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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5382 revised:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 34), after item 6, insert:

6A  After section 19

Insert:

19A  Levy of sale of cheap liquor for consumption away from licensed premises

        (1)    A minimum price of 90 cents per standard drink must be charged.

        (2)    Alcohol products that cost more than 90 cents per standard drink for consumption away from the licensed premises are exempt from the levy mentioned in subsection (3).

        (3)    Alcoholic products that cost less than 90 cents per standard drink for consumption away from licensed premises are subject to a levy (to be known as the emergency response alcohol levy) of 25 cents per standard drink.

        (4)    The proceeds of the levy are payable to the Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund.

Note:   The levy is imposed by the Northern Territory Emergency Response (Alcohol Levy Imposition) Act 2007.

19B  Establishment and purpose of the Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund

        (1)    A Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund is established to:

             (a)    disburse funds from the emergency response alcohol levy; and

             (b)    promote the health and welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.

        (2)    The Fund is a special account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

19C  Credits to the Fund

        (1)    There must be credited to the Fund, amounts equal to amounts of emergency response alcohol levy imposed by the Northern Territory Emergency Response (Alcohol Levy Imposition) Act 2007.

        (2)    If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of an amount standing to the credit of the fund, an amount equal to the interest must be credited to the fund.

19D  Purpose of the Fund

                 The purpose of the Fund is to make grants to persons to promote public health and welfare, including the construction and staffing of health and welfare facilities.

19E  Grant payments

        (1)    Grants from the Fund are to be determined by the Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund established under 19B.

        (2)    Subject to this Act, further determination of grant payments, the operation of the fund and the operation of the board may be prescribed by regulation.

19F  Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund Supervisory Board

        (1)    The Northern Territory Community Based Rehabilitation Fund Supervisory Board (The board is established).

        (2)    The board consists of:

             (a)    the chair who is to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory;

             (b)    two board members nominated by the Northern Territory Government; and

             (c)    three board members nominated by the Commonwealth.

        (3)    The chair has a casting vote in all deliberations of the board.

19G  Duty of chair

The chair must advise the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance and Administration of grants determined by the board in accordance with section 19E.

19H  Appointment of chair and board members

        (1)    The chair is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument.

        (2)    A board member is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument.

        (3)    The chair or a board member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 3 years.

        (4)    A person is not eligible for appointment as a board member unless the person has a high level of expertise in the provision of public health services and the financing of health projects.

19I  Remuneration of board members

A board member is to be paid such remuneration and allowances as are prescribed by the regulations.

As I foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading, the Greens believe that the bringing in of this bill to seek to amend the Northern Territory national response package is an opportunity for the government to actually bring in some more comprehensive changes to deal with the issue of alcohol. I will not go through all the arguments again about why we believe we need a comprehensive strategy to reduce alcohol supply. This amendment seeks to put in place a levy on cheap alcohol, because that has been identified as one of the key issues that need to be dealt with to deal with the problem of alcohol. The levy only applies to alcohol where the purchase price is less than 90c per standard drink. Again, we are using evidence based work to determine that. A standard drink is defined in the liquor laws, and alcohol packaging needs to identify the number of standard drinks a product contains.

This series of amendments seeks to set up the structure for the levy. We understand the levy needs to be imposed by another act, so if these amendments were successful they would be introduced into the House of Representatives and could be named the Northern Territory Emergency Response (Alcohol Levy Imposition) Act 2007, as shown in the note in clause 19A. This appropriation bill needs to originate in the House of Representatives, and we will seek to have it drafted if these amendments are supported.

