriously? Do they have to kill someone first? Do they have to rape someone? What is the definition, in the Labor world, of a serious crime? Something that carries a penalty of six months or more is not a serious crime? Go figure! That is the view of the Labor Party, as expressed by the member for Fannie Bay. Something that carries …
Mr Gunner: By your own bill, fortune telling.
Mr TOLLNER: Fortune telling. I did not know that brought a penalty of six months or more, but I imagine the type of fortune telling that …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the house. This is a serious stage of discussion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
We have a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Casuarina for calling people into the Chamber because they will be stunned to learn the member for Fannie Bay has suggested that crimes that carry a sentence of six months or more are not serious. He implies we need to have sympathy for people because they are not serious crimes.
I am curious to know what the Labor Party considers a serious crime. Clearly, a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is not that serious. What do you have to do? Do you have to get a life sentence or be put to the electric chair? When does a crime become serious in the eyes of the Labor Party?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113. He is asking, ‘What is a serious crime?’ How about fraud? How about defrauding the Jawoyn? That is pretty serious.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Opposition Leader. Continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: On this side of the House, a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is quite serious. Not many people on this side of the Chamber have sympathy for people who commit crimes that carry penalties of six months or more.
Health minister, do you have sympathy for people who commit crimes carrying a sentence of six months or more? No. Chief Minister? No. Member for Drysdale? No. There is not a lot of sympathy on this side of the House, but look at the other side of the Chamber. The Labor side and the Independent member have major concerns that these people will not be able to go the football, Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. These things are a travesty of justice. It is a travesty of justice that someone who commits a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more should not be allowed to go to the footy, Super Pizza or the Cool Spot.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. Under this bill, the Deputy Chief Minister is a serious offender.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Chief Minister has 30 minutes. He is not answering a question, he is giving a reply. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I listened to an interview with the member for Fannie Bay recently saying how flawed this legislation is because these people will not be allowed to go to the football. Irrespective that his facts are wrong, he has serious concerns that these people cannot go to the football, Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. He says, ‘What about a supermarket? They cannot go to the supermarket.’
In our world, member for Fannie Bay, boohoo, so what, big deal! They should have thought about that before they committed a crime that carries a penalty of six months or more. What happens when they are locked up? They will not be going to the supermarket or the football. They will not be going to Fannie Bay Super Pizza. Goodness me! This is the problem with Labor. You are soft on crime and always have been. This is the whole mantra of Labor. It is like your BDR. It was the Claytons tough on crime approach: the approach you have when you do not have an approach, the toughness you have when you are not being tough. What do we do with the BDR? ‘We will ban people from drinking’. Really? They put people’s name on a list but it did not stop them drinking. One joker was picked up 117 times in a 12-month period and had 114 BAT notices issued on him. My goodness, gee whiz! The BDR worked well in that case, didn’t it? Meanwhile, you have inconvenienced every Territorian who has gone to the bottle shop, turned away the vast majority of tourists who rock up into our jurisdiction and made publicans feels like heroin traffickers. That is a great result for the BDR. It cost a fortune and did not stop one person drinking.
At least with alcohol protection orders the onus is not on the community or publican, it is squarely on the shoulders of the individual not to breach the APO. There are serious consequences if they breach the APO, and police will have the ability to know where these people are.
We heard the minister for Corrections talk about GPS trackers today. Imagine if GPS trackers were tied in with this legislation. We would know the location of everybody on an APO. We would know when they went into licensed premises. We would know when they were near or associated with alcohol or were in a place they were not supposed to be. It is a far cry from a BDR which banned everybody from going to a bottle shop without ID but did nothing to stop the drunks. People would say, ‘I go into a bottle-o to buy a bottle of wine for dinner and they demand ID like I am a criminal. I come out of the bottle-o and all I see is drunks everywhere.’
Go to Alice Springs now. Go to East Point, member for Fannie Bay, and look at the way things have changed in the last nine months. I applaud police. I applaud the member for Araluen, the Health minister, for the work she has done on alcohol mandatory treatment because these measures are having an impact. We are not seeing public drunkenness; people are disappearing off the street. I bailed up the Commissioner some time ago and said, ‘Why don’t we have more people in mandatory rehab?’ Those people are no longer being caught. They might get one or two arrests, or taken off the street twice, but they are not appearing the third time. They are scared of being picked up so they are not drinking in public. That is a major goal of this legislation: deal with problem drinkers; get them out of the public eye. People are sick to death of falling over drunks.
Finally we are seeing some change. After 11 long years of soft policies from Labor we are starting to see results very quickly. I applaud the Health minister for the work she has done on alcohol mandatory treatment. I applaud the Minister for Correctional Services for the way he is tackling recidivism in gaols, getting people into full-time work and giving them opportunity and hope in the future. I applaud the work the minister for Police has done, the Chief Minister, in bringing this legislation forward. All these things are making a marked difference in the community. We hear from the other team that these guys cannot go to the football or Fannie Bay Super Pizza because it is a licensed premises. It is not, but the Cool Spot is. Blow me down, they will not be able to go there.
I find all these concerns illegitimate, but even if they were true, big deal, big whoop, who cares? We on this side believe it is serious when people commit crimes that carry a sentence of six months or more, and we do not have a lot of sympathy for those people. In many cases, we do not care about the liberties we take away from them. The fact is, we want these people off the streets.
The Opposition Leader is saying this is racist policy ...
Ms Lawrie: No, that is what NAAJA said to you.
Mr TOLLNER: She is quite happy to parrot other organisations but cannot substantiate anything she says. She cannot say, ‘This is racist because X Y or Z,’ or, ‘We have concerns this is racist policy because of this or that’. If you ask her why she thinks it is racist she says, ‘Nothing to do with me. Someone else said that.’ Goodness me, how pathetic!
After this debate, there is no doubt Labor is soft on crime – always has been, always will be – and does not like to penalise perpetrators of crime. They have constantly found excuses for the perpetrators of crime – bad upbringing, poor school attendance. It is never the fault of the perpetrator, always the fault of the government or someone else. We have to be soft on these people. Frankly, we do not care. We want to see these people dealt with properly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these APOs are a damn good thing. It gives police a good tool to police the perpetrators of crime, particularly people who have serious problems with alcohol. The vast majority of Territorians drink alcohol responsibly, and should be encouraged to continue that. For people who do not drink alcohol responsibly, let us throw the book at them. Let us do something to discourage them. Let us get people with an alcohol-related sickness into mandatory treatment, get them sorted out, try to put them on the path back to righteousness, back to sobriety, and into work. For people who find themselves in gaol, let us try to rehabilitate them and get them into work. That is the focus of this government, not making excuses for criminals and people who break the law and commit serious crime.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before you start, I point out to members of the House that Standing Order 113: relevance, applies to Question Time. The standing order you need to refer to in debate is 67: digression from subject. Perhaps everyone could read that.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Thank you very much for the clarity, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is much appreciated, because quite often Labor members seem to get that wrong.
I thank members for their support for and contribution to this important legislation. It is support from one side of the Chamber which will strengthen the government’s commitment to law and order in the Northern Territory. The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another measure designed to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The bill equips police with another tool to fight alcohol-related crime and violence. It also complements other measures introduced by the Northern Territory government to tackle alcohol abuse and crime such as the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act and the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013.
While some tools exist for police to tackle alcohol-related crime, they are mainly focused on antisocial behaviour and public order offending. Family violence offending often occurs in private and, whilst police pursue arrest and charges, it is not always possible to restrict access to the consumption of alcohol. This is because not all individuals charged fall within the operation of the Bail Act.
The words which have been spoken by members on this side of the Chamber – I reflect on all members on this side of the Chamber – have added solid contribution to the debate. The underlying aspect to the comments provided represents the desire of all Territorians to see a reduction in alcohol-fuelled crime in the Northern Territory, particularly a reduction in alcohol-fuelled domestic violence and domestic violence order breaches, which are a scourge in the society of the Northern Territory.
I note the comments from the member for Nelson. I will not attack them, but he was talking about consultation. It would be easy for me to say, ‘When you were in charge of the last government you could have made changes here,’ but I will not go down that path. In regard to consultation, member for Nelson, if you want to wait for another three months, cast your mind over what has occurred to date, the statistics, the people who have been assaulted over the last few days and, in certain situations, killed as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence and the breaching of domestic violence orders.
Put that into perspective with what would happen over the next three months while naval gazing. You can look at the legislation, but there has to be a point in time where you say, ‘Enough is enough, we want to take action’. That is what we are doing.
I reflect on the comments of the member for Fong Lim and am aware many members made a similar contribution. If you look at what has changed in the last nine months you start to see the changes in society with law and order – people are being treated in mandatory alcohol rehabilitation – and the positive effect of things.
In Palmerston for example, there has been a 58% drop in property crime. In Darwin, the lowest property crime in 13 years is now being recorded. Substantial investments and outcomes are being achieved. When you see what is happening with mandatory alcohol rehabilitation – changes occurring in front of us— it is positive change and it will continue to get bigger and better.
Alcohol protection orders are designed to reduce the number of people being subjected to violence as a result of alcohol-fuelled domestic violence. I make no apologies for advancing this legislation because I am aware this will stop some women in the Northern Territory being flogged by their drunk husbands.
I do not appreciate the comments from the Labor opposition, which allowed much of this to grow and get out of control. I was particularly surprised to hear some of the comments from the shadow minister for police, the member for Fannie Bay. I thought he had a smarter head on his shoulders and wanted to see change. I am aware he has spent much time in areas outside Fannie Bay and understands the scourge of alcohol on society, particularly for those who abuse and misuse alcohol. I am aware he understands the impact of domestic violence. I am sure he gets a lot of feedback from parts of the Northern Territory outside his electorate. However, for him to not support this – all politics aside – is quite disappointing. I was disappointed in not only his position, but also the approach to his position.
I wish to clarify one thing for those on the other side who cannot read. Clause 23(4) relates to licensed premises and the ability for someone subject to an alcohol protection order to enter licensed premises. People can go to the Cool Spot if they have a good reason to be there, or to the footy, or play a footy game. All those scurrilous, false connotations and statements made by the opposition are thrown out the door by that section.
The last thing I will mention before we move towards passage of the bill is the comments from the member for Fong Lim. These are the same comments my colleagues, the members for Port Darwin, Sanderson and Namatjira, made: Labor is soft on crime. This is an approach to drive change, and for you to say how unfair it is that someone who has been charged with a crime which attracts a sentence of six months or more not be allowed to go somewhere is outrageous. We are talking about people who commit drunken domestic violence and assaults. Women get beaten to within an inch of their lives and you are more focused on being able to buy a loaf of bread than the position those women are in and the next assault they will receive. I find that immoral, outrageous and completely insensitive to all Territorians and those women who are flogged.
Member for Fannie Bay, I can understand why the other mob follow the political line, but I thought you had higher morals than that. I did not think you would take that position.
I hope all members of this Chamber will support this legislative initiative. It is legislation the public expects of our government’s commitment to law and order, and legislation which will assist the police in achieving our commitment to a 10% reduction in crime. A 10% reduction in assaults will take a long time to achieve because we are now focused on chasing the perpetrators of domestic violence.
I urge all honourable members to support this bill to provide a clear message that we are protecting community safety and making a direct impact on alcohol-related crime, including public order offending. The message is that police will now have an effective law enforcement tool to target offenders involved in alcohol-related crime and provide a deterrent for future offending.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the bill be referred to a select committee to be called the Select Committee on the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, for inquiry and report, including consideration of other possible models for achieving the objects of the bill
2. the members of the committee shall be three members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Government Whip, two members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Opposition Whip, and Mr Wood
Regardless of what people have said previously and what they say I could have done, it has always saddened me that there has been a lot of difficulty getting this parliament to work together on issues of concern to us as members. Forget the party you belong to, we are all concerned about the future and where we are going with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and its effects. This is an opportunity for the parliament to work as parliaments are meant to. They are not meant to be, ‘Over here makes all the decisions; the rest are irrelevant because that is the way it is.’ This is a unicameral system. One of the ways members on this side can contribute to the decision-making process is through a committee.
Today I am putting forward an opportunity to do that. Many things have been said about this bill. I do not believe either side is far away from a common approach to this. People on this side have not said they are opposed to people being banned from drinking. They might have gone on about the BDR and history, but I am not worried about the history. I am concerned about the legislation before us. I told the Chief Minister I support punishment of people who drink and drive, and punishment of people who cause domestic violence. Some of the issues I would like the committee to discuss revolve around a slightly different point of view on where people can and cannot drink, for instance, to avoid some of the issues raised.
The member for Fong Lim said I am only interested in punishment of the person. The Attorney General’s department, South Dakota, has the same belief, but they had a more practical approach to some of the issues so it was not as difficult to interpret.
They are concerned. I found out about South Dakota by talking to Peter Miller from Deakin University. You will find around the world they have the same issues as us and have looked at another approach. This committee would be able to talk to a range of people.
I am not saying we all pop off to South Dakota. We could have a teleconference with the Attorney General’s department in South Dakota and listen to what they have to say. We could also talk to the people in Hawaii running a similar program for a similar response. We could get health experts together. I have great concerns that this bill does not mention treatment. Because I mention treatment does not mean I believe people who have committed the offences should not pay for them. The difficulty with not giving treatment is people will go through revolving doors because they will be back again.
You could talk to rehabilitation experts like CAAPS, FOWAARD and Amity. You could talk to the police and the Police Association. Obviously, they have different points of view but that does not matter. You could question the two different parts of the police to find out why they are for or against some of this legislation. You could talk to lawyers.
I notice a giggle from the member for Fong Lim when I mention lawyers, but they have to interpret this bill and see the results of legislation put through this parliament.
Aboriginal bodies wish to be involved in this. Most of the people, just by looking at the figures – I had the figures sent to me, thankfully, from the department yesterday. You are looking at 2800-plus Indigenous people being involved in either domestic violence or violence. This far exceeds the number of non-Indigenous people arrested or charged. On the law of averages you know Aboriginal people will be affected. Therefore, we need to talk to the relative Aboriginal representative bodies in relation to it.
We need community input. Many people do not know this bill exists. People who drink and drive may not know this exists. They might be normal, average law-abiding citizens except when they drink too much and hop in a car – it could affect them. The way the law is written does not exempt anyone. There are no exemptions and you cannot complain if you get picked up for a minor offence which has an equivalent of six months gaol.
A select committee would ask people for their points of view on this legislation because it can impact on not only people affected by alcohol and domestic violence or drink-driving. There are other offences as the bill is very broad.
Because we are talking about domestic violence, it would be nice to ask women what they think about this bill ...
Ms Finocchiaro: It is good.
Mr WOOD: We can all do one liners, but the issue is not as simple as that because women do not want their men to be repeat domestic violence offenders. That is why I have said treatment. Yes, punishment and treatment. You need to talk to the women’s refuge and ask them about the legislation.
You also need to talk to men’s’ groups …
Ms Lee: Indigenous.
Mr WOOD: Yes, everybody. It needs to be broad so everybody has a say in the legislation. People from around the world have dealt with this, we are not unique. The United Kingdom is introducing the same legislation as 24/7 Sobriety in South Dakota. Obviously, they have looked at it. Deakin University, which I would expect we would talk to, has also looked at it and undertaken some studies. We should also look at the research work done on this issue.
The only way to get bipartisanship in some of these matters is through a select committee.
Some of us were in New South Wales at a meeting where we heard from the Clerk in Queensland – as you know, we have a similar setup to Queensland with a unicameral system and no Upper House. All their legislation is sent to a select committee. In her speech she said one of the advantages of a select committee is you get much more bipartisanship within parliament because once it goes to committee there is less of the aggressiveness you get in this House, (1) probably because it is not out in the open so much, but (2) people tend to work together as members of parliament with a common goal to see that what has been put forward is good legislation. Surely, that is not something people can brush off and say, ‘So what? We are the government, we do not care. You are a bunch of weakies, you do not agree with this legislation because you are soft on crime.’
This is not about being soft on crime; it is about looking at whether this legislation is workable, will achieve what you want and will ensure there is a process where people affected by alcohol – one other area this select committee could look at is the effect of drugs because there is drug-driving and surely people are bashed when people are on things like ice. Why have we left them out of the equation? We know ice causes extreme aggression.
I become exasperated when people turn this type of debate into simplistic black and white: you are either with us or against us. You never consider bringing minds together on such an important issue which affects us all. The member for Fong Lim said, ‘It only touches a small part of us’. Read what Dr Herron said in the latest document issued on alcohol policy, the Alcohol Action Plan, a Commonwealth document. Look at what he said, it is not me. I reiterated in my speech it is more than a small majority of people. He said:
Look at the average amount of alcohol consumed in Australia. We consume higher than safe levels. If our average is higher than safe levels, a lot of people are drinking more than they should be. To say it is only a small minority is a smoke screen to the reality of how many people drink too much. It is a major problem in Australia affecting not only the people involved in domestic violence and drink-driving, but it has an effect on our hospitals, our mental facilities and our refuges for people. A range of things is affected by the abuse of alcohol, not just what we are talking about today. We need to look at it with a holistic approach as well.
Asking a committee to discuss this bill will not cause any harm to the government. The minister said, ‘We will have a waffle for three months’. No, the legislation has been presented and there has been very little time for any decent consultation. I rang CAAPS and FORWAARD – no consultation with two major groups dealing with alcoholism in our society locally. There was no discussion. Surely, that opportunity should have been taken up. Unfortunately, it has not been. If we have a select committee there is an opportunity for those people to put their points of view. They may not agree with my point of view. Others may say 24/7 Sobriety might work in the United States but not here. Fair enough. Let us look at all the options, bring them together and see if we can come up with a model which makes sense. I raised some of the practical issues such as how you define what a licence is, especially when there are 97 conditional licences. That relates to a range of areas that may have an unmarked boundary because they are sporting fields and such. People might say that is irrelevant, but it may not be irrelevant to someone on an APO. Some of those areas might need to be defined a little better so we do not have grey areas.
The South Dakota Attorney General put forward some ideas of how they handle it. They look at whether someone is drinking rather than putting emphasis on where they are at the time. I believe all these things can be brought together.
There is an opportunity for government to work together. We do it with the energy committee. You bring us all together; we do not fight on the Energy committee. We discuss what you have asked us to: the future of energy in the Northern Territory. As a bipartisan or extended group, we work together to bring something to parliament of use to the Territory.
The minister might say, ‘We do not need a select committee. We have to get out there because of the number of people affected by domestic violence and drink-driving.’ We already have punishments for those. I acknowledge we are trying to add something to that. Let us do that in a level-headed manner by allowing people to see the effect of this legislation and if we can do it better. It is not saying we are soft on crime. That spin does not help this discussion but ends up being a party political slogan someone can hang their hat on to destroy the other side. We are suggesting we work as a bipartisan group to achieve a more sensible approach than what is being put forward at present.
Chief Minister, I know you are doing it for the right reasons and I do not knock that. However, there are some flaws in this legislation that could be fixed through a select committee.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we would support the formation of a select committee on alcohol, specifically around this bill. In the past we have spoken about the formation of a parliamentary committee to discuss alcohol issues. We recognise it is something that, in this Chamber, often becomes partisan. Through a committee process there is the opportunity, as the member for Nelson identified, to build those bridges and create workable legislation around alcohol policy.
All the feedback we received from stakeholders when discussing this bill has concerned the lack of consultation leading up to the bill being tabled and the short amount of time people had to look at it. They would welcome a greater period of time to discuss what they see as serious flaws in the bill and to find ways to work with the government if this is to be law. The government has the numbers and this will be law. People have asked for a greater period of time to look at it, consult with others, and work with the government to create a more workable piece of legislation. We would be happy to work with government to create functional legislation.
The suggestion from the member for Nelson is sensible. We do not support the legislation that stands but there is every chance, through the community process the member for Nelson has identified, we could work with government to find a way through this serious challenge. We believe there is a serious problem. However, we are concerned by the breadth of this legislation. It catches many minor things; it is not all about serious offences.
There is always a chance to work together on things. A select committee creates this opportunity and we are happy to work with the government. The model the member for Nelson put forward had majority government membership. The normal committee structure of three government members, two opposition members and one Independent would be a functional committee. We would be happy to participate in that process and come back to the Chamber. We have no problem working with government through a committee process.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, we shall not be supporting this motion. This bill will pass into law tonight, I presume, on the numbers government enjoys in the House.
Whilst I appreciate the arguments from the member for Nelson, I am not sure he raised them with the Chief Minister other than yesterday. He has not raised them with this House, unless I missed them in his earlier speech. Why did he not raise this much earlier? Standing Order 183 enables this motion to be put immediately after completion of the second reading debate, I understand that, but notice should be given. Tell us; ring us to say you want to do this. Say it when we give notice of the bill, or say it after the second reading speech, which was a month ago.
The thought that this is being done in secret still resonates through this debate. It is not being done in secret; it is done in the open arena of our parliamentary system. The members opposite say, ‘People will not know it is there’. We put out media releases, we did news on it, and this announcement was made months and months ago. Because you do not agree with it does not mean it has to be buried in a committee system. What is behind this is you want 1000 people to tell us why it is wrong and will not work. If you accepted the results of the committee, you would end up with legislation that would not achieve what the government wants.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee. This legislation is not complex, not difficult, and the members opposite want to introduce all types of extraneous things. They want to talk about alcoholism. By all means bring in a committee to look at alcoholism, but alcoholism is not covered in this. It is not about alcoholism, it is about alcohol protection orders. If a person sits in their living room and gets as drunk as they like, that is their business. We are not here to moralise about other people’s drinking habits. We are here to restrain conduct.
Every time we meander off in another direction with conversation about other components and aspects of what is happening, we are forgetting this bill is very straightforward. The content of this bill could not be more straightforward. Nobody misunderstood it, with the exception of the member for Fannie Bay. What do you want to send to a committee?
You can talk about establishing a committee to look at issues surrounding conduct that lead to the legislation, but I cannot see any reasonable argument to send this off to a committee. The bill is quite specific in its intent. We know what we want it to achieve: we want the police to bring these powers to bear upon the problem in the community as soon as possible. I have heard nothing other than extraneous comments from the member for Nelson.
I find it surprising that the member for Nelson’s great concern, as stated in the first line of his submission to go to a select committee, is that he is feeling irrelevant. You were relevant for a large slice of the last parliamentary term and had many opportunities to do this, yet your answer in the last parliamentary term was to introduce a committee. The committee spent over $0.5m, as I recall, and what did it achieve? You had an agreement with the former government to do many things. Where is the pool in your electorate? You constantly go to the argument that we need a committee for this and a committee for that. It would render government inert. This has been to a committee of the people of the Northern Territory. It has been placed on the table and publicised widely. It has received its criticism, and we get that. What would be achieved other than what this committee has already achieved? ‘We do not like the numbers; we do not like the results.’ This committee is an expression of the will of the people of the Northern Territory, and that is how the system of government operates.
We want this committee to set up another committee to look at straightforward legislation in its attempt to enable a discussion about alcoholism. You can talk about alcoholism any time you like. You have an adjournment debate tonight, you can put a GBD motion up or you can even put a motion up tomorrow to suggest we have a committee look at alcoholism in the community, etcetera. However, no reasonable argument in the submissions I have heard from the member for Nelson gives me any satisfaction that a select committee would offer anything more in regard to this bill, and it has gone through an open and public process and has already gone through a committee.
For that reason, I can see no purpose, nor can the government, to push this into a committee because its intent is clear. The government’s stated objectives are clear, and it is about time the police be given the power this government seeks to give them through this process without any further delay. Territorians would be rightly dismayed if we did what the member for Nelson did and governed exclusively through sub-committees of committees to satisfy everybody’s opportunity to have a conversation. Everybody has had that opportunity, and if they do not know about it they have not fulfilled their civic duty to pay attention to what is happening in their community.
I am not sure what else we can achieve by this process. I am not satisfied that anything I have heard would assist. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, this bill will not be sent to a committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input into this motion.
I asked the Chief Minister if he would consider it going to committee. I did not believe this would be a big deal because select committees are very narrow and only deal with the bill.
To say I suggest we have a committee and a sub-committee denies the fact that in Queensland that is exactly what happens. Every piece of legislation goes to a committee and then comes back to the parliament when the committee has looked at it thoroughly. Many times legislation is faulty and the committee works through it and brings it back with amendments. They find when it comes to parliament, generally speaking, there is not much hoo-ha about it because they have had a bipartisan group look at it and come up with any changes they feel are necessary. My understanding is most legislation passes through the parliament quite smoothly because that work has been done.
Yes, it can be a bit slower than the system we have, but this is a unicameral system. I do not remember any piece of legislation, in the whole time I have been here, going through a committee stage, but you might have a better memory than me. To say this is something we will do all the time – I have not said that. In this case we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan: stick with the legislation and see if it is workable.
If it comes back with heaps of amendments I will say we could have avoided that. If it is difficult and police or the courts say, ‘Fair go, fellows. This does not make any sense,’ do not look at us. This is an opportunity to work through some responsible issues we have raised, even something like whether you can get picked up on the footy ground. You might say that is not relevant, but for the person playing footy it could be ...
Mr Giles: The criminal?
Mr WOOD: No, do not forget they are being punished. Do not forget you can have an alcohol protection order before you have been found guilty of a crime. You have been arrested, you have been charged, you have not been found guilty, and you can get into trouble for breaking your APO when you have not been found guilty of the crime. If you have been found guilty of the crime you will be punished, and I do not go away from that. I have said that repeatedly.
Getting back to a sub-committee, it is not something we do very often. It is a chance to be bipartisan. The member for Port Darwin talked about being irrelevant and went on about the usual things. He forgets part of the reason the CTC cost so much – $600 000 – was because he and the member for Katherine wanted an independent executive for committee administration ...
Mr Elferink: You did not have a clue what this thing was. I had to tell you what it was.
Mr WOOD: Check your minutes. You two wanted it outside the normal committee structure. I know; I was there. That is the reason it cost ...
Mr Elferink: You would not have a clue what this was. I stood over there when you suggested it and you did not know what …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: If you want to dig up the history, grind away all you like. I have heard it all. Move on. This is the alcohol protection orders issue. You raised the irrelevant issue. If you want us, as members of parliament, to work in a positive way to achieve goals for the people of the Northern Territory – if you keep regarding this as irrelevant fair enough, I will keep hammering against the door until it breaks.
Here is an opportunity to get out of the ‘them and us’ and work with you to achieve something. All right, it will not go through – good luck. That will not stop me trying. I become disappointed when you carry on with, ‘We have the numbers, who cares about you mob?’ If that is your attitude, that is your attitude. You say, ‘You are supporting the perpetrators of crime,’ when you know that is not what I said.
The technical part of this bill needs to be fixed but, no matter what I say, you will turn it around to say, ‘Gerry Wood and the Labor Party support people who bash their wives’. That is so immature and we should be above that. That is what you do at the boxing match or if you want to sledge the other fellow. We should be above that.
I will accept whatever happens, Madam Speaker, and I move that this motion be accepted.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 7 Noes 12
Motion negatived.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Alcohol Protection orders Bill (Serial 58), together with Schedule of Amendments No 11 circulated by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Clauses 1 to 5:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 2: commencement. When does the government intend to commence the legislation?
Mr GILES: The commencement will be on the date fixed by the Administrator in the gazettal notice.
Mr GUNNER: Do you know what that date is?
Mr GILES: The earliest possible date, I presume.
Mr GUNNER: My next question is about clause 3.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, nowhere in this bill can I see reference to any form of treatment. As I said during the debate, in the South Dakota system the magistrate can send someone for treatment as well as give them an alcohol protection order...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chair! The standing orders in relation to the committee stages of the bill require that questions be relevant to the content of the bill. The bill does not talk about South Dakota at any point, and I would have that question ruled out of order for irrelevancy.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, the bill does not talk about rehabilitation. You may want to concentrate your questions on the content of the bill rather than rehabilitation.
Mr WOOD: The objection was to my mention of South Dakota.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it illuminates the House, the objection is in relation to relevancy. Questions and conversations about the bill in its committee stage must be relevant to sections of the bill rather than more broad aspects. I ask that the member keep himself within the boundaries of that proposition.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, again, if you want to restrict your comments to the content of the bill.
Mr WOOD: Can I seek clarification? Are you saying I cannot ask a question on something I think is missing from the bill?
Mr CHAIR: My advice, member for Nelson, is you can ask general questions about the policy behind the bill and the content of the bill, but you need to stick to the content of the bill rather than omissions you might perceive.
Mr WOOD: Minister, why have you not linked this with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act?
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, they are two completely different things. Let me give you a hypothetical ...
Mr WOOD: We are not allowed hypotheticals here.
Mr GILES: No worries.
Mr WOOD: No, I was only joking.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 3. The Chief Minister has said he wants the policy intention of this bill to apply to serious offences only. The qualifying offences are quite broad and take in a range of possible offences. We touched upon this in the second reading debate.
What was the thinking behind the decision to make it broad – the qualifying offences beyond what some might consider serious offences – to include things like loitering, extinguishing street lamps, singing obscene songs and fortune telling? Why make it broad and not confined to – as you have said, assault is serious. We consider assault serious. Why is the test so broad?
Mr GILES: Thank you for the question, shadow minister. We took a time frame of six months. Clearly, it goes over a number of pieces of legislation and offences. The key component of this legislation, which is part of the approvals process, is it is referred to a senior sergeant and there is an opportunity for appeal. This refers to the flexibility of whether an APO can be applied or not. It is not a guarantee that an APO is applied.
The idea of that is to allow flexibility for police to make decisions on what they believe to be in the best interests of the person to keep them off alcohol. Clearly, it is not defined for someone who destroys a lamp or some of those other examples you gave. It is designed to reduce the impacts of alcohol and, potentially, stop people re-offending in those serious cases.
Mr GUNNER: One of the grounds for appeal might be the offence under which you were charged. The grounds for appeal are not detailed later, but you are saying extinguishing a street lamp might be grounds for appeal against the APO.
Mr GILES: No, this legislation gives police the flexibility to apply an APO to people they think require one. Where you talk about street lamps, police will have the discretion to make that decision. We are talking about where charges have been laid in relation to serious alcohol incidents.
Mr GUNNER: I recognise the police have the discretion and, by and large, it would be quite sensible. However, what we are debating will become law. Under this law a range of offences do not appear, at first glance, to be serious, such as fortune telling. They will however, under this soon to be law, be qualifying offences for an alcohol protection order. You said the intention is for serious offences only, and there are a number of things you and I would both agree are serious offences. Yet, the breadth of the qualifying offences in this bill is broad. Why did you not narrow it down to those serious offences you and I would agree on?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, if you believe a range of offences is out of order with regard to application of a six-month imprisonment sentence, I am more than happy for you to bring forward amendments where you believe penalties should be reduced. We have identified the six-month component. It catches a number of offences, but we have given police discretion, through this legislation, to apply the APO in the best interest so they can reduce crime in the Northern Territory.
Mr GUNNER: We have gone back and forth on that. My next question is to clause 5.
Mr GILES: I take your point, but it is flexible.
Mr GUNNER: An alcohol protection order is issued in writing. There is no requirement to ensure a person can understand the notice or that it is explained to them in a language or terms they can understand, and breaching an alcohol protection order is an offence. This is in contrast to a domestic violence order. Section 43 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act says a police officer must explain the effect of the domestic violence order to a person, the consequences of a breach, and their right to apply for a review.
The Domestic and Family Violence Act requires that you have explained to you what is happening. However, that clause is not in the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. Why is it clear in the Domestic and Family Violence Act what needs to be explained, but silent in the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, police face this issue every day with arresting, summonsing and giving various types of notices to people. It is not a new phenomenon. It is police policy to undertake the issuing of APOs in the interests of natural justice. The instruction and procedure under which police will operate will ensure APOs are clearly communicated so the period of the order and the terms are understood by the person to whom it is issued. This is a common issue in many ways of doing business in the Northern Territory, government or otherwise. There is an obligation on all of us to ensure we provide a proper explanation, particularly for people whose first language is not English.
Mr GUNNER: A precedent for the clause exists and police operate quite functionally under the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Considering it is already in effect and working, why was it not put into the Alcohol Protections Order Bill? I am sure there will be good policy settings, but at the moment there is no legal requirement for an officer to explain the effect of the APO, the consequences of a breach and the right to apply for a review. All they need do is hand over the paper.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, a range of documents and notices are issued to people by police all the time. Take an infringement notice as an example. An officer on the side of the road gives someone an infringement notice. It is not written in other languages, but they do their best to explain the provisions of an infringement notice and the grounds of appeal or otherwise.
While I appreciate there may be some language issue in regard to domestic violence, across a broad range of areas it is not there. You have to ensure you have the customer service basis to explain these things for the intentions and purposes they are designed to achieve.
Mr GUNNER: I will move on, Chief Minister.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, clause 5(1)(c) says you are not allowed to enter or be in licensed premises, with two exceptions. I raised the issue during debate of Southern Districts Football Club, where there is a red line drawn around it by hand. I am unsure how accurate that would be in a court of law. If a bloke wants to stand outside the line – he would not even know where the line was ...
Mr TOLLNER: It does not matter where the line is; if he is drinking he is in trouble.
Mr WOOD: We are trying to deal with the issue now. The exception is clause 5(2) which says:
What is the definition of employment in relation to this bill?
Mr GILES: Having a job.
Mr WOOD: Does that mean if you are a paid footballer – the oval is covered under the licence – you are exempt?
Mr GILES: From the licensed premises?
Mr WOOD: No, from this clause ...
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, if it is easier, I refer you to clause 23(4) which talks about going to a licensed premises. It says:
If you are on APO – this is for the benefit of the shadow minister and Labor members who believe people who commit serious crimes while drunk should be allowed freedoms. If these people are on an APO and go to TIO Stadium to watch football, not drinking and having dinner with their family, this clause says they are allowed to do it. This is the clause which says you can go to the Cool Spot and have dinner. It is also the clause which says you can go to Fannie Bay Super Pizza. It allows you to do that as long as you have a reasonable excuse for being there and are doing the right thing. However, if you are in a supermarket buying a carton of beer, you are breaching an APO. Buying groceries in a supermarket is reasonable grounds.
Mr WOOD: If it went to court, is it up to the judge to make a decision on what is a reasonable excuse?
Mr GILES: Yes …
Mr TOLLNER: Of course it is.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me …
Mr GILES: I can answer that …
Mr WOOD: I have not finished yet. Do we have an idea of what a reasonable excuse could be? That is a pretty broad statement, and it could go one way or the other. That is the area I am concerned about, especially in relation to sporting activities.
Can I visit the Qantas Club to say goodbye to my family? The Qantas Club is licensed. Is it a reasonable excuse to say I am seeing my family? Where does the reasonable excuse finish? You say people should not possess alcohol or enter or be in a licensed premises. However, as long as I have a reasonable excuse I could go to Howard Springs Tavern for my birthday ...
Mr ELFERINK: That is not a reasonable excuse.
Mr WOOD: The member for Port Darwin says that is not a reasonable excuse ...
Mr TOLLNER: The court that will determine that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: He must have in his mind what is and is not a reasonable excuse.
Mr ELKERINK: The court determines it.
Mr WOOD: That is right. How does a person know whether they have a reasonable excuse?
Mr ELFERINK: Err on the side of caution!
Mr TOLLNER: If you want to go to Howard Springs Tavern and get drunk while on an APO, you are in serious trouble.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! It was not about getting drunk; it was about defining a reasonable excuse. If a reasonable excuse does not have a reasonable definition, many people could get into trouble. I was asking …
Mr GILES: For the purposes of Hansard and reflection on this legislative debate in the future, we could list many excuses in legislation and have Encyclopaedia Britannica there with, ‘My excuse was I was buying Scotch Finger biscuits,’ or ‘I decided to buy a hot dog at the football’. You could list the whole lot. There has to be some flexibility and responsibility for authorised officers to make a decision about what is reasonable.
If someone is walking into a corner store to buy bread, that is a reasonable excuse. If they are going to watch the footy, that is a reasonable excuse, but if you turning up at Howard Springs Tavern for a skinful, that is not a reasonable excuse. If you are there because that is where you work or are doing volunteer work, that is a reasonable excuse and police will have the opportunity to make that decision on the spot. This is not designed to say, ‘You are not allowed to walk into that shop’. This is designed to provide flexibility for local officers to make a decision. If you walk into Liquorland or a bottle shop, you are clearly not there to buy a packet of biscuits. You have to use common sense in the way this is applied. That is a reasonable approach to decision-making.
Mr CHAIR: Can we bring this debate back to clause 5? We will go to clause 23 later.
Mr GUNNER: This is clause five, the Chief Minister cited clause 23.
Mr WOOD: They are related. You cannot deal with them otherwise.
Mr GILES: Can I suggest, Mr Chair, we move the amendment, take the bill as a whole, and have the flexibility to debate clauses?
Mr WOOD: We have to refer to the other one for this one to make sense.
MR GILES: That would make it easier.
Mr WOOD: We are going in order, but this depends on a clause further on. The question I ask is why?
Mr GILES: Is this clause 5 or 23?
Mr WOOD: This is clause 5. If there are reasonable excuses which cannot be defined, and the intention of this bill is to stop people consuming alcohol – that is the real key, we are banning people from drinking ...
Mr GILES: This is a real banned register.
Mr WOOD: We are saying people will not be allowed to drink, that is the key. The next one is possessing. You can have two unopened cans of beer in your pocket, but you say that should be an offence. Taking into consideration what you have said about reasonable excuses could be as wide as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. On the other hand, you say if you went into a pub and had a skinful that is not a reasonable excuse. You are banning people from drinking, but if you have a clause as wide as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, why bother with 5(1)(c)?
I do not want anyone jumping up and down about South Dakota, but the essence of this legislation is to stop people drinking. Why complicate it with reasonable excuses? If I go to the TAB at Howard Springs Tavern and am not touching a drop, I have a reasonable excuse – I want to have a bet. Why is the rule not, ‘You are not allowed to drink’. There are excuses to go into a pub.
Mr TOLLNER: You can go, but you cannot start drinking.
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, this is about banning people from drinking, possessing or consuming grog, or being on licensed premises. However, there is a clause within the bill which states if you are on licensed premises, such as the football stadium or a grocery store, that is a reasonable excuse. It is not designed to say, ‘You can go to the TAB at the local pub’. You are banned! You are not allowed on licensed premises, but if you find yourself on licensed premises, such as TIO Stadium, that is a reasonable excuse. Whether you are playing, refereeing, cooking in the shop or watching the football, that is a reasonable excuse. It is not a reasonable excuse to go to the pub because that is a licensed premises you have been banned from. If you were in the car park picking up your wife or husband and sat in the car, that is a reasonable excuse. Going inside a pub is not a reasonable excuse. That is what you are banned from.
Mr GUNNER: Under this clause, entering the corner store is a breach. If you get the person before they go past the checkout, grabbed their bread or whatever – the simple act of walking through the front door, at the moment, is a breach. You then get into the argument of why you walked through the front door. Why not make it as simple as: if you possess or consume alcohol you have breached? Why complicate it with whether you walked through the front door of the corner shop or not?
Mr GILES: The reason for that, shadow minister, is we want to keep people with alcohol and misuse problems away from grog. You do not want to put temptation in front of these people. We do not want people with chronic alcohol abuse issues in places where there is grog. If they have to go to the corner shop – you are right, they are committing an offence but they have the reasonable excuse that they are buying groceries. Police have the opportunity to make that determination on the spot and will make a decision, the same way they make decisions about a range of crimes committed around the Northern Territory. They make decisions on the spot about whether they have deliberately gone against the interests of an act and committed a crime. That is how they get to the point of charging people. Walking into a supermarket to buy grog is one thing, but to buy groceries is a completely different issue.
We are not being hard and fast with this. We are not writing prescriptive rules. We are allowing police the flexibility to let people who have done the wrong thing do the right thing, but also stop them repeat offending.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, you have highlighted the problem I see: reasonable excuse. You said It is all right to watch the footy. There are bars at TIO and Southern Districts. You say that is a reasonable excuse, but then you say it is not all right to go to the TAB at the pub. What about the band that plays every Friday and Saturday night at Howard Springs …
Mr TOLLNER: The court will determine that.
Mr WOOD: Hang on! Do you know what a sock looks like? We are trying to have a reasonable discussion about the practical implications because the Chief Minister said a reasonable excuse is to watch the footy. What is wrong with saying, ‘I want to bet on the horses on Saturday afternoon’ or ‘I want to listen to a band’? The law you wanted was to stop people drinking and possessing. It would have been far better to leave it at that. I do not want to be quoted on South Dakota, but if you added a few things where people were tested to ensure they were not drinking you could achieve what you are doing.
I will go back to South Dakota. I do not care if you think it is relevant or not, but they have said the supermarket is exempt because you do not drink there. They had simple rules like that. You have now complicated it. ‘Reasonable excuse’ leaves it wide open. The person will not know it is okay to go to TIO stadium to watch the footy and they will not be arrested for that, but they might be arrested for going to a TAB at the pub. Both are licensed premises, both allow opportunities to drink, and that is where this gets a little messy.
Mr GILES: I do not think it will get messy. If the TAB is in the pub and you are not allowed in there, you should not have committed the crime which put you on an alcohol protection order. If you really want to go to the TAB, go to one not in a pub. We have flexibility in this legislation to make it easy for people to use community facilities or social infrastructure such as a shop or a stadium. If you do not want this inconvenience, do not commit the crime. We can get into the nitty gritty of where you can and cannot go – do not commit the crime. We will provide the flexibilities and the niceties to give it ease of access, but it gets back to the fundamental point we have all raised: do not commit the crime.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chair, the issue is to stop people drinking, not where they go. The alcohol protection order is the ban and you have unnecessarily complicated it. You say we are supporting the notion that if the person has done the crime so what. I said before, not everyone will be found guilty. You seem to ignore that. You can be charged with domestic violence or drink-driving and it might be three months before you go to court. You have not been found guilty but will be on an APO.
Mr CHAIR: This argument can go around and around so I propose to …
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, perhaps I can shed some light on this for the member for Nelson.
The concept of reasonableness as an idea in law has been around for hundreds of years and is expressed in the common law of England as a test of what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a completely abstract legal concept. The man on the Clapham omnibus is, in every sense, the most reasonable man in England. He is the yardstick a court will use to measure reasonableness. This abstract concept means a court can receive a direction from a legislative instrument such as this and say, ‘There is the word reasonable’. There are textbooks dedicated to the concept of reasonableness at common law and its subsequent application in legislative interpretation.
Reasonableness expressed in that fashion means a court will take time to adduce all the necessary evidence to determine whether or not reasonableness exists. That means, Mr Chair, for the edification of the member for Nelson, every case can be looked at upon its merits and the evidence will demonstrate to a court whether or not reasonableness exists.
You have to recall that the test applied by the prosecution means they have to demonstrate the conduct was unreasonable beyond reasonable doubt – there is that word again – and for the defence to establish a successful defence it has to demonstrate in criminal law, to the balance of probabilities, they have acted reasonably …
Mr GILES: What is probability?
Mr ELFERINK: That is the test; it has been around for a long time. I pick up on the interjection from the Chief Minister as to what probability is. It is a legal concept applied in a court. What we are saying to the court by applying this section is, ‘We want you to look at the evidence in each case and adduce from the conduct of the person in front of you, and any excuse they may provide, that they have acted in a reasonable fashion’. If a person so charged is able to demonstrate reasonableness then the prosecution shall not be successful.
The word ‘reasonableness’ resonates through our statute book as probably one of the most common words. It is a very common legal concept. It applies in nearly every criminal statute I can think of, not to mention subordinate legislation and other legislative instruments.
Therefore, I see no problem and cannot understand why the member for Nelson is so hooked up on this issue. If he is hooked up on the word ‘reasonable’ as it appears here, then he is hooked up on our whole statute book and would be flummoxed by nearly every element of it.
Clauses 1 to 5, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 11.1 standing in my name.
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General was very helpful and I thank him for that. He has explained the importance of the word ‘reasonable’. It is a very important test and is used in clauses 18 and 19 – the test of ‘reasonably believes’ – but in clause 6 the decision has been made to not use the word ‘reasonable’. Chief Minister, could you please explain why, in this instance, you have chosen not to use the word ‘reasonable’ and used the lower test of ‘believes’?
Mr TOLLNER: He did not even throw the word ‘probability’ in.
Mr WOOD: Michael, you cannot deal with things that are not in the act.
Mr GILES: What was the question, Michael?
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General has just explained the importance of the word ‘reasonable’ as a test in law. In clauses 18 and 19, you use the words ‘reasonably believes’, but in clause 6 you have chosen not to use the test of ‘reasonable’. Clause 6(b) says ‘the officer believes’. Why have you chosen to use the lesser test and not include the word ‘reasonable’ there? In other words, why is this test less than the man on the Clapham omnibus?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, the reason it does not have the word ‘reasonable’ – without giving a great summary such as our Attorney-General can – and has the word ‘believes’ is because the issuing of an APO is undertaken by a reference from the officer. The sergeant has the option of reviewing the information provided by the officer, so he believes the information the officer provided for issuing the APO.
Mr GUNNER: That does not explain why it is not a ‘reasonable belief’. There is a difference between ‘belief’ and ‘reasonable belief’.
Mr GILES: Can you please explain what that is?
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General has just explained it and I will not repeat him. The Attorney-General explained why ‘reasonable’ is important and is a higher test than ‘believes’. Here, you have chosen to say ‘the officer believes’ not ‘the officer reasonably believes’. Later in the bill you specifically say ‘the officer reasonably believes’. Later in the bill you use the higher test. In this part of the bill you use the lower test. Why have you chosen the lower test?
Mr GILES: You answer that in your question. The officer is making a decision about whether he reasonably believes the person was in the premises for a proper reason, as in clause 23(4). Here the reference is from where an APO is requested to be issued from the officer making recommendation to the sergeant, who reviews the information and believes an APO should be issued.
The reason this does not come into that equation is that it comes from the information provided – from where a charge has been laid and the information that comes about alcohol use, or the alcohol component within that offence. Information from the officer goes to the sergeant, the sergeant reviews it and says, ‘Yes, I believe there should be an APO’.
Mr GUNNER: So, no reasonableness is required from the officer in the first test?
Mr GILES: No, not in that.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, would it be fair to say the officer taking the information would get the information from another sworn police officer and would, therefore, believe in that sworn police officer?
Mr GILES: After making an assessment.
Mr TOLLNER: After making an assessment, yes. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, do you think the opposition is deliberately frustrating this process?
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr GILES: Thank you for your question, member for Fong Lim …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! You ruled on irrelevance before.
Mr CHAIR: Can we concentrate on relevancy to the clauses, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, I think the Chief Minister was prepared to answer that question.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but he was overruled.
Mr CHAIR: This is a serious debate, thank you.
Mr GILES: There is some frivolity going on here and deliberate attempts to play games in this debate, but I am happy to continue.
Mr GUNNER: It is not a game. A lesser test is applied here than is applied later. There is no reason why you cannot have ‘the officer reasonably believes’ here. It is a higher test. You have decided to have a lower test. I am asking why you have chosen the lower test. If you do not have the answer that is fine.
Mr GILES: It is not a lower test, it is a different test. You have a police officer making reference to the sergeant to review a case. If the sergeant believes the information provided warrants application of an APO, he does that. The other example you are looking at is where an officer is on licensed premises and takes information from someone he believes is on an APO and they provide him grounds he believes are reasonable to be there. That is a completely different aspect.
Mr GUNNER: This clause goes to the issue of alcohol protection orders. The first step is an officer issues an alcohol protection order. It does not exist before then. The officer has to ‘believe’, not ‘reasonably believe’ in order to issue an alcohol protection order. This is before the sergeant, before a person has entered licensed premises. This is purely about someone going on an alcohol protection order the first time. Instead of ‘reasonably believes’ it is ‘believes’ – nothing to do with the sergeant or anything like that. It is the officer on the spot and is a lesser test.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, I am not sure you understand how it works. An officer will make a recommendation, review information around a case, make a recommendation to the sergeant to review that information, then issue the APO. There is a secondary component in the issuing of an APO. It is not just issued by the arresting officer. The officer takes the information, looks at the charge – does it have a six-month charge or more? Has alcohol been involved? They then write a recommendation to the sergeant to review the case. If the sergeant believes it warrants the issue of an APO, they will assign the APO.
Mr TOLLNER: My understanding is the arresting officer cannot issue an APO. It has to go to the sergeant first, and only the sergeant can do it. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: That is correct, member for Fong Lim. You understand what we are trying to do.
Mr GUNNER: We are going backwards and forwards here.
You have chosen a lower test of ‘being affected’ rather than ‘intoxicated’. Affected’ is quite low; it could be a light beer or two and could be less than 0.05. Can you explain why you have chosen the lower test of ‘affected’ rather than ‘intoxicated’?
Mr GILES: The answer is whether or not the consumption of alcohol has led to the crime. Is it a contributing factor in the crime? It is not whether you have had one or two beers; it is whether alcohol consumption was a contributing factor to the crime. The same measure is applied – as reported in the criminal statistics – when someone has breached a domestic violence order. A crime is committed, alcohol is a contributing factor, and the same test is applied in that component.
Mr GUNNER: How will an officer determine if someone is affected by alcohol?
Mr GILES: There is a process the police go through, and I will give some examples: undertaking assessments of being incoherent; having slurred speech; having a lack of coordination; an odour of liquor; and red, wet eyes. There is a range of test characteristics police make their judgment on. These include asking questions such as, ‘Have you been drinking and how many did you have?’ and people will normally answer the question. ‘What type of alcohol were you drinking? How often do you drink it? How many did you consume in a certain period of time? Have you been taking drugs, tablets, medication or otherwise? Have you ever taken drugs? A range of assessment processes is applied to determine the exact extent to which someone is affected by alcohol.
Mr WOOD: When is the alcohol protection order questionnaire asked? If you pick up someone who is drunk – they may be from out bush and not have a good understanding – and you ask them, ‘Do you have any injuries which affect your coordination?’ I am sure they would respond with ‘Uh?’ You tick the column ‘unable to answer’. If this was done the next day when the person was sober, you may get a better answer. If a person is well and truly inebriated, when would this be filled in?
Mr ELFERINK: Wait for the person to sober up. If you have to ask, ‘Have you been drinking?’ you have missed the point.
Mr GILES: Yes, that is correct. Your question is how can we ask an inebriated person if they are inebriated?
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. There are questions like, ‘Do you have diabetes?’ At what stage do you ask people these questions if you want an answer which can be understood? Will you tick off they are unable to answer?
Mr GILES: I take it you have the assessment questions there?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have.
Mr GILES: Many of those questions are applied on a range of occasions when police pick people up – every occasion. When they go to the lockup after being picked up for protective custody is one example. If people are inebriated, to whatever extent that may be, police do their best to ascertain their medical history and assess them to ensure they can provide the best care and be responsible for them.
Questions like, ‘Do you have diabetes,’ are fair and reasonable when trying to determine a person’s health situation and whether or not they need to see a nurse or require medical attention. The other components are about testing and assessing the level of intoxication, or effects of alcohol on a person, including, potentially, breath testing.
Mr WOOD: Having asked questions before, I know it is sometimes difficult to get an answer ...
Mr TOLLNER: Oh!
Mr WOOD: Only because the member for Fong Lim keeps butting in.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, one of the issues I raised was the difference – I do not care what people say – in this case the police officer makes the decision. I understand if a person is charged with a serious offence that person will go before a magistrate the next day.
Mr ELFERINK: If they do not get bail, yes.
Mr WOOD: No, my understanding is with serious offences it is rare for police give bail and the magistrate will decide that. That is the information I have. Why is it not if you want to put someone on an APO the magistrate decides not the police officer?
Mr GILES: It is a different set of circumstances for each case. You could go to a magistrate that night, a magistrate in a period of time, get bailed by police or bailed by a magistrate. No particular case will determine what the outcome may be. We have made a decision that when the charge is made – you said the officer would do the APO. The sergeant who believes the information and does the assessment, from the officer level, ascertains the APO. There is a second degree or level of assessment which is undertaken at station level to determine whether or not that APO should be issued.
It is a question of how soon someone goes before a magistrate. The real issue is that many of these offences occur when people are on bail. You could be bailed by police, waiting to go to court, and recommitting offences. Unfortunately – I will use the example of domestic violence – there are many times when women are beaten, sometimes killed, while the perpetrator is out on bail. That should answer your question.
Mr WOOD: My proposal was that the police arrest and the magistrate makes the decision. As I said, we do not know all the circumstances. The police officer makes a decision based on something that happened that night. The magistrate might find a more historical background.
Mr GILES: Could I add something, member for Nelson? You are talking of a time frame of up to six weeks while someone is waiting to see a magistrate. Many times, that is when the incidents occur. You might say – and I take your point – the magistrate could issue those, but we decided to do it this way because when people are intoxicated or committing violent offences on repeat occasions, the six-week time frame is too long to wait. There have been two in the last two weeks were people have been killed in exactly the same situation.
Mr GUNNER: My understanding, in issuing a domestic violence order, is you call the magistrate. You do not necessarily go into the magistrate’s court. The magistrate is available and can be contacted 24/7. Under the Domestic and Family Violence Act, you can pretty much have someone on a domestic violence order immediately, and they can be banned from drinking alcohol immediately. How does issuing an alcohol protection order provide greater protection than issuing a domestic violence order?
If they are not protected under a DVO, how are the protected under an APO? You a right, we do not want this circumstance to happen. How does an APO provide greater protection than a DVO?
Mr GILES: A DVO is for a domestic violence offence, as you know. An APO is for consumption or possession of alcohol, which is broader than a DVO.
Mr GUNNER: Yes, but you just gave the DVO example so I am asking, in response to your example, how is greater protection afforded to a person in the domestic violence situation who we want to protect than the person under an APO?
Mr GILES: Someone can commit an offence, there is a DVO, and they are not allowed to go within 100 yards or whatever it might be under that DVO. With an alcohol protection order you do not have to be with the victim or potential victim. You can be consuming alcohol in a different environment, and because you are on an alcohol protection order, it is an offence to be consuming or possessing alcohol or entering a licensed premises. It is a completely different thing.
Mr GUNNER: A DVO can include a ban on drinking alcohol?
Mr GILES: A DVO does not always include a ban on drinking alcohol.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr GUNNER: Can a person on an alcohol protection order have the order lifted if they have undertaken the alcohol rehabilitation plan?
Mr GILES: No.
Mr GUNNER: We clearly want people to stop drinking alcohol. In some respects that is meant to be the intention of the legislation – let us stop them drinking alcohol. If they go through an alcohol rehabilitation plan they still …
Mr GILES: Can I jump in to provide a bit of clarity? You cannot go to alcohol rehabilitation if you have been charged with an offence. In that three-month period – I will explain a situation that happened recently. You cannot go to alcohol rehabilitation if you have been charged with an offence. This is part of the reasoning behind APOs because you can commit an offence, not go to rehab, and continue to commit offences while waiting to go to court.
If you get an APO and are waiting to go to court – the member for Nelson referred to this before – the court decides and you are either charged and go to gaol and the APO is irrelevant because you are in custody, or you are not convicted and the APO is removed and you are released. That might provide clarity to your question.
Member for Fannie Bay, I do not want to go into too much detail, but there was an incident recently where someone was picked up drunk, put into protective custody, referred to rehab, assaulted the assessment team, was charged, bailed and put back out on the street. They are not allowed to go to rehabilitation, but are able to keep drinking and going through that cycle. An APO will ban that person from drinking, and if they are caught drinking they will be put in the cells to stop them drinking because you cannot go into mandatory treatment if you have been charged with an offence. That is why it is more a suite of tools.
Mr GUNNER: An alcohol protection order can also be issued at summons or served, so not just when a person is arrested. If you go through a rehabilitation plan full stop, you cannot have your APO revoked. You are put on an APO for three months, six months, 12 months, varying lengths of time depending on what you do. You have no capacity to have that APO revoked if you go through any form of treatment at all. It is not just charged, there is summonsed and served as well.
Mr GILES: If that is the case you cannot go to mandatory alcohol rehabilitation.
Mr GUNNER: Any treatment centre?
Mr GILES: If you wanted to go to your own private treatment centre you could, and that would be a positive outcome for that person, but the APO still remains even if you finish that. It could be a three-month program, but the idea is the APO is designed to keep you off it. If you choose to go into voluntary private rehabilitation, that is a good outcome.
Mr GUNNER: That is what I am saying. There is no incentive, if you are on a six-month APO, to voluntarily go through treatment, come out the other end, have your APO revoked because you have done the right ...
Mr GILES: Are you saying if you are on APO and decide to go to rehabilitation on your own, when you come out you should have the APO lifted so you can drink again? I am not sure that suits the benefit of going through rehabilitation …
Mr GUNNER: No, if you breach your APO – I get the point there are grounds later in the bill about reasonable defence, but at the moment if you are on the APO, just walking through the front door of a corner shop can be a breach. I can understand why someone on an APO might say, ‘I do not want it hanging over my head, I would like to get off the alcohol protection order. I have done the right thing, I have gone through rehab and come out the other end …’
Mr WOOD: Can I seek a point of clarification? People who offend under the drink-driving regulations have committed an offence and are required to seek treatment, is that correct? Why is this not the same?
Mr GILES: It is not all the time. That is a court order and not on every occasion, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is my reasoning behind a magistrate. In the South Dakota system, not only can a magistrate decide to send you to treatment, but they can also vary the length of the APO, which we have. Why is there no flexibility? They had it from two weeks to five years, depending on the circumstances. Is there any reason why it was three months? Could someone make a decision and say, ‘This bloke only needs three weeks’? Three months is automatic, is it? There is no …
Mr GILES: We designed the legislation around the time frames of month models. That was determined to be the best way to go as a first, second and third offence, if you like, to try to stop people from drinking. There are many different time frames we could have chosen. We did research around the world and in different jurisdictions on different models for getting people off grog. We have moved forward with these models because we believe they will provide the best opportunity to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory.
Mr WOOD: You do not see a difference between a young bloke with a can of beer in his hand who kicked and dinted his car as opposed to a person who bashed someone? One is a much less serious offence, yet the penalties are exactly the same. There is no flexibility.
Mr GILES: I heard you raise this concern in your briefing. My colleagues, the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, may not have heard this. What about the poor bloke who gets drunk and smashes up cars on Mitchell Street? How dare he be on an APO? He just had a bit of a loose night out and should be allowed to continue drinking? I do not see the merits of that point.
I understand domestic violence is a serious offence, and we on this side of the Chamber want to stamp it out. I understand what you are saying, Kicking a car is not the same as beating up somebody. However, at the end of the day they are both crimes and we are making a rule on crimes with a sentence above six months, with a fair amount of discretion by police to provide an APO for people they believe will reoffend. It says, ‘If you are charged with a crime with six months’ imprisonment and were affected by alcohol, you will get an APO’. They have discretion to apply them and it is fair and just. You cannot make an assessment about the degrees of crime and say getting drunk on Mitchell Street and smashing up a car is not so bad that you should not have an APO.
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 18 taken together.
Mr GUNNER: I have a question to clause 9. What is the justification for applying a time frame of three days for reconsideration of an APO?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, we want people to get on with business. You set a time frame so people have an opportunity to sober up and consider if that is the right thing to do. The three-day time frame is an opportunity for them to make application for the APO to be reconsidered.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously an APO is in place from the moment it is issued. The three-day appeal time frame is in effect the moment the APO commences, but three days is a short period of time for someone to appeal. You get longer for a parking fine. I am trying to understand why it is three days not seven. It does not affect the APO, which is already in place. This will provide someone a reasonable amount of time to appeal.
Mr GILES: You could pick two days or four days; we have decided to go with three. We believe three days is sufficient time for people to sober up but not too long to recall the events where they committed an alleged offence in an intoxicated state. They are then able to refer that information to the review process. Three days is adequate to allow police to undertake the review process as applied for and to make the decision to move on. It is about getting on with business.
Mr GUNNER: I have questions relating to clause 10. On what grounds can a senior officer reconsider an alcohol protection order, Chief Minister? There is no requirement for an officer to form a reasonable belief. There is nothing in that clause to say on what grounds an officer can reconsider. The bill does not mention reasonable belief.
Mr GILES: The reviewing officer would interview the person asking for the review and look at all the information, incidents and decisions made. There is a process for reconsideration of an alcohol protection order by the reviewing officer to determine whether the original decision was correct. It is like every review where you go through the process again, interview the person, get the facts and ascertain what the incident was and the circumstances around it. You would then review to ensure the proper process was followed and determine whether or not you uphold the decision or otherwise.
Mr GUNNER: It is not uncommon for acts to state the grounds on which you can appeal. That is not the case here. Some of these questions were answered in our briefing. However, that was private, and this is an opportunity to place answers on the public record. On what grounds can a senior officer reconsider an alcohol protection order?
Mr GILES: The grounds are if someone asks them to reconsider. They can open the case and reconsider all aspects of the matter.
Mr GUNNER: The answer the Police Commissioner gave was sobriety. Grounds for appeal could be, ‘I was sober’. This clause does not say on what grounds someone can appeal an alcohol protection order. For the benefit of the public record, on what grounds can someone appeal an alcohol protection order? Proving you are sober is a pretty good one.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, we can be prescriptive and have many reasons, or we can have an open process so the matter can be reconsidered. I believe in a broad, open approach. An APO can be reconsidered on many grounds, and it is much better than listing all the reasons an order can be reconsidered. It is more about reconsidering all elements and, if sobriety is one area of consideration, that would be taken into account along with other things.
Mr GUNNER: I have a question regarding clause 11. If you miss the three-day time line to appeal an alcohol protection order, can you go to a local court to appeal the decision? Does this clause say you cannot go to a local court to appeal?
Mr GILES: You appeal within three days, and if you are not happy with that approach you can appeal to the local court within seven days. That is clause 11.
Mr GUNNER: If you miss the three days you cannot appeal to the local court, so you have to appeal within the three-day period first. Our argument is that is a short time frame and there is no requirement in the act for the conditions of the alcohol protection order to be explained. At the time an alcohol protection order is given, it is not incumbent on the officer, under this bill, to explain those conditions. A person given an APO may not know the three-day appeal time line. I am sure the police, in good practice, will probably do that, but there is no requirement in this bill for the conditions of an alcohol protection order to be explained. If the police officer does not explain the conditions of an alcohol protection order, including the three-day appeal time line, there is a chance someone will miss the three-day appeal period. If they miss that three-day period they have no other capacity to appeal.
Mr GILES: I understand the question and do not appreciate the insinuations about police not providing information to people being given an APO. It is good practice and common policy for police to provide the appropriate information and explain everything to people receiving an APO. I have a copy of a blank APO in front of me. It would be explained to the person being issued an alcohol protection order and says they may apply at a police station for reconsideration of issue of the order within 72 hours. It is dated and shows the time. That appears on the alcohol protection order. When people receive an alcohol protection order they are advised of the option to have it reviewed within 72 hours.
Mr GUNNER: My next question relates to clause 14. If you volunteer for an alcohol protection order then breach it you can be fined. We all want people to do the right thing. I understand why someone might try to get help and say, ‘I cannot control my addiction; I need a hand.’ However, it seems strange that someone who volunteers can be fined.
Mr GILES: I will provide some clarity. Someone who opts to go on a voluntary alcohol protection order then breaches it will be subject to five penalty units. There is a minimum penalty unit because without that penalty clause, what is the use of being on a voluntary APO? It means nothing if there is no penalty at the end of it. It is a small deterrent to stop someone on a voluntary APO from offending by consuming or possessing alcohol or going onto licensed premises. It is not a punitive measure for someone who volunteers; it is a measure to encourage people not to offend while on a voluntary APO, and there is no gaol at all.
Mr WOOD: Where else does this apply? Most people with a grog problem go to AA or a similar group. Where else is this being initiated? It seems unusual.
Mr GILES: A range of people can volunteer for things. People who gamble at casinos can volunteer to be on the casino’s banned list. People living in public housing ask for their houses to have prescribed notices banning alcohol consumption. People who were on the BDR could volunteer. It is a common thing. If your question is more about alcohol protection orders, this is leading legislation in all jurisdictions in Australia. Many jurisdictions are actively looking at how successful it will be and at rolling it out in their state. I am unsure if either of those responses answers your question.
Mr WOOD: Where is the word ‘treatment’? That is one of the key things missing. Can I ask about treatment because it is not in the bill?
Mr GILES: A range of treatments apply for people who go through the prison system.
Mr WOOD: I do not want people in prison for drinking.
Mr GILES: No, but you are asking about treatment and I am trying to give you an answer. There is mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, safe sobering-up shelters and private rehabilitation treatment services can be offered. An alcohol protection order is designed to help people who have not gone through the rehabilitation process because they have been charged with an offence, have not made a self-referral to somewhere like CAAAPU or have not gone through the Bradaag system. This is for the person who will be back on the street consuming grog again to say, ‘You cannot drink and commit another offence’. It is not sentencing those people to rehab because, under our mandatory alcohol rehab model, you cannot go if you are awaiting charges.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand that. However, you can go to the Salvation Army voluntarily and receive treatment to get off the grog. You can go to other people who will help you get off the grog. It seems strange. If you are really concerned about grog, you would get help regardless of whether you commit an offence or not. You can still go to Amity or the Salvation Army and get the necessary treatment. We are dealing with a drug of dependency and need the other side of it, and that is missing from this bill. I will not argue the toss any more.
Mr GILES: There might be a time when we bring in treatment services for these people, but the current mandatory treatment legislation means you cannot go if you have been charged because of the bail process while awaiting hearing. This is designed to help people in that gap because, from a legislative point of view, trying to get those people off the grog has not been dealt with. This is where those people are being banned. I appreciated your point, Gerry.
Mr TOLLNER: Perhaps I can go a bit further than the Chief Minister. We are trying to put in place a suite of measures to deal with people with alcohol problems. In this case, people issued with APOs may not necessarily be addicted to alcohol but have proven they commit serious offences when affected by alcohol. We are trying to close all the gaps in the Northern Territory. The government is supporting voluntary rehabilitation centres and encouraging people with an alcohol problem to use them.
For people who have gone so far they have been picked up by police on a number of occasions for being drunk – not committing crimes – and cannot make the decision to go into voluntary rehab, the government will make the decision for them and place them in mandatory rehab. This is about people who commit serious crimes who do not necessarily have an alcohol addiction but, clearly, are not in control of their actions when seriously affected by alcohol.
This is another area where we are closing loopholes and ensuring people take responsibility for their actions. When they do not, the state will step in and put in place measures we think will deter them from accessing alcohol and, in this case, committing serious crimes.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but my concern about the bill is lack of consultation. When I ring Amity, FORWAARD or CAAPS, the people who can help, they have not been consulted in relation to this bill. They, I hope, would be an important part of what you are trying to do.
Mr TOLLNER: With all due respect, member for Nelson, this is not about people with an addiction to alcohol, which is what Amity, CAAPS and CAAAPU are focused on. This is about people who commit serious crime. During the consultation the Chief Minister was in contact with police and others in the justice system. The issues you are talking about have a health and therapeutic focus. Those people are completely separate from this and have committed serious crimes.
That is where many people are getting lost in this debate – treating people as if they have an illness. We on this side of the Chamber are treating these people as if they have committed serious crimes. That is the difference with alcohol protection orders. To get an alcohol protection order you have to commit a serious crime. The crime is the trigger, not an addiction to alcohol.
Mr WOOD: I do not want a revolving door.
Mr CHAIR: This debate is going to policy and not sticking with the legislation.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 18, Chief Minister, allows police to breath test someone. It says ‘recently consumed’ which makes sense. This phrase is not in previous legislation. For the benefit of the record, can you explain what ‘recently consumed’ would be?
Mr GILES: Which clause is that?
Mr GUNNER: Clause 18(1):
For the record, what is ‘recently consumed’?
Mr GILES: This is a prescriptive answer, but if you went through the checklist of being incoherent, slurred speech, lack of coordination, odour of liquor, red or wet eyes, asking people have they been drinking, seeing them with grog in their hand, seeing them drinking, they are some of the reasonable ways of determining whether someone has been drinking.
Mr GUNNER: The test here is ‘reasonably believes’ rather than ‘believes’?
Mr GILES: Police operate off a list of questions ...
Mr GUNNER: I am not criticising your previous answer. I will go to another question.
Under clause 18, someone can have a breath test and you can take their fingerprints and other biometric identifiers. Why is there a need to take the lot rather than have the breath test and, if they fail that, take the fingerprints and the biometric identifiers? I did not ask this in the briefing and am curious.
Mr GILES: Are you asking about identification?
Mr GUNNER: Yes. Under this clause you can take someone’s fingerprints and have a breath test. Why do you not only take the fingerprints if someone blows on the breath test?
Mr GILES: To confirm identity if they have committed an offence.
Mr GUNNER: This is about the alcohol protection order, whether they have breached it and whether they have recently consumed alcohol. A police officer who reasonably believes an adult subject to an alcohol protection order has recently consumed alcohol may ask them to take a breath test. They do the breath test and you take their fingerprints at the same time. Why not have it cascading? Do the breath test and if they blow positive take fingerprints and the other biometric identifiers. Is it not one then the other?
Mr GILES: I do not quite following your question. The fingerprint is to confirm that person is on an alcohol protection order. They are asked to undergo a breath test and, if they come up over the prescribed limit, the fingerprint is to determine the person is legally on an APO so they do not make the wrong assessment.
Clauses 8 to 18 agreed to.
Clause19:
Mr GILES: I move amendment 11.2 to clause 19(1), as tabled.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 23 states if you breach an alcohol protection order you face a maximum penalty of 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. For example, the act of drinking can see you go to gaol, which goes against the recommendations.
Mr GILES: The act of breaching an alcohol protection order?
Mr GUNNER: The act of breaching an alcohol protection order, which can include the consumption of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol can see you go to gaol which goes against the recommendations of the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody. Did you consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission when putting this bill together?
Mr GILES: I considered many things, member for Fannie Bay. I am probably one of a few people who has read RCIADIC. I have it firmly planted in my mind, particularly when I go into a police station. I was at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak recently looking at some of the recommendations of that report being facilitated in the way prison cells are designed.
I am firmly aware of RCIADIC, what it stands for and what it means. Nobody wants to see people go to gaol; we want to see a reduction in this process. We will continue to see more perpetrators of domestic violence charged, whether the incidents are alcohol-related or otherwise. I anticipate, in the shorter term, seeing a slightly higher incarceration rate as people go through this process. However, as they adjust to knowing APOs are a real thing and people will be penalised if they break them, we will see fewer offences. The outcome will be fewer offences in the community, less crime in the community and less domestic violence against women in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to the wife of the person on the APO, or a friend. If an adult takes a person on an APO through a bottle shop, would the driver of the vehicle be committing an offence?
Mr GILES: Which subsection is that, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: In relation to …
Mr GILES: Is this clause 23? We have already done that.
Mr WOOD: Clause 24. Is it only a matter of supplying alcohol, or if you took someone through licensed premises are you breaching anything?
Mr GUNNER: If someone is in the back seat of a car going through a bottle-o?
Mr GILES: If you are not supplying you are not in breach.
Mr WOOD: Okay.
Mr GILES: If you are not supplying, holding for, or …
Mr WOOD: However, you are taking someone through premises they are not supposed to be in. Are you participating in something illegal?
Mr GILES: Clause 24(a) says:
A person commits an offence if the person:
Mr WOOD: If you assist in what could be an illegal act and the illegal act is someone should not be in a licensed premises and you have assisted them being there, is that an offence?
Mr GILES: It depends if you are deliberately doing it or unknowingly doing it. If you are deliberately committing an offence you have obviously done the wrong thing. If it is not done knowingly, no, you have not. The legislation prescribes that pretty well. Clause 24(b) says:
(b) knows that the adult is subject to an alcohol protection order.
If you know someone has an alcohol protection order and is deliberately trying to contravene that order, there might be a punitive approach. Where it is not done knowingly, clearly that is not the case.
It is the same as the false argument Labor and the shadow minister have been running in the media about shopkeepers being charged because they serve someone who has been issued an alcohol protection order. That is not the case. We are putting the onus on the individual. If a shopkeeper serves someone they do not know is on an APO that is fine. However, if they are deliberately trying to supply someone they know is on an APO with alcohol, the punitive measures come in.
Mr GUNNER: How will licensees be informed of alcohol protection orders against a person?
Mr GILES: I have a pro forma document here. You probably cannot see it from there, member for Nelson. I know you have good eyes, but I can read it for you if you like. It is section 6 of the Alcohol Protection Order Act – can we table this?
Mr GUNNER: Will licensees be under an obligation to inform their staff an alcohol protection order has been made? If a licensee has been given one of those, are they under an obligation to inform their staff?
Mr GILES: They are not under any obligation because this is not putting pressure on the retailer. However, this is good policy for retailers of licensed outlets, or otherwise, to afford that information to their staff if possible. You would not expect to have 50 alcohol protection orders provided to every staff member everywhere. Clearly, it is locally based and you do your best not to serve someone who has one. However, you are not committing an offence if you do so without knowing you have.
Mr GUNNER: The information cannot be stored in a public place; the notice must be in a private place. An example given was the manager’s office. It can be put up on the board in the manager’s office. If the licensee places the notice on the wall in the manager’s office, does the checkout operator breach the act if they serve someone listed on the notice on the wall in the manager’s office? Are they knowingly serving someone? Police have provided the information and it is on the wall in the office, is the checkout person knowingly serving that person?
Mr GILES: The only time someone commits an offence is if they deliberately serve alcohol to someone they know to be on an alcohol protection order. Had they seen someone’s picture in the manager’s office a week ago, forgotten who that person was and served them alcohol, it is not their fault. We are not trying to put responsibility on retailers; it is the responsibility of the individual.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, can you be charged as an accessory to breaking the requirement that a person should not enter or be on licensed premises? If the person on the APO was the passenger and you drove into licensed premises, are you an accessory to breaking the order?
Mr ELFERINK: I will take you briefly through the law. Technically, yes, in the real world, no. I will give you an example. I am driving down the road and have a mate in a car next to me. I pull up at the lights and rev my car, which is the universal symbol amongst young gentlemen to have a drag race. I rev my car; he takes off from the lights and is done for speeding. It is a minor offence; he is only doing 15 km over the speed limit. He gets a $115 ticket. Technically, I could probably be done as an accessory because I encouraged, counselled and procured the offence to be committed. In the real world I would not be.
The law of accessory is generally reserved for matters of an indictable nature and is rarely exercised, even in that instance. You will find its most common manifestation in the area of homicide. That type of indictable offence invites the attention of the courts and investigators into the realm of accessory. However, the law of accessory is quite broad because it may be applied for other reasons. It could be an accessory to conspiracy, or those things. Again, you are in a very high level of indictable offence. The lower courts are, in the real world, a meat grinder – a sausage factory of law. They are not lovely in the way law is practised. It is a very simple system. As a consequence, matters pertaining to accessory are, to my knowledge, never pursued through the lower courts, and these matters would be almost exclusively dealt with in the lower courts.
Mr McCARTHY: Chief Minister, I am interested in the wanted posters: the manual system of identifying citizens on alcohol protection orders. In the case of the current crimes statistics, let us talk about Tennant Creek. Over the past 12 months a total of 533 assaults have been alcohol-related. That represents 20% of Tennant Creek’s population. How do you see licensees administering that type of list manually?
Mr GILES: Member for Barkly, police officers know who the troublemakers are, people with an alcohol problem or the people who commit crimes. They know who has not gone to alcohol rehabilitation, as in Tennant Creek where we are still setting up the alcohol rehabilitation program – the mandatory element. Retailers often know who those people are. You will find many of the people you mentioned are reoffenders, and the information provided to those retailers will be passed around licensees and the staff who work in those venues. To the best of their ability, they will not serve anyone they believe to be on an alcohol protection order.
Mr McCARTHY: We are talking about pretty big numbers. I agree they could be repeat offenders, but there has been an anecdotal assessment of possibly 4000 across the Northern Territory in the first 12 months. Do you believe an electronic database would be better?
Mr GILES: What section is this under?
Mr CHAIR: Can I interrupt, Chief Minister. We need to keep questions to the clauses. Member for Barkly, what clause are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The clause we are discussing at the moment, Mr Chair. Could you advise me of that clause please?
Mr CHAIR: Clause 24.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, 24. I am following on from a question from the member for Nelson.
Mr CHAIR: I do not see any relevance in the numbers being related to clause 24.
Mr GILES: Filibuster?
Mr McCARTHY: I asked about the relevance of an electronic database. I accept your advice, Mr Chair.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I thank the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay for their constructive input in the committee stage of the bill. I also thank the member for Fong Lim for his constructive comments, and the member for Port Darwin for explaining the term ‘reasonable’ in such an eloquent way. It was as much appreciated as it was entertaining.
I will comment on the member for Nelson wanting to refer matters to a committee and speak as a local member not a government member. It is very important we improve the committee structure of parliament. If you had come to us a week ago suggesting changes I would have considered them. However, to come in late yesterday is not the right way. It looks like a stunt rather than you being supportive of going to the committee stage, which I would have been happy to hear in a different light.
That being said, I believe committee stage reviews are very important and would help strengthen parliament. However, how we proceed with that is challenging. I have looked at several different models. You mentioned Queensland as an example. Queensland has more members, so if legislation is referred to a committee more backbenchers and committee members can look at it. In this Chamber we have 25 members, one being the Speaker, two Whips and eight ministers. It is a challenging environment to refer things to a committee and needs to be considered in the future. Having said that, I respect your comments on committees. However, to ask for it yesterday was a bit of a stretch.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for his comments.
Chief Minister, I have spent a good deal of time between the last two sittings getting my head around some of these issues. The idea of a committee was not one I gave much thought to until I dug deeper and deeper into this and looked at different models. I do not believe this is the right model. It uses …
Mr Tollner: It can always be improved.
Mr WOOD: That is two socks I will have to give you.
The model I was looking at – it might not work in the Northern Territory – was electronic monitoring where people have to be breathalysed every day. It takes a lot of work off police and is one of the areas I examined. I also looked at the figures from independent assessment of that program. A number of documents show this has been effective.
I spent a lot of time calling South Dakota. If I rang them at 7 am or 8 am I got them at about 4 pm or 5 pm. I was lucky to get them and they were extremely helpful.
I called the makers of the SCRAM ankle bracelet and received an e-mail this afternoon from Mike Dyer, a representative of that company. I am not pushing for that company because I know Deakin University said there are cheaper varieties of the bracelet. They will be in Darwin, I believe, next week. I do not know if they are making contact with the government, but I will try to contact them because Victoria is also looking at this scheme.
This type of committee is new to me too. We have 14 pieces of legislation, some not as serious as others. I have paid particular attention to this one because I feel the model you are using is not the right one, which is why I am not supporting it rather than not agreeing with what you are doing.
I thank you for your comments. It will be interesting to see where we go with committees. It will make it a much better parliament. I agree Queensland is not necessarily the right model. I believe every piece of legislation goes to a committee, and they have the numbers for that. We do not have the numbers and some of us are already stretched handling the committees we are on.
I also thank various members for their contributions. This is a serious issue and I have tried to take it that way, as have all members. I would also like to thank the opposition for their comments.
Member for Araluen, I appreciate your comments. I have said many times I support mandatory rehabilitation, and the minister is aware I would prefer a better way to treat those people on the ground.
The one big issue missing in this debate, sadly, is treatment. The member for Fong Lim said ‘Well, not everybody is an alcoholic’. That is why I have asked for a magistrate to make the decision. The magistrate can then consider each person as an individual and know their history. They may be chronic alcoholics, they may be people with bad habits or they may be a one-off. You could give the orders according to who they are, and you could do what they have done in Vermillion, South Dakota – the magistrate can decide if a person should receive treatment.
We are stuck with saying, ‘You cannot get treatment if you have been charged with or found guilty of an offence’. It is a different kettle of fish. More options need to be explored because we could have a better model. However, you are the government, you have decided to go down that path, and I accept that.
Motion agreed to: bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this bill would not be before the House if the Country Liberal Party had not broken its promise to cut crime. This bill lies at the end of that process. Crime is up under the Country Liberal Party. The CLP has come to the parliament with a bill to increase the size of the Parole Board from 10 members to 18. When crime is up it flows through the system and eventually the number of people seeking parole is up. The Attorney-General admits this. In his second reading speech he said:
More crime under the CLP equals more parole hearings under the CLP. If the Country Liberal Party had delivered on the commitment to cut crime by 10% every year, we would not have to dramatically increase the size of the Parole Board. If the CLP believed crime was going down they would not be almost doubling the size of the Parole Board.
Before discussing the specifics of this bill we need to discuss why it is required. The bill is required because the CLP completely failed to cut crime. Everybody in the Territory knows it, and the crime statics prove it. Violent crime is on the rise, assaults are up, alcohol-related assaults are up and domestic violence is up. Let us look at some of the statistics provided by the Attorney-General’s department on Tuesday.
In Darwin, alcohol-related crime has risen by 12.3% and domestic violence is up by 18.8%. It is not only Darwin. Across the Territory, the number of alcohol-related assaults increased by 11.4%. Interestingly, Nhulunbuy recorded a drop of 5.9% compared with Tennant Creek, where assaults increased by 43.7%. They are similar sized towns so what is the difference? Nhulunbuy still has the Banned Drinker Register. You have to show ID to buy takeaway alcohol in Nhulunbuy. Where the BDR is in place in Nhulunbuy assaults are down by 5.9%, where it is not in Tennant Creek, they are up by 43.7%. Tennant Creek has seven times more alcohol-related violence than Nhulunbuy.
These are compelling numbers and the CLP is culpable. Police told the CLP the decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register would increase violent crime. They quite deliberately ignored the advice of experts who said, ‘Do not scrap the Banned Drinker Register; do not scrap measures which handle supply of alcohol to problem drunks.’
The experts were right and, as night follows day, crime increased. Violent crime increased. What was the CLP’s response? To break the election commitment. The CLP now says it will not cut crime by 10% every year; it will now cut it by 10% over its whole term. Instead of admitting the policies are wrong, they admitted to breaking their promise.
Police, magistrates and judges all told the CLP their policies would increase crime. The only response is the decision by the CLP to accommodate the increase in crime with this bill. This is the ‘we give up’ bill. The bill is saying, ‘We acknowledge our law and order polices have completely failed and will continue to fail, so we are planning for a future with more crime’. If the original CLP promise to cut crime by 10% a year every year was kept, we would be looking at a reduction in crime of around 40% in the first term. If crime was to be cut by around 40%, we would not need to increase the size of the Parole Board from 10 to 18 or double the time it meets.
I will give the Corrections department some credit. They know the government’s crime policies will fail and are planning for it.
On this side of the House we agree with the experts. The CLP’s crime policies will fail, so we support this bill as a measure to accommodate the CLP’s failings. We accept the number of parole cases will rise and believe the Parole Board must be diligent. The fact it will be dealing with so many more cases should not be a reason to apply less rigor to any application for parole.
Last year, 135 prisoners were released on parole and 64 had their parole revoked. That is not a great success rate. The Parole Board must be vigilant to ensure parolees do not reoffend and the through-care programs exist to ensure we are minimising parolees reoffending or breaching their parole conditions.
We support the increased number of members to the Parole Board and the increase in the number of times they meet.
I acknowledge the fantastic work NAAJA and CAALAS provide in assisting parolees. The Chair of the Parole Board, Justice Stephen Southwood, said the work NAAJA and CAALAS do has been of great assistance to the Parole Board. I hope the government listens to Justice Southwood and continues to support these organisations. Both these organisations have told the government its law and order policies will fail. They should be listened to, not ignored.
The cost of the increase in violent crime under the CLP is almost impossible to calculate. Could the Attorney-General, in his wrap, advise how much it might cost to implement the changes to the Parole Board? Could the Attorney-General advise how much it will cost to go from 10 members to 18, when the Parole Board will start meeting twice a month and when there will be 18 members on the Parole Board?
In summary, we do not support the CLP’s failed law and order policies but do support the amendments to this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): It sounds like the Labor Party is in cahoots with the government’s policies. They are supporting something they say supports an increase in crime. They could have said they are increasing employment in the Northern Territory; that might have sounded better.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It makes sense that the load on the Parole Board requires more people to be on it. When I first read it I thought it meant we could have two police or two psychiatrists or two other people together on the board. However, it is obviously one of each, which was nice to have clarified.
The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the advocacy work undertaken by Aboriginal legal services in prisons. That would be interesting to know, because from time to time they have said there is a shortfall in funds to allow the legal services to continue. I hope the government is ensuring, if there is an increase in workload that requires an increase in the Parole Board, there is also an increase in funding for Aboriginal legal services to deal with the issues before them as well.
I have no trouble supporting the bill before us, and I cannot beat the member for Fannie Bay’s opening remarks.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I draw members’ attention to what I said in the second reading speech. A snapshot of data from the 2011 annual report indicates the number of business matters considered in 2001 was 412. In 2006 it was 482, and in 2011 it was 612. Hang on! During that time the Labor Party was in power. We are still cleaning up the Labor Party’s mess, which is part of the reason we have to do this. The residual from their failed policies is a large slice of what drives these numbers in the Parole Board. I am sure the member for Fannie Bay was aware of that but decided to ignore that inconvenient truth.
Nevertheless, I accept those numbers are increasing because there is still a wash over from the last years of the Labor Party. I made it clear this morning during Question Time why these numbers are increasing. I do not mind if the number of people being gaoled for domestic violence offences and offences of violence increases because we are catching more of them. I explained to the House this morning in Question Time the simple mechanical structure of how to deal with the domestic violence numbers. I could say, ‘Start taking the old DV orders out and do not pursue the criminal matters’. That is all we have to do to drive those numbers down. It would be completely artificial and would ignore the seriousness of domestic violence in our community.
We have a choice. Do we artificially push the numbers down by saying, ‘No, we just return to the old domestic violence system of getting civil orders and ignoring criminal assaults,’ or do we pursue the policy the former government started with increased vigour. The answer is the latter. They did a good job. Project Respect was a good idea, and I am pleased the Commissioner took it to the government or the government took it to the Commissioner – I have no idea how Project Respect started – but there was clearly a focus on domestic violence.
I have acknowledged publicly in this House during Question Time, and in front of TV cameras and on radio, that the Labor Party started down this path. It was a noble path to tread, but we have determined to become increasingly aggressive with this and, on top of that, have committed to a general domestic violence policy which goes across government and in the area of the NGOs.
I do not doubt that at some point you will see an increased number of domestic violence cases and assault cases coming before the courts because we are being more assertive in this area.
I remind honourable members of page 94 of the first quarterly crime statistics published in 2001. There you will find a reference to unreported matters in the Northern Territory which says 71% of property offences were reported and only 25% of offences against the person were reported. If you continue to read that report you will find a reference to the reasons those offences were not reported, which was because people decided they were personal. There was a personal reason not to do it, aka, domestic violence.
So, 75% of all crime, according to the former government’s own numbers when they started reporting crime, was unreported. That information was discovered because ACNielsen had the job of ringing people to conduct surveys, then talking to people as a result of those quantitative surveys about whether they had been the subject of an assault and whether they had reported it. That is how the information was gleaned. That is how we know the percentage of under-reportings.
That number has subsequently appeared in slightly varying numbers through our crime statistics because the Australian Bureau of Statistics continues to collect that information. It is an important trend. It sounds counterintuitive and I understand why people would question it. More police work drives down property crime but drives up crimes against the person, and the reason it occurs is based in that number. Because so much property crime is reported, when police attack that as a particular issue it depresses the number of offences being committed because there are such high reporting rates. When your reporting rate is very low and you place a lot of police attention into a specific area, it drives up the reporting rate.
That is exactly the problem the former government ran into, and when we asked the questions the members opposite ask now, that was precisely the reason we got from the government. For that reason, more police action and more police attention has driven down property crime well beyond the promised 10% per year. In fact, we have reached our four-year target. However, we are stuck with this moral choice: do we or do we not pursue domestic violence, and do we or do we not go hard after violence in the community? The answer has to be yes.
We promised to put more police on the streets, and as a consequence we now have a response which sees more people coming into custody. I am proud of that. However, I understand the politics the members opposite feel obliged to play with this. It is a cute shot but, of course, it is the usual misrepresentation we have come to expect from the member for Fannie Bay. The crime increase he so jokingly points to started on the Labor Party’s watch 10 years ago.
Being aware of this rather facile but obvious attack, we placed that set of numbers in the second reading speech so it would become apparent to any person reading it that the argument put forward by the member of Fannie Bay was utterly nefarious. Nevertheless, he had to run it so he did. I am happy for him. He got his shot in, but as Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services in the Northern Territory, I am proud to be doing what we are doing.
Parole, as an organ of the judicial process and the post-judicial process, will play an increasingly important role, particularly when it becomes manifest in the Sentenced to a Job program. Keeping the job you are provided with should become part of your parole when you leave gaol. That means you will be obliged to continue working once you have left gaol whilst on parole. That is a policy I would like to continue pursuing until I am satisfied it will work. It will also place demands on the Parole Board because it will create a larger workload for them.
Consequently, I remain proud of this legislation. I thank honourable members for their support, such as it is. I am sure they understand that, in the real world – which I know they also get – this is a necessary improvement, because, as we continue to roll out our law and order policies, there will be an increasingly important function for the Parole Board and it has to be properly supported.
I had the file upstairs with the dollar figures. I know a sitting fee is given to each member of the Parole Board. From memory, it is several thousand dollars a year, but I will provide the member for Fannie Bay with the exact dollar figure. I will make certain it is passed on; I just cannot lay my fingertips on it right now.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support and place on the record my thanks to the people in the Department of Correctional Services for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting me in drafting the legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, as the member for Karama, I acknowledge the great work in Karama, Malak and the broader northern suburbs community of a dear friend of mine, Donna Smith. Donna Smith is an Army wife. She was deployed to Darwin with her husband 14 years ago and has embraced our community with gusto.
I first met her when she, as mother of a Transition child, was on Malak School Council. As is the wont of local members, you get pretty close to your school council members. Of all the years I have spent on different school councils - I have seven schools in my electorate - Donna has been an extraordinary woman and an outstanding member of the community.
I was at her place on the weekend with a gathering of her dear friends. We were talking to each other, because not only has she been active on the Malak Primary School Council, but she has been active on Sanderson Middle School Council, then, ultimately, on Casuarina Senior School Council, because her only child, her daughter Jordan, is now finishing Year 11. Donna truly believes in putting into the school community and broader school community.
She took hold of Malak School Council and organised members with great skill. She decided she would make sure the kids wanted for nothing at that school. A few mothers in the local area did some rough calculations. With her school council fundraising over the last 14 years, plus her active participation in the Country Women’s Association and the craft club, we estimate she has single-handedly raised about $100 000 for the broader community.
Quite selflessly, she would literally organise entire fundraising events throughout the year - several events. She would get to know local traders and business people who, over the years, grew to respect her because not only did she go tapping them for contributions to fetes, raffles, events, film nights and all the rest, but she would follow-up with a letter of thanks. She would make sure at the fundraising events all the companies and businesses which sponsored were appropriately recognised and were given photographs of that recognition. They knew she appreciated the effort they went to, as local businesses, to support the local school community.
Indeed, the CWA women have been incredibly moved by her generous capacity to do the hard yards and hard work, and contribute to our community and society.
We are two very different people. I have been, obviously, consumed by my profession and my work, and raising my three children. Donna has, by choice, been a housewife for 14 years because her primary desire was to be there for and raise her daughter. She is an incredible and outstanding woman, and all her friends and the community are amazed at the contribution she has given to our community.
I speak tonight in adjournment because one of the local mothers told me on the weekend that Donna needs to be recognised in parliament; she needs to be appreciated and acknowledged in parliament. The acknowledgements are starting to come because she has been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer and has been given a few weeks to live.
In life you see incredible people, and Donna and I, as different as we are – I am a professional woman committed to long working hours and she is a housewife committed to raising her daughter. We have been as thick as thieves. We are incredibly tight friends because I have met someone I find incredibly inspirational because of the selfless way she goes about contributing to her community. She wants nothing from it. She does not want to be recognised, does not want to be acknowledged, and is happy to be in the background, but she is always in the foreground because she is so generous and so active.
It is difficult to have been given the shocking news she has. In just a few short weeks her life has been completely upended and will be cut unreasonably short. It has given everyone in her community - when I say her community, the community now stretches across significant chunks of the northern suburbs because she has relocated that lengthy distance from Malak to Leanyer, and has gone through the Malak, Sanderson and Casuarina school communities. Her patch is those suburbs and the Country Women’s Association.
I had a conversation with her a few days after the initial diagnosis. She was touched because one of the ladies from the CWA, who is 92, offered to mop her floors. She graciously said, ‘That’s okay, I can put up with some dirty floors for the next few weeks’. I say that to indicate what enormous regard Donna engenders. For anyone who has the time and opportunity in their life to get to know her, she is the embodiment of what I love about the Northern Territory.
Often people find themselves here through circumstance. Her circumstance is her wonderful husband Jeff, who is in the Army and has been deployed here. They fell in love with Darwin and the Northern Territory, and Jeff, by magic means, has managed to be redeployed here through several deployments to ensure they have had 14 long years in Darwin.
With the diagnosis, they are moving to Perth where they have family so she can pass away knowing her daughter will be cared for and supported by her mother and her brother.
I want to acknowledge her mother, Bobby and her brother, Ashley. It is pretty hard to watch someone you love so dearly go through a pretty short sentence leading to death. We are all appreciative of the time we have, knowing Donna will leave us in too short a time. The community will expect to gather.
I have been tasked with the responsibility of drawing together a memorial service if she manages to see her wish of having Christmas in Perth with her family - that is her daughter’s wish. Young Jordan is finishing Year 11 and has to deal with a pretty tough card being dealt, and will be back in Darwin for a memorial service. I know Jeff will make heaven and earth move and be here too.