The proceeds of the levy would be used to create a Northern Territory community based rehabilitation fund, and the series of clauses in this amendment seeks to establish that fund. It also seeks to establish operational provisions under clauses 19C and 19I. Clause 19D outlines the purpose of the fund, which is to make grants to persons to promote public health and welfare, including the construction and staffing of health and welfare facilities. This goes to the other issues that I and other speakers have mentioned about the need for much more comprehensive rehabilitation, counselling and health services for people dealing with alcohol addiction and for people coming off alcohol, who need significant rehabilitation services. These amendments are designed to put the levy in place. As I have said, the international evidence clearly articulates that the price of alcohol is the key strategy that needs to be put in place to help reduce the supply of alcohol.

Can I take this opportunity to ask the minister: has the government considered the use of a pricing structure to help reduce the supply of alcohol?

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

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the work that the Greens have put into the amendment. As you made a very passionate contribution, Senator Siewert, I acknowledge that you were asking me to support the amendment. At this stage of the conversation, it would appear that I am not able to, but I recognise the genuine work that has gone into this. That may be because you were unaware of other things the government was doing. That is in fact the case with regard to the first aspect of your amendment.

A joint Australian government/Northern Territory government working group, led by Minister Pyne, have been considering evidence about what works in dealing with alcohol issues. As part of that work they have been conducting a feasibility study into a floor price on wholesale alcohol across the Northern Territory, and we will be looking at the findings of this group before making any decisions about pricing controls. This group also reviewed the current alcohol restrictions which have been in place in Alice Springs since September last year to ensure that any future planning is underpinned by some evidence from that process. We recognise, as you say, that it has been well documented that the pricing of alcohol is one of the ways with which you can influence what sort of alcohol people buy. It is also something that has been implemented in the Northern Territory and in other places on a much less grandiose scale, I suppose. But, before making any advances in this area, we are looking for some scientific evidence. We will certainly look towards the joint working group between the Northern Territory government and us on that matter.

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

Could I follow up on that specific point. When does that working group expect to conclude the feasibility study? How long has it been running? Will it be publicly available?

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

I do not have that particular aspect of the answer. In view of the fact that it is a joint Australian government/Northern Territory government working group, I am unable to say that I can take it on notice, because it would also involve the Northern Territory government. In the days to come, I will undertake to provide those answers, if that is okay with you, Senator, but I am not able to say that I will take it on notice because I cannot do that on behalf of the Northern Territory government. However, I will do what I can.

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

I appreciate that undertaking. From that bundle of information, could I also ask for the membership of that working group, please?

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

I want to indicate on behalf of the Labor Party that we too acknowledge the thinking and the work that have gone into this series of amendments but indicate to the Greens that, at this stage, we are not able to support this amendment, because we believe it is too specific to the Northern Territory. It does not take into account the work that is being undertaking by the joint working group in relation to wholesale alcohol, and we believe that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach beyond just the Northern Territory interventions.

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

I would like to make a few comments on the amendment put forward by the Greens. I think it needs to be said at the outset that there needs to be a more comprehensive national approach to more effectively addressing the problems of alcohol abuse. There are a wide range of angles that need to be taken on that. I am certainly not in any way suggesting that nothing at all is being done. Indeed, as you would know, Mr Temporary Chairman Murray, a specific fund was set up some years back. From memory, it was funded from resources provided by the government which was recompense, if you like, for what was assessed to be the overcharging of taxation on alcohol in response to various adjustments made following the introduction of the GST. The Democrats played a pivotal role in that. It was four or five years ago, I think—time flies when you are having so much fun! Certainly there are precedents for this type of fund. The fund in this amendment is to make grants to people to promote public health and welfare, including the contracting and staffing of health and welfare facilities.

It is appropriate in the context of this legislation specifically, or in parts at least, because of the need to ensure that any alcohol control measures, whatever they may be—whether it is a pricing barrier or enforced restrictions on how much can be purchased or what type can be purchased or where it can be consumed—are all part of a package and that wider package has to include education measures, support for people who are trying to deal with substance abuse and addiction issues, support for relevant health facilities and support for families, relations and others in the wider community. There are a whole lot of factors. Again, those points have been made already in this debate and, I think, in the previous debates in recent weeks.