It is a sad story, but an incredibly inspiring one to see a woman who chose how to live in a modern era. You are often reflected upon poorly if you choose the home and homemaking over the professional life. She chose the home and the homemaking. She is incredibly intelligent and an extremely capable and organised woman, but she chose to raise her daughter for 17 years. In a cruel twist of irony, that choice has been the wisest one of all because she will not see the rest of her daughter’s life. She has also shown us that being at home does not truly mean ‘be at home’. It does not mean being disconnected from your community. It does not mean you take a back seat. She has shown us that through sheer selflessness you can fully and totally provide for the people, the families, and the community around you through several schools.
Donna Smith, you are not gone yet. There are some jokes and drinks yet to have. I know you will be mildly appalled that you have been recognised in the Legislative Assembly, but you have earned every bit of it because you have raised so much for our school communities. Malak has a school band and instruments because of Donna Smith. They are being passed on to Sanderson Middle School because of Donna Smith. We are all the richer for her efforts. We will be all the poorer when we have to say goodbye.
Vale, Donna Smith, you have had an incredible life.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I want to make a contribution to a question asked by the member for Nhulunbuy and answered by the Chief Minister today. The member for Nhulunbuy asked about the strategic Indigenous water reserve and linked it to Indigenous economic development. I also refer to the media release put out by the member for Nhulunbuy yesterday evening.
The member for Nhulunbuy went to great lengths to drive a wedge between the members for Namatjira and Arnhem and the government, given they spoke on my Primary Industry statement two nights ago about the strategic Indigenous water reserve. I want to ensure everyone is clear about this. I welcome comments from the members for Arnhem and Namatjira because on this side of the House we welcome diverging views, open debate and honest feedback from all members of parliament.
Sometimes we may not like what we hear. We often do not like what we hear from the opposition because a lot of what they say is cheap and mired in dirty politics. Let me assure you when somebody in the House makes a meaningful well-researched contribution founded in the work they do in their electorate, I welcome it no matter who they are and of what political persuasion.
I have no doubt the members for Arnhem and Namatjira are two of the hardest working members in this House. They should be applauded for the passion they bring to the job and the way they represent the views of their constituents.
The approach the Country Liberals take with respect to interaction between backbenchers and members of government is poles apart from that of Labor. If, on the Labor side of the House, one opposed the views of government, or, probably, in opposition, that individual would be hauled across the coals, probably hung, drawn and quartered, summarily executed, cut into cubes and fed to the fish. That is the Labor way and we understand that. On this side of the House, we welcome diverging views from across the Northern Territory because that is healthy debate.
It is good for me, as minister, to hear those views. I cannot be everywhere all at once, as much as I would like to be. I often joke with people that I wish there were three of me - two to split the workload and one to have a rest. That is not possible so I rely on the hard-working members of the Country Liberal Party in their electorates to bring the views of their constituents to me.
The members for Arnhem and Namatjira do that regularly in private meetings, in our parliamentary wing meetings and in the House. I welcome the views espoused by the members for Arnhem and Namatjira representing the views of their constituents.
Let me talk about strategic Indigenous water reserves. Before the Country Liberals came to government the Labor Party, which was in government for eleven-and-a-half years, had a complete policy vacuum on anything to do with agriculture or water.
They had no policy on strategic Indigenous reserves; they were completely silent. As I have said before in this House, it is like so many other areas of policy making where the former Labor government did not have the courage to make a policy because it was all too hard. It was all too willing to bend and bow to left influences and Green influences, as we have seen. That meant water planning around strategic Indigenous reserves, under those circumstances, was completely ad hoc. Others have criticised me for saying it, but it was ad hoc.
In the Katherine water allocation plan there is a 1% strategic Indigenous reserve. Someone might correct me if it is 2%, but I am sure it is 1%. When the Mataranka plan was being formulated, Indigenous groups put in what I would describe as an ambit claim wanting 25% of the consumptive pool put away for strategic Indigenous reserve. That tells me there was an ad hoc approach; it was all over the place.
There is much debate around water, and I accept there probably should be given it is a precious resource. However, let me remind all those in this House, and people listening to this, there is an 80:20 rule. This means 80% of the annual recharge of an aquifer is confined to the ground for the environment and cannot be touched. That leaves the remaining 20%, one-fifth, available for consumptive use. This is based on what is considered by many people to be a very conservative approach from a report by Erskine et al in about 2009. The reminder, 80%, stays in the ground. For those who would like to continue to scaremonger about Murray Darling systems running out of water and all those things, 80% of the annual recharge - the amount of water in that aquifer - stays in the ground.
Let us talk about the process. I have said many times the minister does not make decisions about water allocations. Goodness me, how many times do I have to say it? The Water Controller makes decisions about water applications. Referring to the Hansard from today’s Question Time – during a question there was an interjection from the member for Barkly remonstrating, pointing at the Chief Minister then pointing at me saying:
The member for Barkly is misleading everybody because it is not true. The minister does not control the water licensing system. I do not pull the levers, the Water Controller does that. I am not surprised because we have seen demonstrable ignorance from the opposition around the water planning process. Every comment from their measly mouths is full of ignorance designed to scaremonger and mislead people. In fact, they tell lies, it is as simple as that.
When I think about why that ignorance occurs, you look at the former shadow minister, the member for Nightcliff. It has been 15 months since the last election and how many times did the shadow seek a briefing from my department or office on water? Not once did the member for Nightcliff, as shadow minister for Land Resource Management, seek a briefing.
They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in playing politics with this issue – scaremongering and dog whistling. There are many ways to describe how the opposition runs its political game. They are a disgrace! They have a responsibility to their electorate to ensure they promulgate the truth and get the correct information out rather than running the lies and lines they do as we have seen recently.
Thank God the member for Nhulunbuy has sought a briefing after such a short time as shadow minister. Well done, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak tonight on the ongoing Sentenced to a Job program and seek to update the House on what we are doing.
I am particularly proud of this program. The real joy comes, in so many ways, from seeing the response of the many people in the program now. This morning, 107 prisoners went to work. Sixty-four of those inmates are in full-time work and 43 are in training to achieve full-time work. We now have prisoners working in a number of areas, including powder coating, glass crushing, welding, steel cutting, gardening, tree lopping, storeman’s work, housekeepers, delivery drivers, truck and forklift drivers, block layers, cooks, kitchen hands, labourers, trade assistants, and in the retail sections doing counter service, stock control and shelf stacking.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Motor Trades Association’s launch of their efforts in this area. There are 22 prisoners going through training under the auspices of the MTA, and it is embracing these prisoners with open arms.
The number of prisoners we are driving through this system is increasing. In fact, it is not fair to say we are driving them through. They have to earn the right to be in the Sentenced to a Job program and, by gum, are they working for that right! I stand by my hope that in the not-too-distant future we will increase those numbers substantially.
This is not just a work program. I have become familiar with a number of corrections systems around the world. Work programs have been around for a long time. Even the paid work programs have been around for a while, but none of the prison systems I have seen have made work the core of the prison philosophy.
We have made some changes to the new gaol. Of course, I am seeking to drive the new gaol with increasing amounts of shop floor space. Once we are in the new gaol - whilst it is excessive for the purposes it is what it is - we will use it as best we can to drive forward the employment regime. Once we are in the new system we will ensure as many prisoners as possible are in work programs.
An important part of a person’s identity is not just their name, it is what they do. It is no accident of history that in many languages - English is no exception - at some point people adopted their occupation as their name. I invite you to go through a list: Butcher, Baker, Smith and Cooper. I am sure you could think about names and come up with many more which are jobs, because that is a person’s identity.
Employment is the central component of the corrections system in the Northern Territory. It will all be about work. I am not interested, in most instances, in reintegrating people into society; I am interested in introducing many people to society for the first time.
I have travelled overseas and was recently in Colorado Springs at a conference. There were 72 countries represented, and we described Sentenced to a Job to the convention. We did not quite have a packed house, but ours was by far one of the best attended symposiums and there was true interest in what we are doing in the Northern Territory.
I am convinced that by pursuing these policies aggressively, within two years we will have a corrections system that will be a model for the world.
I place on the record my enormous respect for and thanks to the rank and file prison officers who are putting up with enormous change. I observe a level of engagement amongst the staff of the corrections facilities which is inspiring, and it is a sheer pleasure to be their minister. My full congratulations to Commissioner Middlebrook, who is driving his people very hard, but they are showing a high level of enthusiasm. I place on the record my thanks to the Prison Officers Association for its continued understanding and patience with the work we are attempting to do in the Northern Territory.
Sentenced to a Job is something we are proud of and will continue to roll out. We still do not know whether it will work or not, but I am aware it is attracting a lot of attention from around the rest of Australia and the world. We will be the benchmark prison system, with the benchmark prison philosophy.
We will continue to strive in this area and I look forward to finally seeing some results. It is hard to track because it is early days, but if it goes the way we believe it might we may even see some positive outcomes in reoffending rates.
In the meantime, I also place on the record my recognition of those prisoners who have undergone a fundamental shift in their thinking by taking these opportunities and starting to become citizens in the community in which they live for the very first time.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish to share with you a short selection of events and happenings within my electorate of Stuart. I would like to start with Mt Theo in Central Australia, which celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. Mt Theo is two hours’ drive northwest from Yuendumu. Mount Theo is where young people are taken for rehabilitation. It is a Warlpiri youth development program called WYDAC: a program for the education and prevention of substance abuse and petrol sniffing. There has been a clear reduction in the number of children participating in this type of substance abuse in the area. Rates are down almost 15%, and this is a great result for the program in its twentieth year.
Under Labor, WYDAC was only able to create 34 community jobs from January to June 2012. During the same time this year, 77 jobs were created for Warlpiri people. These are young Warlpiri people who have been through the program and have become part of it in helping their younger friends or family get over the petrol sniffing that has been happening there and has let our people down.
Mt Theo has asked me to be their patron. I am proud to take on that honorary role and make them proud as well, as my sister was involved from the start of the Mt Theo program.
That is a huge increase in jobs, and one I am very proud of as a Cabinet member of this government.
I move to the Northern Territory Tidy Towns held in Alice Springs, my current residential town. I was proud the Roper Gulf Shire town of Barunga won the 2013 Northern Territory Tidy Towns Large Community Award. I was proud to be there with the member for Arnhem, who was able to accept the award for the community she was raised in. I was so proud for the community and for the people taking ownership of their town, homes and streets and winning this award. Ownership and tidiness is something we can grow in regard to communities and residential ownership. If residents have a sense of ownership they respect their homes and themselves. Without ownership, no civilisation will survive. Ownership of your home, your car, your family values, will bring a sense of community and respect for what is yours. I congratulate Barunga for the win in this year’s Tidy Town Awards.
I am a proud member of the Redtails Football Club, an Alice Springs club that decided to participate in the Top End Football League. I am a proud supporter because it gives our young people the opportunity of employment and education programs. This is what it is all about. If they want play they have to be involved in it. I became a member of the Redtails Football Club this year because it has fantastic values and rules. If you are not employed or volunteering with an organisation, you are not allowed to play. This is a great idea. It has shown results and encouraged Indigenous employment. I know people are aware of my love for football and all sports.
I have a love for arts as well. I hope one day we see as much enthusiasm in the Indigenous arts industry for self-reliance as we do in the footy club. I was very impressed recently, when visiting the Nhulunbuy region, to have a private tour of the Yirrkala Arts Centre. It was a very productive day, with traditional owners and community members sharing a lot with me that day. I would like to talk about these matters in another adjournment, Madam Speaker, and look forward to sharing them with this House.
Tonight, I wish to talk about my electorate of Stuart. I hope and wish all my electorate a spiritual, safe Christmas, and look forward to seeing more of my constituents throughout 2014. I thank Jodi Locke and Karen Jones, two very valued electorate officers, who have Territorians’ best interests at heart, not to mention the extent of care and interest they have for my constituents and many others who walk through those doors on a daily basis.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak about Charles Darwin University, in particular, Professor Barney Glover. I have been to a number of send-offs for Barney Glover. For those who may not be aware, sadly, Barney Glover is leaving us to take up an appointment at the University of Western Sydney. That will be their gain and our loss.
I have done some research into what is happening at Charles Darwin University, which we can attribute to Barney Glover’s position as Vice-Chancellor and his leadership. It gives me great pleasure to provide an update on the recent work of one of the Northern Territory’s most important institutions
I might add it is my university. All my tertiary qualifications were undertaken at Charles Darwin, and some when it was known as the Northern Territory University, and before that the Community College. If you go right back, Darwin Community College started in Winnellie with humble beginnings. I will describe where our local university sits now.
The university is fundamental to the prosperity of the Territory by providing leadership in our intellectual, professional, social and cultural life and environmental wellbeing. My information is it has an annual budget of about $410m. It employs about 2200 people across the NT and contributes to 2.5% of gross Territory product. While CDU is serving the Territory well through higher education, training, research and engagement, its influence is being felt by our northern neighbours.
The university is helping build strong ties with our near neighbours for our mutual prosperity and stability. As a growing hub for international students and research collaboration, CDU is also contributing in a very real way to developing our vibrant multicultural society in the Northern Territory.
Let us talk about international ranking. CDU ranks amongst the top 2% of world universities. I will repeat that for those listening: CDU ranks among the top 2% of the world’s universities. CDU has maintained its position amongst the world’s top 400 universities for the third consecutive year. This year’s Times Higher Education World University Rankings included CDU in the top 2% of the world’s universities when the rankings were released at the organisation’s World Academic Summit in Singapore. This is an outstanding achievement by Charles Darwin University given its size, relative youth and location. It demonstrates the impact and standing of CDU are much higher than would be expected of a small regional university.
International student numbers: CDU is growing its international student enrolments by about 10% each year, although they grew by 18% this year as a result of the CDU Melbourne Centre opening. Casuarina Campus is now home to 1100 international students from more than 57 countries. The university engages widely in Asia to attract students to the Northern Territory, and is having particular success in the Philippines.
Infrastructure for research teaching and Northern Territory development: a wide range of new infrastructure will open at CDU in 2014 to support international and domestic students. Recently opened facilities are always being appointed with state-of-the-art equipment.
The North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas is a fantastic establishment and has been the site of significant development in the past year to create one of the most comprehensive process engineering training facilities in Australia. Equipment valued at about $800 000 has been installed and is used by undergraduate and post-graduate students and researchers working in the field of minerals, and oil and gas processing. CDU now educates students on the physics and chemistry behind mineral and oil and gas processing.
The $21m VET trades training facility building is under way on the site adjoining the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas facility at Casuarina Campus. The complex will house plumbing, electrotechnology instrumentation, refrigeration, oil and gas industry operations and, in the future, environmental trades. The building is expected to be completed in late 2014 and will allow CDU to continue to develop new and existing programs for identified trade areas into the future for students across the Territory. An additional 750 VET graduates a year at Certificate III level and above are expected once the training facility opens.
The Menzies School of Health Research: work is under way on a $45.7m project that will include a Menzies building for Casuarina Campus and an upgrade of the existing facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. The Casuarina Campus complex will create capacity for an extra 244 staff and enable Menzies to continue its vital medial research in world-class facilities. Clinical research capacity will be expanded in areas such as child health, global and tropical health, wellbeing, and preventable chronic diseases. The building at Casuarina Campus is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2014.
The Charles Darwin University Business School at Darwin Waterfront is our new tertiary education facility and is expected to be completed by mid-2014. The five-storey CDU Business School will be home to about 600 students. The international standard business school is expected to attract enrolments not only from the Territory, but from across Australia and other nations. The facility will include a 130-seat lecture theatre, function space, IT-intensive flexible teaching and tutorial spaces for students, a student hub and an art gallery. The business school will offer degrees and diplomas across a range of courses, including new programs in hospitality, hotel, and event management and tourism.
Engaging with Asian nations - Higher Education Leadership Forum, Timor-Leste, East Indonesia, and north Australia: planning is well advanced to establish an annual forum which will develop leadership capacity in Timor-Leste, East Indonesia and north Australia. CDU will facilitate the forum, which will build understanding of the issues which face our region, identify leadership opportunities and support strategies that will assist universities to build a strong, cohesive and sustainable region. The first forum is expected to be held in Timor-Leste in mid-2014.
IRU senior staff forum: the university hosted a successful two-day forum for senior staff from across the IRU in mid-July during which more than 60 delegates discussed a range of topics including ocean engagement, regional development, online education and Indigenous cooperation.
International Education Round Table: CDU was a central participant in the NT’s government workshop earlier this year to develop international education strategy for the Territory. The meeting included representatives from university, private providers operating in the VET area, and local secondary schools. This is an important initiative to support our endeavours to attract increasing numbers of international students to Darwin, particularly next year, as the CDU Business School at the Darwin Waterfront begins operation.
Malaysia: Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover led a group of senior executive staff from Innovative Research universities to Malaysia to engage in a forum on how universities in both countries are responding to the digital revolution. As Chair of the IRU, Professor Glover led the delegation which examined the possible shapes and learning of teaching in the future, how new learning technologies are driving change and the physical and virtual environments supporting the new world of university learning.
Vietnam: CDU has been investigating emerging trends in higher education in Vietnam and opportunities for enhancing its profile in Vietnam. A senior group from CDU recently met at the Centre for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies at the Vietnam National University, Hanoi, and the Hanoi Medical University, a leading health institute in Vietnam. Discussions focused on the recent links with CDU’s Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, and the Menzies School of Health Research. CDU is exploring possible areas of mutual research interest including agro-ecosystems and sustainable development, mangrove ecosystems and watershed conservation, biodiversity and wetlands restoration, migratory birds, and environmental planning. It is likely great opportunities will emerge for CDU and Vietnam as a result of the visit and the ongoing discussions.
They are some of the highlights of CDU’s achievements this year. Much more first-class research, training, teaching and collaboration are occurring than I have time to speak of tonight. CDU, clearly, deserves its ranking among the top 2% of universities in the world.
Madam Speaker, I will present a copy of this to Hansard; there is a lot to go through. I have attended many functions Barney has been to. My portfolios mean I attend many functions around the community and see many people. Of the people I see the most, number one is the Administrator and second is Barney Glover. He is a tireless worker for the Territory and his university. I am sure it is through his efforts that we have managed to achieve great results, such as the increase in international students. Wherever Barney goes, he engages people at the top and bottom levels. I have the greatest admiration for Barney. Sadly, we are losing him. I believe he will be a fantastic ambassador for the Northern Territory, and I would not be surprised if we see him back in the Territory. He enjoys the lifestyle here. I hope he enjoys the cold in New South Wales.
We wish him well and thank his partner, Marie Collins, for sharing him with us.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 3 and Year 3/4 classes from Malak Primary School, accompanied by Lorraine Kingham, Zowie Sumendra, Jodie Gonzadi and Cathy Mauboy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to parliament. I hope you enjoy your tour and your visit here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to draw your attention to the presence of the Police Commissioner in the gallery. Welcome to parliament, John McRoberts.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Members for Greatorex and Brennan
Members for Greatorex and Brennan
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for two ministers today. The Minister for Tourism is promoting the interests of the Northern Territory, particularly to England, and the Territory as a tourism site with the cricket game in Alice Springs.
I also seek leave of absence for the Minister for Education, who is interstate at a ministerial council pertaining to his duties.
Questions to the Minister for Tourism can be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister. Questions in relation to Education or Lands, Planning and the Environment can be directed to me.
Leave granted.
ALCOHOL PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 58)
Continued from 16 October 2013
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill because it is fundamentally flawed. It is a bad bill; it fails at the very first test. Will an alcohol protection order stop the over-consumption of alcohol which leads to the devastating problems of violence we are experiencing in the Northern Territory? It will not. It fails that test.
Under this proposed law, people who are banned from drinking alcohol can still walk into a store or pub and buy as much alcohol as they like.
There are a number of very specific flaws with this bill, many of which have been covered by the media, and I will use the second reading debate to deal with them in detail.
After claiming there would be no amendments, on the night before the legislation is due to be debated we see two proposed amendments. This bill is beyond the salvation of amendments. This bill fails its threshold question: will an alcohol protection order prevent someone with an alcohol problem buying and consuming alcohol? It will not. This bill will not work. It will not stop people with chronic alcohol problems buying alcohol. It will not stop the violence.
As we have constantly debated in this House, Labor’s policy on alcohol is fundamentally different to the CLP’s. The Labor Party believes we should be doing our best to prevent problems before they happen. That means a comprehensive policy on alcohol, which includes being serious on how we stop the supply of alcohol to problem drunks and how we stop the violence.
The CLP continually presents policy which deals with problems after they have happened. Its policy is punitive. To borrow a phrase, we believe you should build a fence at the top of the cliff rather than park an ambulance at the bottom. The CLP continues to present bottom-of-the-cliff solutions to the problems we have with alcohol in the Northern Territory. This is a bottom-of-the-cliff bill.
This legislation bans people from purchasing alcohol but no one is allowed to know who is banned. Banned drinkers are put on a register, but it is not enforced. Problem drinkers are put on a banned drinker register but, then, are allowed to buy as much alcohol as they like.
This legislation means instead of stopping people from purchasing alcohol in the first place, police now have to chase people after they have been drinking. This legislation deals with alcohol crime and abuse after it has occurred; it does not prevent it. Unless you are controlling alcohol at the point of sale, you are doing nothing to control the sale of alcohol, the spiralling rate of alcohol-related violence and domestic violence.
I do not believe for a second the Northern Territory Police, who have responsibility for this legislation, think we should not be controlling alcohol at the point of sale. The Police Association certainly does not. The President of the Police Association, Vince Kelly, has long advocated alcohol measures, including the Banned Drinker Register. Vince Kelly supports anything which reduces alcohol problems, but has said laws need to be policed at the point of sale. The Banned Drinker Register had a point of sale measure which was having some effect.
There are many options available for governments that are serious about tackling the problems associated with the supply of alcohol. We understand it is a difficult area in which to make policy reform. It is an area which requires courageous decisions, because measures which tackle the supply of alcohol to problem drunks can be unpopular.
The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is the flawed legislation you came up with when you knew the Banned Drinker Register worked but were too pigheaded to admit it – when you want to ban people from drinking but put nothing in place to make the ban work. You are replacing the Banned Drinker Register with a banned drinker register where no one knows who is banned.
The CLP wants to ban people from drinking but cannot find the courage to put in place a measure at the point of sale which would prevent people who are banned from purchasing alcohol. The CLP’s political positioning on the Banned Drinker Register has led to the absurd situation where, in this bill, people will be banned from drinking alcohol but no one will know they are banned.
The CLP’s refusal to tackle the supply of alcohol is the number one reason the CLP has failed in its promise to cut crime by 10% a year every year. Violent crime is up across the Territory. The CLP has broken its promise; it has broken its so-called written contract with Territorians.
The June quarter 2012 was the last full quarter with the BDR. The June quarter 2013 had 11% more violent assaults than last year. Violent crime – assaults – in the Territory has increased by 11% since the BDR was scrapped. Their own yearly statistics, released on Tuesday, confirm this – an 11.4% increase in alcohol-related crime when comparing this year with no BDR and last year with the BDR.
That is why we have this flawed legislation. The CLP promised crime would go down 10% but, instead, violent crime is up by 11%. The CLP says that is okay because property crime has come down. It is not good news that there is less graffiti but more bashings. Police, magistrates, doctors, alcohol rehabilitation specialists, legal groups and Indigenous stakeholders all told the CLP that scrapping the Banned Drinker Register was a mistake and would increase crime. The CLP ignored them. They knew better, apparently.
In a rare act of unity, both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott spoke out about their concern at the CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. The CLP ignored them. It is no surprise the experts were right and the CLP was wrong.
Police said the Banned Drinker Register was the best tool they had to fight crime, but the CLP said ‘Bad luck, you cannot use it’ – 2500 problem drinkers back on the grog free to drink again.
In the Northern Territory, around two-thirds of violence involves alcohol. By scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, the CLP has made it easier for problem drinkers to buy and consume alcohol. That means the CLP is culpable for the increase in violent crime. By failing to tackle the supply of alcohol, the CLP clearly believes the supply of alcohol is not related to alcohol abuse or alcohol crime. That is plainly wrong.
Let us look at the difference between Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. Both towns are remote regional centres and have similar populations and demographics, but Nhulunbuy still, effectively, has the Banned Drinker Register. You have to show ID to purchase takeaway alcohol and an electronic system enforces bans on people. In Tennant Creek, since scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, it is a free for all. Anyone can buy as much alcohol as they like.
In your latest crime statistics, there were 97 assaults in Nhulunbuy. That is a lot until you look at the number of assaults over the same period in Tennant Creek – 660. Without a doubt there are other factors at play in Tennant Creek, having seven times the rate of violent crime than Nhulunbuy. However, the main difference between the two towns is access to alcohol.
One of the major problems the CLP has in developing comprehensive, practical and effective alcohol policy is its refusal to consult and listen to experts in this area. Every expert will tell you that for your policy to work you need a meaningful approach to the supply of alcohol. Yet, consistently, the CLP refuses to consult, refuses to listen to experts ...
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 students from Malak Primary School, accompanied by Amanda Kingham and Melissa O’Hara. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you here to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and your visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr GUNNER: In this sittings, we are also debating the Advance Personal Planning Bill which is good, sound legislation. The CLP put out a discussion paper, a draft bill, they held forums across the Territory and they invited and encouraged submissions on the draft bill. However, with this bill there was nothing. No one saw it until it was introduced into parliament. The CLP says this bill will help police, but even the Police Association did not see it in advance. The reason for that is simple: they knew police would say it was better to stop banned people buying alcohol in the first place than chase people afterwards.
While we are speaking about consultation, the CLP has a consultation paper out on fishing, fishing access and bag limits. Fishing bag limits is worth extensive consultation but, for the single biggest problem the Territory faces – alcohol crime – there was no consultation at all. Here are some other things the CLP is consulting on: wildlife carers, weeds management, Palmerston hospital – they are reconsulting on the Palmerston hospital – and Rapid Creek flooding, sort of. They say they are consulting but, as the member for Johnston would know, they are not. There are probably more.
I am not saying these things are not important. But if you can consult on them, surely you can consult on how we best stop alcohol violence. What is so hard about putting this bill out and asking people for feedback? It happened with the Advance Personal Planning Bill, it can happen for other bills. It can happen for the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. You hope the CLP would have learnt its lesson from the mandatory treatment bill, where they had to bring in 40 amendments between introduction and passage.
Yesterday, the Attorney-General said in debate on the Advance Personal Planning Bill that it is more important to get it right than push up against your own artificial time lines. The Chief Minister should take the time to get this bill right, to get his alcohol policy right. Instead, we see two late amendments. There has been no attempt to engage with experts or to get this bill right through consultation. When the Police Association says there are problems with the police laws, there is a problem. The Police Association is clearly saying, ‘While we support measures to reduce alcohol problems, there should be something at the point of sale’.
This bill is fundamentally flawed because while people are banned they can still buy alcohol, and there are many specific flaws. Many have been detailed in the press over recent weeks. Let us start with drink-drivers. If you are pulled over in the Territory and blow 0.08 once, or 0.05 for the second time then, by definition, you get an alcohol protection order. This means you cannot enter any licensed premises in the Northern Territory. If someone drinks and drives, it makes sense to ban them from driving. To ban them from going to the supermarket does not make sense. The definition of a licensed venue in this legislation includes every place licensed to sell alcohol. It does not take into account the condition of the licence, so it includes venues when they cannot sell alcohol. They cannot go to the corner supermarket, a licensed caf or a restaurant. They cannot stay in a hotel room. They cannot go to the boat show at the convention centre. They cannot go to TIO Stadium or many other sporting venues.
If someone drinks and drives it makes sense to ban them from driving, but to ban them from going to the supermarket does not make sense. The stupidity of this legislation is that someone on an alcohol protection order is not allowed to enter a licensed premises even when that licensed premises is not allowed to sell alcohol.
For example, you can never go into the Fannie Bay Supermarket, even on a Sunday when the bottle shop is closed. A drink-driver who picks up a copy of the NT News on a Sunday morning at the Fannie Bay Supermarket faces three months in prison under this bill. This is the law, as outlined in this bill. It could easily be changed.
In my electorate of Fannie Bay, every grocery store is licensed, so where does someone on an alcohol protection order, who cannot drive – if they lost their licence through drink-driving – buy their groceries? They cannot. It is logical if you lose your licence through drink-driving and have to walk to a lot of places. You need to walk to your corner store but they cannot. They cannot go to the Cool Spot Caf for a coffee. They cannot even pick up a takeaway pizza from Fannie Bay Super Pizza.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy, the member for Fong Lim, is a convicted drink-driver. Under this legislation, the minister would have been on an alcohol protection order. It is ridiculous that the Deputy Chief Minister would not be able to go into a shop, a restaurant or pick up a pizza. Why not just ban people from purchasing or consuming alcohol? It will be far simpler and far easier to enforce. The Chief Minister will probably say police will use their discretion and not arrest someone for buying bread. Police discretion is not a clause in this bill. The law is the law. Once this bill passes people can face three months’ gaol for buying bread, and that is clearly a mistake. It is the type of mistake that happens when you do not consult. Our job is to scrutinise legislation brought before the parliament, and this legislation allows police to arrest someone for buying bread or for entering a licensed premises.
Chief Minister, if it is not your intention that someone on an alcohol protection order cannot go into a supermarket on a Sunday, when alcohol is not for sale, just to buy bread, then change this legislation. Here is a list of just some of the offences where, if you are affected by alcohol, you receive an alcohol protection order. Before I provide the list, let us understand you do not have to be intoxicated, you do not have to be over 0.05, you just have to be affected by alcohol, which is a very low test:
entering occupied land in a manner likely to breach the peace
Some of these are ridiculous. Under this legislation, if you sing a footy song in a pub, police can immediately put you on an alcohol protection order for singing in public while affected by alcohol – not intoxicated, ‘while affected’.
The test required for someone to go on an alcohol protection order is very low. The member for Nelson has publicly given the example of minor property damage while affected by alcohol. A couple of young blokes who have had a few drinks and knock over a sign outside a shop will go on an alcohol protection order.
We all remember the Eiffel Tower page of the NT News where the guy was naked on his balcony. Had he had a few drinks? Probably. Should he be banned from going to the supermarket? Probably not, but that is what this legislation would do.
The University Rats are famous for heading into pubs to sing their somewhat risqu songs to raise money. If they have a few drinks – and they do - they can be banned. That is what this legislation would do. Those are the types of offences this bill deals with.
The Chief Minister will tell you this bill is all about tackling violence, but it is not. It covers an extraordinary range of other offences. This bill does not give any extra powers to police in relation to people charged with assault, including domestic violence. Police can already immediately ban someone they suspect of committing a domestic violence offence from drinking alcohol. This can occur prior to anyone being charged with an offence. Under the Bail Act, alcohol bans can be issued. People can be confined to certain premises and can be banned from entering licensed venues. They can be ordered – we heard from the Attorney-General before – to wear a GPS bracelet. All this can happen prior to the person being found guilty of an offence.
I will read from the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. In justifying this legislation he said approximately 70% of domestic violence order breaches responded to are alcohol-related. Many people with domestic violence orders are already banned from drinking alcohol, yet 70% of the breaches are alcohol-related. Apparently, banning them again will work.
If someone breaches a domestic violence order the police can already take action. This bill does not even come into play. They have breached their domestic violence order. All the provisions and powers needed to ban that person from alcohol exist right now. Apparently, police will now attend a domestic violence incident – to a breach – and say to the perpetrator, ‘I notice you did not comply with your domestic violence order. We will give you an alcohol protection order. I will ban you from drinking again.’ You are banning them twice.
By the way, even though you are banned twice, the government has decided they will not stop you going to the corner bottle shop and buying as much alcohol as you want because there is no measure at point of sale.
We will have to wait until they have started drinking again then police may find them. All the work in this bill falls onto our police force. The failure to have a measure at the point of sale means all the work in this bill will fall onto our police after the fact. It does not stop the sale or consumption of alcohol; it does not stop the problem. This is clearly an absurd situation.
The Chief Minister’s second reading speech essentially says people banned under a domestic violence order will be banned again under an alcohol protection order. If someone breaches a domestic violence order, police should be doing a lot more than giving them an alcohol protection order. This bill gives police more power to search anyone in the community than any law in the original bill.
Anyone police think might be on an alcohol protection order – they do not need to know – can be searched any time. Police can think they are drinking or have alcohol on them. It is harder for police to search a suspected drug dealer. The Chief Minister has now admitted he got this wrong. He has changed his mind and, in a late amendment, said police have to suspect that person may possess alcohol. It would have been much easier if the Chief Minister had listened and consulted in the first place.
As we have already touched on in great detail, the major flaw in this legislation is that bottle shop attendants or bar staff cannot possibly know if the person they are serving is banned. However, this bill makes it an offence if they knowingly serve a banned person.
If police attend a venue and tell the licensee or manager a certain person is banned, then all they can do is ask them not to serve them. If they do nothing, nothing can happen to the licensee, but the person who served them faces three months in prison. The backpacker working in the bottle shop faces prison, but nothing can happen to the licensee.
There is nothing available to let the person at the counter at the point of sale know if a person is banned. The police have spoken about a wanted-style poster they may give to a licensee for people they believe are especially susceptible to breaching their alcohol protection order, but these have to be kept private; they cannot be placed at the point of sale.
There can be significant turnover in a day, let alone a week or a month, of who is working behind a counter selling alcohol. Under the Liquor Act, if, for example, bar staff serve someone who is clearly intoxicated, then action can be taken against the bar staff and the licensee. The licence can be temporarily suspended, and this does happen. Under this bill, police cannot touch the licensee; nothing can happen to them.
To summarise, someone can be banned but there is nothing to stop that banned person from buying alcohol. Even if police try to tell a venue someone is banned, nothing can happen to that venue’s licence even if they decide to completely ignore the police.
Chief Minister, if you think licensee’s should face sanctions if their venues ignore this legislation and knowingly supply alcohol to someone banned from consuming it, then change this legislation. Of course, most licenced venues are responsible and will comply fully with police requests and attempt to ensure they do not serve banned people, but the point of the legislation is not to deal with responsible people. If everyone was responsible all the time, we would not need the majority of our laws. Legislation is required to deal with people or entities that are not responsible, and this legislation fails that test.
This legislation creates the ridiculous situation where someone can be voluntarily on an alcohol protection order but if they breach it they have committed an offence. I am unsure of any other legislation where you can do something voluntarily, but then be charged for not doing it. People can ask to be banned from the casino, but they cannot be charged if they try to enter.
With the Banned Drinker Register, people could ask to be put on it voluntarily. That meant they could not purchase alcohol. If they tried they had not committed an offence, which was the whole point. We want people to change their behaviour, but under this legislation, if you volunteer and then do not go through with it, they can be charged with an offence and face three months in gaol.
No alcohol counsellor or lawyer will recommend someone voluntarily sign up for this; their addiction means they could go to gaol because they try to do the right thing. The bill clearly criminalises alcoholism. Someone who has not been found guilty of an offence, who may be found innocent of the original charge, has committed a criminal offence if they try to drink alcohol. This bill makes the drinking of alcohol a criminal offence. Worse still, if they are standing in the supermarket looking at alcohol, they have committed a criminal offence.
This legislation sets people up to fail. If they have an alcohol problem and are banned from buying alcohol, but there is nothing in place to stop them buying it if they walk across the road, they have committed a criminal offence and face prison. They do not receive any treatment; they are in prison because they are addicted to alcohol. As I mentioned, they do not need to have been found guilty of any offence.
There are serious health issues presented by this bill. During debate on the CLP’s Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill with the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, it was clearly acknowledged by the CLP that it is dangerous for someone addicted to alcohol to go off it immediately – to go cold turkey. That bill established an assessment process before a person was sent for treatment. Even with those provisions, doctors warned that someone may die. Clearly, the CLP recognised the health implications of that bill.
Under this proposed law, there is no referral to treatment. A person is expected to stop drinking immediately. If they fail to comply, they face three months in gaol. Even under the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill there was recognition of the serious health concerns and implications of the bill. However, the same has not been applied here. This creates a very dangerous situation, a very serious health issue, which our shadow minister for Health will explore in further detail.
The member for Nelson and I received formal written correspondence from Colin McDonald QC. I have his permission to quote from his advice:
- The legislation does not heed the experience and recommendations of the long-running national Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. I was counsel for the NT Police Association and the NT Prison Officers Association throughout the life of the Royal Commission. I acted for each of the individual police officers involved in the deaths in custody in the Northern Territory.
My concern and fear is that this bill places the observation burden on frontline, and often junior, officers to make judgment calls which they are not trained for and should not be expected to make.
In case after case in the Royal Commission, arrested persons died in police custody where honest, well-meaning police officers arrested Aboriginal persons intoxicated, but where alcohol masked some other potentially lethal medical condition.
This legislation, in its current form, runs the risk of exposing police officers to the kinds of traumatic experiences considered and reflected upon in the Royal Commission.
Such are my thoughts which I hope will assist the parliament.
Another flawed aspect of this bill is the capacity for someone to appeal an alcohol protection order. Police can issue an APO and you only have three days to seek a review – not three working days, three days. If you are pulled over on a Friday night you must have completed your appeal, in writing, by close of business on Monday. That would be tough for an informed person in Darwin. They really only have one day to find a lawyer who has time, at a moment’s notice, to get their legal advice and lodge an appeal.
Unlike all other legislation, this legislation does not even say what could be taken into account in an appeal. It would be close to impossible for an illiterate person in a remote location to lodge an appeal.
This legislation does not require police to ensure the person understands they are on an APO; they just have to give them the paper. There is no requirement for them to make it clear to the person they are on an APO. People have more rights if they have a parking fine than an alcohol protection order. You have longer to appeal a parking fine than an alcohol protection order. People should have more than three days to appeal. Chief Minister, you should extend this period. It does not prevent anything from occurring; the alcohol protection order applies from the moment it is applied. You should allow people more time to appeal. Three days is clearly insufficient time for someone to appeal an alcohol protection order. That period should reflect a reasonable time for someone, on reasonable grounds, to lodge an appeal.
Let us look at the absurd situation this law creates for people on an alcohol protection order who are banned from TIO Stadium. The only excuse someone on an APO can have for being at TIO Stadium is they live or work there, otherwise they cannot be anywhere in the venue at any time. You are not only banned from the bar areas, you are banned from the area inside the perimeter fence, which includes the playing field. A dad cannot take his family to the football.
Sport often provides a pathway out for people who have gone down the wrong path in life. The law can see someone trying to get back on the right track, engaging in the community and playing sport go to gaol for playing footy, umpiring footy or watching footy. That is clearly the kind of mistake you make when you do not consult. The Chief Minister was quoted in the NT News saying he might look at changes to allow people to play football, but he has not. This bill bans it.
If it is not your intention that someone on an alcohol protection order cannot go to TIO Stadium to watch, play or umpire footy, change this legislation.
This bill will clearly result in more Indigenous Territorians in prison. I am surprised the CLP’s Indigenous members of parliament are not speaking out against this bill. It is concerning that they will support the CLP before they stand up for the people they have been elected to represent.
We have seen, with education and many other issues, including the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act, that they stand with the CLP. The member for Arnhem spoke out against mandatory treatment saying it would not work for many of her people but still voted for it.
NAAJA, in conjunction with CAALAS, wrote to the CLP bush members. They sent me the same correspondence and expressed their concerns. I quote from their letter:
- … serious concerns for the bill and the impact it will have on Aboriginal people in the NT. This law will overwhelmingly impact upon Aboriginal people.
The Royal Commission made specific recommendations that drunkenness should be decriminalised; this law does the opposite. Its effect is to criminalise drinking for people placed on an order. An alcoholic will not stop drinking because they are placed on an APO; that is the nature of alcoholism. This law makes their addiction a crime. NAAJA and CAALAS made the sensible suggestion that this bill be sent to the Law Reform Committee for independent review. NAAJA and CAALAS deal with the people this legislation will target every day, yet their advice is ignored. In fact, their advice was not even requested.
This bill clearly contravenes the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. If CLP politicians vote for this bill today, they can never complain about the high rate of Indigenous incarceration.
The member for Stuart has suggested that some Indigenous people want to go to prison. This bill will help them do that. This is a bad bill.
People have spoken out against the stupidity of this bill in that it bans people, then the ban is not enforced. Trying to defend the indefensible, the Chief Minister claims it is like unlicensed drivers, or people driving when their licence has been suspended. The Chief Minister says it should not be up to licenced venues to enforce the law but police. First, I do not believe for one second NT Police believe licensees do not have a role to play in the service of alcohol to problem drinkers. This bill says instead of licensees being able to control alcohol at the point of sale, police are now responsible after it has been sold. How far will he go with this logic?
We are expecting licensed venues to uphold the law on many fronts. If someone is intoxicated we expect the licensed venue to refuse them service. If someone is under age we expect licensed venues to refuse them service. Why do pubs have bouncers if the Chief Minister believes it should be up to police to enforce laws inside pubs?
Our laws and society expect licensed venues to uphold the law, and the Banned Drinker Register exists to help do that. It still exists in legislation today; they could turn it on tomorrow. When you have a tool available to help enforce legislation you should use it.
The CLP decided to withhold alcohol consumption statistics. Last year, wholesale alcohol data was released in August. We are now in November and have nothing. Is it possible that alcohol sales reduced when the BDR was in place?
We know alcohol-related crime is up since the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped. Are alcohol sales also up? The CLP will not release the data; there is no data on alcohol sales in the Northern Territory since 2011, nearly two years ago.
I know of the frustrations of many stakeholders who have looked at this bill and provided their feedback to government. When they pointed out areas or anomalies, government said it would be okay because they would deal with it by internal policies or systems. If the legislation is wrong then fix it, especially when it has not passed through parliament yet.
I have highlighted many of the areas that are wrong with this bill. We will be doing this in the committee stage clause by clause, but this legislation is flawed beyond individual clauses; it is fundamentally flawed from the start. This flawed legislation cannot be fixed by amendment.
This legislation deals with alcohol abuse after it has happened, and that is the problem. This legislation does not deal with the sale of alcohol at the point of sale and, without that, it simply will not work.
We do not support this bill because it is fundamentally flawed. Under this proposed law people who are banned from drinking alcohol can still buy alcohol; they can walk into a store or pub and buy as much alcohol as they want. The government should take a breath and consult on this legislation. They did it on advance personal planning, they can do it on alcohol protection orders. They should bring forward legislation which does something to tackle alcohol crime and domestic violence. They should consult and listen so their legislation does something to stem the rivers of grog.
Madam Speaker, the opposition strongly opposes this legislation.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013. This is yet another step in this government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
We know alcohol is a major factor in many cases of criminal behaviour in the Territory, and this bill, amongst a suite of initiatives this government has undertaken in a very short period of time, will provide another strong new measure in policing the problem of alcohol-related crime on our streets.
I listened with great interest to the member for Fannie Bay and it was like history repeating. Not so long ago I stood in this parliament and debated with the opposition the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, and the same arguments were rolled out then by the opposition. It would seem blind Freddy could tell you anything we put forward in relation to this, anything the Country Liberals come up with to address the problem of alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory, will be wrong according to the opposition, and the BDR would have been the answer to all our prayers.
I find that completely hypocritical. We have had countless debates on this topic over the last 15 months. Labor had 11 years to address this enormous problem facing our communities across the Northern Territory and came up with their solution after 10 years of procrastinating, thinking about it, scratching themselves wondering what to do and probably undertaking an enormous amount of consultation, if we believe what we hear from the member for Fannie Bay. After 10 years they came up with the Banned Drinker Register, and now they hang their hat on that being the likely answer to the social and crime problems in the Northern Territory.
Alas, it was not the solution and that is why we dumped it. We had the mandate of the Northern Territory. Our consultation in dumping that initiative of Labor was called the Northern Territory general election which was held in August 2012. That was our mandate, our consultation process, knowing we had the authority and right as a new government to scrap what was not a successful initiative. It did not stack up, despite the rhetoric of the opposition. The BDR did not stop the sale and consumption of alcohol, we all know that. We have debated it up hill and down dale. This debate over the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register has been done to exhaustion, and it has now been scrapped for some time.
It is time to move on and look at the future and what we are putting forward. We have a very balanced suite of initiatives. Unlike the former Labor government which put all its eggs into one basket – they had a very narrow view of how to tackle alcohol abuse in our community and it was all about supply measures – our suite of initiatives addresses supply and demand, and we make no apology for that. We have taken a balanced perspective, something Labor could never get their heads around. We still hear it today. This morning we heard that obsessive and narrow, limited perspective on how we should address alcohol problems.
We are very proud of what we are doing. In just 15 months we are putting forward this new Alcohol Protection Orders Bill which is different, new, controversial and very similar to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill just a few months ago. We will not take 10 years to put in our first strategy, like the former Labor government. We will not dilly-dally. We will undertake a consultation process as we did with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, but will not let that carry on for a decade like Labor. We are getting on with the business. We have been given the mandate from the people of the Territory to act and try to address these problems in very lateral, creative ways, which we are doing.
This Alcohol Protection Orders Bill complements what I have been working on since becoming Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation in May. Our alcohol mandatory treatment program is making a difference. Like the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is being criticised by the same cohort of people. AMSANT criticised us for our alcohol mandatory treatment, Vince Kelly from the Police Association criticised it and NAAJA criticised it. Once again, they have criticised this new initiative, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. The same group of people is backing the former Labor government, now in opposition, in their chant to praise the apparent success of the Banned Drinker Register with no facts or evidence whatsoever, and damn anything the Country Liberals put forward.
We accept that. It is called politics; it is called democracy. These people come forward with their very convincing, sometimes intellectual, points and debates, and we welcome their critique. We expect it; it is part of the democratic process. We welcome their analysis, their contribution to consultations and their feedback, and I say that with a great deal of sincerity. It makes what we do even stronger and gives us more confidence that we are doing the right thing.
With the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill, as the member for Fannie Bay said, we went through a consultation process. I clearly recall that on the floor of this Chamber, between the hours of 10 pm and about 2 am, we made dozens of amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill because we went through a consultation process, listened to the people and made those amendments willingly. Quite successfully, we went through the committee stage process.
The alcohol mandatory treatment program has been in effect since 1 July. We kicked it off five months ago. It feels like it has been around for much longer than that. Heading up this initiative has been one of the most amazing experiences of my political career.
The first person came into alcohol mandatory rehabilitation on 12 July. The rehabilitation program has been in operation with clients participating for 140 days. It has been a great learning experience for all people involved, and a huge number of people are involved. The Department of Health is running the Darwin alcohol mandatory treatment centre, also referred to as the medi-hotel, and the non-government sector us heavily involved in Katherine, Alice Springs and soon, hopefully, to be rolled out further across the Northern Territory.
People have come on board. Yes, people were apprehensive to begin with and we were heavily criticised. We engaged in many discussions with the non-government sector, and it expressed its concerns about aspects of our alcohol mandatory treatment program.
Those criticisms have almost completely subsided. We are now getting calls from non-government organisations formally critical of this contentious, different, new and exciting program. They are now saying, ‘We want to get on board’. That is a development. It is about getting on with the business and selling it in a very professional way, and that is what has happened across the Northern Territory.
At the end of the last quarter we provided statistics on how many people had come through our alcohol mandatory treatment system. At that stage we had over 100 people - no one had completed rehabilitation then – who had gone into assessment and rehabilitation programs. We still hear the snide comments from the opposition questioning the success …
Ms Fyles: It is not a detailed report.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … of this program. I hear the banter from the member for Nightcliff with suspicious questioning, and we get that; this is part of the process. We will provide more statistics at the end of December, and we will begin a formal review of the entire program after that six-month period has ended ...
Ms Fyles: When will the report come out?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The report will take a number of weeks. It will be undertaken by an independent group and will be made public when it is completed, which will be around the four to six week mark ...
Ms Fyles: About mid-February?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Hold on to your seat, member for Nightcliff, I am aware you are excited about it. It will be tabled and we will be completely transparent because we have nothing to hide. It has been a remarkable experience and we have discovered many things along the way. One of the most gratifying aspects of this program is we are now providing medical treatment and care for the most disadvantaged and sickest people in our community who also have alcohol problems.
We are finding that these people have a range of chronic diseases and, for the first time in many years for some, they are receiving proper medical care. Having spent 12 weeks in the program, when they come out they will have been cared for, dried out in their alcohol consumption, gone through a detoxification process and will have experienced a rehabilitation program which has looked at changing their lives.
After 12 weeks will they go back onto the grog? Will the forces in the wider community they live in entice them back into the lifestyle they left 12 weeks earlier. We wait to see, but I believe that to fully understand the effectiveness and success of this program you have to look at the experience of these people and their lives.
The opposition will only measure the success of this program based on abstinence, because oppositions take a very narrow view of success and failure. This program may not be particularly successful, and we warned about that right from the word go. Within even voluntary alcohol residential rehabilitation programs the outcome of complete abstinence is relatively minor compared to the scenario of going back onto the grog. The success rate we forecast right from the start was around 20% of people either abstaining or significantly limiting alcohol consumption.
However, it is a success. We already know that from the people who work in the program, whether they are employed by the Department of Health or the non-government organisations we have contracted with to provide these services. We are hearing this is a special program. It is identifying special people in our community, the most disadvantaged, the people the Labor Party like to embrace and hold as their own. They are your people. These people are traditionally the people Labor claim to care the most about – the most disaffected in our community. People on the opposite side of the Chamber should be happy to know we are providing an amazing service to the most disadvantaged people in our community.
To conclude, I will talk about what we will be doing in our alcohol mandatory treatment area over the next 12 months. We will continue to roll-out phase two over the next 12 to 18 months, and it will be an extremely exciting year in alcohol mandatory treatment. In Alice Springs, we have 20 beds provided by CAAAPU. They are doing a superb job providing an amazing treatment program. Every time I speak with them, which is reasonably regularly, they talk about the success, the experiences of their staff and the experiences of participants. They are doing a fabulous job and I congratulate them from the bottom of my heart.
We will be rolling out another 20 beds in Alice Springs, not necessarily with CAAAPU but ideally with CAAAPU, to build on the efficiencies of the system they have set up, but that remains to be seen. However, we definitely need more than 20 beds in Alice Springs. Those beds are full and we expect another 20 beds could be easily filled, particularly over the coming summer months, which are always a challenging time for law and order in Alice Springs.
In Katherine we are working hard to plan the establishment of a new facility for alcohol mandatory treatment. At the moment, Vendale is providing community treatment order placements for people coming through our system. It is doing a fabulous job too, but we have a commitment to Katherine to set up a new facility. We do not know what that will look like, but we are going through the planning stages at the moment. We are looking at greenfield sites and existing facilities offered by different non-government organisations and how a new service like this might complement what they are doing. That remains to be seen, but in the next 12 months you will see some activity in Katherine. I hope that towards the end of 2014 something will be in place.
In Darwin we are moving to the Berrimah low-security unit in August. We are moving out of the facility known as the medi-hotel and will definitely be moving to the low-security unit in Berrimah in August/September next year. This will be welcomed by everyone, I can assure you. The medi-hotel has been a godsend. It was a great short- to medium-term solution for our alcohol mandatory treatment, but pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital over the next 12 months will be mounting. We have grown out of that hospital and have made no secret of that. It is another legacy of Labor – a hospital bursting at its seams with nothing done to address it. The medi-hotel was there and available. It was empty when we came to government so we used it for the first 12 months to provide alcohol mandatory treatment, but we will be moving out and we look forward to it.
If anyone has seen the Berrimah low-security unit, it is on a vast piece of land and it is open with plenty of space. The facility is seven years old. We will be making major modifications to that facility, but it will be ideal for our purpose.
Last, Tennant Creek – I heard a remark from the member for Barkly earlier this morning questioning our commitment to Tennant Creek when it comes to alcohol mandatory treatment. We are definitely doing something. The demand in Tennant Creek is significant as there is a problem with alcohol abuse in Tennant Creek. It has been a problem for many years, and the Tennant Creek people need some relief, like other major centres throughout the Northern Territory. We are working on a solution right now and, without giving too much information and pre-empting the plans currently under way, we hope to have some beds available in a facility in Tennant Creek in the first quarter of 2014, which is great news.
With the bill we are debating today, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013, it is an exciting period in the history of the Northern Territory. We are introducing very new creative strategies, unlike Labor, to address alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. We hear the criticisms and understand the politics behind it. We accept that is the way it is but, by and large, the people of the Northern Territory can see we are trying very hard to address this problem. We committed to it leading up to the election in 2012, we explained what we would do, and we are getting on with the job.
Debate suspended.
ALCOHOL PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 58)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was interested in what the member for Araluen said in relation to this bill. In some ways I was happy with what she said about caring for people affected by alcohol. I was also sad – if you are allowed to be sad in this place or even a little down – that she was talking about helping people with a drug of dependency. The bill before us does not mention treatment, and we are dealing with the same people. The only difference is they have committed an offence. That is a shame.
I will read from the minister’s media release in relation to this. This is part of what he said:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles said today that he makes no apologies for taking a hard line against people charged with committing crimes under the influence of alcohol.
‘The NT government is committed to protecting the community from criminal behaviour and Alcohol Protection Orders are an important new tool for police to keep Territorians safe.
‘Our priority is community safety and the rights of victims while Michael Gunner and his Labor colleagues are more concerned about defending the perpetrators.
Further on he said:
- ‘Police and the Australian Hotels Association are both fully behind this new tool, but Labor’s wanna-be leader Michael Gunner thinks he knows better.
- Labor should stop defending the perpetrators of these crimes and listen to the advice of police and the Hotels Association who both support these laws.
At the start of Question Time today the Chief Minister continued down that vein. You can see how debate on serious issues can get down to the superficial and puerile. This is important legislation dealing with a very important subject. We are told, basically, ‘If you don’t support this legislation you support domestic violence and drunk drivers’.
What is so farcical and shows how close the CLP is to the AHA is that the Chief Minister said we should listen to the advice of the AHA. No wonder you were too scared to implement some sensible changes to closing times in Mitchell Street, changes we know would reduce alcohol violence. Pardon me if I am cynical about the government statement on violence, especially alcohol-fuelled violence, but that is how politics works. It should not be the case but unfortunately it is.
When you hear one-dimensional statements and worn-out clichs like ‘getting tough on crime’, then you know you have an uphill battle to convince the government this legislation is unsound, poorly thought through and needs to be put on hold and looked at again. I will be told by the government I am supporting the perpetrators not the victims, but I expect that. After all, the government would like to deflect attention away from faulty and poorly thought through legislation and put the blame back on those who try to deal with this serious matter in a rational and logical manner – all very sad.
A sensible person reading this bill would understand it needs an overhaul. A politically one-eyed person would refuse to listen or consider an alternative point of view. They would go on regardless and continue blaming opponents by saying they are supporters of domestic violence and drink-driving. Let me make it very clear, I support laws which punish domestic violence offenders and drink-drivers. By the way, we already have laws to punish those people. I also support the member for Stuart in her response in Question Time today.
This bill adds a new and instant punishment which will be handed out by a police officer. A police officer will be able to give an order for a person to stop drinking for three, six or 12 months if they have been charged with an offence which has a gaol term of six months or more, or where the police officer believes alcohol was involved in the offence. If the person breaks that ban it will be regarded as an offence and the person may be sent to prison for up to three months or receive a fine. We know what will happen if the fine cannot be paid.
One of the main reasons I oppose this bill is the lack of consultation with the wider community – the member for Araluen spoke about the amount of consultation that went into the mandatory rehabilitation bill – especially with those who deal with alcohol-related matters, and the lack of a discussion paper to look at alternative programs which already operate. I have spoken to Amity, CAAPS and FORWAARD, and they have not been involved in these discussions.
Could the government tell us where the consultation paper is? Where are the advertisements in the paper asking for comments on this proposal? Outside the police, who did you ask? Did you put this legislation out for independent assessment? How do you expect support if you leave the community out of the discussion? This legislation should have gone to a parliamentary committee, as happens in Queensland, and come back to parliament. Unfortunately, when I mentioned this method I was told by the member for Greatorex that the government is in charge. ‘We will do what we like and we do not need delays through parliamentary committees’.
Besides the arrogance behind that statement, it shows a general disregard for legitimate processes which are normal in many other parliaments – sending legislation to a committee. I ask the Chief Minister, as leader of this government, to consider process in relation to this bill.
A committee could also have looked at alternatives, something I have been doing. Chief Minister, it is not that I am opposed to the philosophy behind your bill, but you should have looked at alternatives and we should have a chance to discuss those alternatives.
For instance, let us examine what happens in South Dakota where a similar program operates called 24/7 Sobriety. Professor Peter Miller from Deakin University sent me this article entitled Repeat Offender Substance Use Sentencing Initiative, an Intervention for People who Have Repeatedly Endangered or Harmed Others under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol: A Promising Intervention Model for Australia? What is it?
The repeat offender substance use sentencing initiative is based on an award winning alternative-to-gaol program implemented in South Dakota in 2005 and recently adopted into UK legislation. The original program is known as the 24/7 Sobriety Project. It is built on a principle that drinking is a privilege not a right, and people who repeatedly offend and endanger the lives of themselves and others when under the influence of alcohol will have the privilege of drinking temporarily removed.
There is growing evidence that punishment certainty is a stronger deterrent to criminal activity than punishment severity. Subsequently, it has been rolled out in other states, including Montana and North Dakota. As mentioned, the UK has also included it in new legislation, and there are potential applications in child abuse and street violence cases.
The program’s results are impressive, particularly given the fact that almost half of the participants have been convicted three or more times for DUI offenses:
as of March 15, 2009, almost 11 000 offenders participated in twice-daily alcohol breath testing. They took over 1.8 million tests, passing 99.6% of them. Over 66% of the offenders were totally compliant during their entire term of their participation.
- Offenders wore the device for an average of 105 days; compliant offenders averaged 96 days, non-compliant offenders averaged 130 days. Approximately 75% of offenders were totally compliant, over 95% were totally compliant or violated one or two times.
I rang a gentleman called Art Mabry, coordinator of this program, to discuss how it works. Art works for the Office of Attorney General Vermillion, South Dakota. The first difference between 24/7 Sobriety and this bill is that a judge decides if someone should go onto a banning order, not a police officer. This allows a person to be evaluated by someone who can investigate the circumstances behind the alleged crime, the history of the person drinking and if there are any health problems, etcetera. It is a much fairer system and avoids potential abuse of the process.
This program, 24/7 Sobriety, which now operates in nearly all counties in South Dakota, uses a number of options. First, the banned person could be required to have a breath test twice a day. Second, where it is not practical, and that could certainly be in the Northern Territory, an alcohol brace can be used. It registers through your sweat whether you have been drinking alcohol. Third, interlock devices on a vehicle can be fitted. I am unsure where the government stands on interlock devices; I do not know if they have scrapped the program.
This is the latest I have from Art, so some of the things I said might be a little dated. Art said if a person gives a positive reading the following happens: first offence, 12 hours in gaol; second offence, 24 hours; third offence, the person goes before the judge. According to Art, 55% will violate once, 17% will violate twice and 15% or less will breach three times.
He said, and I believe it is important, that gaol is only used as a very short intervention. Art said the system is not meant to incarcerate people for drinking.
The proposed penalties in the NT are far more severe and will put people in prison for drinking. As we know from the figures on domestic violence, they will be mainly Aboriginal people.
Art also e-mailed me the following:
- The treatment aspect is not technically part of the 24/7 program; it is an addition to the 24/7 program. The 24/7 program is a monitoring program. The judge will also direct the offender to a treatment program that the judge feels is specifically appropriate for the offender.
He went on to say:
- I don’t know that there are any statistics to support it, but it is felt the treatment is more successful for participants of the 24/7 program. I think it is assumed that if a person is sober while participating in the treatment it will be more successful, compared to people who go to treatment intoxicated or continue to drink during treatment.
There is no mention in this legislation, or in the second reading, of treatment. It is simply the case that if a police officer believes alcohol is involved in an offence, then he can apply an APO. In South Dakota, where a judge makes the decision, treatment can be in addition to the 24/7 Sobriety program.
This bill needs a major overhaul so a magistrate applies an APO with the option he or she already has when putting someone on a bond, bail or parole: that a treatment program must be included.
Another reason the decision should be made by a magistrate rather than a police officer is to stop any potential misuse of the very broad application of ‘believes that a person was affected by alcohol’ and the use of any qualifying offence. A judge can make a decision about an APO in an open court based on all the facts and common sense. In this case, a police officer makes a decision on the spot. It is not a transparent court system, and there is certainly no allowance for treatment.
This is not as simple as stopping someone from driving, as the Chief Minister used as a comparison in his media release, or purely an enforcement tool, as the Minister for Alcohol Policy said in his media release. It is about stopping someone from drinking alcohol, a drug of dependency. There is enforcement and there is a health issue. This bill does not seem to recognise that fact, and there is no mention of treatment.
Here are some practical considerations. How many offences come under the description of having a six months’ penalty or more? A great many, and some of them would be ludicrous if used in this bill. The member for Fannie Bay has already been through some, such as loitering and singing an obscene song. I understand, and was at the briefing, that a policeman may use his discretion, but it does not say that in the bill and that is what we have to deal with today.
If the main thrust of the bill is about drink-driving, domestic violence and violence in general, instead of referring to all offences, why not specify which offences relate directly to the matters the government is concerned about?
We also have the issue of fairness. A person with a one-off moment of madness after having a beer or two with no prior offences puts a dent in the door. He might not even be drunk. He might have a can of beer in his hand and have been a bit silly and kicked the door. Theoretically, that is wilful damage. If he has a can of beer in his hand it could be said the reason he did it is such and such. There is a list of things a policeman can ask, but that person could get an APO for three months. Someone in a drunken stupor who belts his wife or belts up someone in the street also gets three months. That needs adjusting.
I will tell you how it is handled in South Dakota. Some of these offences could have been sorted out through the SMART Court, but it has gone. You have to remember the great Russian purge: there will be no trace of the previous government’s program. The BDR and the SMART Court are off to Siberia. It is sad the SMART Court was scrapped. It may not have been perfect, it may not have been applicable to all things, but the philosophy behind the SMART Court should have been continued by this government.
Instead, we have a bill where a police officer can slap a ban on you for simply believing alcohol was involved in the offence you allegedly committed. This raises another issue. The police officer does not have to test you with a breathalyser; he simply believes the person was affected by alcohol when committing the offence. Strangely, if he suspects you have been drinking – further in the bill – when on an APO he gives you a breath test. In one case you are not breath tested, it is just a belief you have been affected by alcohol, and in the other case you will be given a breath test. There is an inconsistency.
The police officer can ask the person questions on the attached list. I do not know if that has been tabled – we were given it at the briefing – but there is a list of questions the police officer can ask the person. These questions might be very difficult to understand, especially for Aboriginal people if intoxicated and who have little or no understanding of English, or do not understand what we are talking about. The police can tick the right box and that is it. Where in the bill does it say they have to ask these questions in the first place?
If the matter went before a magistrate one would presume the alleged offender would be sober, the judge could make a more fulsome assessment and the person may be able to get legal advice.
To sum up so far, we should have a magistrate instead of a police officer – that is the South Dakota method – and we should have a clear treatment option, as the Minister for Health mentioned when speaking about mandatory rehabilitation. That is not in this bill. We should specify more precisely which offences the law applies to, and we should be using short-term gaol – 12 to 24 hours – when there is a breach, not up to three months.
Another important difference between this bill and the South Dakota version is the definition of alcohol protection order. Clause 5 of the bill proposes that an APO prohibits an adult from possessing alcohol, consuming alcohol or entering or being in a licensed premises. I asked Art how they handled this in South Dakota. He said a person who is banned from drinking in South Dakota is often not allowed in a bar or premises where alcohol is offered for sale and consumption. I presume that means a person could still go to the local store, where alcohol might be sold but not consumed, to buy groceries.
I also said we sell and allow consumption of alcohol at sporting facilities and asked how he dealt with that. His answer was:
- Our restriction is very specific to establishments that are primarily bars or the bar area of an establishment like a restaurant. In some cases, it is a judgment call on the part of the police officer, parole officer or other officials who observe the possible violation. Grocery stores are not an issue since they do not serve alcohol or have open containers of alcohol. Sporting events are allowed as long as the person is not consuming alcohol.
He says:
- Frankly, prior to the 24/7 Sobriety program, the restriction on no bars no alcohol consumption was impossible to enforce. It was only by chance that an officer would see someone in a bar consuming and the officer had personal knowledge the person was restricted from bars.
You have to remember these people are on the 24/7 Sobriety program where they are being monitored every day.
The other interesting thing is South Dakota also has a clause including abstinence from drugs. Why have we not included drugs in this legislation? After all, are drugs not involved in drink-driving offences and domestic violence? This is another sign of a rushed and poorly-researched piece of legislation.
The South Dakota program is much more sensible than our version because it says you cannot enter or be in a licensed premise, but at least a person can go to the local supermarket and get some food without being arrested. The South Dakota version makes more sense than ours. One important matter is there is less pressure on police resources because people are required to test 24/7 instead of police looking to see if they have snuck into the local shop.
There needs to be more discussion about licensed premises. If you use the simple South Dakota banning order, supermarkets and corner shops are not part of the banned areas. That would make more sense and people can still get bread and milk without being arrested.
However, we have an anomaly, with 97 continuing special licences in the NT, usually sporting clubs, also classified as licensed premises. According to the bill, you cannot enter or stay in these premises unless you are employed by or live on them. For instance, the Southern Districts Football Club has a continuing special licence. This raises the question: is a paid player allowed to play on the licensed premises, which covers the oval, changing rooms and the bar? One of the exemptions under clause 5 says a person may enter a licensed premises for any period during which entering and remaining in the licensed premises concerned is required for the purposes of the adult’s employment. If a person is being paid to play football, are they allowed on that football ground? Is an unpaid player just playing for fun, or a spectator, on an APO allowed on the oval?
I will show you a picture. This is the boundary of the Southern Districts Football Club licensed area which has been approved by the licensing people. There is a red line drawn by hand around the footy oval. If you go down this path, how can say where a person can or cannot be in relation to this licensed premises? There is no marking, no fence, just a hand drawn red line around the oval. How can you police that?
Mr Tollner: Who cares! They have committed crimes, Gerry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim does not understand. The person will be punished if they have committed a crime, but they may not have been to court yet. He or she may not have been found guilty but placed on bail and waiting to attend court. They are not allowed to go to the footy but have not been found guilty of a crime.
This is what annoys me. These people will go to gaol for domestic violence and for drink-driving. You need a little common sense here. The person has not been found guilty of a crime. They have been put on an APO because the policeman ‘believed’ he had been affected by alcohol when he was arrested.
This legislation has some holes in it that need fixing. That is why it should have gone to a committee to look at these issues.
When we were at the briefing the Police Commissioner said you can take children to a licensed premises when, in theory, they should be accompanied by an adult. If there are anomalies they should be sorted out, regardless of whether they are regarding children or APOs.
There is also the seriousness of it. We are not just dealing with domestic violence and drink-driving, because every offence covered by six months or more is included in this debate. Someone might be picked up for kicking a rubbish bin and the policeman might say, ‘I am putting you on an APO because I believe you did that while you were drunk’. That is a relatively minor offence and not something I encourage, but it is not quite the same as bashing your wife. There are variations in the way we deal with criminal offences by the amount of punishment we give people. It is not just a black and white flat process. Magistrates have to be involved in this, and the issue about what is a licensed premises needs to be defined better than it is.
We have an appeal system in this document. Most people picked up under this law will be Aboriginal, and we know that by the number of Aboriginal people involved in domestic violence. Under the proposed bill, if you wish to appeal against the APO it must be in writing and lodged at a police station within three days. For many people that will be difficult, even impossible for those who are illiterate or have no understanding of the law and have no one to assist them. It may be especially difficult if the banning orders are applied on a Friday night. People should have seven days. You are still banned, but you have time to get your act together and seek help if required.
There is nothing in clause 6 which requires the police officer to tell the banned drinker of their appeal rights. The banned drinker would have to have read this bill, and I doubt the people we are dealing with will. If you use the South Dakota system, where the judge was involved, there would be room for discussion about whether a banning order was to be applied or rejected because the matter would be heard within a court of law. Arguments could be put, and a judge could decide whether there should be an APO and how long the order should be applied.
The government might say there is a Local Court option, but if the written appeal does not get to the police station in time the court option is out. This is too complicated and disadvantages those with limited communication skills compared to those with literary skills and the ability to communicate.
One of the major differences between the NT police-designed APO bill and the South Dakota version is banning orders. As Art Mabry informed me, the shortest banning period he has known a judge to give is two weeks and the longest five years. If you break the ban for the first time it is 12 hours’ gaol and a reminder, not a punishment. The advantage of the decision being made by a judge is evident. Each case is taken on its merits, whereas in the Territory you receive a three-month ban and if you break that ban it is three months’ gaol.
Police in the NT want a blunt tool to fix the problem. This is unproven, with no scientific basis, but it sounds good when you say you are tough on crime. The more enlightened people in Vermillion, South Dakota, would do it a different way.
It is not about whether I support appropriate punishment for serious crime, especially domestic violence and drink-driving. If the member for Fong Lim cannot understand plain English I do not know why he is a minister. I support what the government is trying to do. I have told the Chief Minister I support banning people from alcohol. However, there has not been enough consultation and discussion about alternatives and possible loopholes in this law.
With our unicameral system, we are told we just have to accept it. I am not here to accept the law just because the member for Fong Lim says it is right. I research and I ask people in the know. It is disappointing that the minister does not understand what I am trying to do. This needs more work to make it a better law that is appropriate and deals with people who have a dependency on alcohol. This is about the process involved in placing a person on a banning order. Who does that, the police or a judge? It is about whether punishment is a stronger deterrent to criminal activity than punishment severity – 12 hours or three months. It is about a faulty appeal system – three days and in writing. It is about a deliberately complicated system – what is a licensed premises? The wide powers of search – I am aware they are being adjusted today. It is about the lack of attention to treatment, a serious failing in this legislation.
There is also the lack of consultation with outside groups. The government has discussed it with government agencies, but they should have discussed it with more people. There is also the lack of research into other options.
There is another option. Hawaii has the HOPE program, a system which has been quite successful. It has been used in Hawaii for some time and attempts to deal with the same issue we are dealing with today ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. In the end, this is just window dressing. It is about keeping up appearances, because when this government needed to develop a real science-based approach to alcohol it hid behind the falsehood of personal responsibility. It hides from reality and the fact alcohol is a drug of dependency. We are not talking about milkshakes. Alcohol infiltrates our culture and society to a point where it appears to be normal. That could not be more obvious than when our Chief Minister says it is a core social value.
It is a business controlled by very powerful people who seem to control both the CLP and the ALP. That could not be more obvious than in the lack of fortitude by both parties when not supporting the motion to change closing times, and other matters related to Mitchell Street, based on the science and evidence. When the minister says we should take the advice of the AHA, added to the statement alcohol is a core social value, it is a sad joke.
I wonder if our government has bothered to read the Alcohol Action Plan released on 20 November this year by Dr Herron. These are actions aimed at improving Australia’s response to alcohol-related harms: increase informed public engagement with the harms associated with alcohol; obtain data on alcohol consumption and harms essential to informing effective responses that have currency and are sensitive to change; support local level interventions in alcohol-related harms; recognise the critical role of regulating the availability of alcohol in reducing alcohol related-harms – I wonder how closing hours fits in there, or levelling out the floor price of alcohol – regulate alcohol advertising, promotions and sponsorship – not this free enterprise government – enhance treatment responses for the whole population and for specific high-risk groups; address alcohol-related problems among older Australians; address alcohol consumption and harms among young people.
On that note Dr Herron says:
- 60% of students aged 12-17 reported consuming alcohol in the past year, and 23% in the past week
22% of hospitalisations and 13% of deaths of young people are attributed to alcohol
Here are some real goals our government could aim for if it was serious. Will it? It will not, because they believe in personal responsibility, libertarianism and, of course, the liquor industry. They use the nanny state argument to hide behind. That is why I am so cynical about this legislation. It is a poor attempt at doing something that, on the surface, could make a difference, but unfortunately, it has been put together with advice from the AHA. It should be the AHAA - ha, ha, ha. Of course they are happy. It does not affect them at all. There is no sacrifice on their part with this legislation.
Nothing will change until members of parliament do something to change the culture of grog. You are kidding yourself if you think alcohol affects only a small portion of the population. That is just another excuse not to do anything.
Dr Herron, Chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs said:
- The level of alcohol related damage occurring in our communities is simply appalling and the Council has responded by developing a plan of action; for governments and communities to address the situation. The health, social and economic costs associated with alcohol use simply cannot be allowed to continue at the current level. We all understand that the culture of drinking and intoxication has a long history in Australia and we all agree that these levels of harm are unacceptable, however whenever we speak of culture change the industries that profit most from this culture run the same old fear campaign of a nanny state takeover. Seatbelts, random breath tests and gun laws do not represent a nanny state and nor do sensible alcohol policies and programs.
Dr Herron is right. Unfortunately, we are just keeping up appearances.
I also spoke to Colin McDonald, who has a lot of experience. I will read the last bit of his letter. He says:
- Drawing upon my experience in St Vincent de Paul, Aboriginal Legal Aid, the life of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, counsel assisting the Coroner and Royal Darwin Hospital, I would urge further consideration into this legislation. There exists a formidable range of persons with experience and skill to assist the parliament in this area of concern. The danger with this bill is it attempts to attack the symptoms rather than the causes of the vexed problem of public drunkenness. Until an across government approach is adopted on the supply of alcohol, poverty and a range of social determinants, the problems sought to be addressed by this bill will sadly continue. Is it not possible to refer this bill to a parliamentary committee for constructive public consultation and contribution?
This man has been around a long time and knows a lot about the issue.
Minister, I reiterate, I am not against what you are attempting to do, but this bill will be passed without any real consultation. Compare the advance planning and mandatory rehabilitation bills. It does not deal with treatment and has many anomalies which need fixing. Please send this to a parliamentary select committee for a report by the March sittings and put out something which has been properly checked before it is passed by this parliament.
The advantage of a parliamentary select committee is it brings both sides of the House together, because these issues should be bipartisan. Unfortunately, they are not. The advantage of a parliamentary select committee will be to bring all of us together to work through this issue.
I know you are worried about domestic violence, Chief Minister, and drink-driving around Christmas, but we already have laws dealing with those. If the government wanted something more done, it should have done the work earlier in the year and gone out for consultation.
Chief Minister, I support what you are trying to do but believe the manner is faulty and needs fixing. I hope you change your mind on this issue and put it to a committee.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s bill. The focus we have on antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory is to use many prongs. It is not a one-pronged approach; it is many prongs trying to protect the most vulnerable.
People who have alcohol problems and people who violate the law by drink-driving or driving unregistered motor cars – we go to the funerals of these people all the time. If it is not 10 or 15 funerals a month, it is eight.
It is wonderful, Chief Minister, that this government has the many-pronged approach to antisocial behaviour and alcohol problems. This is a bill for all Territorians, but I specifically speak and congratulate the minister for bringing this in because it protects the most vulnerable, my people, Indigenous people.
The member for Nelson spoke about South Dakota, the research done in that area and who he has spoken to. We are not Americans, we are not Indians, we are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory and we are dying in droves from alcohol poisoning. We are hurting our families, our wives and our kids, and something needs to be done. This government is doing something about it.
We cannot wait for research. We cannot let this go for three or six months while people are dying in the creek. Recently, my young sister passed away. She was found dead at the bottom of the creek in Alice Springs. It is a tragedy, and the Chief Minister recognises these tragedies. He has lived in Alice Springs long enough to know and see, from a local member point of view, the people we cross in the streets of Alice Springs every day. They are falling around and asking for smokes. It is consumption minute after minute, day after day, week after week, month after month. This bill gives them an opportunity to dry out and heal.
Our mandatory rehabilitation legislation is another prong. The government focus has always been – when we were talking about what the government is doing in other agencies about the food bowl, it has many agencies, many prongs to ensure all agencies across all jurisdictions are working together to get the best possible outcome for Territorians financially, and, at the same time, healing people so they can become good citizens of the Northern Territory.
People like the member for Nelson will ask for extra time, but it is extra time at the cost of people passing away and women being bashed. At no stage through this bill, or the conversations I have had with the Chief Minister, and the debate I have heard from the Chief Minister in this House, did he say people support domestic violence. This is number one. We have to stop our people abusing their loved ones, whether it is their wives or children. We have to stop them walking around the streets in a daze under the influence of alcohol.
Would we want our children to be in the street walking around in a daze under the influence of alcohol every minute of the day? I do not think so.
We are taking this initiative to ensure we have healthy people walking on the streets of Alice Spring who respect the law and give them an opportunity to heal and make sure through this healing process they can go home and look after their wives, their families and their community. We do not want them to be killing their wives and hurting their children, and hurting each other as friends. We see them all the time. Domestic violence, drink-driving and unlicensed driving is not Aboriginal culture. Domestic violence is not Aboriginal culture, it is a grog culture. It comes from the grog. The grog gives them the strength to bash their loved ones and neglect their families and their children.
The three-pronged approach we have to protect the Northern Territory and save people’s lives is what this government’s aim has always been. If you look at the Chief Minister’s comments when we were in opposition, he was always hammering on in this parliament about the lack of legislative support for these people. How can we take these people off the streets and protect them? How can we give them a chance to heal their own bodies and realise how important their communities, their families and their wives are. That is the opportunity we are giving them to make sure they become humans again, not controlled by the poison alcohol. It encourages them to be aggravated, walk around the streets in a daze, to not look for a job and not eat. We make sure they do not hop in cars, drink-drive or drive unlicensed.
As a government, we have a many-pronged approach to ensure we save Territorians. That is the whole aim of a government coming in. You do not introduce just one bill to say that is what you will do. You guys, through the BDR, had one piece of legislation.
This many-pronged approach has given an extra tool to the Northern Territory Police to use various legislative instruments to help and ease the work of the police. As a resident of Alice Springs – I am sure the member for Barkly can speak about Barkly – we have seen a major difference in Alice Springs.
I do not want what happened to my young sister a couple of weeks ago to happen to anyone else. She leaves behind two young boys. What do we say to those young boys? ‘Do not follow in the footsteps of your mother. Do not walk around in a daze, drink seven days a week and live in Alice Springs when you have a community to live in. Do not follow in her footsteps.’ Do we say that? That is how they grew up watching their mum.
I appreciate, Chief Minister, that you have taken these initiatives, the many-pronged approaches, to stop this kind of ugliness happening in our towns and to make sure we give people time to heal, and so they understand they are good people who can contribute to society, their communities and families, and they can grow their children up without drinking alcohol so their children do not follow in their footsteps.
This bill, and the many other bills we have introduced into this parliament, squarely puts a block in front of people saying, ‘We will not tolerate this kind of nonsense in the Northern Territory’. In introducing this legislation, we want to protect them. We feel they are an important part of the Northern Territory society. We feel they are good people and we want to look after them. We should not get into argy-bargy about who is right. We have to take the opportunity to see how police are working in our communities. I am sure the member for Barkly would have seen it in Tennant Creek. We have seen it in Darwin, and we see it in Alice Springs.
After parliament I have been walking around the streets, and on weekends, observing, and it is clean. This is an opportunity to congratulate the Northern Territory Police and the government for initiatives to make sure our streets are clean and our people are being looked after. All we hear is, ‘It is cruel that you are doing this’. People from AMSANT do not go to all the funerals, people from NAAJA do not go to communities for funerals, but we do.
Alcohol gives people the guts to fight. The poison of alcohol makes them abusive and lets them break the law. If you take alcohol away we are dealing with a human being again. We are dealing with a person who is loved by family, who has children they love and a community that wants them back. We do not want them back in coffins to bury in our communities, we want them back alive, healed and ensuring they contribute to their children’s future and the education we talk about with their children, their homes, their communities, looking after their elderly people and ensuring they do not take the risk of drink-driving. They may be hurt in the process or may hit a pedestrian.
We have taken the opportunity to address these issues, and I congratulate the Chief Minister for introducing this bill. We should be congratulated for being a government which sees a future for participating human beings, healthy, educated and contributing to the Northern Territory.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I have spoken in this parliament many times about the careless scrapping of the BDR by the CLP. The scrapping of the BDR was a mistake which created many problems. Alcohol protection orders are not the solution; there has to be a better solution. I have several issues with this bill. Firstly, it is poorly written, and, secondly, I realise this CLP government has truly lost the plot.
The number of people who could qualify for an alcohol protection order is significant. This month, the NT News estimated more than 4000 Territorians a year could be banned from entering licensed supermarkets, cafs, pubs and TIO Stadium under the CLP’s proposed alcohol protection orders.
This would mean police would be monitoring 4000 people at any one time. That is 4000 people across the Territory being monitored and chased using police time and resources. This legislation is not interested in stopping those on APOs from purchasing alcohol; it is only interested in police catching them when they are drunk. In this bill, the police are given almighty powers. With this bill the CLP is saying, ‘Why have a court when you have the police?’
This is not the Australia I grew up in and not the Australia I believe in. This bill gives police far-reaching powers usually reserved for the courts. A potential result of these powers given to police to search and detain may be to antagonise relationships between the community and police officers. This may lead to pushing alcohol addiction and alcohol-related violence underground, which will solve nothing. For example, the APOs may have the opposite effect of reducing alcohol-related violence against women and children if these offences are pushed further and further from the public eye. This is a real consequence of the bill, as police are viewed more as a threat than a help.
What incentive is there for a group of people on APOs who are drinking to call the police if violence breaks out? Will all those breaching APOs go to the police because they need help? I am unsure. Today they do, but once this bill is passed they may not. When violence erupts someone will say, ‘Call the police’, but when this legislation is in place I doubt that will be the case. Instead, it will be every man and woman for themselves. They will flee the scene and the violence will continue. We must stop the violence and abuse.
Failing to address supply in this legislation is failing those victims. In failing to address supply we are forcing police to have more interaction with people who are already drunk. Dealing with drunks is not fun policing. In fact, it can be outright dangerous policing. I have faith that police know how to do their job but, at the same time, we have a duty of care to think about the situation we are putting police in. I know some of this as my brother-in-law is a policeman and tells me many stories of the dangerous situations they face dealing with drunks on a daily basis.
The Police Association has criticised the CLP’s failure to address the supply of alcohol, and I agree with them. By not addressing supply, we are creating more situations where police confront people under the influence of alcohol.
This will fill our gaols with Aboriginal people, and for that you may as well call it an Aboriginal protection order. You may as well call this legislation racist. We know who it is really targeting. I respect the heartfelt contribution by the member for Namatjira, who speaks with sincerity and much experience.
There has to be a better solution. I quote from a story recently published by AAP Newswire, reporting that APOs will disadvantage Aboriginal people. NAAJA Chief Executive, Pricilla Collins said:
- Alcohol is not just an Aboriginal problem, but we know that Aboriginal people will be particularly affected by laws like the APO bill.
In the meantime, we will see more and more Aboriginal people in our gaol system. I put the Minister for Correctional Services on notice as well: you better protect these people, minister. I do not want an NT News headline about another Aboriginal death in custody. If they are all ending up in gaol, minister, I sincerely hope you look after them.
The CLP has been fairly open about this legislation having no effect on supply. Whilst it will be an offence to intentionally supply alcohol to someone on an APO, the CLP has provided no means to practically identify the person. For most sellers the only practical way to continue their business is to assume everyone is not on an APO. I understand some sellers will be supplied with folders with names and photos of people on alcohol protection orders, but, generally, it will be too busy and impractical to flick through a folder of pictures and names of people to identify them.
Why would a seller want to inconvenience other customers while they scour over a folder looking for names and photos that match? The seller, aware they can sell alcohol to anyone as long as they do not know if the customer has an APO, will make it a priority to not know who is or is not on an alcohol protection order. There is simply no incentive for the seller to be completely aware. The practice will be the seller, even when not certain, will assume the customer is allowed to drink.
Another reason the seller would prefer to simply assume is the fear of wrongfully discriminating against someone. Depending on the nature of the refusal, a customer could be refused because the seller thought they had an alcohol protection order against them when they did not. Would a customer wrongfully refused service be able to pursue the matter through the courts as discrimination? Of course it would depend on the circumstances of the refusal, but it shows sellers, again, would be more inclined to keep selling alcohol and assume the customer is allowed access to alcohol than risk any kerfuffle over refusing the wrong person.
We have a process of identifying those on APOs which is devoid of modern technology and the straightforward system of the Banned Drinker Register. Simply, this legislation makes no real attempt to affect supply.
As the Chief Minister said, it is all about the individual; the onus is on the individual. This CLP government is placing the onus on a person who has already proven they make bad decisions. Stakeholders impacted by this bill have barely been consulted, let alone Territorians across our community. We certainly know who has not been consulted on this bill: the lawyers.
The NT News recently reported, and I quote:
- Criminal Lawyers Association NT President Russell Goldflam said APOs turned drinking problems into a crime.
‘It criminalises a health problem. People who break the order by drinking commit offences punishable by imprisonment.’
Once someone is on an APO they can be searched by police at any time.
There is not a further condition that they have to reasonably believe the person has breached the order, Mr Goldflam said.
‘Searching is a very serious infringement on a person’s liberty.’
Mr Goldflam said the government should have consulted with the legal fraternity before drafting such radical new legislation.
In regard to licensed premises and those on APOs being unable to enter them, the CLP has done little consulting. I have contacted a number of sporting organisations, clubs, bottle shops and supermarkets. It was the first time they had heard of this bill. Licensed premises, as we know, include supermarkets, cafs, pubs and TIO Stadium. It is a sad fact that a number of football stars end up on the wrong side of the law when it comes to alcohol due to celebrations gone wrong, a win or perhaps being caught drink-driving.
This new legislation means football players will face additional penalties in the Territory on top of the fine, conviction or licence ban. In the Territory it will mean they will need to give up their participation in sport as they can no longer step into a licensed premises, which includes a great many football venues and sporting clubs. For instance, someone like Liam Jurrah, who is trying to put his life back together where playing footy is a key to that, will have to give it up because of his history of alcohol-related offences; he will not be allowed to step onto TIO Stadium. Someone on an APO will go backwards as they abide by it. They will break a law by going to a supermarket, they can no longer lawfully have lunch with friends at a caf or dinner with family at a restaurant, and they cannot participate in sport or social clubs where the premises are licensed.
This is poor legislation. So many aspects of this legislation disappoint me. The lack of consultation by the CLP government is truly despicable but, unfortunately, that is how this government operates. For that reason I wish to conclude my comments by reading, in its entirety, the view of the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory. It is an alliance of the Central Land Council, Northern Land Council, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory.
These are organisations whose business it is to look after the interests of Aboriginal people, and I want their views to be recorded in Hansard:
- APO NT urges reconsideration of Alcohol Protection Order Bill – 7 September 2013
APO NT has called on the Government to postpone passage of the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill in order to properly consult and to consider the evidence, Jonathon Hunyor, spokesperson for the Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT (APO NT) said today.
‘It is clear the NT Government is rushing through this legislation without proper evidence and without properly considering how it will affect people in the Territory,’ said Mr Hunyor.
APO NT members agree with the NT Government that there is a dire need to address harmful effects of alcohol in the community, but we want to see a scheme to reduce harm that is evidence based and will deliver results,’ said Mr Hunyor.
- APO NT has a range of concerns with the Bill, as highlighted by our member organisations, NAAJA and CAALAS. These include that the bill:
ignores health experts on effective ways to reduce alcoholism. An alcoholic will not stop drinking because they are placed on an APO;
will result in more encounters with Police, and more alcohol dependent people being sent to jail;
gives Police far-reaching powers usually reserved for courts;
gives Police these powers not just for serious offences, but for almost all criminal offending;
applies where a police officer believes the person was ‘affected by alcohol’ at the time of the alleged offence which sets a very low threshold;
contains process for reconsideration and review of orders which is inadequate;
does not establish a tracking system, such as the BDR, so there is no effective system to track people subject to an APO; and
has unintended consequences. An APO prohibits a person from entering or being in licensed premises. Many local supermarkets in the NT are licensed premises. This may leave many people in regional and remote areas, particularly those on Basics Cards, with nowhere to do their shopping.
‘It is obvious that these Alcohol Protection Orders will disproportionately affect Aboriginal people in the NT who are already far more likely to have encounters with the justice system, and to be targeted by police’, said Mr Hunyor.
‘We should be investing in evidence-based, culturally relevant therapeutic treatment, not criminalising a social problem …
‘Alcohol issues won’t be addressed simply by giving police more powers. We need police and governments to work with our communities. Aboriginal people are speaking out, and it is time the Government listened to what the community wants.’
‘We call on our Chief Minister to delay passage of the Bill and to consult with experts and the community about the best ways to address alcohol related harm in the NT …
APO NT also calls for comprehensive measures to address grog in the NT. Examples of these measures were discussed at the APO NT Grog Summit in Alice Springs in July 2013, including:
reducing supply as a circuit breaker;
addressing underlying issues and treatment, and Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
introducing more community-based approaches to address alcohol related harm.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this bill today, but I thought I should offer my full support for the bill. As a person who lives in the bush and has a lot of involvement with Indigenous people and many European people closer to town, not one of my constituents has complained about the introduction of this bill.
In this debate we have the issue of the BDR. One of the biggest problems with the BDR was it inconvenienced the innocent. This new legislation inconveniences the guilty. On that side, all they are doing is defending the innocent. ‘What are we going to do? How inconvenient for these people.’ Well, bad luck! They have broken the law and that is it.
The other thing I picked up on was derogatory remarks from the member for Johnston in regard to sellers of alcohol, saying, ‘They do not care, they just want to sell some’. I find that offensive. I am a licensee and that is not my view. Perhaps people over there ought to look at these things in reality. If you have never had a licence and do not know the problems, do not talk about it. Do not tell us what to do. I know the problems of being a licensee.
Police need more powers. You people have made it harder for them with much more paperwork. They need more powers. How upset do you reckon they are when they put in hours and hours of work, only to find our lawyers, who are also in the process of selling, get offenders off and let them back on the streets? When you say we have not consulted with lawyers, we need to balance that as they are selling a product as well.
Madam Speaker, I have no sympathy for these people. My parents were killed in a car accident and I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I share the member for Namatjira’s sentiment, ‘I am sick and tired of the grog’. Grog undermines every good initiative and aspect of our community when it is abused. I am from Tennant Creek, and our crime statistics in the past 12 months were atrocious. There is an extreme level of alcohol abuse which is duplicated across the Northern Territory. I am sick and tired of this issue.
We have a new government and it has a sense of urgency. I remind the member for Namatjira that sense of urgency relates to 26 August 2012, when the incoming CLP government, on day one, scrapped the Enough is Enough alcohol policy. This related to the previous Labor government, and the first tool of that policy was the Banned Drinker Register.
They were determined to fulfil an election promise and they left the Territory wide open with no policy or procedures to address alcohol. However, even worse, they reverberated the message right through the regional and remote areas – ‘game on, it is all back on’. It was a populist political decision, driven by the populist CLP for the mainstream community in the Territory as an election promise. To start on that benchmark is bad policy, and since then we have seen a government trying to make it up as it goes along. The member for Namatjira’s urgency now relates to over 15 months of chaos.
The latest crime statistics in Tennant Creek show an increase of 43.7%. The latest crime statistics show the failure of an alcohol policy, with alcohol-related crime up by more than 11% across the Northern Territory. The latest crime statistics are related to assaults, which have increased by 43.7% over the last 12 months in Tennant Creek. There were 162 more alcohol-related assaults, 533 altogether over the past 12 months, and that figure represents nearly 20% of the Tennant Creek population.
There is a sense of urgency all right, because there were some very poor and ill-informed political decisions made based on bad politics, not best practice. In the House of the people, the House of debate, there is an alternative offered by the member for Nelson and supported by the opposition. It is 16 versus eight; the game is over. We know the reality and also understand, after 15 months, the mean-spirited and punitive nature of the good old CLP. I will not go into all my great memories of the 1980s and the 1990s, but it is linked to a DNA reaction.
We have an alternative; we can look at a select committee. We can work through this together to address what is failing legislation. This select committee will be evidence based. It will be based on behavioural science and will take an approach of policy development, not popular politics. It will involve experts in the industry, both within the Territory and interstate, and internationally, as the member for Nelson likes to broaden his research.
This select committee can reflect the bipartisan view we all share, which is being sick and tired of alcohol abuse within our community. It can work on the big ideas to ensure this policy is watertight and we have the best outcome from all parts of this parliament moving forward. There is a clear alternative. Urgency is really a furphy from the CLP when you factor in 26 August 2012, scrap the lot, game back on, a rapid increase in crime statistics, alcohol-related assaults, domestic violence then, suddenly, on 28 November 2013, we have a sense of urgency.
I do not believe that and there is a clear alternative. We are looking for a resolution, through the committee process, based on evidence and best practice. Let us take, for example, the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency and a letter to the Chief Minister on 11 October 2013. I will quote this for the Indigenous members of this House:
- Impact on Aboriginal people
This law will overwhelmingly impact on Aboriginal people. You are no doubt aware that the central message of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was that to reduce the number of Aboriginal people who die in custody, we need to lock up less Aboriginal people less often. We need to find ways to reduce Aboriginal people’s contact with the police and with the criminal justice system. The Royal Commission made specific recommendations that drunkenness should be de-criminalised. This law does the opposite. Its effect is to criminalise drinking for people placed on an order.
An alcoholic will not stop drinking because they are placed on an APO: that is the nature of alcoholism.
The other factor to consider in this debate is that the monetary figure interrogated through the estimates process in 2013 is $100m. The CLP’s forward estimates say by 2016 we will appropriate $100m into this flawed and make-it-up-as-you-go-along alcohol policy trail we are on, fuelled by a populist political opinion to satisfy the opinion maker in our community. That is a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money to make it up as we go along. I do not see any financial constraints when $100m is appropriated in forward estimates to address this alcohol policy of the CLP.
Scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register is only one element of what was taken out of the Territory equation on 26 August 2012. The member for Namatjira had no real knowledge of what the Enough is Enough policy represented. However, being a member of the previous Labor government and a Cabinet minister, she was very involved in that process. Let me remind members the Enough is Enough alcohol policy was not just about an electronic register, it was about a Drug and Alcohol Tribunal, income quarantining and rehabilitation. It was a suite of policy initiatives designed to target the problem drinker. It was very specific and it was rolling out. Unfortunately, it only became a teenager because the Territory changed in its political persuasion. The conservatives got in and cut the legs from under the Enough is Enough policy with nothing in its place. Now we see them make it up as they go along.
In Question Time today I made a comment across the floor to the Minister for Health when the talk was, ‘We care about rehabilitation. We care about alcoholics.’ I said, ‘What about Tennant Creek?’ The answer was, ‘Just wait’. That minister was part of a government which took power over 15 months ago but I have to wait!
How many more deaths in Tennant Creek? How many more assaults? How much more domestic violence? I am told there is now a sense of urgency and, by another minister, to just wait.
It is a very frustrating position to be in; therefore I present a united and considered response in regard to an alternative: a select committee to look at evidence, to deal with experts and to work on this together before we appropriate any more taxpayers’ cash, waste any more time, and before we go down a road fraught with problems. Essentially, the problem with this legislation is regulation. If you want to talk about good legislation, talk about the whole package and how it will roll out in the community. What will it be like in the real world? The member for Namatjira spoke about the real world.
This legislation fails in its regulation. It is clumsy, flawed and lacks the technology base the member for Port Darwin spoke about in Question Time today regarding electronic monitoring. Now I am back in the House and able to speak, I congratulate the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Correctional Services, for continuing the incredible work done by the Department of Correctional Services in building that knowledge base, that evidence base, that research around electronic monitoring and delivering that into Correctional Services and community policing.
That is a good outcome, member for Port Darwin, and I congratulate you for continuing that work. I emphasise continuing, because the Department of Correctional Services really did the groundwork you are able to base your advice to this House on.
In regard to regulating an APO, there was talk that electronic monitoring could be used. When I discussed that in the community I live and work in, it became quite a joke. One suggestion was it should be a bracelet the size of a dinner plate worn around your neck and coloured in fluoro orange so when you entered a licensed premises or went to a bottle shop the licensee could immediately identify you as being on an APO. That was the level of humour around that comment.
Since then, electronic monitoring, in regard to regulation of the alcohol protection orders, has dropped out of the CLP rhetoric. What is it? It is a piece of paper which can be enforced by the law enforcement agency; however, it, essentially, represents a piece of paper.
The member for Namatjira wants to talk about the real world. Let us talk about the real world because I took myself to the Tennant Creek Hotel recently to do some research. I spoke to the licensee and reminded him why I am not a regular at the Tennant Creek Hotel. I told him straight out and rather brutally that for me there are more sharks there than the south Pacific.
The humbug I cop in licensed venues in Tennant Creek is phenomenal. I chose to remove myself from that environment so I will not have patrons humbugging me and driving me nuts. I had an unfortunate experience recently when I went to a live music venue in Tennant Creek to support a musician. I was soon surrounded by ex-students, all now in their thirties. We shared some great stories then talk turned to me shouting beers. I shouted a couple of beers. I had my son with me, he was having a few beers, I drank a coke, and suddenly I had more friends and associates joining me at the table. I got a tap on the shoulder from a young woman asking me for a schooner of VB. This young woman was not one of my ex-students; she was an ex-student’s daughter. In relation to the kinship arrangement, it was okay for me to shout a schooner of VB. When I investigated the situation it was apparent this young woman was in the final trimester of her pregnancy. I was immediately challenged morally and ethically and chose to remove myself from the situation.
I went to the pub the other day and saw the cohort that starts drinking at 12 pm. It is a lively atmosphere and a lot of drinking happens. Cans and glasses are shared, cigarettes are shared, and it is a very convivial environment. It only lasts for a couple of hours because once the bottle shop opens most of that convivial atmosphere of having a drink – I will not talk about employment, training, responsibility or any of those mainstream issues, just the convivial atmosphere, a bit of backslap, a few jokes and a lot of laughs. I had a couple of serious bites but did not hand over a cent. I had a good opportunity to talk to the licensee about all sorts of issues, including this legislation. The place cleared out at 2 pm.
It was interesting to go to the next stage of my research and look at the takeaway culture. Let us face it, 70% of alcohol in the Northern Territory is consumed as takeaway alcohol. In Tennant Creek, the community policing strategy has started to place officers at bottle shops on the main street to monitor them. The licensees are not happy with it, and I will quote one piece of anecdotal evidence I was given: the return for a Tennant Creek bottle shop on the main street when police are present can be reduced from $19 000 to $9000 on a Thursday – a $10 000 drop on a Thursday.
This policing strategy is obviously working. Are the police officers happy about that strategy? No, it does not represent good community policing. I imagine it would be rather challenging. Professionally, it must be extremely challenging. However, it is an effective tool.
There is also the related drop in police overtime in Tennant Creek because of that community policing strategy. There is an extreme drop in the licensee’s income and a drop in the police appropriation with a reduction in overtime. You can see it is an effective measure.
I discussed with some licensees whether it would be more sensible to have an electronic method of monitoring customers as opposed to police officers standing in the full sun working the beat outside bottle shops, having to deal with rather aggressive people hell-bent on getting what they want immediately; they have a real sense of urgency. It is game back on because there is no BDR and no electronic register. The licensees, while not totally agreeing, see some merit in taking police out of the equation and having the situation monitored by return of the Banned Drinker Register. When we talk about 70% of alcohol consumed being takeaway, starting at 2 pm and going pretty frantic for the rest of the day, I see some merit in that. Unfortunately, that was taken away.
The question from licensees to me was, ‘Can it be turned back on?’ I said, ‘Absolutely, it is a piece of technology like the member for Port Darwin’s electronic bracelet. It can be turned back on.’ It would be a good tool to monitor the problem drinker, then perhaps this government might be interested in revisiting the tribunal, income quarantining and the rehabilitation methods. This would immediately target supply. Without that direct target on supply an alcohol policy fails. That is accepted by most stakeholders involved with alcohol and alcohol rehabilitation.
What I would like to do, with regard to a select committee, is ask Territorians if they are inconvenienced by presenting photo ID to purchase takeaway alcohol. You will find the minority mainstream cohort the government pitches to has changed its attitude, because in Tennant Creek it certainly has. I am talking about mainstream punters who support the CLP and have said to me, ‘No, we should go back to that because we could see a difference’. This happened when the flag went down, when the word went out to the bush, ‘Game on’.
We are talking about the real world and takeaway alcohol in Tennant Creek, not a cohort of 3500 people. We are talking about a regional cohort of up to 10 000 people who come to Tennant Creek to access services, sport and recreation, and involve themselves in the town. It relates to family and underpins issues of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse.
With a high mobility factor, better roads and transport infrastructure, a lot of cars on the road, Tennant Creek is the centre point to deal with that. At the moment, nothing is in place. This government has $100m to appropriate and will issue a document with a stern talk telling people they must not access alcohol or they will be in serious trouble. If they do, they will go to gaol for three months. I am sure that message, in the cohort I am talking about, will be really effective. Let us face it, it is not a passive environment; it is ‘game on’.
There is serious active resistance to mainstream culture in the Territory which relates to party, party and party. Unfortunately, work, family and all those responsibilities come second to many of the people we are talking about, and this is across the Northern Territory. I am told today this is another element of the policy, another solution for the area I live and work in. It will be the silver bullet; it will be part of a suite of initiatives which will be the game changer in the Northern Territory.
This is far too important to be left to the government. I remember the member for Port Darwin teaching me, when challenging the new era in Corrections initiatives, saying, ‘It is a matter of ‘trust us’? Trust the government?’ At the moment, that is about all we have.
Let us get real. Let us get organisation into the parliament and create a select committee. Let us work off the research the member for Nelson has done and put forward. Let us get to the bottom of what will deliver the best way to address supply of alcohol. I keep referring to 70% of that being takeaway alcohol.
Let us really nail this so everybody who is sick and tired of alcohol abuse and the grog, dramas, heartbreak and fatalities it brings can be satisfied we are moving forward.
That is a pragmatic suggestion. That is a peace offering. That is a bipartisan opportunity. It certainly challenged the CLP’s sense of urgency after 15 months of nothing.
Let us not make it up as we go along. Let us not let the rivers of grog continue to turn into the rivers of blood. Let us really tighten up the evidence-based approach, the science-based approach. Let us hear from the experts, and let us use the word the member for Fong Lim does not like: consult. Let us get it right. That is what this debate is about, and there is an opportunity in this House to make that change.
For the young woman who was in the last trimester of her pregnancy I did not say anything to – gee, I lectured her brothers. I gave them a serious talking to and cut the grog off. I stopped shouting after that episode and left. I hope I sent that message because, as I have brought to this House before, one of the huge issues I have been monitoring over 35 years in education is foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
In relation to education and this debate, where $100m has been appropriated in forward estimates by the government, I believe by 2017, from the statistics I have seen, there will be about 8000 Aboriginal children turning five and entering our education system. Alarmingly, up to 30% of those will have been affected by alcohol while in utero. This brings with it a series of special education challenges, and for anybody who wants to follow through with the research, there are direct links to foetal alcohol syndrome and a life of ruin and being in corrections.
We have to be serious. I agree with the member for Namatjira. We are all sick and tired of it. We have a sense of urgency relating to today as much as it relates to 2017 and beyond. We cannot afford to continue experimenting based on popular politics. Let us put it back to the people. If the CLP is so concerned about the mainstream punter who does not want to show photo ID through reinstatement of an electronic register to monitor takeaway alcohol sales and be one tool in a suite of policies to direct the problem drinker down the road of income quarantining, education, rehabilitation and responsibility, let us take it back to the people and ask them. You will find there has been a change of opinion across the Territory. It is not about a political backflip; it is a bipartisan approach to get this right.
The member for Daly said not one person in his constituency mentioned this legislation is bad. Member for Daly, I bet not one of your constituents mentioned it was good legislation either. I suggest not many constituents know about it. I have taken a long time and put a lot of effort into continuing the discourse about alcohol and alcohol abuse throughout the constituency I have lived and worked in for more than half my life. I have now taken it to the next level, and that is about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Once again, I encourage this government to be preparing and delivering policy that works, because we are in for a rough ride and cannot afford the loss of more generations of Territory children.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. This is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol, and we will fight to reduce it.
The bill offers new powers which will provide police with law enforcement tools to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime. Under this legislation, an adult who is charged with committing an offence and is believed to be affected by alcohol can be issued with an order which will ban them from consuming or possessing alcohol or attending any licensed premises unless it is their place of work or residence. Further, the orders can be issued to anyone charged with an offence, attracting a possible gaol term of six months or more, while they are under the influence of alcohol. People can also sign up voluntarily.
We are committed to reducing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. What I have heard in this House today from a number of people opposite is what they want to portray as correct. I would like to take a number of issues raised by members and put our view in relation to those statements. First, I will quote from the member for Fannie Bay’s comments in the House this morning:
- Under this proposed law people who are banned from drinking alcohol can still walk into a store or a pub and buy as much alcohol as they like.
I constantly hear about the Banned Drinker Register, ‘We banned people from drinking alcohol’. It banned them from buying takeaway alcohol. You could still sit in a bar provided you behaved yourself and, provided you demonstrated to staff in the premises you were not intoxicated, you could continue to drink.
Some people have a low tolerance of alcohol, some have a high tolerance, and there is something called an ‘alcohol dump’. It may come as news to members opposite, but an alcohol dump is where people sit and drink and the alcohol stays in the upper portion of the digestive system in what is referred to as the bread basket. It sits there; it does not pass through. You can drink and drink, and it is not until you stand and walk around that the liquid transfers into the main bowel where it is processed.
One of the most easily absorbed substances through the stomach wall is alcohol. You get a big alcohol dump into the main part of the stomach, the alcohol is sucked out carefully, and people can get a very high alcohol reading very quickly. If you sit in a bar and drink, then go outside and have this alcohol dump, in a very short period of time you could be, as some people call it, smashed.
What happens to people in licensed premises is not necessarily what happens in their body. People may believe they are sober but might be building up for a big alcohol dump.
Let us move on. The member for Fannie Bay said:
- After claiming there would be no amendments, on the night before the legislation is due to be debated we see two proposed amendments.
Mr Elferink: He was a member of the chairman’s lounge and the frequent flyer club.
Mr STYLES: Absolutely! He would probably be the chairman – 117 times.
Many other people, whilst on the Banned Drinker Register, had free access to alcohol.
I have also heard the opposition say once you were on the Banned Drinker Register you could not buy takeaway alcohol. Maybe you could, maybe you could not. I heard many stories. Some people had a number of driver’s licences in different names and would keep trying until one worked. Technically, that is an offence and the people at the hotel should have twigged. They would say ‘That is the old licence’, or ‘This is the new one’. They would find one that worked. One guy had 12 different driver’s licences. That was a common problem.
On the other side of inconveniencing people, one licensee had a box under the counter with over 250 licences which people had left – a lot of inconvenience for people who had to obtain a new driver’s licence.
We listened to the community and reacted. Those amendments are a result of talking to people, listening, consulting people and saying, ‘We will do that’. To not do it would be arrogant and to not listen. We do.
The member for Fannie Bay’s said:
- This bill fails its threshold question: will an alcohol protection order prevent someone with an alcohol problem buying and consuming alcohol?
No, but it gives that person, if they wish to change their behaviour, the first option. We should always try to help people help themselves. If you have an alcohol protection order it is up to you; you make the decision. It is about giving people the choice. If people make bad choices we, as a government, are quite prepared to help them make better choices. If that is through mandatory rehabilitation or alcohol protection orders, so be it.
The nanny state on the other side wants to wrap everyone in cotton wool and say, ‘The reason this person bought alcohol and got smashed is everyone else’s fault, so we should all be responsible for that person’s decision’. Some people in our community struggle to make good decisions, and we acknowledge that. However, the majority of people who want to buy and consume alcohol do so in the right manner.
If you have been a naughty person and get an alcohol protection order, you can buy a truckload of alcohol at the bottle shop and sit it in your back yard. If you sit there quietly and consume that alcohol, over whatever period of time, do not commit an offence, do not beat up your wife, husband, dog or cat, do not annoy your neighbours, do not throw rocks at anyone and behave yourself because you do not want to breach an alcohol protection order, so be it.
What people opposite do not realise is lots of people sit in their homes at night and consume alcohol. Should we go into their lounge rooms and say, ‘You are drinking too much’? They do not inconvenience their neighbours, turn the music up, kick the dog, beat anyone up or annoy the police; they get on with their lives, albeit they may be consuming too much alcohol.
You see people sitting at bars who have their own seat and their own glass at the pub. They have a few drinks in the evening. They might have too many drinks according to some people in this House, but they wander home, go to sleep and get up the next day. Have they been out annoying people? No, they drink responsibly. However, the Banned Drinker Register would say if they wanted to get a six-pack on the way home they cannot do it responsibly.
I recall hearing stories about people from overseas having to take their passports with them. A government department in Canberra is telling people, ‘Be careful with your identity, there is identity theft all over the place’. They had to take their passports. They say, ‘Lock it in your hotel safe’, but they had to take them to buy a drink.
This inconvenience went around the world and onto websites. Grey nomads were saying, ‘Do not bother going. When you get to Katherine, turn left and go to Western Australia because if you want to have a drink it is impossible.’
We have a major issue with people in the community committing offences whilst under the influence of alcohol. That is a tragic situation so we have to do this, but the Banned Drinker Register, sadly, did not work.
I quote the member for Fannie Bay:
- This bill will not work. It will not stop people with chronic alcohol problems buying alcohol. It will not stop the violence.
There are several licensed premises in my electorate and the Banned Drinker Register did not stop people buying alcohol because they got someone else to do it. There were some very entrepreneurial backpackers around town who realised the Banned Drinker Register was a gift from God. They said, ‘Mate, can you buy that alcohol?’ ‘No, I cannot.’ ‘We will buy it for you. Give us $100 and we will buy you a slab.’ That was occurring.
There was a guy running around town on a push-bike with a trailer on it selling alcohol in the early hours of the morning. I think he has been caught by police because I passed that on to a few people I know.
These things were occurring. We created a black market in alcohol where the wrong people were making the money. The people with the problem were taking money they might spend on food or whatever and transferring it into expensive alcohol.
Of course, the other problem we had near the water park was when people were put on the Banned Drinker Register they said, ‘I don’t want to bother about that,’ so they changed to marijuana. The criminal element would deliver. You did not need an esky, ice or a driver’s licence. They would wind the window down, people would hand over an enormous amount of cash, they handed over a bag of marijuana and people were soon plastered. That was not fixing the problem.
The member for Fannie Bay said:
- As we have constantly debated in this House, Labor’s policy on alcohol is fundamentally different to the CLP’s.
The member for Fannie Bay also said:
- The CLP continually presents policy which deals with problems after they have happened; its policy is punitive. To borrow a phrase: we believe you should build a fence at the top of the cliff rather than park an ambulance at the bottom.
If someone sits at home drinking alcohol and does not do anything to anyone you never hear about it. What happens when that person decides they want to punch someone, kick the dog or throw rocks at the neighbour’s roof? Should we have someone sitting in the lounge room? Some of the examples given might win a few brownie points, but they do not tackle the problem.
Reading further:
- This legislation bans people from purchasing alcohol, but no one is allowed to know who is banned.
What is the difference between the Banned Drinker Register and what we are doing? There was the issue of secondary supply with the Banned Drinker Register. I asked police prosecutors, ‘How do you get a conviction for secondary supply?’ They said, ‘With a lot of trouble’. If someone says, ‘Mate, can you buy me a slab? I have a bung foot and cannot get out of the car.’ I say, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’ He says, ‘No, not me’, I have to take his word for it. How do I check? ‘I do not have my driver’s licence with me.’ Does everyone do that? Is everyone in the Territory expected not to do that? You could not find out who was on the Banned Drinker Register. If you walked in with the driver’s licence of someone who looked like you – if you look at my driver’s licence it is nothing like me, it is a much better photograph – you have problems …
A member: Better looking?
Mr STYLES: No, it has been airbrushed. No one knew who was on Labor’s Banned Drinker Register; you could not check. I used this example before and was howled down when in opposition: do I set up a gate at my home when I am having a barbecue? If I gave someone on the Banned Drinker Register a beer I was in breach. Was I supposed to say to visitors if I had a big barbecue, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’ If they said no, how could I check? Could I ring police and ask if they were on the Banned Drinker Register? Sorry, that is protected under privacy. We could not get access to that information.
We are putting responsibility back on the person. If someone has not been a nice person and we put on APO on them and they behave themselves – they do not kick the dog – what is the problem? That is a huge measure of success. If criminals do not like this they are free to leave the Territory. If you do not like us putting responsibility back on the person, then leave the Territory. Go somewhere you will not have to be responsible for your actions.
The member for Fannie Bay said:
- This legislation means instead of stopping people from purchasing alcohol in the first place, police now have to chase people after they have been drinking.
That is an amazing statement. I want to repeat that:
- This legislation means instead of stopping people from purchasing alcohol in the first place, police now have to chase people after they have been drinking. .
Many people who drink too much alcohol do it at home and do not commit offences. If you commit offences you will come to the notice of police and will be held to account. If you cannot make good decisions we will give you some help. We have a mandatory rehabilitation centre for people who are addicted.
Reading further, the member for Fannie Bay said:
- Unless you are controlling alcohol at the point of sale, you are doing nothing in relation to the spiralling rate of alcohol-related violence.
Reading further, the member for Fannie Bay said:
- I do not believe for a second the Northern Territory Police, who have responsibility for this legislation, think we should not be controlling alcohol at the point of sale.
I have spoken to many of my former associates and friends who tell me police, when the opposition was in government, said this was a great tool. I will not comment on what the police said or did not say, but I can comment on what they are saying now. They are saying if people thought the Banned Drinker Register worked and was good, what they will have with the alcohol protection orders is fantastic. They are seriously looking forward to being part of a system which will prevent people from committing offences and, if they do, they will suffer the consequences.
Moving along:
- The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is the flawed legislation you came up with when you knew the Banned Drinker Register worked but were too pigheaded to admit it; when you want to ban people from drinking but put nothing in place to make the ban work.
The next sentence was:
- You are replacing the Banned Drinker Register with a banned drinker register where no one knows who is banned.
I have dealt with that before; we never knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register.
Further on the member for Fannie Bay said:
- The CLP wants to ban people from drinking but cannot find the courage to put in place a measure at the point of sale which would prevent people who are banned from purchasing alcohol.
There was an article in the newspaper from Dawn House, the women’s refuge centre, saying its statistics for domestic violence went up by 7% as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. An old mate gets himself on the Banned Drinker Register but still gets plastered because he could. Then, when he went to buy alcohol, he could not. He went home – generally it was male against female – and asked his wife, girlfriend or partner to buy alcohol. She said, ‘I don’t want to do that’, so he would assault her.
That is not us, not you, but people who deal with this at the coalface keeping statistics. There was a 7% increase in domestic violence as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. That is part of the reason it did not work.
When we came to government we had consulted with people who said it did not work. They could not see why we had inconvenienced the entire population for the behaviour of a few. They said people were still getting – the same people, day after day. I remember the member for Fannie Bay talking about shopkeepers at Fannie Bay shops complaining about unruly behaviour, etcetera. I spoke to a number of those shopkeepers recently and the situation has gone quiet. I then spoke to the police saying, ‘Why are there fewer people in places like Fannie Bay?’ They said, ‘They do not like the mandatory sentencing idea. We know the guy who went in and out four times did not want to be there either.’
There are people who do not want to go, and that is their choice. Their choice of not going is not sitting around in public getting smashed to the point they commit offences, annoy people, harass and humbug people using the shops at Fannie Bay or other supermarkets in the Northern Territory.
I am mindful of the clock, Madam Speaker, and would like to move to matters the member for Johnston raised.
He said, amongst other things, there is no effective way of tracking someone on an APO. There is, and it is called coming to the notice of the police. It might surprise the member for Johnston that people’s behaviour, when poor, normally attracts the attention of someone in the community and, eventually, the police.
It may be police on patrols or it may be someone who phones the police and gives them the information. When the person is apprehended they end up at the police station and, lo and behold, the police have a great computer system with lots of information and they say, ‘Billy Smith has an APO on him. You are breached, you are in trouble.’
It is really easy. If people do not want to be inconvenienced by an alcohol protection order, do not commit the offence in the first place. If you do, as a community and a government, we will help you rehabilitate. If you choose not to be rehabilitated, or you continue to choose a lifestyle which will impact on everyone in the community, you will suffer some consequences. That is life. We have that across our legal system, whether it is driving cars, in the accounting field or stealing, there are consequences.
The member for Johnston also said we are talking about 4000 people. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned this as well:
- Police said the Banned Drinker Register was the best tool they had to fight crime, but the CLP said ‘Bad luck, you cannot use it’ – 2500 problem drinkers back on the grog free to drink again.
They were never off the grog!
If we have 4000 people on APOs who all modify their behaviour, that is great outcome. What is the problem? This is about holding people accountable for their actions. Generally, some people choose not to be accountable. We will help them be accountable, educate them, and rehabilitation programs will help.
The member for Barkly had a go at us for scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. Anecdotally – and statistics prove it – it did not work. I do not blame them; this was their great policy. I do not blame them for trying to prop it up and support their view, but it did not work. We know it does not work but, as we go forward, we will make it work.
He had a go at us for spending $100m in the forward estimates. If you have a major problem in your community, sometimes you have to spend money to fix it. Would he have us not spend the $100m and let the problem continue, which is what they did?
I sat on the other side in opposition listening to the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, say, ‘We spent $672m on the effects of alcohol’ – a terrible amount of money. We plan to spend some money but reduce that number.
I have not done the calculations, but 16% or 17% of $672m – if we can reduce the problem by 20% we save money. We will spend that money and see outcomes with people rehabilitated. We will change people’s behaviour, and we are looking forward to it.
The member for Barkly asked why not bring it back in – do a backflip. Why would we do a backflip for something that did not work? It did not work! I am sorry to say, member for Barkly, we will not be doing a backflip because we will not go back to something that did not work and failed miserably.
The member for Johnston said we will have 4000 people drinking whenever they like. They will not because they will be on APOs and, if they want to continue with that behaviour, they will struggle to stay out of rehabilitation.
You say it is terrible putting people on APOs and making them accountable, and we are giving the police way too much power. Let us get rid of traffic infringement notices and go back to putting in full briefs and going to court. The member for Johnston would be asking why it takes six years to go to court. The answer would be simple: because we do not have money to spend building lots of courts and employing staff and magistrates. We cannot do that because we have a $5.5bn debt. We are struggling with many essential services thanks to that legacy.
However, if you take away some of the things you give police the power to do – we need to take it. What about demerit points? Let us get rid of demerit points and go back to court where, apparently, the member for Johnston thinks this should be. Let us get rid of home detention. Let us lock everybody in gaol and get rid of home detention.
The community has said we can change the way we do business. Again, perhaps the member for Johnston wants to stay in the dark days and keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. They did it with education; they want to do it with this as well.
I will go further down the list. It talks about the situation police will be in regarding alcohol protection orders. I struggle to understand that. He said he had a relative in the police force, and I accept that. Perhaps the relative has told him different things. I suggest he talks to other police officers to get their understanding of this because the police are keen to work with the community to prevent these people committing offences …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I would like to give the opposition some food for thought with a number of scenarios. These are case studies and names have been removed to protect the guilty. This is a male person known as Mr H, 32 years old:
- On 11 July 2013, police were called to a domestic disturbance at the residence in Musgrave. Mr H was located by police, intoxicated and displaying belligerent behaviour. Checks confirmed he was a subject of outstanding warrants; however, Mr H resisted and assaulted police during his arrest.
This offending would have qualified Mr H for an alcohol protection order given the links between his intoxication and violent conduct towards police. I have done this and know what it is like; it is not very pleasant. We are adding more consequences for this poor and unacceptable behaviour. Our police officers work extremely hard on a day-to-day basis. There are a number of people in our community who you can never pay enough. You cannot pay police officers, nurses or doctors enough. They are at the front line and we should be protecting their working environment by putting the onus on the offender and making them responsible. An individual being responsible for their own behaviour may be a novel idea for those on the opposite side of the House.
I cannot remember my mother telling me everyone in the community was responsible for my behaviour. My parents taught me that I was, my grandparents taught me that and I taught my children that. Parents of most people in this House would have said the same thing, so when did it change? When did we all become responsible for someone else’s behaviour? If the member for Johnston wants to give his spiel, am I responsible for the fact he is supporting a failed policy? I am not. It is his responsibility and we are all responsible for our actions.
On 14 November 2013, same case:
- Police were called to a domestic disturbance at the Hidden Valley camp where it was determined Mr H had attended his partner’s residence whilst highly intoxicated. He became argumentative, smashed crockery, threw food at his partner, grabbed and twisted her right arm and grabbed a mobile phone from her when she attempted to call the police. He attempted to flee from police and had to be chased for 1 km through the bushland before he was arrested and later charged with violence offences.
If there was an APO you cannot stop people committing offences totally, but you can ensure they are held accountable.
Here is another example. A male person, Mr G, 35 years old:
- On 27 July 2013, Mr G was arrested for a high-range drink-driving offence. He was arrested and charged with exceeding 0.150% on a BAC and charged with driving unregistered, uninsured and unlicensed.
- On 30 August 2013, Mr G attended Kaytetye camp where he located his partner and started drinking alcohol with her until he became intoxicated. He then repeatedly assaulted his partner punching her, slapping her, pulling her hair and then striking her to the head and body with a wine bottle causing lacerations before running away from the area. He was eventually located on 16 October at Hermannsburg where he was arrested.
On 24 September, Mr G attended Hidden Valley camp, where he located his partner and started drinking alcohol with her, eventually becoming very intoxicated. He became angry and started punching his partner, then choked her and punched her in the face before running away from the area. He was eventually located 16 October at Hermannsburg, where he was arrested.
If these people were in mandatory rehabilitation for alcohol abuse they would not be committing these offences. That is a novel idea, is it not, to get people some help? Here is another case study. Mr F, 22 years old, male:
- On 22 August 2013, Mr F spent the afternoon consuming alcohol with his partner and he became intoxicated. Police were called to attend after he was observed by a witness to repeatedly punch his partner in the face.
- Mr F was arrested by attending police following a violent struggle and was conveyed back to the watch house where he was registered with a blood alcohol reading of 0.159%. He was issued with a domestic violence order, was later charged with aggravated assault, assault police and resist police, and then released on bail with conditions.
That offending would have qualified him for an alcohol protection order on the basis he had been drinking all afternoon and was intoxicated when he assaulted his partner.
Time does not permit me to continue, but there are some fabulous case studies about people who, if not in mandatory rehabilitation, would be served with alcohol protection orders. When they breach those orders, they can go to court and suffer serious consequences for their behaviour.
I do not hear from the other side about the good parts of this, only that it will not work. We have not started yet. We have consulted a great deal with the community and police, and are of the opinion it will work. That is why we introduced this legislation. We are about protecting the community from people who choose to indulge in criminal conduct. Assaulting people is not nice; it is terrible. Some of these things are horrific.
I have witnessed some of the bashings. As an ex-police officer, I would have loved this. I can understand why my former colleagues are saying, ‘Good on you guys, get it done. When can we have it?’ They are complaining, and people who have been assaulted are saying, ‘The sooner you get this in the better’.
A simple way of avoiding these restrictions is do not drink then commit a crime: do not drink then bash your wife or husband, do not drink then punch someone at the pub. It is simple. These orders are issued by police when a person is charged and they attract a gaol term of up to three months if breached. We can have a solid deterrent in place with solid consequences for people who break the law.
I ask members opposite to have a good look at this legislation. I ask them to look at some of the things I said in relation to the Banned Drinker Register and the real evidence, and talk to people to see if things have changed.
I have heard a few stories but cannot comment because I am not from the place they mention. However, in my electorate, in the northern suburbs and around Fannie Bay the situation has changed. People are taking note of the mandatory rehabilitation process and will take note of this. It may take a few weeks to get around, but once the message is out it will change people’s behaviour.
I ask the opposition to take a good look at what we are proposing and to support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013. I commend the Chief Minister for his continued dedication to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour in our community which is so often linked with the abuse of alcohol.
Reflecting on opposition members’ contributions to the debate, it was interesting to hear them criticising the government for not knowing what was happening in the real world. The Opposition Leader famously said she had never seen the drunks in State Square during the 11 years they were in government. Talk about being out of touch. The drunks in State Square were as frequent as the plovers. The hypocrisy from the other side is amazing.
Supporting this legislation is easy for me; there are numerous reasons why the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill is a positive for the Northern Territory. This government’s vision for a strong society is built on valuing an individual’s freedom to participate in society and ensure they have equal access to opportunities, supporting the most vulnerable people in our community and working hard to make the Territory a safe place for every person whether they are at work, school, out socialising or in their own home. This bill is a landmark piece of legislation which assists us in realising our goal of creating a strong society for every Territorian and every visitor to this great place.
Alcohol protection orders, or APOs, will be another tool among a collection of instruments this government has put forward as a means of reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. There is no quick fix, regardless of what the opposition tells you, when targeting crime in any jurisdiction. Successful campaigns around the world designed to fight crime use various measures, not just one bandaid solution on top of another. The previous government’s Banned Drinker Register, not only being onerous on law abiding citizens and licensees, was very costly and not strategically packaged with other legislation to make a real difference.
The former government knew there was a problem in the Northern Territory with excessive drinking and antisocial behaviour. Despite what they thought were good intentions, Labor let substandard legislation grow like a suffocating weed which the Country Liberals government has had to prune back to let new, productive results occur. In my electorate alone, property crime spiked because people on the Banned Drinker Register were smashing people’s windows to steal their grog. It was a disgrace. It was not a Banned Drinker Register; it was the banned buyer register.
This side of the Chamber is committed to restoring faith in the Northern Territory government’s ability to respond to social problems. The alcohol protection orders legislation is different to the failed BDR in that it should not cause concern to law abiding residents, who make up the vast majority of people. Under this legislation, if you are not bound by an APO you do not need to show identification when you buy a six-pack after work, and your details are not scanned by a computer to prove you are not a criminal.
A multipronged approach to building a strong society is what we are witnessing. As previously stated, this bill is one mechanism among others introduced by the current government to curb the trend of alcohol misuse and social dysfunction, including violent and dangerous crime. They are thoughtful laws which meet the expectations of honest, hard-working Territorians, including the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act and the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. It is no coincidence that both of these acts were legislated by a strong, determined government in tune with the public. These two acts serve to sit side by side with the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill and will work towards addressing the highly complex issue of alcohol-related offending.
We previously heard about the Banned Drinker Register in remarks from the member for Fannie Bay. That is, essentially, all we heard about. Their pride and joy was the BDR, which is why the opposition has nothing else to talk about. We have not heard about any other solutions introduced during their time because there were none. For a decade, Labor sat on their hands while alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour continued to plague the Territory, its streets and homes. All of a sudden, at the end of their time in government, the BDR was haphazardly introduced leaving Territorians puzzled. It is no wonder the BDR did not work, given Labor’s inherent soft on crime attitude. We are seeing that attitude displayed in full force today.
The BDR was brainstormed during a time when most people in our community had already decided Labor had failed them. The Labor Party invented the BDR when someone finally decided, ‘Hey, it might be a responsible idea to address the alcohol problem everyone in our community keeps talking about’. Sadly, no one on either side of the Chamber can identify what Labor did in this area before the Banned Drinker Register. I am sure somewhere on the hard drive of a Labor member is a file titled, ‘Important Alcohol Reforms for the Northern Territory – to be advised’. It is probably located next to the file, ‘Stella Maris – A Work in Progress’.
The BDR was Labor’s first and only attempt to solve the grog problem and, therefore, is all the opposition can talk about. Our election commitment to ditch the BDR was welcomed by voters – the many people excited about this addition to our suite of comprehensive legislation targeted at reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. The Chief Minister and I hosted a meeting of the Council of Churches, and when we discussed with the several members of that council in the room the APO, the consensus was it was welcomed. You need a number of tools in your chest to fight this problem, and it was very encouraging to have the council’s support.
I also support this legislation because it reflects the attitude within the community that criminals have had it easy for far too long. Why should offenders be granted the same luxuries as their victims? What stops a drunk assaulting an innocent person in one pub only to visit a different pub the next night and, potentially, carry out the same attack? For years, all we have heard about in regard to the justice system is how the offender was somewhat sorry for his fourth or fifth charge of assault. The key question has revolved around the rights of the criminal.
The community has had enough. Instead of searching long and hard for mitigating circumstances, or trying to find legitimate reasons for drunken criminality, Territorians are now asking, ‘What about the rights of society? Why do we try to protect the offender not the victim?’
This bill is a milestone in many ways. Significantly, victims and those vulnerable in our community can now have more confidence in living their lives. We all agree a strong society values an individual’s right to freedom. One definition of freedom means the state of not being subject to, or affected by, something undesirable.
People who have been attacked by drunks or have witnessed antisocial behaviour due to alcohol abuse will tell you they do not feel they have the freedom to go to a pub, nightclub or major event. Something undesirable, like seeing a previous attacker drinking a couple of metres away or fearing witnessing grog-fuelled criminality impedes on people’s decisions to enjoy their lives and go out. Now, thanks to this legislation, people are able to attend events or social gatherings with less chance of running into their offender and can have greater confidence that those on an APO are deterred from drinking alcohol as well as remaining in licensed areas. Just like other privileges in life, if you thumb your nose at society’s rules, privileges will be revoked.
I support this legislation because of the possible benefits it can provide for the person subject to an alcohol protection order. Abstaining from alcohol for a length of time can bring enormous benefits to one’s health, even if it is for a short period of time. The member for Namatjira commented about that at length and how it will benefit her people.
APOs force a person to re-evaluate their attitude towards alcohol and will provide many with a clearer head to focus on what they value in life, and whether they think their alcohol consumption is negatively affecting them and their loved ones.
Away from alcohol, people are more likely to participate in sport and recreational activities, and there is a greater chance for someone to find gainful employment when they are sober rather than intoxicated.
I struggle to understand why the opposition cannot see the benefits of this legislation. In fact, on ABC radio, the shadow Police minister, the member for Fannie Bay, labelled it ‘quite an odd bill’. Member for Fannie Bay, is it really that odd? Does anyone find it odd that the Chief Minister, the Police minister, wants to empower police officers with a landmark law which allows for alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour to be tackled head on?
Is it odd to restrict the consumption of alcohol to those who have broken the law while intoxicated, often as repeat offenders? Is it odd to care about creating safe pubs and clubs where hard-working Territorians want to relax with fewer troublemakers nearby? Is it odd to think about what our victims want in our society? I ask the opposition, is it really an odd bill – a progressive law enforcement tool your party would deny the police force if you were in power?
While we are talking about the opposition’s stance on this bill, it is important to reflect on one point the member for Fannie Bay made on ABC radio where he said, ‘Nothing in this bill stops someone going into a store and buying alcohol’. This might be the first and only time I say the member for Fannie Bay is 100% correct. Technically, he is right. Technically speaking, under the BDR – the failed bandaid of yesteryear - it was possible for a banned drinker to have their wife, brother, friend or a stranger go into a store and buy alcohol for them. Even better, they could just walk into the pub.
The member for Fannie Bay is also the shadow Attorney-General, and I do not need to remind him laws cannot stop someone doing illegal or unethical things; it is physically impossible. Nothing physically stops people driving a motor vehicle while drunk, but Part V of the Traffic Act says it is illegal. Nothing physically stops someone stealing money, but Part VII of the Criminal Code Act forbids it ...
Mr Elferink: You have noticed that, have you?
Ms FINOCCHIARO: I did notice that, Attorney-General. Your shadow colleague has missed the memo that came around.
What laws do, shadow Attorney-General, is set rules and boundaries for citizens and, if the laws are strong enough, they successfully act as deterrents.
The member for Fannie Bay, the shadow Attorney-General, thinks the legislation is unfair because if police decide to serve an APO on a person it applies from the moment they are arrested, served or summonsed, as he put it. In fact, I will outline what the shadow Attorney-General said on ABC Radio on 7 November this year:
- They have not gone to court yet, they could actually be found innocent of the charge. So this is not actually applying to somebody after they have been found guilty.
There are two reasons why the member for Fannie Bay’s argument is flawed. As shadow Attorney-General, it is of upmost importance to have some grasp on legislation which has been around for years. Forget about APOs, I draw your attention to when someone is currently charged at the police watch house and released on bail. That person’s bail conditions can state they must not consume alcohol. They breach bail if they do and can be arrested. They have not gone to court yet, as the member for Fannie Bay stated, as if it was peculiar.
Secondly, after the initial court date, you are no longer on bail so the non-drinking condition ceases, as APOs can. What about the restrictions placed on a defendant when they have been served with a section 41 police Domestic Violence Order? There are often provisions stating the person must not consume alcohol, or even be intoxicated while in the company of the victim. This is another case where a person can be apprehended for breaching a ‘do not consume alcohol’ condition well before their court date. When their court date arrives, this condition can be revoked and the person can drink once more.
I repeat the shadow Attorney-General’s first revelation:
- They have not gone to court yet, they could actually be found innocent of the charge.
This applies to many people on bail and some who have been served a police DVO. However, it all sounds like a surprise to the opposition.
We have the next sentence, where the member for Fannie Bay said:
- So this is not actually applying to somebody after they have been found guilty.
Once again, it should not be surprising to a shadow Attorney-General that bail conditions and DVO conditions can also be altered at the court appearance. This is Law 101, and I urge the opposition to not muddle the facts when speaking publicly on important matters designed to positively change the lives of Territorians.
I return to the conversation about police domestic violence orders. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned DVOs and appears to believe there is a confusing duplication. This is simply not the case. Unfortunately, common sense appears to be missing from the opposition’s approach to this debate. They have, as usual, led with their chin with this criticism.
Let us look at what happens on the ground. At the moment, if police attend a domestic violence incident or are made aware of one, they can issue a police Domestic Violence Order. Where appropriate, they can make it a condition of the DVO that the alleged offender not possess or consume alcohol.
This power was created to address the impact of alcohol in domestic situations, and the prevalence of alcohol in violent domestic situations. The APO is a much broader tool to address alcohol-related criminal behaviour. The police who attend a domestic violence incident will now not duplicate the alcohol aspect but, instead, will issue two distinct orders with distinct purposes. The Domestic Violence Order will contain conditions such as the alleged offender not contact or approach the alleged victim, or the perpetrator not go to certain homes, suburbs or towns. The role of a DVO is to prevent domestic violence incidents and protect vulnerable people. An APO would also be issued in this case. The purpose is obvious: to address the alcohol component of the criminal behaviour and restrict future access to alcohol.
This is a practical approach to real problems by government giving tools to police. Let us be sensible in this debate, not negative just for the sake of it.
I support this legislation because it will inevitably make licenced venues a safer place. Simply stated, APOs are placed on adults who are charged with committing a serious offence while under the influence of alcohol where the punishment is a possible six months or more in prison.
People bound by an APO are banned from possessing or consuming alcohol and, importantly, are banned from being on most licensed premises.
This is one reason the bill is favoured by many people in the community. People in the NT who have been arrested, issued a summons or a notice to appear in respect to a qualifying offence are banned from entering pubs and clubs. This will make licensed venues safer places. Not all people subject to an APO will be those violent offenders who make us cringe when we read about a glassing or pub bashing. I envisage alcohol protection orders will be effective in deterring that violent minority from frequenting places of leisure such as pubs, clubs and other types of bars.
If I go to a bar with my friends in the future, we will be much safer under this legislation than under the BDR. The BDR ensured violent perpetrators were afforded the luxury of hanging around in bars, waiting to start trouble.
With this legislation, entertainment precincts, particularly Mitchell Street in Darwin city, will be safer destinations, and that is part of what makes a strong society. It is being able to travel, work, live and play in safety and without fear of drunken violence. A clear message is being sent to those who have flouted the laws and enjoy the reckless life of getting drunk and breaking the law. Your time is up. Your time drinking to excess and putting yourself or other people at risk is up.
This legislation will be the foundation of a cultural change in regard to consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory. As such, it would be foolish to expect results overnight. Changing attitudes is a slow process, but is possible with this legislation. People served with APOs will have time away from drink and licensed venues to contemplate how they got into that position, and how to avoid it in the future.
Family members and friends who tire of the intolerable actions of recidivist drunken offenders will have a break from the routine and the chance of a better life. The victims, the forgotten ones, who for a decade have been yearning for a community where they feel safe and the law is there to protect them, will have comfort once again.
Legislation like this sets us apart from the previous government. We are tough on crime while Labor was not. We care about the victim while Labor did not. We introduced meaningful legislation where Labor did not.
I support the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 and am proud to be part of a government which is as responsible and pioneering as this one. Thank you.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on alcohol protection orders.
In his second reading speech the Chief Minister said the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt the reduction of alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour is a real goal of the government, as well as the previous government, along with every member of this House.
A solution to the problem is something we all want to see. As Territorians we see, day to day, the hideous effects of excessive drinking. We see it in every electorate, and we all want to see a change for the better. We know many Territorians are capable of having a few drinks and keeping their alcohol consumption under control. They like to go out, catch up with their mates or their family at a barbeque after work, have a few drinks and live a balanced and productive life. Unfortunately, in the Territory we see many people with horrendous drinking problems who, as a result, get themselves into all sorts of trouble.
We have heard great tragedies recounted by some members in this debate. We also see them for ourselves, and we witness the consequences and awful realities some people live with as a result of excessive alcohol consumption. It is downright terrible and we all want to see this tackled. We all want to see better lives ahead for these people deeply affected by alcohol and its consequences This issue ignites passionate debate in this House and, clearly, there is a lot of work to do.
Around 60% of offences against a person and about 70% of domestic violence order breaches in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. These numbers speak volumes about the problems some people have with alcohol, but it certainly does not tell the whole story. There is more to the story of alcohol-related harm than crime statistics. For the worst affected, alcohol addiction can mean the loss of family, friends, livelihood, and time in rehab or prison. For many, this is accompanied by major physical or mental health problems for the rest of their lives.
We all agree the social and economic impacts of alcohol in the Territory are huge. Alcohol-related crime is not new to the Territory. I doubt there is any community in the world where alcohol is available that is free from the problems it can cause. We have seen some hideous alcohol-fuelled violent incidents in recent times, and it is sad to say it is likely we will see these incidents continue.
As elected representatives in the Northern Territory parliament, we need to think deeply about this. We have a responsibility to make the right decisions, try to minimise the harm caused by alcohol and provide help for drinkers who need assistance. This bill certainly misses the mark.
I cannot help but mention the Banned Drinker Register. In debate today we have heard many different views about the Banned Drinker Register, and it is clear we are talking to many different people in this House. There are many different views, but one thing for sure is the government is still very much opposed to the BDR. It was not the silver bullet for alcohol-related problems, but it was making a difference.
The only reason the BDR is no longer in operation is because the CLP decided to oppose it early and loudly. The police thought the BDR worked, Territorians knew it worked, and Territorians I speak to tell me they felt the BDR was having a positive impact. Since removal of the BDR on the day after the election, I saw chaos break out across the Territory. We saw many people back on it. You only need to go down the Esplanade at 7 am to see plenty of people having a good old time.
We have seen, since removal of the BDR, police being gagged, and it was not because they did not like it. I suspect those on the other side of the Chamber know it worked in some ways, but I doubt we will see you admit it.
The Banned Drinker Register was once described by police as the most effective tool they had been given to combat alcohol-related crime, a tool that interrupted supply of alcohol to those who broke the rules rather than this flawed plan of the CLP. The BDR was a tool to help reduce consumption and, therefore, help reduce alcohol-related harm. There were around 2500 people on the BDR when the CLP scrapped it, their first action after being elected. That is 2500 people who could not walk into a bottle shop and buy grog because there was a system in place identifying problem drinkers at the point of sale.
Under this new legislation of APOs we have a system meant to stop people from drinking, in theory. APOs are meant to be in place so a person on one cannot buy alcohol from a bottle shop or walk into a pub and have a beer. The problem is only a person on one and some police know they are on an APO. There is very little in the way of stopping a person buying alcohol at a bottle shop or drinking at a pub.
It is ridiculous to expect police to keep tabs on thousands of people to ensure they are not drinking, have not had a beer early in the day or are not waiting for the police to leave so they can get the grog their friend is hoarding for them. The CLP’s plan to stop people from entering licensed supermarkets if they need to get milk or bread, or just get a newspaper, is bizarre. The plan will stop people from going to venues with their families, such as the football, their local sporting club, or a restaurant to have a meal. The CLP’s plan is to ban people from buying alcohol and not tell anyone they are banned. The only way it can work is if police follow the banned drinkers around all day to catch them in the act.
Once they have had an APO issued, that person is not allowed to enter a licensed premises and it is an offence for anyone to supply them with alcohol. However, there is no way for anyone to know who has had an APO issued. Security does not know who has an APO so will not stop anyone entering licensed premises. Shop owners will not know when they walk in to get the paper, and the waitress will not know when they are sitting in the restaurant ordering a meal. This is not a practical solution and places more pressures on vital police resources.
The Chief Minister, in his second reading speech, said the bill would provide police with a law enforcement tool to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime. I do not see how this will work. Our police are the best in the country and the Chief Minister wants to send them out every day to chase people on APOs. We already appreciate that demands on police are extremely high in the Territory and this will mean more work and more pressure on their precious and valuable resources.
The effectiveness of the BDR was most evident immediately after it was scrapped. We all saw the rivers of grog running again and an increase in antisocial and nuisance-type behaviour. The antisocial behaviour continues across the Territory. This is disturbing enough, worse still is the increase in violent crime in the Territory, a dismal failure by a dismal CLP government which promised to cut crime by 10% in its first year and every year after that. It was their airtight commitment in television advertisements, media interviews and policy papers.
In the latest crime statistics released this week, alcohol-related crime and domestic violence is skyrocketing. Alcohol-related assaults are up across the Territory in the last year, roughly for the same 12 months since scrapping the BDR. Alcohol-related assaults in Darwin are up by 12.3% under the CLP. In Tennant Creek, this figure is a horrific 43.7%. In Alice Springs, alcohol-related assaults are up 11.2%, and in Katherine that has increased by 4.2%. Domestic violence alcohol-related assaults are truly hideous statistics – up by 4.2% in Tennant Creek. There has been an increase of 18.6% in Darwin, and in Katherine and Alice Springs it has increased by 11%. These are not good statistics and are driven by consumption of alcohol.
This is putting more pressures on hospitals and organisations that support the victims of domestic violence. Alcohol-related emergency admissions at Alice Springs Hospital went through the roof after the BDR was scrapped. We also know RDH’s emergency department has been under immense pressure. It had the practice of double-bunking in place, which is now a regular occurrence, because of admissions and bed block.
The CLP has failed miserably. It has broken its contract with Territorians and its policy to scrap the BDR was not taken from a health perspective for these people.
More than 12 months since scrapping of the BDR, I talk to plenty of people who would like to see it reinstated. These are everyday Territorians, mums and dads, business owners, doctors, nurses and police, Territorians young and old from all walks of life.
It is true the ID system impacted on everyone who chose to buy alcohol but, after speaking to people, it was not much different to paying via your credit card using the EFTPOS machine. People became used to it pretty quickly and did not mind showing ID at the point of sale.
When the Chief Minister says the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, it raises a question. With violent crime, hospital admissions, antisocial behaviour and public drunkenness on the rise under the CLP, how does the Chief Minister rate the government’s progress on this commitment so far?
Because of the CLP’s arrogant refusal to admit the BDR was achieving results, we have ad hoc pieces of legislation such as the one we are debating today. We have already undergone lengthy debate around mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. We now have another bill which appears unworkable in real life and has no care or consideration for the health issues of alcoholics.
Under this legislation, if a person is placed on an alcohol protection order they must stop drinking immediately and consume no alcohol from the moment they are on an APO. There will be many alcoholics on APOs with chronic drinking problems. They drink every day because they are addicted, they are sick. It is a pretty miserable life. When people are addicted to alcohol, they will continue to drink even if it causes problems. They may start to miss work. It may be impacting on their closest personal relationships, and they are more likely to get into trouble with the law and end up on an APO.
Alcohol addiction is a very serious health condition and there can be severe effects from sudden withdrawal. The fight against withdrawal can be an enormous struggle and can become life threatening. Once the misuse of alcohol reaches the point of dependence it can be incredibly difficult to recover. At this stage, clinical treatment may be necessary. Withdrawal from alcohol can be very difficult. It is clear many people placed on APOs will break them given the alcoholism they are battling. They will not adhere to the conditions of the APO and will end up back on the grog. There will be nothing to stop them getting alcohol as there is no system to stop them at the point of sale.
There has been no word from the government on what support they intend to give alcoholics placed on an APO. Will they be looking at best practice to ensure chronic alcoholics on an APO will be in touch with the appropriate support to help them stop drinking in a way which will minimise harm to them?
Will chronic alcoholics – someone dealing with a very severe illness – be put in touch with health professionals to ensure they are placed on an appropriate plan to assist them safely through the withdrawal process? Responsible measures need to be in place to treat someone who is alcohol dependent.
The government seemed to understand alcohol withdrawal was a dangerous prospect when they went through their Mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Bill. However, with APOs, there is nothing in place to deal with withdrawal issues. This will place the lives of chronic alcoholics at risk. There is no word, from what I have seen, of referral services, not even a mention of treatment services for those at risk.
There is a range of different ways to treat alcoholics. In some instances, it is recommended they reduce drinking in the first instance to help minimise the impacts of withdrawal. When a chronic alcoholic on an APO ends up drinking, as many will, their sickness will be criminalised and they may end up in gaol.
Genuinely sick people ordered to cease drinking immediately, with no support to help them, will be exposed to potential harm through the withdrawal process if not managed properly. When many revert back to drinking because of their sickness, they will end up in gaol.
The bill before us is another example of a chaotic CLP government. This legislation comes out of a rushed Cabinet and is ill conceived. This bill is a kneejerk reaction to a problem made much worse by this government’s arrogant refusal to admit the BDR was making a difference. It was a great tool for police and was helping make a difference.
The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is impractical to enforce and may even have dangerous implications for people with severe alcohol dependence. The government needs to rethink this legislation as it has flaws and lacks the required support for people battling alcoholism.
The government has stated today that it is ignoring advice received from key organisations around the Territory. It is not listening because it believes these organisations, like AMSANT, NAAJA and the Police Association, are playing politics.
There are definite flaws in this legislation. We all want to see changes for the better in the Territory. We want to see less alcohol abuse in the community, the urban centres, towns and remote communities. We all want to see a difference. However, there are some real flaws in this legislation and I hope the government examines it further.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, one could be forgiven for thinking the member who just spoke has not read the bill. There is nothing in this bill about alcoholism. Whilst I hear the member and agree with many of her observations on alcoholism, it is not what this bill is about. She predicates and presumes a lecture on alcoholism automatically translates into some strident rebuttal of a legislative instrument that has nothing to do with alcoholism and everything to do with conduct.
I listened carefully to the member for Fannie Bay, who described an Orwellian world in which the police spend their lives crushing humanity under the heel of their boot. I use that reference advisedly because it was George Orwell who once said if you want a picture of humanity’s future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
That is the world of the member for Fannie Bay. I explored that concept and listened carefully to what he said, and he runs into several small issues. Let us begin with the assertion that people who sing bawdy ballads will not be able to visit Fannie Bay Super Pizza …
Mr Gunner: It is in the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I hear that. He has read the bill, and then someone has read the Summary Offences Act. Because the top threshold in the Summary Offences Act touches on the bottom threshold in this legislation, he is assuming it automatically follows that people will be banned from going to Fannie Bay Super Pizza because they have been charged with these offences.
I sought advice from the Police Commissioner earlier on this assertion. We are both speculating without doing the research; however, I asked him how many people had been charged with a criminal offence for singing an obscene song or ballad in the last 10 years. Between the two of us, we could not recollect a single instance of such a thing.
That raises a few realities. The first is, if you take the Summary Offences Act as your base for this argument, you have to understand how this is interpreted. If you walk into a public house such as Shenannigans, hear a bunch of footballers singing a bawdy song and are offended by it, it does not automatically follow that the singers of the bawdy song have committed an offence under the Summary Offences Act. I would be astonished if such a matter were prosecuted by a police officer, and it would be very unlikely a court would determine a bawdy ballad in Shenannigans on a Friday at 11 pm would automatically qualify as a breach of the offence because of the requirement for a person to be offended. Anyway, such is life, and that is the link made by the member opposite.
If this conviction occurs or a charge is laid and the police officer makes an order as envisaged by this act, the member for Fannie Bay says the offending person can no longer go into Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. The problem with that argument is neither Fannie Bay Super Pizza nor the Cool Sport are licensed premises ...
Mr Gunner: They are.
Mr ELFERINK: No, they are not licensed premises. This is one of the problems we have with members opposite. They are long on accusations and allegations but short on facts. These institutions allow for liquor to be brought into the establishment and consumed on site, but they are not licensed premises. I am advised there is no such thing as a BYO licence.
The member is saying things on radio which are not true. Does that sound familiar when it comes to the Labor Party and the way they deal with Territorians? It is starting to sound all too familiar to me. They do not do their homework and ask these questions.
I understand the member for Fannie Bay was briefed on this issue. I wonder if during that briefing he raised this issue or decided to run the fabrication in public and deliberately not seek advice on those two locations. Let us start being sensible in the way we run these arguments.
The other component is the police will create orders and instructions around this legislation which will take up the idea of subordinate legislation. I can tell you how subordinate legislation works in this House. Any legislative instrument, regulation or instruction given under legislation cannot exceed the authority of the chief act. However, it may well, can do, and often does, diminish the authority or the power granted or restrain the authority or power granted by the enabling act. This means the orders from the Police Commissioner to his troops – I would not be surprised if he says, ‘In spite of the fact the act enables something to occur, we will not do that because it is patently absurd. We will operate to make certain the legislation targets those people we want to target as a police force and a government.’ Guess what, here is a stunning idea, perhaps we could trust our police to make those determinations at an operational level all by themselves, because I reckon we can.
It also enlivens another issue that concerns me in the way the member for Fannie Bay is unreasonably representing what is happening. He wants to paint the worst scenario he can to justify the shortcomings of this legislation. That is the nature of this place, and I understand the politics of that. However, their decision to not support this is based on arguments indicative of an hysterical rather than considered position.
I understand the argument about the BDR; I get where you guys are coming from. It was not supportable on the numbers because, during the period of the BDR, crime rates went up for the same reasons you …
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol-fuelled went down.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it did not …
Ms Lawrie: Read the reports. Don’t let the facts get in the way. Keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: You certainly did not let the facts get in the way, you stopped publishing them. ‘We have some facts. Oh, my God, stick them in a draw. Nothing to see here folks, just move on.’ Then, sitting in opposition, ‘Look at that; we had all the facts.’ You are not credible so forget it.
We have a wonderful construct being created by the member for Fannie Bay. That then takes us to where he said, unless I misunderstood him, ‘You only have three days to lodge an application. You have to get a lawyer,’ and do all these other things …
Mr Gunner: Three days to appeal.
Mr ELFERINK: Three days to appeal, then you said you have to get a lawyer, is that correct?
Mr Gunner: Three days in which to get a lawyer. If you are done on Friday you have until close of business Monday.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us read the legislation. I pick up where you have three days in which to get a lawyer. Okay, here we go. I will read clause 9:
- Application for reconsideration of issue of alcohol protection order
(1) An adult to whom an alcohol protection order has been issued under section 6 may apply for a reconsideration of the decision to issue the alcohol protection order, in accordance with this section.
(2) The applicant must: …
Mr Gunner: It is clause 10, John. You are reading the wrong clause. Clause 10(1):
- Within three days after an application is lodged under section 9 …
Mr ELFERINK: Wait, wait, wait.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are not in committee stage yet.
Mr ELFERINK: We are getting there:
- (2) The application must:
(a) be made in writing; and
(b) state the reason why the adult believes that the decision to issue the alcohol protection order should not have been made; and
(c) be lodged at a police station not later than 3 days after the date on which the order was issued.
Why would you need a lawyer for that? It is not a court house. It is going to the police station and saying to the local copper who dropped this order on me, ‘Hang on, I want you to review this’. As evidence to …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it is that simple.
Mr ELFERINK: It is that simple. That is what the law requires. Once again you make a little interjection. The Leader of the Opposition is aware the shadow Attorney-General is in trouble with his arguments and has to interfere. She cannot let him do his job without this urge to protect because she is genuinely embarrassed by him. His argument is that a lawyer has to be involved. Why would walking into a police station and asking for a decision to be reviewed require a lawyer? It does not. Guess what? I checked with the police and asked them how they will do this. It turns out the police orders I referred to earlier – the instructions surrounding how this will be rolled out – will be written in the following terms. If a person who happens to be illiterate fronts up at the police station and says, ‘I am unhappy with this alcohol protection order,’ the police officer behind the counter – I presume that extends to constables in bush stations or ACPOs, or Police Auxiliaries in the major centres – will write the application on behalf of the applicant. What happens then? Within three days after an application is lodged under section 9 in respect to an alcohol protection order, a senior officer must reconsider the decision to issue the order and give the adult or a person to whom a senior officer reasonably believes to be the adult’s legal representative – first reference to a lawyer – a notice in writing about the senior officer’s decision. The first reference to a lawyer is already in the four- to six-day period. That is only if that person has a lawyer. Guess what? The senior officer can also give it to the person directly.
There is then a continuing review process, because clause 11(1) takes people through:
- An adult whose alcohol protection order has been confirmed by a senior officer may apply to the Local Court ...
You may want a lawyer by that stage, but six days have passed and the application must be made within seven days of the notice about the decision being given under section 10(1). That means it is not three days to get a lawyer, it is at least 13.
The member opposite would not let the truth get in the way of a good yarn. Goodness gracious me, we are creating an Orwellian world, remember, and we cannot let the truth apply! His arguments are spurious, hysterical, and wrong ...
Mr Gunner: It does not change the three-day period, John, which was the point.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I will not do this again, member for Fannie Bay, but you have fundamentally misrepresented the process. It was mischievous, or negligent because you do not understand what is contained in the bill.
I am comfortable the bill is well drafted for its purposes, despite the fact I know, for the sake of completeness, there are some amendments. I also take up the issue of consultation with the community.
All the information the members opposite have supplied or have heard about and all the information the Northern Territory government has received has been because this bill was tabled in the parliament of the Northern Territory. This is not a secret society. It is not a furtive group gathering or a star chamber; it is a parliament which deals with its business in the open glare of public examination. One does not furtively walk into a parliament and secretly table a bill for consideration. One places the bill on the table so the public may examine it. Were the public aware of the bill? My goodness they were because members of the public, including various institutions, contacted the opposition. Members of the public and certain organisations contacted the Northern Territory government.
In the secret process we stand accused of, the process of this House which has been around for a long time, the public seems aware. We also secretly issued a number of media releases and furtively engaged in communications with a number of organisations in the public domain secretly – sort of, I think. No, it must have been secretive somehow. Once again, the opposition calls the government arrogant for not going through processes. The processes have been well established and, by the evidence adduced from the various contributions in this House, those processes have worked. It is a facile argument bordering on the flaccid to say there is a secret approach in what we are doing. We are proud of this legislation. We announced it publicly and said we would do it. It has been spoken about in this place on a number of occasions. It is hardly secretive.
I want to touch on a couple of other issues in relation to the offences. We heard from members opposite in relation to a person working behind a bar being exposed to this legislation. Because the licensee was not exposed, it must have been the bartender’s fault. Let us read this onerous section in regard to exposing bar staff to this wicked legislation aloud. Let us look at clause 24:
- A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) intentionally supplies alcohol to an adult; and
You have to do it knowingly. It is not a case of somebody walking into a bar and saying, ‘I would like a beer, please.’ ‘Here is your beer, I will take your five bucks,’ or whatever a beer is worth nowadays and, all of a sudden, that bartender is guilty of an offence. That bartender is guilty of nothing if they did not know the alcohol protection order was in place. They have to be aware of it, and that is a matter for evidence which means any prosecution in this area has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the bartender has, with knowledge, committed a criminal offence. That is not what was described by the members opposite.
The other component I draw members’ attention to is clause 23(4):
It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) if the defendant establishes a reasonable excuse.
This is a vehicle by which a person has a defence if they act reasonably when committing an offence against this legislation.
Subsections (1) and (2) are offences associated with the alcohol protection order. I am confused as to the hysteria, other than that it is politically motivated.
This legislation enables the police to have another tool in their toolbox. It enables police to take control of those people who continually offend in our community and continue to cause us strife, and it aims to enable the police to go about their business. Their primary function is to serve and protect. I have full confidence in the Northern Territory Police Force and its ability to serve and protect.
Before I conclude, I place on the record that I erred earlier. The Cool Spot is licensed; Fannie Bay Super Pizza definitely is not ...
Ms Lawrie: A mistake.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, an honest and reasonable error on my part. Shock, horror, and guess what? I immediately moved to correct it. I wonder if the correction will come from the shadow Attorney-General in relation to mistakes, errors and falsehoods he has peddled today. At least I have the courage to respond. Will your shadow Attorney-General do that? I suspect not.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): It was interesting that both the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister jumped at the same time. Were you trying to wrap then, Chief Minister, and shut down debate? I am pleased you gave me the opportunity to contribute.
I have been listening to the debate while working on other matters in my office. More than anything, this legislation starkly contrasts the approach of the current government against the approach of the previous one.
The previous government, and everyone in this Chamber today, shares the common goal of harm minimisation when it comes to the scourge of alcohol in our community. I imagine everyone in this Chamber today shares the goal of saving lives. That is a common view, I expect, between all of us. We see too often the harm and damage occurring to individuals and their families. We are so concerned about the impact on the families and children. We see the effect it has on our community with antisocial behaviour but, at the very worst end, the tragedy of alcohol-fuelled violent crime. I expect we share a common perspective in that.
That is where the common perspective ends. Labor’s approach to address this formally in government and create a new policy was to talk to people on the front line. We had to gain information about what they thought would work.
Police Commissioner, I am pleased to see you in the Chamber today and know you will fulfil your duty to the government of the day with great professionalism. I wanted to acknowledge that.
As Alcohol Policy minister, one of the first people I approached when trying to create new ground in policy to deal with the scourge of alcohol-fuelled violence in our community was the Police Commissioner. I had some ideas. I had looked at what we learnt from evaluation of the alcohol management plans and permits in Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land. I note that those permits are still in place, providing recognition that a point of sale tool works. Let us put that aside for a second.
We had some ideas and tested the workability of those ideas with the Police Commissioner because police are front line in this debate. It is their day and their night. We gleaned a lot of useful information from the Police Commissioner in those discussions, and he was supportive of new policy in this area. He was generous in giving the time of capable subordinates to work constructively with my alcohol policy team to create the ultimate policy. We brought in the justice stakeholders, engaging not only with the policy officers within the Department of Justice, but with CAALAS, NAAJA and others involved in dealing with alleged perpetrators of these crimes. They do not want to spend day-in day-out dealing with this tragedy and would rather see prevention too.
We then consulted the alcohol treatment sector, doctors and the Department of Health. We started to put together policy we felt had some genuine robustness to it. We created a discussion paper which went around and draft legislation that went to the parliament. The draft legislation was a result of the discussion paper provided to all the stakeholders. We held community forums and stakeholder specific forums and, when we discuss consultation, this is our point of difference.
We heard the Attorney-General say that if you put out some media releases and have some letters go backwards and forwards between a few organisations that is consultation. We set a different bar for consultation. Our view of consultation is bringing people into informed forums and engaging with them.
That is what the member for Fannie Bay was, quite appropriately, pointing out to the government – the paucity of consultation over these important changes to the law before us today.
Underpinning everything was harm minimisation, which is why we had a point of sale tool. That is, again, the fundamental difference between the parties in the Chamber today. We want to support people on orders because people were on orders under the previous alcohol tools we provided with police, but they do not work unless you have a point of sale tool.
These laws, which will pass today because the government has the weight of numbers, are fundamentally flawed because you have no way, at point of sale, of preventing the person on the order purchasing alcohol. The person who has a chronic problem with alcohol and is damaging themselves, affecting their family and affecting our broader society and community can still purchase alcohol even though they are on an order.
How is the government explaining its way through? A list and wanted style posters will be provided to licensees. The realty of the retail sector – again, in consultation drawing up our alternative, we worked with the Australian Hotels Association and the liquor industry in corner shops to find the workability of that point of sale engagement. There is such a turnover of staff, such a turnover of rosters and multiple staff at major bottle shop takeaways. Look at Liquorland, go to the counter at Nightcliff. There are four points of sale at that counter with a huge rotation of staff. They will not know the list out the back and will not know the wanted style posters. It will not work at point of sale because they will sell grog to people.
However, under this law they run the risk of going to gaol if someone is arguing they knew because there was a list out back, because Dave Tollner’s wanted style poster was sitting out the back because he was a DUI person. This is why this legislation is so fundamentally and deeply flawed. We oppose it because it will not work. We do not oppose it because we oppose orders, we had orders but ours worked because they were point of sale. That is the difference between the parties in the debate today.
There are more fundamental and intrinsic differences around where you set the bar of tests around suspicion. It is getting into really difficult water, guys. The government has been accused of creating quite racist legislation from the Indigenous sector, and that is really difficult …
Mr Tollner: This is racist?
Ms LAWRIE: … really dangerous stuff. To laugh and dismiss it, as the member for Fong Lim is, shows the approach is flawed in the elected officials of the government. If someone says, ‘This is what the Indigenous organisations are saying’ and you laugh at it ...
Mr Tollner: What you are saying, you dropkick. You silly fool!
Ms LAWRIE: … you really have some serious denial issues ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim withdraw that. It is not a comment normally allowed in parliament.
Mr Tollner: What?
Mr WOOD: You know what you said.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, would you like to withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw the comment that Delia is a silly fool.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In withdrawing you are meant to just withdraw. You do not repeat the comment.
Mr Tollner: Do you want me to withdraw?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: As I said, I withdraw the fact I called Delia a silly fool.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we need a straight withdrawal if that is all right please, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I query calling this government racist and putting up racist – goodness me! I withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the protections from the Chair, thank you.
In regard to the fundamental flaws and the genuine concerns Indigenous organisations have about this legislation, they have said they believe there is some concern this could lead to racist overtones. That is not me, member for Karama, Leader of the Opposition saying it. I am repeating what Indigenous organisations are saying …
Mr Tollner: Who are you calling a racist?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, the problem, fundamentally, is you are always dismissive of what people have to say of your government. If it does not fit your view, you dismiss it out of hand rather than take a considered approach and say, ‘That is a perception people have; how do we deal with that because we would not want that? That is not the way of the Northern Territory. That is not the way, as a government, we want to govern in the Northern Territory.’ Instead of taking a considered approach and view, you are very dismissive. That is the cloak of arrogance that sits on your shoulders, and you will have to deal with the consequences of that.
Do not dismiss out of hand the views of the Indigenous organisations of the Northern Territory. That is foolish. They have a genuine voice and deep-seated desire to ensure we are enacting good law. NAAJA and AMSANT have said to your government, ‘Do not do this, this is bad law, this is flawed,’ and you have completely dismissed it out of hand …
Mr Tollner: You are the one peddling it; tell us where it is racist.
Ms LAWRIE: Dismissing something ...
Mr Tollner: No, you cannot say anything like that, can you? Explain yourself. Where is the law racist?
Ms LAWRIE: I am waiting for the interjections to cease.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order!
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. To dismiss NAAJA, AMSANT, and CAALAS out of hand is a foolish thing to do because they are front line in this sector, just as police are. The Police Association has raised concerns that there is no point of sale tool. The Police Association is a voice for police. They are not the only voice …
Mr Tollner: Excuse me. Tell me where AMSANT is front line in all this.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, if he cannot control himself.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order, please? We are not in committee stage so it is not time for questions.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. With the Police Association saying this is flawed because there is no point of sale tool, and NAAJA, CAALAS and AMSANT all expressing deep concerns with this bill, you pursue it regardless because you removed something that, despite your views, was working. You could see it was working because, within days of the BDR being removed, the streets were awash with drunks.
To see the tragedy of that, go to Tennant Creek. Compare the alcohol-fuelled violence occurring in Tennant Creek, a regional centre, to the relative peace of the Nhulunbuy community where a permit system still exists. It is a stark and clear difference within our Northern Territory borders, right here, right now, today. Compare the fact Groote Eylandt has a system in place, to what is happening in some of our larger communities that do not. It is a stark, clear and tragic contrast. If you remove point of sale, you remove the most effective enforcement tool there has been. You chose to do that rashly and too quickly. This has been your response. In Territory lingo, it is gammon. You are pretending to have a tool but it has no enforcement capability. People will be relying on a list somewhere in the licensed premises, with maybe some wanted posters, with a changeover of staff and a clientele very good at shopping around when they want to because we have many licensed premises. What a tragic gammon farce.
The questionable aspects of this legislation have been questioned in detail by NAAJA and CAALAS and, quite appropriately, pointed out in detail by our shadow Attorney-General. You bristle at that, but that is democracy in a Chamber like this where we point out the issues around the detail.
I listened carefully to what the member for Nelson had to say. He, with us, has been on a long journey when it comes to alcohol policy. He, with us, shares a genuine desire to have things that work, things that will minimise harm. We have consistently called for a parliamentary committee. You consistently ignore it.
This bill will increase the number of Aboriginal people in our cells, our watch houses and, ultimately, in our prisons. This directly contradicts the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody recommendations. The Territory is going backwards under the CLP. The test for someone affected by alcohol is extremely low when you apply it to an alleged offence. There is no requirement to ensure a person can understand the notice or that it is explained to them in a language they can understand. The provisions allowing for reconsideration and review of decisions in relation to an APO are woefully inadequate.
Nothing will stop the headlong pursuit of the CLP to pretend they are doing something after they dismantled something that was working. It is gammon, it is flawed and roundly criticised by experts in the sector, yet you pursue it.
There are stark differences between the parties. We listened to and took on board what experts said. We incorporated it into what we were trying to do and delivered on expert advice. The CLP, in stark contrast, rows its own boat and is dismissive, arrogant and nasty when people raise genuine concerns.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, if anybody needed confirmation that Labor was soft on crime, the Opposition Leader just proved it.
They suggest this is racist legislation. According to the Leader of the Opposition, we are a racist government. She cannot back it up with anything of substance, but she throws it out there and says we are all a pack of racists and expects everyone to accept that.
Where is the racism in this document? She could not explain it. This bill is far from racist; it is about treating everyone the same. If you commit a crime which carries a penalty of six months or more, while affected by alcohol, you will have an APO slapped on you. It does not matter what skin colour, sex or age you are; this is non-prescriptive in that regard. This is about people, irrespective of their background or ethnicity, who commit serious crimes which carry a penalty of six months or more while affected by alcohol.
You come to this Chamber, you listen to the arguments from the opposition, and I put the member for Nelson in this category as well – it is all about sympathy for the perpetrator. These are people who commit serious crimes while affected by alcohol ...
Mr Gunner: They are not all serious.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take up the interjection from the member for Fannie Bay. He says if you commit a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more it is not a serious crime.
What do you have to do, in the eyes of the Labor Party, to commit a serious crime? If a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is not serious, what does the member for Fannie Bay considers a serious crime? When do you start treating people who commit crimes seriously? Do they have to kill someone first? Do they have to rape someone? What is the definition, in the Labor world, of a serious crime? Something that carries a penalty of six months or more is not a serious crime? Go figure! That is the view of the Labor Party, as expressed by the member for Fannie Bay. Something that carries …
Mr Gunner: By your own bill, fortune telling.
Mr TOLLNER: Fortune telling. I did not know that brought a penalty of six months or more, but I imagine the type of fortune telling that …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the house. This is a serious stage of discussion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
We have a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Casuarina for calling people into the Chamber because they will be stunned to learn the member for Fannie Bay has suggested that crimes that carry a sentence of six months or more are not serious. He implies we need to have sympathy for people because they are not serious crimes.
I am curious to know what the Labor Party considers a serious crime. Clearly, a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is not that serious. What do you have to do? Do you have to get a life sentence or be put to the electric chair? When does a crime become serious in the eyes of the Labor Party?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113. He is asking, ‘What is a serious crime?’ How about fraud? How about defrauding the Jawoyn? That is pretty serious.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Opposition Leader. Continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: On this side of the House, a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more is quite serious. Not many people on this side of the Chamber have sympathy for people who commit crimes that carry penalties of six months or more.
Health minister, do you have sympathy for people who commit crimes carrying a sentence of six months or more? No. Chief Minister? No. Member for Drysdale? No. There is not a lot of sympathy on this side of the House, but look at the other side of the Chamber. The Labor side and the Independent member have major concerns that these people will not be able to go the football, Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. These things are a travesty of justice. It is a travesty of justice that someone who commits a crime which carries a sentence of six months or more should not be allowed to go to the footy, Super Pizza or the Cool Spot.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. Under this bill, the Deputy Chief Minister is a serious offender.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Chief Minister has 30 minutes. He is not answering a question, he is giving a reply. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I listened to an interview with the member for Fannie Bay recently saying how flawed this legislation is because these people will not be allowed to go to the football. Irrespective that his facts are wrong, he has serious concerns that these people cannot go to the football, Fannie Bay Super Pizza or the Cool Spot. He says, ‘What about a supermarket? They cannot go to the supermarket.’
In our world, member for Fannie Bay, boohoo, so what, big deal! They should have thought about that before they committed a crime that carries a penalty of six months or more. What happens when they are locked up? They will not be going to the supermarket or the football. They will not be going to Fannie Bay Super Pizza. Goodness me! This is the problem with Labor. You are soft on crime and always have been. This is the whole mantra of Labor. It is like your BDR. It was the Claytons tough on crime approach: the approach you have when you do not have an approach, the toughness you have when you are not being tough. What do we do with the BDR? ‘We will ban people from drinking’. Really? They put people’s name on a list but it did not stop them drinking. One joker was picked up 117 times in a 12-month period and had 114 BAT notices issued on him. My goodness, gee whiz! The BDR worked well in that case, didn’t it? Meanwhile, you have inconvenienced every Territorian who has gone to the bottle shop, turned away the vast majority of tourists who rock up into our jurisdiction and made publicans feels like heroin traffickers. That is a great result for the BDR. It cost a fortune and did not stop one person drinking.
At least with alcohol protection orders the onus is not on the community or publican, it is squarely on the shoulders of the individual not to breach the APO. There are serious consequences if they breach the APO, and police will have the ability to know where these people are.
We heard the minister for Corrections talk about GPS trackers today. Imagine if GPS trackers were tied in with this legislation. We would know the location of everybody on an APO. We would know when they went into licensed premises. We would know when they were near or associated with alcohol or were in a place they were not supposed to be. It is a far cry from a BDR which banned everybody from going to a bottle shop without ID but did nothing to stop the drunks. People would say, ‘I go into a bottle-o to buy a bottle of wine for dinner and they demand ID like I am a criminal. I come out of the bottle-o and all I see is drunks everywhere.’
Go to Alice Springs now. Go to East Point, member for Fannie Bay, and look at the way things have changed in the last nine months. I applaud police. I applaud the member for Araluen, the Health minister, for the work she has done on alcohol mandatory treatment because these measures are having an impact. We are not seeing public drunkenness; people are disappearing off the street. I bailed up the Commissioner some time ago and said, ‘Why don’t we have more people in mandatory rehab?’ Those people are no longer being caught. They might get one or two arrests, or taken off the street twice, but they are not appearing the third time. They are scared of being picked up so they are not drinking in public. That is a major goal of this legislation: deal with problem drinkers; get them out of the public eye. People are sick to death of falling over drunks.
Finally we are seeing some change. After 11 long years of soft policies from Labor we are starting to see results very quickly. I applaud the Health minister for the work she has done on alcohol mandatory treatment. I applaud the Minister for Correctional Services for the way he is tackling recidivism in gaols, getting people into full-time work and giving them opportunity and hope in the future. I applaud the work the minister for Police has done, the Chief Minister, in bringing this legislation forward. All these things are making a marked difference in the community. We hear from the other team that these guys cannot go to the football or Fannie Bay Super Pizza because it is a licensed premises. It is not, but the Cool Spot is. Blow me down, they will not be able to go there.
I find all these concerns illegitimate, but even if they were true, big deal, big whoop, who cares? We on this side believe it is serious when people commit crimes that carry a sentence of six months or more, and we do not have a lot of sympathy for those people. In many cases, we do not care about the liberties we take away from them. The fact is, we want these people off the streets.
The Opposition Leader is saying this is racist policy ...
Ms Lawrie: No, that is what NAAJA said to you.
Mr TOLLNER: She is quite happy to parrot other organisations but cannot substantiate anything she says. She cannot say, ‘This is racist because X Y or Z,’ or, ‘We have concerns this is racist policy because of this or that’. If you ask her why she thinks it is racist she says, ‘Nothing to do with me. Someone else said that.’ Goodness me, how pathetic!
After this debate, there is no doubt Labor is soft on crime – always has been, always will be – and does not like to penalise perpetrators of crime. They have constantly found excuses for the perpetrators of crime – bad upbringing, poor school attendance. It is never the fault of the perpetrator, always the fault of the government or someone else. We have to be soft on these people. Frankly, we do not care. We want to see these people dealt with properly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these APOs are a damn good thing. It gives police a good tool to police the perpetrators of crime, particularly people who have serious problems with alcohol. The vast majority of Territorians drink alcohol responsibly, and should be encouraged to continue that. For people who do not drink alcohol responsibly, let us throw the book at them. Let us do something to discourage them. Let us get people with an alcohol-related sickness into mandatory treatment, get them sorted out, try to put them on the path back to righteousness, back to sobriety, and into work. For people who find themselves in gaol, let us try to rehabilitate them and get them into work. That is the focus of this government, not making excuses for criminals and people who break the law and commit serious crime.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before you start, I point out to members of the House that Standing Order 113: relevance, applies to Question Time. The standing order you need to refer to in debate is 67: digression from subject. Perhaps everyone could read that.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Thank you very much for the clarity, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is much appreciated, because quite often Labor members seem to get that wrong.
I thank members for their support for and contribution to this important legislation. It is support from one side of the Chamber which will strengthen the government’s commitment to law and order in the Northern Territory. The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another measure designed to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The bill equips police with another tool to fight alcohol-related crime and violence. It also complements other measures introduced by the Northern Territory government to tackle alcohol abuse and crime such as the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act and the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013.
While some tools exist for police to tackle alcohol-related crime, they are mainly focused on antisocial behaviour and public order offending. Family violence offending often occurs in private and, whilst police pursue arrest and charges, it is not always possible to restrict access to the consumption of alcohol. This is because not all individuals charged fall within the operation of the Bail Act.
The words which have been spoken by members on this side of the Chamber – I reflect on all members on this side of the Chamber – have added solid contribution to the debate. The underlying aspect to the comments provided represents the desire of all Territorians to see a reduction in alcohol-fuelled crime in the Northern Territory, particularly a reduction in alcohol-fuelled domestic violence and domestic violence order breaches, which are a scourge in the society of the Northern Territory.
I note the comments from the member for Nelson. I will not attack them, but he was talking about consultation. It would be easy for me to say, ‘When you were in charge of the last government you could have made changes here,’ but I will not go down that path. In regard to consultation, member for Nelson, if you want to wait for another three months, cast your mind over what has occurred to date, the statistics, the people who have been assaulted over the last few days and, in certain situations, killed as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence and the breaching of domestic violence orders.
Put that into perspective with what would happen over the next three months while naval gazing. You can look at the legislation, but there has to be a point in time where you say, ‘Enough is enough, we want to take action’. That is what we are doing.
I reflect on the comments of the member for Fong Lim and am aware many members made a similar contribution. If you look at what has changed in the last nine months you start to see the changes in society with law and order – people are being treated in mandatory alcohol rehabilitation – and the positive effect of things.
In Palmerston for example, there has been a 58% drop in property crime. In Darwin, the lowest property crime in 13 years is now being recorded. Substantial investments and outcomes are being achieved. When you see what is happening with mandatory alcohol rehabilitation – changes occurring in front of us— it is positive change and it will continue to get bigger and better.
Alcohol protection orders are designed to reduce the number of people being subjected to violence as a result of alcohol-fuelled domestic violence. I make no apologies for advancing this legislation because I am aware this will stop some women in the Northern Territory being flogged by their drunk husbands.
I do not appreciate the comments from the Labor opposition, which allowed much of this to grow and get out of control. I was particularly surprised to hear some of the comments from the shadow minister for police, the member for Fannie Bay. I thought he had a smarter head on his shoulders and wanted to see change. I am aware he has spent much time in areas outside Fannie Bay and understands the scourge of alcohol on society, particularly for those who abuse and misuse alcohol. I am aware he understands the impact of domestic violence. I am sure he gets a lot of feedback from parts of the Northern Territory outside his electorate. However, for him to not support this – all politics aside – is quite disappointing. I was disappointed in not only his position, but also the approach to his position.
I wish to clarify one thing for those on the other side who cannot read. Clause 23(4) relates to licensed premises and the ability for someone subject to an alcohol protection order to enter licensed premises. People can go to the Cool Spot if they have a good reason to be there, or to the footy, or play a footy game. All those scurrilous, false connotations and statements made by the opposition are thrown out the door by that section.
The last thing I will mention before we move towards passage of the bill is the comments from the member for Fong Lim. These are the same comments my colleagues, the members for Port Darwin, Sanderson and Namatjira, made: Labor is soft on crime. This is an approach to drive change, and for you to say how unfair it is that someone who has been charged with a crime which attracts a sentence of six months or more not be allowed to go somewhere is outrageous. We are talking about people who commit drunken domestic violence and assaults. Women get beaten to within an inch of their lives and you are more focused on being able to buy a loaf of bread than the position those women are in and the next assault they will receive. I find that immoral, outrageous and completely insensitive to all Territorians and those women who are flogged.
Member for Fannie Bay, I can understand why the other mob follow the political line, but I thought you had higher morals than that. I did not think you would take that position.
I hope all members of this Chamber will support this legislative initiative. It is legislation the public expects of our government’s commitment to law and order, and legislation which will assist the police in achieving our commitment to a 10% reduction in crime. A 10% reduction in assaults will take a long time to achieve because we are now focused on chasing the perpetrators of domestic violence.
I urge all honourable members to support this bill to provide a clear message that we are protecting community safety and making a direct impact on alcohol-related crime, including public order offending. The message is that police will now have an effective law enforcement tool to target offenders involved in alcohol-related crime and provide a deterrent for future offending.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
MOTION
Formation of Select Committee on the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill
Formation of Select Committee on the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the bill be referred to a select committee to be called the Select Committee on the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, for inquiry and report, including consideration of other possible models for achieving the objects of the bill
2. the members of the committee shall be three members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Government Whip, two members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Opposition Whip, and Mr Wood
Regardless of what people have said previously and what they say I could have done, it has always saddened me that there has been a lot of difficulty getting this parliament to work together on issues of concern to us as members. Forget the party you belong to, we are all concerned about the future and where we are going with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and its effects. This is an opportunity for the parliament to work as parliaments are meant to. They are not meant to be, ‘Over here makes all the decisions; the rest are irrelevant because that is the way it is.’ This is a unicameral system. One of the ways members on this side can contribute to the decision-making process is through a committee.
Today I am putting forward an opportunity to do that. Many things have been said about this bill. I do not believe either side is far away from a common approach to this. People on this side have not said they are opposed to people being banned from drinking. They might have gone on about the BDR and history, but I am not worried about the history. I am concerned about the legislation before us. I told the Chief Minister I support punishment of people who drink and drive, and punishment of people who cause domestic violence. Some of the issues I would like the committee to discuss revolve around a slightly different point of view on where people can and cannot drink, for instance, to avoid some of the issues raised.
The member for Fong Lim said I am only interested in punishment of the person. The Attorney General’s department, South Dakota, has the same belief, but they had a more practical approach to some of the issues so it was not as difficult to interpret.
They are concerned. I found out about South Dakota by talking to Peter Miller from Deakin University. You will find around the world they have the same issues as us and have looked at another approach. This committee would be able to talk to a range of people.
I am not saying we all pop off to South Dakota. We could have a teleconference with the Attorney General’s department in South Dakota and listen to what they have to say. We could also talk to the people in Hawaii running a similar program for a similar response. We could get health experts together. I have great concerns that this bill does not mention treatment. Because I mention treatment does not mean I believe people who have committed the offences should not pay for them. The difficulty with not giving treatment is people will go through revolving doors because they will be back again.
You could talk to rehabilitation experts like CAAPS, FOWAARD and Amity. You could talk to the police and the Police Association. Obviously, they have different points of view but that does not matter. You could question the two different parts of the police to find out why they are for or against some of this legislation. You could talk to lawyers.
I notice a giggle from the member for Fong Lim when I mention lawyers, but they have to interpret this bill and see the results of legislation put through this parliament.
Aboriginal bodies wish to be involved in this. Most of the people, just by looking at the figures – I had the figures sent to me, thankfully, from the department yesterday. You are looking at 2800-plus Indigenous people being involved in either domestic violence or violence. This far exceeds the number of non-Indigenous people arrested or charged. On the law of averages you know Aboriginal people will be affected. Therefore, we need to talk to the relative Aboriginal representative bodies in relation to it.
We need community input. Many people do not know this bill exists. People who drink and drive may not know this exists. They might be normal, average law-abiding citizens except when they drink too much and hop in a car – it could affect them. The way the law is written does not exempt anyone. There are no exemptions and you cannot complain if you get picked up for a minor offence which has an equivalent of six months gaol.
A select committee would ask people for their points of view on this legislation because it can impact on not only people affected by alcohol and domestic violence or drink-driving. There are other offences as the bill is very broad.
Because we are talking about domestic violence, it would be nice to ask women what they think about this bill ...
Ms Finocchiaro: It is good.
Mr WOOD: We can all do one liners, but the issue is not as simple as that because women do not want their men to be repeat domestic violence offenders. That is why I have said treatment. Yes, punishment and treatment. You need to talk to the women’s refuge and ask them about the legislation.
You also need to talk to men’s’ groups …
Ms Lee: Indigenous.
Mr WOOD: Yes, everybody. It needs to be broad so everybody has a say in the legislation. People from around the world have dealt with this, we are not unique. The United Kingdom is introducing the same legislation as 24/7 Sobriety in South Dakota. Obviously, they have looked at it. Deakin University, which I would expect we would talk to, has also looked at it and undertaken some studies. We should also look at the research work done on this issue.
The only way to get bipartisanship in some of these matters is through a select committee.
Some of us were in New South Wales at a meeting where we heard from the Clerk in Queensland – as you know, we have a similar setup to Queensland with a unicameral system and no Upper House. All their legislation is sent to a select committee. In her speech she said one of the advantages of a select committee is you get much more bipartisanship within parliament because once it goes to committee there is less of the aggressiveness you get in this House, (1) probably because it is not out in the open so much, but (2) people tend to work together as members of parliament with a common goal to see that what has been put forward is good legislation. Surely, that is not something people can brush off and say, ‘So what? We are the government, we do not care. You are a bunch of weakies, you do not agree with this legislation because you are soft on crime.’
This is not about being soft on crime; it is about looking at whether this legislation is workable, will achieve what you want and will ensure there is a process where people affected by alcohol – one other area this select committee could look at is the effect of drugs because there is drug-driving and surely people are bashed when people are on things like ice. Why have we left them out of the equation? We know ice causes extreme aggression.
I become exasperated when people turn this type of debate into simplistic black and white: you are either with us or against us. You never consider bringing minds together on such an important issue which affects us all. The member for Fong Lim said, ‘It only touches a small part of us’. Read what Dr Herron said in the latest document issued on alcohol policy, the Alcohol Action Plan, a Commonwealth document. Look at what he said, it is not me. I reiterated in my speech it is more than a small majority of people. He said:
- The level of alcohol related damage occurring in our communities is simply appalling and the Council has responded by developing a plan for action; for governments and communities to address the situation. The health, social and economic costs associated with alcohol use simply cannot be allowed to continue at the current level. We all understand that the culture of drinking and intoxication has a long history in Australia and we all agree that these levels at home are unacceptable, however whenever we speak of culture change the industries that profit most from this culture run the same old fear campaign of a nanny state takeover.
Look at the average amount of alcohol consumed in Australia. We consume higher than safe levels. If our average is higher than safe levels, a lot of people are drinking more than they should be. To say it is only a small minority is a smoke screen to the reality of how many people drink too much. It is a major problem in Australia affecting not only the people involved in domestic violence and drink-driving, but it has an effect on our hospitals, our mental facilities and our refuges for people. A range of things is affected by the abuse of alcohol, not just what we are talking about today. We need to look at it with a holistic approach as well.
Asking a committee to discuss this bill will not cause any harm to the government. The minister said, ‘We will have a waffle for three months’. No, the legislation has been presented and there has been very little time for any decent consultation. I rang CAAPS and FORWAARD – no consultation with two major groups dealing with alcoholism in our society locally. There was no discussion. Surely, that opportunity should have been taken up. Unfortunately, it has not been. If we have a select committee there is an opportunity for those people to put their points of view. They may not agree with my point of view. Others may say 24/7 Sobriety might work in the United States but not here. Fair enough. Let us look at all the options, bring them together and see if we can come up with a model which makes sense. I raised some of the practical issues such as how you define what a licence is, especially when there are 97 conditional licences. That relates to a range of areas that may have an unmarked boundary because they are sporting fields and such. People might say that is irrelevant, but it may not be irrelevant to someone on an APO. Some of those areas might need to be defined a little better so we do not have grey areas.
The South Dakota Attorney General put forward some ideas of how they handle it. They look at whether someone is drinking rather than putting emphasis on where they are at the time. I believe all these things can be brought together.
There is an opportunity for government to work together. We do it with the energy committee. You bring us all together; we do not fight on the Energy committee. We discuss what you have asked us to: the future of energy in the Northern Territory. As a bipartisan or extended group, we work together to bring something to parliament of use to the Territory.
The minister might say, ‘We do not need a select committee. We have to get out there because of the number of people affected by domestic violence and drink-driving.’ We already have punishments for those. I acknowledge we are trying to add something to that. Let us do that in a level-headed manner by allowing people to see the effect of this legislation and if we can do it better. It is not saying we are soft on crime. That spin does not help this discussion but ends up being a party political slogan someone can hang their hat on to destroy the other side. We are suggesting we work as a bipartisan group to achieve a more sensible approach than what is being put forward at present.
Chief Minister, I know you are doing it for the right reasons and I do not knock that. However, there are some flaws in this legislation that could be fixed through a select committee.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we would support the formation of a select committee on alcohol, specifically around this bill. In the past we have spoken about the formation of a parliamentary committee to discuss alcohol issues. We recognise it is something that, in this Chamber, often becomes partisan. Through a committee process there is the opportunity, as the member for Nelson identified, to build those bridges and create workable legislation around alcohol policy.
All the feedback we received from stakeholders when discussing this bill has concerned the lack of consultation leading up to the bill being tabled and the short amount of time people had to look at it. They would welcome a greater period of time to discuss what they see as serious flaws in the bill and to find ways to work with the government if this is to be law. The government has the numbers and this will be law. People have asked for a greater period of time to look at it, consult with others, and work with the government to create a more workable piece of legislation. We would be happy to work with government to create functional legislation.
The suggestion from the member for Nelson is sensible. We do not support the legislation that stands but there is every chance, through the community process the member for Nelson has identified, we could work with government to find a way through this serious challenge. We believe there is a serious problem. However, we are concerned by the breadth of this legislation. It catches many minor things; it is not all about serious offences.
There is always a chance to work together on things. A select committee creates this opportunity and we are happy to work with the government. The model the member for Nelson put forward had majority government membership. The normal committee structure of three government members, two opposition members and one Independent would be a functional committee. We would be happy to participate in that process and come back to the Chamber. We have no problem working with government through a committee process.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, we shall not be supporting this motion. This bill will pass into law tonight, I presume, on the numbers government enjoys in the House.
Whilst I appreciate the arguments from the member for Nelson, I am not sure he raised them with the Chief Minister other than yesterday. He has not raised them with this House, unless I missed them in his earlier speech. Why did he not raise this much earlier? Standing Order 183 enables this motion to be put immediately after completion of the second reading debate, I understand that, but notice should be given. Tell us; ring us to say you want to do this. Say it when we give notice of the bill, or say it after the second reading speech, which was a month ago.
The thought that this is being done in secret still resonates through this debate. It is not being done in secret; it is done in the open arena of our parliamentary system. The members opposite say, ‘People will not know it is there’. We put out media releases, we did news on it, and this announcement was made months and months ago. Because you do not agree with it does not mean it has to be buried in a committee system. What is behind this is you want 1000 people to tell us why it is wrong and will not work. If you accepted the results of the committee, you would end up with legislation that would not achieve what the government wants.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee. This legislation is not complex, not difficult, and the members opposite want to introduce all types of extraneous things. They want to talk about alcoholism. By all means bring in a committee to look at alcoholism, but alcoholism is not covered in this. It is not about alcoholism, it is about alcohol protection orders. If a person sits in their living room and gets as drunk as they like, that is their business. We are not here to moralise about other people’s drinking habits. We are here to restrain conduct.
Every time we meander off in another direction with conversation about other components and aspects of what is happening, we are forgetting this bill is very straightforward. The content of this bill could not be more straightforward. Nobody misunderstood it, with the exception of the member for Fannie Bay. What do you want to send to a committee?
You can talk about establishing a committee to look at issues surrounding conduct that lead to the legislation, but I cannot see any reasonable argument to send this off to a committee. The bill is quite specific in its intent. We know what we want it to achieve: we want the police to bring these powers to bear upon the problem in the community as soon as possible. I have heard nothing other than extraneous comments from the member for Nelson.
I find it surprising that the member for Nelson’s great concern, as stated in the first line of his submission to go to a select committee, is that he is feeling irrelevant. You were relevant for a large slice of the last parliamentary term and had many opportunities to do this, yet your answer in the last parliamentary term was to introduce a committee. The committee spent over $0.5m, as I recall, and what did it achieve? You had an agreement with the former government to do many things. Where is the pool in your electorate? You constantly go to the argument that we need a committee for this and a committee for that. It would render government inert. This has been to a committee of the people of the Northern Territory. It has been placed on the table and publicised widely. It has received its criticism, and we get that. What would be achieved other than what this committee has already achieved? ‘We do not like the numbers; we do not like the results.’ This committee is an expression of the will of the people of the Northern Territory, and that is how the system of government operates.
We want this committee to set up another committee to look at straightforward legislation in its attempt to enable a discussion about alcoholism. You can talk about alcoholism any time you like. You have an adjournment debate tonight, you can put a GBD motion up or you can even put a motion up tomorrow to suggest we have a committee look at alcoholism in the community, etcetera. However, no reasonable argument in the submissions I have heard from the member for Nelson gives me any satisfaction that a select committee would offer anything more in regard to this bill, and it has gone through an open and public process and has already gone through a committee.
For that reason, I can see no purpose, nor can the government, to push this into a committee because its intent is clear. The government’s stated objectives are clear, and it is about time the police be given the power this government seeks to give them through this process without any further delay. Territorians would be rightly dismayed if we did what the member for Nelson did and governed exclusively through sub-committees of committees to satisfy everybody’s opportunity to have a conversation. Everybody has had that opportunity, and if they do not know about it they have not fulfilled their civic duty to pay attention to what is happening in their community.
I am not sure what else we can achieve by this process. I am not satisfied that anything I have heard would assist. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, this bill will not be sent to a committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input into this motion.
I asked the Chief Minister if he would consider it going to committee. I did not believe this would be a big deal because select committees are very narrow and only deal with the bill.
To say I suggest we have a committee and a sub-committee denies the fact that in Queensland that is exactly what happens. Every piece of legislation goes to a committee and then comes back to the parliament when the committee has looked at it thoroughly. Many times legislation is faulty and the committee works through it and brings it back with amendments. They find when it comes to parliament, generally speaking, there is not much hoo-ha about it because they have had a bipartisan group look at it and come up with any changes they feel are necessary. My understanding is most legislation passes through the parliament quite smoothly because that work has been done.
Yes, it can be a bit slower than the system we have, but this is a unicameral system. I do not remember any piece of legislation, in the whole time I have been here, going through a committee stage, but you might have a better memory than me. To say this is something we will do all the time – I have not said that. In this case we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan: stick with the legislation and see if it is workable.
If it comes back with heaps of amendments I will say we could have avoided that. If it is difficult and police or the courts say, ‘Fair go, fellows. This does not make any sense,’ do not look at us. This is an opportunity to work through some responsible issues we have raised, even something like whether you can get picked up on the footy ground. You might say that is not relevant, but for the person playing footy it could be ...
Mr Giles: The criminal?
Mr WOOD: No, do not forget they are being punished. Do not forget you can have an alcohol protection order before you have been found guilty of a crime. You have been arrested, you have been charged, you have not been found guilty, and you can get into trouble for breaking your APO when you have not been found guilty of the crime. If you have been found guilty of the crime you will be punished, and I do not go away from that. I have said that repeatedly.
Getting back to a sub-committee, it is not something we do very often. It is a chance to be bipartisan. The member for Port Darwin talked about being irrelevant and went on about the usual things. He forgets part of the reason the CTC cost so much – $600 000 – was because he and the member for Katherine wanted an independent executive for committee administration ...
Mr Elferink: You did not have a clue what this thing was. I had to tell you what it was.
Mr WOOD: Check your minutes. You two wanted it outside the normal committee structure. I know; I was there. That is the reason it cost ...
Mr Elferink: You would not have a clue what this was. I stood over there when you suggested it and you did not know what …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: If you want to dig up the history, grind away all you like. I have heard it all. Move on. This is the alcohol protection orders issue. You raised the irrelevant issue. If you want us, as members of parliament, to work in a positive way to achieve goals for the people of the Northern Territory – if you keep regarding this as irrelevant fair enough, I will keep hammering against the door until it breaks.
Here is an opportunity to get out of the ‘them and us’ and work with you to achieve something. All right, it will not go through – good luck. That will not stop me trying. I become disappointed when you carry on with, ‘We have the numbers, who cares about you mob?’ If that is your attitude, that is your attitude. You say, ‘You are supporting the perpetrators of crime,’ when you know that is not what I said.
The technical part of this bill needs to be fixed but, no matter what I say, you will turn it around to say, ‘Gerry Wood and the Labor Party support people who bash their wives’. That is so immature and we should be above that. That is what you do at the boxing match or if you want to sledge the other fellow. We should be above that.
I will accept whatever happens, Madam Speaker, and I move that this motion be accepted.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 7 Noes 12
- Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
- Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Wood Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion negatived.
ALCOHOL PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 58)
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Alcohol Protection orders Bill (Serial 58), together with Schedule of Amendments No 11 circulated by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Clauses 1 to 5:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 2: commencement. When does the government intend to commence the legislation?
Mr GILES: The commencement will be on the date fixed by the Administrator in the gazettal notice.
Mr GUNNER: Do you know what that date is?
Mr GILES: The earliest possible date, I presume.
Mr GUNNER: My next question is about clause 3.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, nowhere in this bill can I see reference to any form of treatment. As I said during the debate, in the South Dakota system the magistrate can send someone for treatment as well as give them an alcohol protection order...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chair! The standing orders in relation to the committee stages of the bill require that questions be relevant to the content of the bill. The bill does not talk about South Dakota at any point, and I would have that question ruled out of order for irrelevancy.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, the bill does not talk about rehabilitation. You may want to concentrate your questions on the content of the bill rather than rehabilitation.
Mr WOOD: The objection was to my mention of South Dakota.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it illuminates the House, the objection is in relation to relevancy. Questions and conversations about the bill in its committee stage must be relevant to sections of the bill rather than more broad aspects. I ask that the member keep himself within the boundaries of that proposition.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, again, if you want to restrict your comments to the content of the bill.
Mr WOOD: Can I seek clarification? Are you saying I cannot ask a question on something I think is missing from the bill?
Mr CHAIR: My advice, member for Nelson, is you can ask general questions about the policy behind the bill and the content of the bill, but you need to stick to the content of the bill rather than omissions you might perceive.
Mr WOOD: Minister, why have you not linked this with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act?
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, they are two completely different things. Let me give you a hypothetical ...
Mr WOOD: We are not allowed hypotheticals here.
Mr GILES: No worries.
Mr WOOD: No, I was only joking.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 3. The Chief Minister has said he wants the policy intention of this bill to apply to serious offences only. The qualifying offences are quite broad and take in a range of possible offences. We touched upon this in the second reading debate.
What was the thinking behind the decision to make it broad – the qualifying offences beyond what some might consider serious offences – to include things like loitering, extinguishing street lamps, singing obscene songs and fortune telling? Why make it broad and not confined to – as you have said, assault is serious. We consider assault serious. Why is the test so broad?
Mr GILES: Thank you for the question, shadow minister. We took a time frame of six months. Clearly, it goes over a number of pieces of legislation and offences. The key component of this legislation, which is part of the approvals process, is it is referred to a senior sergeant and there is an opportunity for appeal. This refers to the flexibility of whether an APO can be applied or not. It is not a guarantee that an APO is applied.
The idea of that is to allow flexibility for police to make decisions on what they believe to be in the best interests of the person to keep them off alcohol. Clearly, it is not defined for someone who destroys a lamp or some of those other examples you gave. It is designed to reduce the impacts of alcohol and, potentially, stop people re-offending in those serious cases.
Mr GUNNER: One of the grounds for appeal might be the offence under which you were charged. The grounds for appeal are not detailed later, but you are saying extinguishing a street lamp might be grounds for appeal against the APO.
Mr GILES: No, this legislation gives police the flexibility to apply an APO to people they think require one. Where you talk about street lamps, police will have the discretion to make that decision. We are talking about where charges have been laid in relation to serious alcohol incidents.
Mr GUNNER: I recognise the police have the discretion and, by and large, it would be quite sensible. However, what we are debating will become law. Under this law a range of offences do not appear, at first glance, to be serious, such as fortune telling. They will however, under this soon to be law, be qualifying offences for an alcohol protection order. You said the intention is for serious offences only, and there are a number of things you and I would both agree are serious offences. Yet, the breadth of the qualifying offences in this bill is broad. Why did you not narrow it down to those serious offences you and I would agree on?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, if you believe a range of offences is out of order with regard to application of a six-month imprisonment sentence, I am more than happy for you to bring forward amendments where you believe penalties should be reduced. We have identified the six-month component. It catches a number of offences, but we have given police discretion, through this legislation, to apply the APO in the best interest so they can reduce crime in the Northern Territory.
Mr GUNNER: We have gone back and forth on that. My next question is to clause 5.
Mr GILES: I take your point, but it is flexible.
Mr GUNNER: An alcohol protection order is issued in writing. There is no requirement to ensure a person can understand the notice or that it is explained to them in a language or terms they can understand, and breaching an alcohol protection order is an offence. This is in contrast to a domestic violence order. Section 43 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act says a police officer must explain the effect of the domestic violence order to a person, the consequences of a breach, and their right to apply for a review.
The Domestic and Family Violence Act requires that you have explained to you what is happening. However, that clause is not in the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. Why is it clear in the Domestic and Family Violence Act what needs to be explained, but silent in the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, police face this issue every day with arresting, summonsing and giving various types of notices to people. It is not a new phenomenon. It is police policy to undertake the issuing of APOs in the interests of natural justice. The instruction and procedure under which police will operate will ensure APOs are clearly communicated so the period of the order and the terms are understood by the person to whom it is issued. This is a common issue in many ways of doing business in the Northern Territory, government or otherwise. There is an obligation on all of us to ensure we provide a proper explanation, particularly for people whose first language is not English.
Mr GUNNER: A precedent for the clause exists and police operate quite functionally under the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Considering it is already in effect and working, why was it not put into the Alcohol Protections Order Bill? I am sure there will be good policy settings, but at the moment there is no legal requirement for an officer to explain the effect of the APO, the consequences of a breach and the right to apply for a review. All they need do is hand over the paper.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, a range of documents and notices are issued to people by police all the time. Take an infringement notice as an example. An officer on the side of the road gives someone an infringement notice. It is not written in other languages, but they do their best to explain the provisions of an infringement notice and the grounds of appeal or otherwise.
While I appreciate there may be some language issue in regard to domestic violence, across a broad range of areas it is not there. You have to ensure you have the customer service basis to explain these things for the intentions and purposes they are designed to achieve.
Mr GUNNER: I will move on, Chief Minister.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, clause 5(1)(c) says you are not allowed to enter or be in licensed premises, with two exceptions. I raised the issue during debate of Southern Districts Football Club, where there is a red line drawn around it by hand. I am unsure how accurate that would be in a court of law. If a bloke wants to stand outside the line – he would not even know where the line was ...
Mr TOLLNER: It does not matter where the line is; if he is drinking he is in trouble.
Mr WOOD: We are trying to deal with the issue now. The exception is clause 5(2) which says:
- (2) An adult who is subject to an alcohol protection order may enter and remain in licensed premises:
… (b) for any period during which entering and remaining in the licensed premises concerned is required for the purposes of the adult's employment.
What is the definition of employment in relation to this bill?
Mr GILES: Having a job.
Mr WOOD: Does that mean if you are a paid footballer – the oval is covered under the licence – you are exempt?
Mr GILES: From the licensed premises?
Mr WOOD: No, from this clause ...
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, if it is easier, I refer you to clause 23(4) which talks about going to a licensed premises. It says:
- It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) if the defendant establishes a reasonable excuse.
If you are on APO – this is for the benefit of the shadow minister and Labor members who believe people who commit serious crimes while drunk should be allowed freedoms. If these people are on an APO and go to TIO Stadium to watch football, not drinking and having dinner with their family, this clause says they are allowed to do it. This is the clause which says you can go to the Cool Spot and have dinner. It is also the clause which says you can go to Fannie Bay Super Pizza. It allows you to do that as long as you have a reasonable excuse for being there and are doing the right thing. However, if you are in a supermarket buying a carton of beer, you are breaching an APO. Buying groceries in a supermarket is reasonable grounds.
Mr WOOD: If it went to court, is it up to the judge to make a decision on what is a reasonable excuse?
Mr GILES: Yes …
Mr TOLLNER: Of course it is.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me …
Mr GILES: I can answer that …
Mr WOOD: I have not finished yet. Do we have an idea of what a reasonable excuse could be? That is a pretty broad statement, and it could go one way or the other. That is the area I am concerned about, especially in relation to sporting activities.
Can I visit the Qantas Club to say goodbye to my family? The Qantas Club is licensed. Is it a reasonable excuse to say I am seeing my family? Where does the reasonable excuse finish? You say people should not possess alcohol or enter or be in a licensed premises. However, as long as I have a reasonable excuse I could go to Howard Springs Tavern for my birthday ...
Mr ELFERINK: That is not a reasonable excuse.
Mr WOOD: The member for Port Darwin says that is not a reasonable excuse ...
Mr TOLLNER: The court that will determine that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: He must have in his mind what is and is not a reasonable excuse.
Mr ELKERINK: The court determines it.
Mr WOOD: That is right. How does a person know whether they have a reasonable excuse?
Mr ELFERINK: Err on the side of caution!
Mr TOLLNER: If you want to go to Howard Springs Tavern and get drunk while on an APO, you are in serious trouble.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! It was not about getting drunk; it was about defining a reasonable excuse. If a reasonable excuse does not have a reasonable definition, many people could get into trouble. I was asking …
Mr GILES: For the purposes of Hansard and reflection on this legislative debate in the future, we could list many excuses in legislation and have Encyclopaedia Britannica there with, ‘My excuse was I was buying Scotch Finger biscuits,’ or ‘I decided to buy a hot dog at the football’. You could list the whole lot. There has to be some flexibility and responsibility for authorised officers to make a decision about what is reasonable.
If someone is walking into a corner store to buy bread, that is a reasonable excuse. If they are going to watch the footy, that is a reasonable excuse, but if you turning up at Howard Springs Tavern for a skinful, that is not a reasonable excuse. If you are there because that is where you work or are doing volunteer work, that is a reasonable excuse and police will have the opportunity to make that decision on the spot. This is not designed to say, ‘You are not allowed to walk into that shop’. This is designed to provide flexibility for local officers to make a decision. If you walk into Liquorland or a bottle shop, you are clearly not there to buy a packet of biscuits. You have to use common sense in the way this is applied. That is a reasonable approach to decision-making.
Mr CHAIR: Can we bring this debate back to clause 5? We will go to clause 23 later.
Mr GUNNER: This is clause five, the Chief Minister cited clause 23.
Mr WOOD: They are related. You cannot deal with them otherwise.
Mr GILES: Can I suggest, Mr Chair, we move the amendment, take the bill as a whole, and have the flexibility to debate clauses?
Mr WOOD: We have to refer to the other one for this one to make sense.
MR GILES: That would make it easier.
Mr WOOD: We are going in order, but this depends on a clause further on. The question I ask is why?
Mr GILES: Is this clause 5 or 23?
Mr WOOD: This is clause 5. If there are reasonable excuses which cannot be defined, and the intention of this bill is to stop people consuming alcohol – that is the real key, we are banning people from drinking ...
Mr GILES: This is a real banned register.
Mr WOOD: We are saying people will not be allowed to drink, that is the key. The next one is possessing. You can have two unopened cans of beer in your pocket, but you say that should be an offence. Taking into consideration what you have said about reasonable excuses could be as wide as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. On the other hand, you say if you went into a pub and had a skinful that is not a reasonable excuse. You are banning people from drinking, but if you have a clause as wide as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, why bother with 5(1)(c)?
I do not want anyone jumping up and down about South Dakota, but the essence of this legislation is to stop people drinking. Why complicate it with reasonable excuses? If I go to the TAB at Howard Springs Tavern and am not touching a drop, I have a reasonable excuse – I want to have a bet. Why is the rule not, ‘You are not allowed to drink’. There are excuses to go into a pub.
Mr TOLLNER: You can go, but you cannot start drinking.
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, this is about banning people from drinking, possessing or consuming grog, or being on licensed premises. However, there is a clause within the bill which states if you are on licensed premises, such as the football stadium or a grocery store, that is a reasonable excuse. It is not designed to say, ‘You can go to the TAB at the local pub’. You are banned! You are not allowed on licensed premises, but if you find yourself on licensed premises, such as TIO Stadium, that is a reasonable excuse. Whether you are playing, refereeing, cooking in the shop or watching the football, that is a reasonable excuse. It is not a reasonable excuse to go to the pub because that is a licensed premises you have been banned from. If you were in the car park picking up your wife or husband and sat in the car, that is a reasonable excuse. Going inside a pub is not a reasonable excuse. That is what you are banned from.
Mr GUNNER: Under this clause, entering the corner store is a breach. If you get the person before they go past the checkout, grabbed their bread or whatever – the simple act of walking through the front door, at the moment, is a breach. You then get into the argument of why you walked through the front door. Why not make it as simple as: if you possess or consume alcohol you have breached? Why complicate it with whether you walked through the front door of the corner shop or not?
Mr GILES: The reason for that, shadow minister, is we want to keep people with alcohol and misuse problems away from grog. You do not want to put temptation in front of these people. We do not want people with chronic alcohol abuse issues in places where there is grog. If they have to go to the corner shop – you are right, they are committing an offence but they have the reasonable excuse that they are buying groceries. Police have the opportunity to make that determination on the spot and will make a decision, the same way they make decisions about a range of crimes committed around the Northern Territory. They make decisions on the spot about whether they have deliberately gone against the interests of an act and committed a crime. That is how they get to the point of charging people. Walking into a supermarket to buy grog is one thing, but to buy groceries is a completely different issue.
We are not being hard and fast with this. We are not writing prescriptive rules. We are allowing police the flexibility to let people who have done the wrong thing do the right thing, but also stop them repeat offending.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, you have highlighted the problem I see: reasonable excuse. You said It is all right to watch the footy. There are bars at TIO and Southern Districts. You say that is a reasonable excuse, but then you say it is not all right to go to the TAB at the pub. What about the band that plays every Friday and Saturday night at Howard Springs …
Mr TOLLNER: The court will determine that.
Mr WOOD: Hang on! Do you know what a sock looks like? We are trying to have a reasonable discussion about the practical implications because the Chief Minister said a reasonable excuse is to watch the footy. What is wrong with saying, ‘I want to bet on the horses on Saturday afternoon’ or ‘I want to listen to a band’? The law you wanted was to stop people drinking and possessing. It would have been far better to leave it at that. I do not want to be quoted on South Dakota, but if you added a few things where people were tested to ensure they were not drinking you could achieve what you are doing.
I will go back to South Dakota. I do not care if you think it is relevant or not, but they have said the supermarket is exempt because you do not drink there. They had simple rules like that. You have now complicated it. ‘Reasonable excuse’ leaves it wide open. The person will not know it is okay to go to TIO stadium to watch the footy and they will not be arrested for that, but they might be arrested for going to a TAB at the pub. Both are licensed premises, both allow opportunities to drink, and that is where this gets a little messy.
Mr GILES: I do not think it will get messy. If the TAB is in the pub and you are not allowed in there, you should not have committed the crime which put you on an alcohol protection order. If you really want to go to the TAB, go to one not in a pub. We have flexibility in this legislation to make it easy for people to use community facilities or social infrastructure such as a shop or a stadium. If you do not want this inconvenience, do not commit the crime. We can get into the nitty gritty of where you can and cannot go – do not commit the crime. We will provide the flexibilities and the niceties to give it ease of access, but it gets back to the fundamental point we have all raised: do not commit the crime.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chair, the issue is to stop people drinking, not where they go. The alcohol protection order is the ban and you have unnecessarily complicated it. You say we are supporting the notion that if the person has done the crime so what. I said before, not everyone will be found guilty. You seem to ignore that. You can be charged with domestic violence or drink-driving and it might be three months before you go to court. You have not been found guilty but will be on an APO.
Mr CHAIR: This argument can go around and around so I propose to …
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, perhaps I can shed some light on this for the member for Nelson.
The concept of reasonableness as an idea in law has been around for hundreds of years and is expressed in the common law of England as a test of what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a completely abstract legal concept. The man on the Clapham omnibus is, in every sense, the most reasonable man in England. He is the yardstick a court will use to measure reasonableness. This abstract concept means a court can receive a direction from a legislative instrument such as this and say, ‘There is the word reasonable’. There are textbooks dedicated to the concept of reasonableness at common law and its subsequent application in legislative interpretation.
Reasonableness expressed in that fashion means a court will take time to adduce all the necessary evidence to determine whether or not reasonableness exists. That means, Mr Chair, for the edification of the member for Nelson, every case can be looked at upon its merits and the evidence will demonstrate to a court whether or not reasonableness exists.
You have to recall that the test applied by the prosecution means they have to demonstrate the conduct was unreasonable beyond reasonable doubt – there is that word again – and for the defence to establish a successful defence it has to demonstrate in criminal law, to the balance of probabilities, they have acted reasonably …
Mr GILES: What is probability?
Mr ELFERINK: That is the test; it has been around for a long time. I pick up on the interjection from the Chief Minister as to what probability is. It is a legal concept applied in a court. What we are saying to the court by applying this section is, ‘We want you to look at the evidence in each case and adduce from the conduct of the person in front of you, and any excuse they may provide, that they have acted in a reasonable fashion’. If a person so charged is able to demonstrate reasonableness then the prosecution shall not be successful.
The word ‘reasonableness’ resonates through our statute book as probably one of the most common words. It is a very common legal concept. It applies in nearly every criminal statute I can think of, not to mention subordinate legislation and other legislative instruments.
Therefore, I see no problem and cannot understand why the member for Nelson is so hooked up on this issue. If he is hooked up on the word ‘reasonable’ as it appears here, then he is hooked up on our whole statute book and would be flummoxed by nearly every element of it.
Clauses 1 to 5, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 11.1 standing in my name.
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General was very helpful and I thank him for that. He has explained the importance of the word ‘reasonable’. It is a very important test and is used in clauses 18 and 19 – the test of ‘reasonably believes’ – but in clause 6 the decision has been made to not use the word ‘reasonable’. Chief Minister, could you please explain why, in this instance, you have chosen not to use the word ‘reasonable’ and used the lower test of ‘believes’?
Mr TOLLNER: He did not even throw the word ‘probability’ in.
Mr WOOD: Michael, you cannot deal with things that are not in the act.
Mr GILES: What was the question, Michael?
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General has just explained the importance of the word ‘reasonable’ as a test in law. In clauses 18 and 19, you use the words ‘reasonably believes’, but in clause 6 you have chosen not to use the test of ‘reasonable’. Clause 6(b) says ‘the officer believes’. Why have you chosen to use the lesser test and not include the word ‘reasonable’ there? In other words, why is this test less than the man on the Clapham omnibus?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, the reason it does not have the word ‘reasonable’ – without giving a great summary such as our Attorney-General can – and has the word ‘believes’ is because the issuing of an APO is undertaken by a reference from the officer. The sergeant has the option of reviewing the information provided by the officer, so he believes the information the officer provided for issuing the APO.
Mr GUNNER: That does not explain why it is not a ‘reasonable belief’. There is a difference between ‘belief’ and ‘reasonable belief’.
Mr GILES: Can you please explain what that is?
Mr GUNNER: The Attorney-General has just explained it and I will not repeat him. The Attorney-General explained why ‘reasonable’ is important and is a higher test than ‘believes’. Here, you have chosen to say ‘the officer believes’ not ‘the officer reasonably believes’. Later in the bill you specifically say ‘the officer reasonably believes’. Later in the bill you use the higher test. In this part of the bill you use the lower test. Why have you chosen the lower test?
Mr GILES: You answer that in your question. The officer is making a decision about whether he reasonably believes the person was in the premises for a proper reason, as in clause 23(4). Here the reference is from where an APO is requested to be issued from the officer making recommendation to the sergeant, who reviews the information and believes an APO should be issued.
The reason this does not come into that equation is that it comes from the information provided – from where a charge has been laid and the information that comes about alcohol use, or the alcohol component within that offence. Information from the officer goes to the sergeant, the sergeant reviews it and says, ‘Yes, I believe there should be an APO’.
Mr GUNNER: So, no reasonableness is required from the officer in the first test?
Mr GILES: No, not in that.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, would it be fair to say the officer taking the information would get the information from another sworn police officer and would, therefore, believe in that sworn police officer?
Mr GILES: After making an assessment.
Mr TOLLNER: After making an assessment, yes. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, do you think the opposition is deliberately frustrating this process?
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr GILES: Thank you for your question, member for Fong Lim …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! You ruled on irrelevance before.
Mr CHAIR: Can we concentrate on relevancy to the clauses, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, I think the Chief Minister was prepared to answer that question.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but he was overruled.
Mr CHAIR: This is a serious debate, thank you.
Mr GILES: There is some frivolity going on here and deliberate attempts to play games in this debate, but I am happy to continue.
Mr GUNNER: It is not a game. A lesser test is applied here than is applied later. There is no reason why you cannot have ‘the officer reasonably believes’ here. It is a higher test. You have decided to have a lower test. I am asking why you have chosen the lower test. If you do not have the answer that is fine.
Mr GILES: It is not a lower test, it is a different test. You have a police officer making reference to the sergeant to review a case. If the sergeant believes the information provided warrants application of an APO, he does that. The other example you are looking at is where an officer is on licensed premises and takes information from someone he believes is on an APO and they provide him grounds he believes are reasonable to be there. That is a completely different aspect.
Mr GUNNER: This clause goes to the issue of alcohol protection orders. The first step is an officer issues an alcohol protection order. It does not exist before then. The officer has to ‘believe’, not ‘reasonably believe’ in order to issue an alcohol protection order. This is before the sergeant, before a person has entered licensed premises. This is purely about someone going on an alcohol protection order the first time. Instead of ‘reasonably believes’ it is ‘believes’ – nothing to do with the sergeant or anything like that. It is the officer on the spot and is a lesser test.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, I am not sure you understand how it works. An officer will make a recommendation, review information around a case, make a recommendation to the sergeant to review that information, then issue the APO. There is a secondary component in the issuing of an APO. It is not just issued by the arresting officer. The officer takes the information, looks at the charge – does it have a six-month charge or more? Has alcohol been involved? They then write a recommendation to the sergeant to review the case. If the sergeant believes it warrants the issue of an APO, they will assign the APO.
Mr TOLLNER: My understanding is the arresting officer cannot issue an APO. It has to go to the sergeant first, and only the sergeant can do it. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: That is correct, member for Fong Lim. You understand what we are trying to do.
Mr GUNNER: We are going backwards and forwards here.
You have chosen a lower test of ‘being affected’ rather than ‘intoxicated’. Affected’ is quite low; it could be a light beer or two and could be less than 0.05. Can you explain why you have chosen the lower test of ‘affected’ rather than ‘intoxicated’?
Mr GILES: The answer is whether or not the consumption of alcohol has led to the crime. Is it a contributing factor in the crime? It is not whether you have had one or two beers; it is whether alcohol consumption was a contributing factor to the crime. The same measure is applied – as reported in the criminal statistics – when someone has breached a domestic violence order. A crime is committed, alcohol is a contributing factor, and the same test is applied in that component.
Mr GUNNER: How will an officer determine if someone is affected by alcohol?
Mr GILES: There is a process the police go through, and I will give some examples: undertaking assessments of being incoherent; having slurred speech; having a lack of coordination; an odour of liquor; and red, wet eyes. There is a range of test characteristics police make their judgment on. These include asking questions such as, ‘Have you been drinking and how many did you have?’ and people will normally answer the question. ‘What type of alcohol were you drinking? How often do you drink it? How many did you consume in a certain period of time? Have you been taking drugs, tablets, medication or otherwise? Have you ever taken drugs? A range of assessment processes is applied to determine the exact extent to which someone is affected by alcohol.
Mr WOOD: When is the alcohol protection order questionnaire asked? If you pick up someone who is drunk – they may be from out bush and not have a good understanding – and you ask them, ‘Do you have any injuries which affect your coordination?’ I am sure they would respond with ‘Uh?’ You tick the column ‘unable to answer’. If this was done the next day when the person was sober, you may get a better answer. If a person is well and truly inebriated, when would this be filled in?
Mr ELFERINK: Wait for the person to sober up. If you have to ask, ‘Have you been drinking?’ you have missed the point.
Mr GILES: Yes, that is correct. Your question is how can we ask an inebriated person if they are inebriated?
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. There are questions like, ‘Do you have diabetes?’ At what stage do you ask people these questions if you want an answer which can be understood? Will you tick off they are unable to answer?
Mr GILES: I take it you have the assessment questions there?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have.
Mr GILES: Many of those questions are applied on a range of occasions when police pick people up – every occasion. When they go to the lockup after being picked up for protective custody is one example. If people are inebriated, to whatever extent that may be, police do their best to ascertain their medical history and assess them to ensure they can provide the best care and be responsible for them.
Questions like, ‘Do you have diabetes,’ are fair and reasonable when trying to determine a person’s health situation and whether or not they need to see a nurse or require medical attention. The other components are about testing and assessing the level of intoxication, or effects of alcohol on a person, including, potentially, breath testing.
Mr WOOD: Having asked questions before, I know it is sometimes difficult to get an answer ...
Mr TOLLNER: Oh!
Mr WOOD: Only because the member for Fong Lim keeps butting in.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, one of the issues I raised was the difference – I do not care what people say – in this case the police officer makes the decision. I understand if a person is charged with a serious offence that person will go before a magistrate the next day.
Mr ELFERINK: If they do not get bail, yes.
Mr WOOD: No, my understanding is with serious offences it is rare for police give bail and the magistrate will decide that. That is the information I have. Why is it not if you want to put someone on an APO the magistrate decides not the police officer?
Mr GILES: It is a different set of circumstances for each case. You could go to a magistrate that night, a magistrate in a period of time, get bailed by police or bailed by a magistrate. No particular case will determine what the outcome may be. We have made a decision that when the charge is made – you said the officer would do the APO. The sergeant who believes the information and does the assessment, from the officer level, ascertains the APO. There is a second degree or level of assessment which is undertaken at station level to determine whether or not that APO should be issued.
It is a question of how soon someone goes before a magistrate. The real issue is that many of these offences occur when people are on bail. You could be bailed by police, waiting to go to court, and recommitting offences. Unfortunately – I will use the example of domestic violence – there are many times when women are beaten, sometimes killed, while the perpetrator is out on bail. That should answer your question.
Mr WOOD: My proposal was that the police arrest and the magistrate makes the decision. As I said, we do not know all the circumstances. The police officer makes a decision based on something that happened that night. The magistrate might find a more historical background.
Mr GILES: Could I add something, member for Nelson? You are talking of a time frame of up to six weeks while someone is waiting to see a magistrate. Many times, that is when the incidents occur. You might say – and I take your point – the magistrate could issue those, but we decided to do it this way because when people are intoxicated or committing violent offences on repeat occasions, the six-week time frame is too long to wait. There have been two in the last two weeks were people have been killed in exactly the same situation.
Mr GUNNER: My understanding, in issuing a domestic violence order, is you call the magistrate. You do not necessarily go into the magistrate’s court. The magistrate is available and can be contacted 24/7. Under the Domestic and Family Violence Act, you can pretty much have someone on a domestic violence order immediately, and they can be banned from drinking alcohol immediately. How does issuing an alcohol protection order provide greater protection than issuing a domestic violence order?
If they are not protected under a DVO, how are the protected under an APO? You a right, we do not want this circumstance to happen. How does an APO provide greater protection than a DVO?
Mr GILES: A DVO is for a domestic violence offence, as you know. An APO is for consumption or possession of alcohol, which is broader than a DVO.
Mr GUNNER: Yes, but you just gave the DVO example so I am asking, in response to your example, how is greater protection afforded to a person in the domestic violence situation who we want to protect than the person under an APO?
Mr GILES: Someone can commit an offence, there is a DVO, and they are not allowed to go within 100 yards or whatever it might be under that DVO. With an alcohol protection order you do not have to be with the victim or potential victim. You can be consuming alcohol in a different environment, and because you are on an alcohol protection order, it is an offence to be consuming or possessing alcohol or entering a licensed premises. It is a completely different thing.
Mr GUNNER: A DVO can include a ban on drinking alcohol?
Mr GILES: A DVO does not always include a ban on drinking alcohol.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr GUNNER: Can a person on an alcohol protection order have the order lifted if they have undertaken the alcohol rehabilitation plan?
Mr GILES: No.
Mr GUNNER: We clearly want people to stop drinking alcohol. In some respects that is meant to be the intention of the legislation – let us stop them drinking alcohol. If they go through an alcohol rehabilitation plan they still …
Mr GILES: Can I jump in to provide a bit of clarity? You cannot go to alcohol rehabilitation if you have been charged with an offence. In that three-month period – I will explain a situation that happened recently. You cannot go to alcohol rehabilitation if you have been charged with an offence. This is part of the reasoning behind APOs because you can commit an offence, not go to rehab, and continue to commit offences while waiting to go to court.
If you get an APO and are waiting to go to court – the member for Nelson referred to this before – the court decides and you are either charged and go to gaol and the APO is irrelevant because you are in custody, or you are not convicted and the APO is removed and you are released. That might provide clarity to your question.
Member for Fannie Bay, I do not want to go into too much detail, but there was an incident recently where someone was picked up drunk, put into protective custody, referred to rehab, assaulted the assessment team, was charged, bailed and put back out on the street. They are not allowed to go to rehabilitation, but are able to keep drinking and going through that cycle. An APO will ban that person from drinking, and if they are caught drinking they will be put in the cells to stop them drinking because you cannot go into mandatory treatment if you have been charged with an offence. That is why it is more a suite of tools.
Mr GUNNER: An alcohol protection order can also be issued at summons or served, so not just when a person is arrested. If you go through a rehabilitation plan full stop, you cannot have your APO revoked. You are put on an APO for three months, six months, 12 months, varying lengths of time depending on what you do. You have no capacity to have that APO revoked if you go through any form of treatment at all. It is not just charged, there is summonsed and served as well.
Mr GILES: If that is the case you cannot go to mandatory alcohol rehabilitation.
Mr GUNNER: Any treatment centre?
Mr GILES: If you wanted to go to your own private treatment centre you could, and that would be a positive outcome for that person, but the APO still remains even if you finish that. It could be a three-month program, but the idea is the APO is designed to keep you off it. If you choose to go into voluntary private rehabilitation, that is a good outcome.
Mr GUNNER: That is what I am saying. There is no incentive, if you are on a six-month APO, to voluntarily go through treatment, come out the other end, have your APO revoked because you have done the right ...
Mr GILES: Are you saying if you are on APO and decide to go to rehabilitation on your own, when you come out you should have the APO lifted so you can drink again? I am not sure that suits the benefit of going through rehabilitation …
Mr GUNNER: No, if you breach your APO – I get the point there are grounds later in the bill about reasonable defence, but at the moment if you are on the APO, just walking through the front door of a corner shop can be a breach. I can understand why someone on an APO might say, ‘I do not want it hanging over my head, I would like to get off the alcohol protection order. I have done the right thing, I have gone through rehab and come out the other end …’
Mr WOOD: Can I seek a point of clarification? People who offend under the drink-driving regulations have committed an offence and are required to seek treatment, is that correct? Why is this not the same?
Mr GILES: It is not all the time. That is a court order and not on every occasion, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is my reasoning behind a magistrate. In the South Dakota system, not only can a magistrate decide to send you to treatment, but they can also vary the length of the APO, which we have. Why is there no flexibility? They had it from two weeks to five years, depending on the circumstances. Is there any reason why it was three months? Could someone make a decision and say, ‘This bloke only needs three weeks’? Three months is automatic, is it? There is no …
Mr GILES: We designed the legislation around the time frames of month models. That was determined to be the best way to go as a first, second and third offence, if you like, to try to stop people from drinking. There are many different time frames we could have chosen. We did research around the world and in different jurisdictions on different models for getting people off grog. We have moved forward with these models because we believe they will provide the best opportunity to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory.
Mr WOOD: You do not see a difference between a young bloke with a can of beer in his hand who kicked and dinted his car as opposed to a person who bashed someone? One is a much less serious offence, yet the penalties are exactly the same. There is no flexibility.
Mr GILES: I heard you raise this concern in your briefing. My colleagues, the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, may not have heard this. What about the poor bloke who gets drunk and smashes up cars on Mitchell Street? How dare he be on an APO? He just had a bit of a loose night out and should be allowed to continue drinking? I do not see the merits of that point.
I understand domestic violence is a serious offence, and we on this side of the Chamber want to stamp it out. I understand what you are saying, Kicking a car is not the same as beating up somebody. However, at the end of the day they are both crimes and we are making a rule on crimes with a sentence above six months, with a fair amount of discretion by police to provide an APO for people they believe will reoffend. It says, ‘If you are charged with a crime with six months’ imprisonment and were affected by alcohol, you will get an APO’. They have discretion to apply them and it is fair and just. You cannot make an assessment about the degrees of crime and say getting drunk on Mitchell Street and smashing up a car is not so bad that you should not have an APO.
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 18 taken together.
Mr GUNNER: I have a question to clause 9. What is the justification for applying a time frame of three days for reconsideration of an APO?
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, we want people to get on with business. You set a time frame so people have an opportunity to sober up and consider if that is the right thing to do. The three-day time frame is an opportunity for them to make application for the APO to be reconsidered.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously an APO is in place from the moment it is issued. The three-day appeal time frame is in effect the moment the APO commences, but three days is a short period of time for someone to appeal. You get longer for a parking fine. I am trying to understand why it is three days not seven. It does not affect the APO, which is already in place. This will provide someone a reasonable amount of time to appeal.
Mr GILES: You could pick two days or four days; we have decided to go with three. We believe three days is sufficient time for people to sober up but not too long to recall the events where they committed an alleged offence in an intoxicated state. They are then able to refer that information to the review process. Three days is adequate to allow police to undertake the review process as applied for and to make the decision to move on. It is about getting on with business.
Mr GUNNER: I have questions relating to clause 10. On what grounds can a senior officer reconsider an alcohol protection order, Chief Minister? There is no requirement for an officer to form a reasonable belief. There is nothing in that clause to say on what grounds an officer can reconsider. The bill does not mention reasonable belief.
Mr GILES: The reviewing officer would interview the person asking for the review and look at all the information, incidents and decisions made. There is a process for reconsideration of an alcohol protection order by the reviewing officer to determine whether the original decision was correct. It is like every review where you go through the process again, interview the person, get the facts and ascertain what the incident was and the circumstances around it. You would then review to ensure the proper process was followed and determine whether or not you uphold the decision or otherwise.
Mr GUNNER: It is not uncommon for acts to state the grounds on which you can appeal. That is not the case here. Some of these questions were answered in our briefing. However, that was private, and this is an opportunity to place answers on the public record. On what grounds can a senior officer reconsider an alcohol protection order?
Mr GILES: The grounds are if someone asks them to reconsider. They can open the case and reconsider all aspects of the matter.
Mr GUNNER: The answer the Police Commissioner gave was sobriety. Grounds for appeal could be, ‘I was sober’. This clause does not say on what grounds someone can appeal an alcohol protection order. For the benefit of the public record, on what grounds can someone appeal an alcohol protection order? Proving you are sober is a pretty good one.
Mr GILES: Member for Fannie Bay, we can be prescriptive and have many reasons, or we can have an open process so the matter can be reconsidered. I believe in a broad, open approach. An APO can be reconsidered on many grounds, and it is much better than listing all the reasons an order can be reconsidered. It is more about reconsidering all elements and, if sobriety is one area of consideration, that would be taken into account along with other things.
Mr GUNNER: I have a question regarding clause 11. If you miss the three-day time line to appeal an alcohol protection order, can you go to a local court to appeal the decision? Does this clause say you cannot go to a local court to appeal?
Mr GILES: You appeal within three days, and if you are not happy with that approach you can appeal to the local court within seven days. That is clause 11.
Mr GUNNER: If you miss the three days you cannot appeal to the local court, so you have to appeal within the three-day period first. Our argument is that is a short time frame and there is no requirement in the act for the conditions of the alcohol protection order to be explained. At the time an alcohol protection order is given, it is not incumbent on the officer, under this bill, to explain those conditions. A person given an APO may not know the three-day appeal time line. I am sure the police, in good practice, will probably do that, but there is no requirement in this bill for the conditions of an alcohol protection order to be explained. If the police officer does not explain the conditions of an alcohol protection order, including the three-day appeal time line, there is a chance someone will miss the three-day appeal period. If they miss that three-day period they have no other capacity to appeal.
Mr GILES: I understand the question and do not appreciate the insinuations about police not providing information to people being given an APO. It is good practice and common policy for police to provide the appropriate information and explain everything to people receiving an APO. I have a copy of a blank APO in front of me. It would be explained to the person being issued an alcohol protection order and says they may apply at a police station for reconsideration of issue of the order within 72 hours. It is dated and shows the time. That appears on the alcohol protection order. When people receive an alcohol protection order they are advised of the option to have it reviewed within 72 hours.
Mr GUNNER: My next question relates to clause 14. If you volunteer for an alcohol protection order then breach it you can be fined. We all want people to do the right thing. I understand why someone might try to get help and say, ‘I cannot control my addiction; I need a hand.’ However, it seems strange that someone who volunteers can be fined.
Mr GILES: I will provide some clarity. Someone who opts to go on a voluntary alcohol protection order then breaches it will be subject to five penalty units. There is a minimum penalty unit because without that penalty clause, what is the use of being on a voluntary APO? It means nothing if there is no penalty at the end of it. It is a small deterrent to stop someone on a voluntary APO from offending by consuming or possessing alcohol or going onto licensed premises. It is not a punitive measure for someone who volunteers; it is a measure to encourage people not to offend while on a voluntary APO, and there is no gaol at all.
Mr WOOD: Where else does this apply? Most people with a grog problem go to AA or a similar group. Where else is this being initiated? It seems unusual.
Mr GILES: A range of people can volunteer for things. People who gamble at casinos can volunteer to be on the casino’s banned list. People living in public housing ask for their houses to have prescribed notices banning alcohol consumption. People who were on the BDR could volunteer. It is a common thing. If your question is more about alcohol protection orders, this is leading legislation in all jurisdictions in Australia. Many jurisdictions are actively looking at how successful it will be and at rolling it out in their state. I am unsure if either of those responses answers your question.
Mr WOOD: Where is the word ‘treatment’? That is one of the key things missing. Can I ask about treatment because it is not in the bill?
Mr GILES: A range of treatments apply for people who go through the prison system.
Mr WOOD: I do not want people in prison for drinking.
Mr GILES: No, but you are asking about treatment and I am trying to give you an answer. There is mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, safe sobering-up shelters and private rehabilitation treatment services can be offered. An alcohol protection order is designed to help people who have not gone through the rehabilitation process because they have been charged with an offence, have not made a self-referral to somewhere like CAAAPU or have not gone through the Bradaag system. This is for the person who will be back on the street consuming grog again to say, ‘You cannot drink and commit another offence’. It is not sentencing those people to rehab because, under our mandatory alcohol rehab model, you cannot go if you are awaiting charges.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand that. However, you can go to the Salvation Army voluntarily and receive treatment to get off the grog. You can go to other people who will help you get off the grog. It seems strange. If you are really concerned about grog, you would get help regardless of whether you commit an offence or not. You can still go to Amity or the Salvation Army and get the necessary treatment. We are dealing with a drug of dependency and need the other side of it, and that is missing from this bill. I will not argue the toss any more.
Mr GILES: There might be a time when we bring in treatment services for these people, but the current mandatory treatment legislation means you cannot go if you have been charged because of the bail process while awaiting hearing. This is designed to help people in that gap because, from a legislative point of view, trying to get those people off the grog has not been dealt with. This is where those people are being banned. I appreciated your point, Gerry.
Mr TOLLNER: Perhaps I can go a bit further than the Chief Minister. We are trying to put in place a suite of measures to deal with people with alcohol problems. In this case, people issued with APOs may not necessarily be addicted to alcohol but have proven they commit serious offences when affected by alcohol. We are trying to close all the gaps in the Northern Territory. The government is supporting voluntary rehabilitation centres and encouraging people with an alcohol problem to use them.
For people who have gone so far they have been picked up by police on a number of occasions for being drunk – not committing crimes – and cannot make the decision to go into voluntary rehab, the government will make the decision for them and place them in mandatory rehab. This is about people who commit serious crimes who do not necessarily have an alcohol addiction but, clearly, are not in control of their actions when seriously affected by alcohol.
This is another area where we are closing loopholes and ensuring people take responsibility for their actions. When they do not, the state will step in and put in place measures we think will deter them from accessing alcohol and, in this case, committing serious crimes.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but my concern about the bill is lack of consultation. When I ring Amity, FORWAARD or CAAPS, the people who can help, they have not been consulted in relation to this bill. They, I hope, would be an important part of what you are trying to do.
Mr TOLLNER: With all due respect, member for Nelson, this is not about people with an addiction to alcohol, which is what Amity, CAAPS and CAAAPU are focused on. This is about people who commit serious crime. During the consultation the Chief Minister was in contact with police and others in the justice system. The issues you are talking about have a health and therapeutic focus. Those people are completely separate from this and have committed serious crimes.
That is where many people are getting lost in this debate – treating people as if they have an illness. We on this side of the Chamber are treating these people as if they have committed serious crimes. That is the difference with alcohol protection orders. To get an alcohol protection order you have to commit a serious crime. The crime is the trigger, not an addiction to alcohol.
Mr WOOD: I do not want a revolving door.
Mr CHAIR: This debate is going to policy and not sticking with the legislation.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 18, Chief Minister, allows police to breath test someone. It says ‘recently consumed’ which makes sense. This phrase is not in previous legislation. For the benefit of the record, can you explain what ‘recently consumed’ would be?
Mr GILES: Which clause is that?
Mr GUNNER: Clause 18(1):
- A police officer who reasonably believes that an adult is subject to an alcohol protection order and has recently consumed alcohol may do any of the following:
For the record, what is ‘recently consumed’?
Mr GILES: This is a prescriptive answer, but if you went through the checklist of being incoherent, slurred speech, lack of coordination, odour of liquor, red or wet eyes, asking people have they been drinking, seeing them with grog in their hand, seeing them drinking, they are some of the reasonable ways of determining whether someone has been drinking.
Mr GUNNER: The test here is ‘reasonably believes’ rather than ‘believes’?
Mr GILES: Police operate off a list of questions ...
Mr GUNNER: I am not criticising your previous answer. I will go to another question.
Under clause 18, someone can have a breath test and you can take their fingerprints and other biometric identifiers. Why is there a need to take the lot rather than have the breath test and, if they fail that, take the fingerprints and the biometric identifiers? I did not ask this in the briefing and am curious.
Mr GILES: Are you asking about identification?
Mr GUNNER: Yes. Under this clause you can take someone’s fingerprints and have a breath test. Why do you not only take the fingerprints if someone blows on the breath test?
Mr GILES: To confirm identity if they have committed an offence.
Mr GUNNER: This is about the alcohol protection order, whether they have breached it and whether they have recently consumed alcohol. A police officer who reasonably believes an adult subject to an alcohol protection order has recently consumed alcohol may ask them to take a breath test. They do the breath test and you take their fingerprints at the same time. Why not have it cascading? Do the breath test and if they blow positive take fingerprints and the other biometric identifiers. Is it not one then the other?
Mr GILES: I do not quite following your question. The fingerprint is to confirm that person is on an alcohol protection order. They are asked to undergo a breath test and, if they come up over the prescribed limit, the fingerprint is to determine the person is legally on an APO so they do not make the wrong assessment.
Clauses 8 to 18 agreed to.
Clause19:
Mr GILES: I move amendment 11.2 to clause 19(1), as tabled.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 23 states if you breach an alcohol protection order you face a maximum penalty of 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. For example, the act of drinking can see you go to gaol, which goes against the recommendations.
Mr GILES: The act of breaching an alcohol protection order?
Mr GUNNER: The act of breaching an alcohol protection order, which can include the consumption of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol can see you go to gaol which goes against the recommendations of the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody. Did you consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission when putting this bill together?
Mr GILES: I considered many things, member for Fannie Bay. I am probably one of a few people who has read RCIADIC. I have it firmly planted in my mind, particularly when I go into a police station. I was at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak recently looking at some of the recommendations of that report being facilitated in the way prison cells are designed.
I am firmly aware of RCIADIC, what it stands for and what it means. Nobody wants to see people go to gaol; we want to see a reduction in this process. We will continue to see more perpetrators of domestic violence charged, whether the incidents are alcohol-related or otherwise. I anticipate, in the shorter term, seeing a slightly higher incarceration rate as people go through this process. However, as they adjust to knowing APOs are a real thing and people will be penalised if they break them, we will see fewer offences. The outcome will be fewer offences in the community, less crime in the community and less domestic violence against women in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to the wife of the person on the APO, or a friend. If an adult takes a person on an APO through a bottle shop, would the driver of the vehicle be committing an offence?
Mr GILES: Which subsection is that, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: In relation to …
Mr GILES: Is this clause 23? We have already done that.
Mr WOOD: Clause 24. Is it only a matter of supplying alcohol, or if you took someone through licensed premises are you breaching anything?
Mr GUNNER: If someone is in the back seat of a car going through a bottle-o?
Mr GILES: If you are not supplying you are not in breach.
Mr WOOD: Okay.
Mr GILES: If you are not supplying, holding for, or …
Mr WOOD: However, you are taking someone through premises they are not supposed to be in. Are you participating in something illegal?
Mr GILES: Clause 24(a) says:
A person commits an offence if the person:
- (a) intentionally supplies alcohol to an adult …
Mr WOOD: If you assist in what could be an illegal act and the illegal act is someone should not be in a licensed premises and you have assisted them being there, is that an offence?
Mr GILES: It depends if you are deliberately doing it or unknowingly doing it. If you are deliberately committing an offence you have obviously done the wrong thing. If it is not done knowingly, no, you have not. The legislation prescribes that pretty well. Clause 24(b) says:
(b) knows that the adult is subject to an alcohol protection order.
If you know someone has an alcohol protection order and is deliberately trying to contravene that order, there might be a punitive approach. Where it is not done knowingly, clearly that is not the case.
It is the same as the false argument Labor and the shadow minister have been running in the media about shopkeepers being charged because they serve someone who has been issued an alcohol protection order. That is not the case. We are putting the onus on the individual. If a shopkeeper serves someone they do not know is on an APO that is fine. However, if they are deliberately trying to supply someone they know is on an APO with alcohol, the punitive measures come in.
Mr GUNNER: How will licensees be informed of alcohol protection orders against a person?
Mr GILES: I have a pro forma document here. You probably cannot see it from there, member for Nelson. I know you have good eyes, but I can read it for you if you like. It is section 6 of the Alcohol Protection Order Act – can we table this?
Mr GUNNER: Will licensees be under an obligation to inform their staff an alcohol protection order has been made? If a licensee has been given one of those, are they under an obligation to inform their staff?
Mr GILES: They are not under any obligation because this is not putting pressure on the retailer. However, this is good policy for retailers of licensed outlets, or otherwise, to afford that information to their staff if possible. You would not expect to have 50 alcohol protection orders provided to every staff member everywhere. Clearly, it is locally based and you do your best not to serve someone who has one. However, you are not committing an offence if you do so without knowing you have.
Mr GUNNER: The information cannot be stored in a public place; the notice must be in a private place. An example given was the manager’s office. It can be put up on the board in the manager’s office. If the licensee places the notice on the wall in the manager’s office, does the checkout operator breach the act if they serve someone listed on the notice on the wall in the manager’s office? Are they knowingly serving someone? Police have provided the information and it is on the wall in the office, is the checkout person knowingly serving that person?
Mr GILES: The only time someone commits an offence is if they deliberately serve alcohol to someone they know to be on an alcohol protection order. Had they seen someone’s picture in the manager’s office a week ago, forgotten who that person was and served them alcohol, it is not their fault. We are not trying to put responsibility on retailers; it is the responsibility of the individual.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, can you be charged as an accessory to breaking the requirement that a person should not enter or be on licensed premises? If the person on the APO was the passenger and you drove into licensed premises, are you an accessory to breaking the order?
Mr ELFERINK: I will take you briefly through the law. Technically, yes, in the real world, no. I will give you an example. I am driving down the road and have a mate in a car next to me. I pull up at the lights and rev my car, which is the universal symbol amongst young gentlemen to have a drag race. I rev my car; he takes off from the lights and is done for speeding. It is a minor offence; he is only doing 15 km over the speed limit. He gets a $115 ticket. Technically, I could probably be done as an accessory because I encouraged, counselled and procured the offence to be committed. In the real world I would not be.
The law of accessory is generally reserved for matters of an indictable nature and is rarely exercised, even in that instance. You will find its most common manifestation in the area of homicide. That type of indictable offence invites the attention of the courts and investigators into the realm of accessory. However, the law of accessory is quite broad because it may be applied for other reasons. It could be an accessory to conspiracy, or those things. Again, you are in a very high level of indictable offence. The lower courts are, in the real world, a meat grinder – a sausage factory of law. They are not lovely in the way law is practised. It is a very simple system. As a consequence, matters pertaining to accessory are, to my knowledge, never pursued through the lower courts, and these matters would be almost exclusively dealt with in the lower courts.
Mr McCARTHY: Chief Minister, I am interested in the wanted posters: the manual system of identifying citizens on alcohol protection orders. In the case of the current crimes statistics, let us talk about Tennant Creek. Over the past 12 months a total of 533 assaults have been alcohol-related. That represents 20% of Tennant Creek’s population. How do you see licensees administering that type of list manually?
Mr GILES: Member for Barkly, police officers know who the troublemakers are, people with an alcohol problem or the people who commit crimes. They know who has not gone to alcohol rehabilitation, as in Tennant Creek where we are still setting up the alcohol rehabilitation program – the mandatory element. Retailers often know who those people are. You will find many of the people you mentioned are reoffenders, and the information provided to those retailers will be passed around licensees and the staff who work in those venues. To the best of their ability, they will not serve anyone they believe to be on an alcohol protection order.
Mr McCARTHY: We are talking about pretty big numbers. I agree they could be repeat offenders, but there has been an anecdotal assessment of possibly 4000 across the Northern Territory in the first 12 months. Do you believe an electronic database would be better?
Mr GILES: What section is this under?
Mr CHAIR: Can I interrupt, Chief Minister. We need to keep questions to the clauses. Member for Barkly, what clause are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The clause we are discussing at the moment, Mr Chair. Could you advise me of that clause please?
Mr CHAIR: Clause 24.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, 24. I am following on from a question from the member for Nelson.
Mr CHAIR: I do not see any relevance in the numbers being related to clause 24.
Mr GILES: Filibuster?
Mr McCARTHY: I asked about the relevance of an electronic database. I accept your advice, Mr Chair.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I thank the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay for their constructive input in the committee stage of the bill. I also thank the member for Fong Lim for his constructive comments, and the member for Port Darwin for explaining the term ‘reasonable’ in such an eloquent way. It was as much appreciated as it was entertaining.
I will comment on the member for Nelson wanting to refer matters to a committee and speak as a local member not a government member. It is very important we improve the committee structure of parliament. If you had come to us a week ago suggesting changes I would have considered them. However, to come in late yesterday is not the right way. It looks like a stunt rather than you being supportive of going to the committee stage, which I would have been happy to hear in a different light.
That being said, I believe committee stage reviews are very important and would help strengthen parliament. However, how we proceed with that is challenging. I have looked at several different models. You mentioned Queensland as an example. Queensland has more members, so if legislation is referred to a committee more backbenchers and committee members can look at it. In this Chamber we have 25 members, one being the Speaker, two Whips and eight ministers. It is a challenging environment to refer things to a committee and needs to be considered in the future. Having said that, I respect your comments on committees. However, to ask for it yesterday was a bit of a stretch.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for his comments.
Chief Minister, I have spent a good deal of time between the last two sittings getting my head around some of these issues. The idea of a committee was not one I gave much thought to until I dug deeper and deeper into this and looked at different models. I do not believe this is the right model. It uses …
Mr Tollner: It can always be improved.
Mr WOOD: That is two socks I will have to give you.
The model I was looking at – it might not work in the Northern Territory – was electronic monitoring where people have to be breathalysed every day. It takes a lot of work off police and is one of the areas I examined. I also looked at the figures from independent assessment of that program. A number of documents show this has been effective.
I spent a lot of time calling South Dakota. If I rang them at 7 am or 8 am I got them at about 4 pm or 5 pm. I was lucky to get them and they were extremely helpful.
I called the makers of the SCRAM ankle bracelet and received an e-mail this afternoon from Mike Dyer, a representative of that company. I am not pushing for that company because I know Deakin University said there are cheaper varieties of the bracelet. They will be in Darwin, I believe, next week. I do not know if they are making contact with the government, but I will try to contact them because Victoria is also looking at this scheme.
This type of committee is new to me too. We have 14 pieces of legislation, some not as serious as others. I have paid particular attention to this one because I feel the model you are using is not the right one, which is why I am not supporting it rather than not agreeing with what you are doing.
I thank you for your comments. It will be interesting to see where we go with committees. It will make it a much better parliament. I agree Queensland is not necessarily the right model. I believe every piece of legislation goes to a committee, and they have the numbers for that. We do not have the numbers and some of us are already stretched handling the committees we are on.
I also thank various members for their contributions. This is a serious issue and I have tried to take it that way, as have all members. I would also like to thank the opposition for their comments.
Member for Araluen, I appreciate your comments. I have said many times I support mandatory rehabilitation, and the minister is aware I would prefer a better way to treat those people on the ground.
The one big issue missing in this debate, sadly, is treatment. The member for Fong Lim said ‘Well, not everybody is an alcoholic’. That is why I have asked for a magistrate to make the decision. The magistrate can then consider each person as an individual and know their history. They may be chronic alcoholics, they may be people with bad habits or they may be a one-off. You could give the orders according to who they are, and you could do what they have done in Vermillion, South Dakota – the magistrate can decide if a person should receive treatment.
We are stuck with saying, ‘You cannot get treatment if you have been charged with or found guilty of an offence’. It is a different kettle of fish. More options need to be explored because we could have a better model. However, you are the government, you have decided to go down that path, and I accept that.
Motion agreed to: bill read a third time.
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
(Serial 53)
Continued from 17 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this bill would not be before the House if the Country Liberal Party had not broken its promise to cut crime. This bill lies at the end of that process. Crime is up under the Country Liberal Party. The CLP has come to the parliament with a bill to increase the size of the Parole Board from 10 members to 18. When crime is up it flows through the system and eventually the number of people seeking parole is up. The Attorney-General admits this. In his second reading speech he said:
- … the rising number of offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment has a direct effect on the numbers of prisoners eligible for parole.
More crime under the CLP equals more parole hearings under the CLP. If the Country Liberal Party had delivered on the commitment to cut crime by 10% every year, we would not have to dramatically increase the size of the Parole Board. If the CLP believed crime was going down they would not be almost doubling the size of the Parole Board.
Before discussing the specifics of this bill we need to discuss why it is required. The bill is required because the CLP completely failed to cut crime. Everybody in the Territory knows it, and the crime statics prove it. Violent crime is on the rise, assaults are up, alcohol-related assaults are up and domestic violence is up. Let us look at some of the statistics provided by the Attorney-General’s department on Tuesday.
In Darwin, alcohol-related crime has risen by 12.3% and domestic violence is up by 18.8%. It is not only Darwin. Across the Territory, the number of alcohol-related assaults increased by 11.4%. Interestingly, Nhulunbuy recorded a drop of 5.9% compared with Tennant Creek, where assaults increased by 43.7%. They are similar sized towns so what is the difference? Nhulunbuy still has the Banned Drinker Register. You have to show ID to buy takeaway alcohol in Nhulunbuy. Where the BDR is in place in Nhulunbuy assaults are down by 5.9%, where it is not in Tennant Creek, they are up by 43.7%. Tennant Creek has seven times more alcohol-related violence than Nhulunbuy.
These are compelling numbers and the CLP is culpable. Police told the CLP the decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register would increase violent crime. They quite deliberately ignored the advice of experts who said, ‘Do not scrap the Banned Drinker Register; do not scrap measures which handle supply of alcohol to problem drunks.’
The experts were right and, as night follows day, crime increased. Violent crime increased. What was the CLP’s response? To break the election commitment. The CLP now says it will not cut crime by 10% every year; it will now cut it by 10% over its whole term. Instead of admitting the policies are wrong, they admitted to breaking their promise.
Police, magistrates and judges all told the CLP their policies would increase crime. The only response is the decision by the CLP to accommodate the increase in crime with this bill. This is the ‘we give up’ bill. The bill is saying, ‘We acknowledge our law and order polices have completely failed and will continue to fail, so we are planning for a future with more crime’. If the original CLP promise to cut crime by 10% a year every year was kept, we would be looking at a reduction in crime of around 40% in the first term. If crime was to be cut by around 40%, we would not need to increase the size of the Parole Board from 10 to 18 or double the time it meets.
I will give the Corrections department some credit. They know the government’s crime policies will fail and are planning for it.
On this side of the House we agree with the experts. The CLP’s crime policies will fail, so we support this bill as a measure to accommodate the CLP’s failings. We accept the number of parole cases will rise and believe the Parole Board must be diligent. The fact it will be dealing with so many more cases should not be a reason to apply less rigor to any application for parole.
Last year, 135 prisoners were released on parole and 64 had their parole revoked. That is not a great success rate. The Parole Board must be vigilant to ensure parolees do not reoffend and the through-care programs exist to ensure we are minimising parolees reoffending or breaching their parole conditions.
We support the increased number of members to the Parole Board and the increase in the number of times they meet.
I acknowledge the fantastic work NAAJA and CAALAS provide in assisting parolees. The Chair of the Parole Board, Justice Stephen Southwood, said the work NAAJA and CAALAS do has been of great assistance to the Parole Board. I hope the government listens to Justice Southwood and continues to support these organisations. Both these organisations have told the government its law and order policies will fail. They should be listened to, not ignored.
The cost of the increase in violent crime under the CLP is almost impossible to calculate. Could the Attorney-General, in his wrap, advise how much it might cost to implement the changes to the Parole Board? Could the Attorney-General advise how much it will cost to go from 10 members to 18, when the Parole Board will start meeting twice a month and when there will be 18 members on the Parole Board?
In summary, we do not support the CLP’s failed law and order policies but do support the amendments to this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): It sounds like the Labor Party is in cahoots with the government’s policies. They are supporting something they say supports an increase in crime. They could have said they are increasing employment in the Northern Territory; that might have sounded better.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It makes sense that the load on the Parole Board requires more people to be on it. When I first read it I thought it meant we could have two police or two psychiatrists or two other people together on the board. However, it is obviously one of each, which was nice to have clarified.
The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the advocacy work undertaken by Aboriginal legal services in prisons. That would be interesting to know, because from time to time they have said there is a shortfall in funds to allow the legal services to continue. I hope the government is ensuring, if there is an increase in workload that requires an increase in the Parole Board, there is also an increase in funding for Aboriginal legal services to deal with the issues before them as well.
I have no trouble supporting the bill before us, and I cannot beat the member for Fannie Bay’s opening remarks.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I draw members’ attention to what I said in the second reading speech. A snapshot of data from the 2011 annual report indicates the number of business matters considered in 2001 was 412. In 2006 it was 482, and in 2011 it was 612. Hang on! During that time the Labor Party was in power. We are still cleaning up the Labor Party’s mess, which is part of the reason we have to do this. The residual from their failed policies is a large slice of what drives these numbers in the Parole Board. I am sure the member for Fannie Bay was aware of that but decided to ignore that inconvenient truth.
Nevertheless, I accept those numbers are increasing because there is still a wash over from the last years of the Labor Party. I made it clear this morning during Question Time why these numbers are increasing. I do not mind if the number of people being gaoled for domestic violence offences and offences of violence increases because we are catching more of them. I explained to the House this morning in Question Time the simple mechanical structure of how to deal with the domestic violence numbers. I could say, ‘Start taking the old DV orders out and do not pursue the criminal matters’. That is all we have to do to drive those numbers down. It would be completely artificial and would ignore the seriousness of domestic violence in our community.
We have a choice. Do we artificially push the numbers down by saying, ‘No, we just return to the old domestic violence system of getting civil orders and ignoring criminal assaults,’ or do we pursue the policy the former government started with increased vigour. The answer is the latter. They did a good job. Project Respect was a good idea, and I am pleased the Commissioner took it to the government or the government took it to the Commissioner – I have no idea how Project Respect started – but there was clearly a focus on domestic violence.
I have acknowledged publicly in this House during Question Time, and in front of TV cameras and on radio, that the Labor Party started down this path. It was a noble path to tread, but we have determined to become increasingly aggressive with this and, on top of that, have committed to a general domestic violence policy which goes across government and in the area of the NGOs.
I do not doubt that at some point you will see an increased number of domestic violence cases and assault cases coming before the courts because we are being more assertive in this area.
I remind honourable members of page 94 of the first quarterly crime statistics published in 2001. There you will find a reference to unreported matters in the Northern Territory which says 71% of property offences were reported and only 25% of offences against the person were reported. If you continue to read that report you will find a reference to the reasons those offences were not reported, which was because people decided they were personal. There was a personal reason not to do it, aka, domestic violence.
So, 75% of all crime, according to the former government’s own numbers when they started reporting crime, was unreported. That information was discovered because ACNielsen had the job of ringing people to conduct surveys, then talking to people as a result of those quantitative surveys about whether they had been the subject of an assault and whether they had reported it. That is how the information was gleaned. That is how we know the percentage of under-reportings.
That number has subsequently appeared in slightly varying numbers through our crime statistics because the Australian Bureau of Statistics continues to collect that information. It is an important trend. It sounds counterintuitive and I understand why people would question it. More police work drives down property crime but drives up crimes against the person, and the reason it occurs is based in that number. Because so much property crime is reported, when police attack that as a particular issue it depresses the number of offences being committed because there are such high reporting rates. When your reporting rate is very low and you place a lot of police attention into a specific area, it drives up the reporting rate.
That is exactly the problem the former government ran into, and when we asked the questions the members opposite ask now, that was precisely the reason we got from the government. For that reason, more police action and more police attention has driven down property crime well beyond the promised 10% per year. In fact, we have reached our four-year target. However, we are stuck with this moral choice: do we or do we not pursue domestic violence, and do we or do we not go hard after violence in the community? The answer has to be yes.
We promised to put more police on the streets, and as a consequence we now have a response which sees more people coming into custody. I am proud of that. However, I understand the politics the members opposite feel obliged to play with this. It is a cute shot but, of course, it is the usual misrepresentation we have come to expect from the member for Fannie Bay. The crime increase he so jokingly points to started on the Labor Party’s watch 10 years ago.
Being aware of this rather facile but obvious attack, we placed that set of numbers in the second reading speech so it would become apparent to any person reading it that the argument put forward by the member of Fannie Bay was utterly nefarious. Nevertheless, he had to run it so he did. I am happy for him. He got his shot in, but as Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services in the Northern Territory, I am proud to be doing what we are doing.
Parole, as an organ of the judicial process and the post-judicial process, will play an increasingly important role, particularly when it becomes manifest in the Sentenced to a Job program. Keeping the job you are provided with should become part of your parole when you leave gaol. That means you will be obliged to continue working once you have left gaol whilst on parole. That is a policy I would like to continue pursuing until I am satisfied it will work. It will also place demands on the Parole Board because it will create a larger workload for them.
Consequently, I remain proud of this legislation. I thank honourable members for their support, such as it is. I am sure they understand that, in the real world – which I know they also get – this is a necessary improvement, because, as we continue to roll out our law and order policies, there will be an increasingly important function for the Parole Board and it has to be properly supported.
I had the file upstairs with the dollar figures. I know a sitting fee is given to each member of the Parole Board. From memory, it is several thousand dollars a year, but I will provide the member for Fannie Bay with the exact dollar figure. I will make certain it is passed on; I just cannot lay my fingertips on it right now.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support and place on the record my thanks to the people in the Department of Correctional Services for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting me in drafting the legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, as the member for Karama, I acknowledge the great work in Karama, Malak and the broader northern suburbs community of a dear friend of mine, Donna Smith. Donna Smith is an Army wife. She was deployed to Darwin with her husband 14 years ago and has embraced our community with gusto.
I first met her when she, as mother of a Transition child, was on Malak School Council. As is the wont of local members, you get pretty close to your school council members. Of all the years I have spent on different school councils - I have seven schools in my electorate - Donna has been an extraordinary woman and an outstanding member of the community.
I was at her place on the weekend with a gathering of her dear friends. We were talking to each other, because not only has she been active on the Malak Primary School Council, but she has been active on Sanderson Middle School Council, then, ultimately, on Casuarina Senior School Council, because her only child, her daughter Jordan, is now finishing Year 11. Donna truly believes in putting into the school community and broader school community.
She took hold of Malak School Council and organised members with great skill. She decided she would make sure the kids wanted for nothing at that school. A few mothers in the local area did some rough calculations. With her school council fundraising over the last 14 years, plus her active participation in the Country Women’s Association and the craft club, we estimate she has single-handedly raised about $100 000 for the broader community.
Quite selflessly, she would literally organise entire fundraising events throughout the year - several events. She would get to know local traders and business people who, over the years, grew to respect her because not only did she go tapping them for contributions to fetes, raffles, events, film nights and all the rest, but she would follow-up with a letter of thanks. She would make sure at the fundraising events all the companies and businesses which sponsored were appropriately recognised and were given photographs of that recognition. They knew she appreciated the effort they went to, as local businesses, to support the local school community.
Indeed, the CWA women have been incredibly moved by her generous capacity to do the hard yards and hard work, and contribute to our community and society.
We are two very different people. I have been, obviously, consumed by my profession and my work, and raising my three children. Donna has, by choice, been a housewife for 14 years because her primary desire was to be there for and raise her daughter. She is an incredible and outstanding woman, and all her friends and the community are amazed at the contribution she has given to our community.
I speak tonight in adjournment because one of the local mothers told me on the weekend that Donna needs to be recognised in parliament; she needs to be appreciated and acknowledged in parliament. The acknowledgements are starting to come because she has been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer and has been given a few weeks to live.
In life you see incredible people, and Donna and I, as different as we are – I am a professional woman committed to long working hours and she is a housewife committed to raising her daughter. We have been as thick as thieves. We are incredibly tight friends because I have met someone I find incredibly inspirational because of the selfless way she goes about contributing to her community. She wants nothing from it. She does not want to be recognised, does not want to be acknowledged, and is happy to be in the background, but she is always in the foreground because she is so generous and so active.
It is difficult to have been given the shocking news she has. In just a few short weeks her life has been completely upended and will be cut unreasonably short. It has given everyone in her community - when I say her community, the community now stretches across significant chunks of the northern suburbs because she has relocated that lengthy distance from Malak to Leanyer, and has gone through the Malak, Sanderson and Casuarina school communities. Her patch is those suburbs and the Country Women’s Association.
I had a conversation with her a few days after the initial diagnosis. She was touched because one of the ladies from the CWA, who is 92, offered to mop her floors. She graciously said, ‘That’s okay, I can put up with some dirty floors for the next few weeks’. I say that to indicate what enormous regard Donna engenders. For anyone who has the time and opportunity in their life to get to know her, she is the embodiment of what I love about the Northern Territory.
Often people find themselves here through circumstance. Her circumstance is her wonderful husband Jeff, who is in the Army and has been deployed here. They fell in love with Darwin and the Northern Territory, and Jeff, by magic means, has managed to be redeployed here through several deployments to ensure they have had 14 long years in Darwin.
With the diagnosis, they are moving to Perth where they have family so she can pass away knowing her daughter will be cared for and supported by her mother and her brother.
I want to acknowledge her mother, Bobby and her brother, Ashley. It is pretty hard to watch someone you love so dearly go through a pretty short sentence leading to death. We are all appreciative of the time we have, knowing Donna will leave us in too short a time. The community will expect to gather.
I have been tasked with the responsibility of drawing together a memorial service if she manages to see her wish of having Christmas in Perth with her family - that is her daughter’s wish. Young Jordan is finishing Year 11 and has to deal with a pretty tough card being dealt, and will be back in Darwin for a memorial service. I know Jeff will make heaven and earth move and be here too.
It is a sad story, but an incredibly inspiring one to see a woman who chose how to live in a modern era. You are often reflected upon poorly if you choose the home and homemaking over the professional life. She chose the home and the homemaking. She is incredibly intelligent and an extremely capable and organised woman, but she chose to raise her daughter for 17 years. In a cruel twist of irony, that choice has been the wisest one of all because she will not see the rest of her daughter’s life. She has also shown us that being at home does not truly mean ‘be at home’. It does not mean being disconnected from your community. It does not mean you take a back seat. She has shown us that through sheer selflessness you can fully and totally provide for the people, the families, and the community around you through several schools.
Donna Smith, you are not gone yet. There are some jokes and drinks yet to have. I know you will be mildly appalled that you have been recognised in the Legislative Assembly, but you have earned every bit of it because you have raised so much for our school communities. Malak has a school band and instruments because of Donna Smith. They are being passed on to Sanderson Middle School because of Donna Smith. We are all the richer for her efforts. We will be all the poorer when we have to say goodbye.
Vale, Donna Smith, you have had an incredible life.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I want to make a contribution to a question asked by the member for Nhulunbuy and answered by the Chief Minister today. The member for Nhulunbuy asked about the strategic Indigenous water reserve and linked it to Indigenous economic development. I also refer to the media release put out by the member for Nhulunbuy yesterday evening.
The member for Nhulunbuy went to great lengths to drive a wedge between the members for Namatjira and Arnhem and the government, given they spoke on my Primary Industry statement two nights ago about the strategic Indigenous water reserve. I want to ensure everyone is clear about this. I welcome comments from the members for Arnhem and Namatjira because on this side of the House we welcome diverging views, open debate and honest feedback from all members of parliament.
Sometimes we may not like what we hear. We often do not like what we hear from the opposition because a lot of what they say is cheap and mired in dirty politics. Let me assure you when somebody in the House makes a meaningful well-researched contribution founded in the work they do in their electorate, I welcome it no matter who they are and of what political persuasion.
I have no doubt the members for Arnhem and Namatjira are two of the hardest working members in this House. They should be applauded for the passion they bring to the job and the way they represent the views of their constituents.
The approach the Country Liberals take with respect to interaction between backbenchers and members of government is poles apart from that of Labor. If, on the Labor side of the House, one opposed the views of government, or, probably, in opposition, that individual would be hauled across the coals, probably hung, drawn and quartered, summarily executed, cut into cubes and fed to the fish. That is the Labor way and we understand that. On this side of the House, we welcome diverging views from across the Northern Territory because that is healthy debate.
It is good for me, as minister, to hear those views. I cannot be everywhere all at once, as much as I would like to be. I often joke with people that I wish there were three of me - two to split the workload and one to have a rest. That is not possible so I rely on the hard-working members of the Country Liberal Party in their electorates to bring the views of their constituents to me.
The members for Arnhem and Namatjira do that regularly in private meetings, in our parliamentary wing meetings and in the House. I welcome the views espoused by the members for Arnhem and Namatjira representing the views of their constituents.
Let me talk about strategic Indigenous water reserves. Before the Country Liberals came to government the Labor Party, which was in government for eleven-and-a-half years, had a complete policy vacuum on anything to do with agriculture or water.
They had no policy on strategic Indigenous reserves; they were completely silent. As I have said before in this House, it is like so many other areas of policy making where the former Labor government did not have the courage to make a policy because it was all too hard. It was all too willing to bend and bow to left influences and Green influences, as we have seen. That meant water planning around strategic Indigenous reserves, under those circumstances, was completely ad hoc. Others have criticised me for saying it, but it was ad hoc.
In the Katherine water allocation plan there is a 1% strategic Indigenous reserve. Someone might correct me if it is 2%, but I am sure it is 1%. When the Mataranka plan was being formulated, Indigenous groups put in what I would describe as an ambit claim wanting 25% of the consumptive pool put away for strategic Indigenous reserve. That tells me there was an ad hoc approach; it was all over the place.
There is much debate around water, and I accept there probably should be given it is a precious resource. However, let me remind all those in this House, and people listening to this, there is an 80:20 rule. This means 80% of the annual recharge of an aquifer is confined to the ground for the environment and cannot be touched. That leaves the remaining 20%, one-fifth, available for consumptive use. This is based on what is considered by many people to be a very conservative approach from a report by Erskine et al in about 2009. The reminder, 80%, stays in the ground. For those who would like to continue to scaremonger about Murray Darling systems running out of water and all those things, 80% of the annual recharge - the amount of water in that aquifer - stays in the ground.
Let us talk about the process. I have said many times the minister does not make decisions about water allocations. Goodness me, how many times do I have to say it? The Water Controller makes decisions about water applications. Referring to the Hansard from today’s Question Time – during a question there was an interjection from the member for Barkly remonstrating, pointing at the Chief Minister then pointing at me saying:
- You gave it to him, and he gave it away!
The member for Barkly is misleading everybody because it is not true. The minister does not control the water licensing system. I do not pull the levers, the Water Controller does that. I am not surprised because we have seen demonstrable ignorance from the opposition around the water planning process. Every comment from their measly mouths is full of ignorance designed to scaremonger and mislead people. In fact, they tell lies, it is as simple as that.
When I think about why that ignorance occurs, you look at the former shadow minister, the member for Nightcliff. It has been 15 months since the last election and how many times did the shadow seek a briefing from my department or office on water? Not once did the member for Nightcliff, as shadow minister for Land Resource Management, seek a briefing.
They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in playing politics with this issue – scaremongering and dog whistling. There are many ways to describe how the opposition runs its political game. They are a disgrace! They have a responsibility to their electorate to ensure they promulgate the truth and get the correct information out rather than running the lies and lines they do as we have seen recently.
Thank God the member for Nhulunbuy has sought a briefing after such a short time as shadow minister. Well done, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak tonight on the ongoing Sentenced to a Job program and seek to update the House on what we are doing.
I am particularly proud of this program. The real joy comes, in so many ways, from seeing the response of the many people in the program now. This morning, 107 prisoners went to work. Sixty-four of those inmates are in full-time work and 43 are in training to achieve full-time work. We now have prisoners working in a number of areas, including powder coating, glass crushing, welding, steel cutting, gardening, tree lopping, storeman’s work, housekeepers, delivery drivers, truck and forklift drivers, block layers, cooks, kitchen hands, labourers, trade assistants, and in the retail sections doing counter service, stock control and shelf stacking.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Motor Trades Association’s launch of their efforts in this area. There are 22 prisoners going through training under the auspices of the MTA, and it is embracing these prisoners with open arms.
The number of prisoners we are driving through this system is increasing. In fact, it is not fair to say we are driving them through. They have to earn the right to be in the Sentenced to a Job program and, by gum, are they working for that right! I stand by my hope that in the not-too-distant future we will increase those numbers substantially.
This is not just a work program. I have become familiar with a number of corrections systems around the world. Work programs have been around for a long time. Even the paid work programs have been around for a while, but none of the prison systems I have seen have made work the core of the prison philosophy.
We have made some changes to the new gaol. Of course, I am seeking to drive the new gaol with increasing amounts of shop floor space. Once we are in the new gaol - whilst it is excessive for the purposes it is what it is - we will use it as best we can to drive forward the employment regime. Once we are in the new system we will ensure as many prisoners as possible are in work programs.
An important part of a person’s identity is not just their name, it is what they do. It is no accident of history that in many languages - English is no exception - at some point people adopted their occupation as their name. I invite you to go through a list: Butcher, Baker, Smith and Cooper. I am sure you could think about names and come up with many more which are jobs, because that is a person’s identity.
Employment is the central component of the corrections system in the Northern Territory. It will all be about work. I am not interested, in most instances, in reintegrating people into society; I am interested in introducing many people to society for the first time.
I have travelled overseas and was recently in Colorado Springs at a conference. There were 72 countries represented, and we described Sentenced to a Job to the convention. We did not quite have a packed house, but ours was by far one of the best attended symposiums and there was true interest in what we are doing in the Northern Territory.
I am convinced that by pursuing these policies aggressively, within two years we will have a corrections system that will be a model for the world.
I place on the record my enormous respect for and thanks to the rank and file prison officers who are putting up with enormous change. I observe a level of engagement amongst the staff of the corrections facilities which is inspiring, and it is a sheer pleasure to be their minister. My full congratulations to Commissioner Middlebrook, who is driving his people very hard, but they are showing a high level of enthusiasm. I place on the record my thanks to the Prison Officers Association for its continued understanding and patience with the work we are attempting to do in the Northern Territory.
Sentenced to a Job is something we are proud of and will continue to roll out. We still do not know whether it will work or not, but I am aware it is attracting a lot of attention from around the rest of Australia and the world. We will be the benchmark prison system, with the benchmark prison philosophy.
We will continue to strive in this area and I look forward to finally seeing some results. It is hard to track because it is early days, but if it goes the way we believe it might we may even see some positive outcomes in reoffending rates.
In the meantime, I also place on the record my recognition of those prisoners who have undergone a fundamental shift in their thinking by taking these opportunities and starting to become citizens in the community in which they live for the very first time.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish to share with you a short selection of events and happenings within my electorate of Stuart. I would like to start with Mt Theo in Central Australia, which celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. Mt Theo is two hours’ drive northwest from Yuendumu. Mount Theo is where young people are taken for rehabilitation. It is a Warlpiri youth development program called WYDAC: a program for the education and prevention of substance abuse and petrol sniffing. There has been a clear reduction in the number of children participating in this type of substance abuse in the area. Rates are down almost 15%, and this is a great result for the program in its twentieth year.
Under Labor, WYDAC was only able to create 34 community jobs from January to June 2012. During the same time this year, 77 jobs were created for Warlpiri people. These are young Warlpiri people who have been through the program and have become part of it in helping their younger friends or family get over the petrol sniffing that has been happening there and has let our people down.
Mt Theo has asked me to be their patron. I am proud to take on that honorary role and make them proud as well, as my sister was involved from the start of the Mt Theo program.
That is a huge increase in jobs, and one I am very proud of as a Cabinet member of this government.
I move to the Northern Territory Tidy Towns held in Alice Springs, my current residential town. I was proud the Roper Gulf Shire town of Barunga won the 2013 Northern Territory Tidy Towns Large Community Award. I was proud to be there with the member for Arnhem, who was able to accept the award for the community she was raised in. I was so proud for the community and for the people taking ownership of their town, homes and streets and winning this award. Ownership and tidiness is something we can grow in regard to communities and residential ownership. If residents have a sense of ownership they respect their homes and themselves. Without ownership, no civilisation will survive. Ownership of your home, your car, your family values, will bring a sense of community and respect for what is yours. I congratulate Barunga for the win in this year’s Tidy Town Awards.
I am a proud member of the Redtails Football Club, an Alice Springs club that decided to participate in the Top End Football League. I am a proud supporter because it gives our young people the opportunity of employment and education programs. This is what it is all about. If they want play they have to be involved in it. I became a member of the Redtails Football Club this year because it has fantastic values and rules. If you are not employed or volunteering with an organisation, you are not allowed to play. This is a great idea. It has shown results and encouraged Indigenous employment. I know people are aware of my love for football and all sports.
I have a love for arts as well. I hope one day we see as much enthusiasm in the Indigenous arts industry for self-reliance as we do in the footy club. I was very impressed recently, when visiting the Nhulunbuy region, to have a private tour of the Yirrkala Arts Centre. It was a very productive day, with traditional owners and community members sharing a lot with me that day. I would like to talk about these matters in another adjournment, Madam Speaker, and look forward to sharing them with this House.
Tonight, I wish to talk about my electorate of Stuart. I hope and wish all my electorate a spiritual, safe Christmas, and look forward to seeing more of my constituents throughout 2014. I thank Jodi Locke and Karen Jones, two very valued electorate officers, who have Territorians’ best interests at heart, not to mention the extent of care and interest they have for my constituents and many others who walk through those doors on a daily basis.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak about Charles Darwin University, in particular, Professor Barney Glover. I have been to a number of send-offs for Barney Glover. For those who may not be aware, sadly, Barney Glover is leaving us to take up an appointment at the University of Western Sydney. That will be their gain and our loss.
I have done some research into what is happening at Charles Darwin University, which we can attribute to Barney Glover’s position as Vice-Chancellor and his leadership. It gives me great pleasure to provide an update on the recent work of one of the Northern Territory’s most important institutions
I might add it is my university. All my tertiary qualifications were undertaken at Charles Darwin, and some when it was known as the Northern Territory University, and before that the Community College. If you go right back, Darwin Community College started in Winnellie with humble beginnings. I will describe where our local university sits now.
The university is fundamental to the prosperity of the Territory by providing leadership in our intellectual, professional, social and cultural life and environmental wellbeing. My information is it has an annual budget of about $410m. It employs about 2200 people across the NT and contributes to 2.5% of gross Territory product. While CDU is serving the Territory well through higher education, training, research and engagement, its influence is being felt by our northern neighbours.
The university is helping build strong ties with our near neighbours for our mutual prosperity and stability. As a growing hub for international students and research collaboration, CDU is also contributing in a very real way to developing our vibrant multicultural society in the Northern Territory.
Let us talk about international ranking. CDU ranks amongst the top 2% of world universities. I will repeat that for those listening: CDU ranks among the top 2% of the world’s universities. CDU has maintained its position amongst the world’s top 400 universities for the third consecutive year. This year’s Times Higher Education World University Rankings included CDU in the top 2% of the world’s universities when the rankings were released at the organisation’s World Academic Summit in Singapore. This is an outstanding achievement by Charles Darwin University given its size, relative youth and location. It demonstrates the impact and standing of CDU are much higher than would be expected of a small regional university.
International student numbers: CDU is growing its international student enrolments by about 10% each year, although they grew by 18% this year as a result of the CDU Melbourne Centre opening. Casuarina Campus is now home to 1100 international students from more than 57 countries. The university engages widely in Asia to attract students to the Northern Territory, and is having particular success in the Philippines.
Infrastructure for research teaching and Northern Territory development: a wide range of new infrastructure will open at CDU in 2014 to support international and domestic students. Recently opened facilities are always being appointed with state-of-the-art equipment.
The North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas is a fantastic establishment and has been the site of significant development in the past year to create one of the most comprehensive process engineering training facilities in Australia. Equipment valued at about $800 000 has been installed and is used by undergraduate and post-graduate students and researchers working in the field of minerals, and oil and gas processing. CDU now educates students on the physics and chemistry behind mineral and oil and gas processing.
The $21m VET trades training facility building is under way on the site adjoining the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas facility at Casuarina Campus. The complex will house plumbing, electrotechnology instrumentation, refrigeration, oil and gas industry operations and, in the future, environmental trades. The building is expected to be completed in late 2014 and will allow CDU to continue to develop new and existing programs for identified trade areas into the future for students across the Territory. An additional 750 VET graduates a year at Certificate III level and above are expected once the training facility opens.
The Menzies School of Health Research: work is under way on a $45.7m project that will include a Menzies building for Casuarina Campus and an upgrade of the existing facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. The Casuarina Campus complex will create capacity for an extra 244 staff and enable Menzies to continue its vital medial research in world-class facilities. Clinical research capacity will be expanded in areas such as child health, global and tropical health, wellbeing, and preventable chronic diseases. The building at Casuarina Campus is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2014.
The Charles Darwin University Business School at Darwin Waterfront is our new tertiary education facility and is expected to be completed by mid-2014. The five-storey CDU Business School will be home to about 600 students. The international standard business school is expected to attract enrolments not only from the Territory, but from across Australia and other nations. The facility will include a 130-seat lecture theatre, function space, IT-intensive flexible teaching and tutorial spaces for students, a student hub and an art gallery. The business school will offer degrees and diplomas across a range of courses, including new programs in hospitality, hotel, and event management and tourism.
Engaging with Asian nations - Higher Education Leadership Forum, Timor-Leste, East Indonesia, and north Australia: planning is well advanced to establish an annual forum which will develop leadership capacity in Timor-Leste, East Indonesia and north Australia. CDU will facilitate the forum, which will build understanding of the issues which face our region, identify leadership opportunities and support strategies that will assist universities to build a strong, cohesive and sustainable region. The first forum is expected to be held in Timor-Leste in mid-2014.
IRU senior staff forum: the university hosted a successful two-day forum for senior staff from across the IRU in mid-July during which more than 60 delegates discussed a range of topics including ocean engagement, regional development, online education and Indigenous cooperation.
International Education Round Table: CDU was a central participant in the NT’s government workshop earlier this year to develop international education strategy for the Territory. The meeting included representatives from university, private providers operating in the VET area, and local secondary schools. This is an important initiative to support our endeavours to attract increasing numbers of international students to Darwin, particularly next year, as the CDU Business School at the Darwin Waterfront begins operation.
Malaysia: Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover led a group of senior executive staff from Innovative Research universities to Malaysia to engage in a forum on how universities in both countries are responding to the digital revolution. As Chair of the IRU, Professor Glover led the delegation which examined the possible shapes and learning of teaching in the future, how new learning technologies are driving change and the physical and virtual environments supporting the new world of university learning.
Vietnam: CDU has been investigating emerging trends in higher education in Vietnam and opportunities for enhancing its profile in Vietnam. A senior group from CDU recently met at the Centre for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies at the Vietnam National University, Hanoi, and the Hanoi Medical University, a leading health institute in Vietnam. Discussions focused on the recent links with CDU’s Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, and the Menzies School of Health Research. CDU is exploring possible areas of mutual research interest including agro-ecosystems and sustainable development, mangrove ecosystems and watershed conservation, biodiversity and wetlands restoration, migratory birds, and environmental planning. It is likely great opportunities will emerge for CDU and Vietnam as a result of the visit and the ongoing discussions.
They are some of the highlights of CDU’s achievements this year. Much more first-class research, training, teaching and collaboration are occurring than I have time to speak of tonight. CDU, clearly, deserves its ranking among the top 2% of universities in the world.
Madam Speaker, I will present a copy of this to Hansard; there is a lot to go through. I have attended many functions Barney has been to. My portfolios mean I attend many functions around the community and see many people. Of the people I see the most, number one is the Administrator and second is Barney Glover. He is a tireless worker for the Territory and his university. I am sure it is through his efforts that we have managed to achieve great results, such as the increase in international students. Wherever Barney goes, he engages people at the top and bottom levels. I have the greatest admiration for Barney. Sadly, we are losing him. I believe he will be a fantastic ambassador for the Northern Territory, and I would not be surprised if we see him back in the Territory. He enjoys the lifestyle here. I hope he enjoys the cold in New South Wales.
We wish him well and thank his partner, Marie Collins, for sharing him with us.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016