The intent here is certainly a positive one and the mechanism of focusing a levy on the sale of cheap liquor is also an understandable one. Again, it is a point that certainly some within the Democrats have made a number of times. We also acknowledge that pricing, particularly for cheap liquor, is a key factor—there is no doubt about that, as Senator Siewert has said—and levies or tax measures are one part of that. I certainly agree with the statements that have been made by some of my colleagues, at least, over the years that one part of the solution on a more comprehensive level is to look at changing the way taxation on alcohol occurs in Australia. It is a very messy and not overly logical set of rules that we have at the moment, and a straight volumetric taxation approach towards alcohol is one that I think is highly justified, firstly in terms of simplicity and, secondly, but much more importantly, particularly in the context of this debate, in terms of public health outcomes. That in itself, I might say, can save money down the track. You can have a taxation measure that not only raises funds but also, by virtue of the way it operates, has flow-on public saving consequences. So you get extra value, if you like, and of course components of the proposed levy can be put into public health and welfare measures relating to alcohol consumption.

So the intent and much of the structure of what is put forward here are something that the Democrats support and are consistent, at least in part, with some of the approaches that the Democrats have taken in the past. I think there are issues—and this is not a criticism of the amendment; it is more of a wider commentary while I am on my feet—with the desirability of taking a national approach rather than a Territory-specific approach. Obviously, because of the context of this bill, a Territory-specific approach is what would be required, and certainly the statistics show that the Northern Territory does have issues with regard to the high percentage of people consuming greater levels of alcohol than are healthy for them.

There goes the Black Rod! I am not sure whether we all turn into pumpkins now. It is like the centrepiece of the TARDIS coming out. All is back in order there, Senator Joyce?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately when the Black Rod falls over everyone has to leave the chamber for an hour!

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

If only that were true. Okay, order is restored.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am hoping that it is not an omen of any kind, Senator Bartlett.

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

In summary, the Democrats support the intent of the approach here. I take the opportunity to repeat our longstanding views that reform of taxation related to alcohol is part and parcel of a more consistent solution particularly for the side of the issue that deals with pricing. It certainly has an impact.

It is interesting to compare the approach in the measures being taken in the Northern Territory with regard to alcohol restrictions for Aboriginal communities with what is being done in other parts of Australia. As is readily acknowledged, there are various other types of alcohol restrictions in place in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, for example, and certainly in my own state of Queensland in a number of DOGIT communities—deed of grant in trust communities—mostly in the northern part of the state. Within each of those communities varying models have been put in place with different restrictions. In some communities very, very limited amounts of alcohol are allowed at all. In others it is restricted to consumption of alcohol in a particular place—the canteen, as it usually called—without anyone being able to have takeaways. In other communities it is restricted to the certain types of alcohol. In one community that springs to mind all that is allowed is mid-strength beer. No full-strength beer and no spirits are allowed in the community at all.

Those things depend on the community, in some cases anyway, having a say in deciding how the restrictions will work. It depends on the proximity of the community to the nearest alcohol outlet. If it is a long way from the nearest outlet, as is the case with the communities of the cape, then it is much easier to enforce. If there is only one road in and there is no alcohol outlet in the community and the nearest one is a fair hike away and you cannot get across to it in the wet season, then that makes it a lot easier to enforce alcohol restrictions than if the community is on the open highway and there is a pub 20 minutes up the road outside the community. So you have different circumstances and different responses for different areas.

Looking a little more closely at the model that is put forward in this legislation of a $100 purchase limit, I would have to say that that is quite generous—if I could use that word—compared with some of the communities in Northern Queensland that would have tighter restrictions on bringing that level of alcohol into the community. I appreciate that this $100 limit is not the be-all and end-all of the restrictions that the government is putting in place in the Territory. I am simply taking the opportunity to make the contrast and to emphasise the point, which is that there is no one single approach with some magic aspect attached to it, whether it is the nature of the alcohol that can be bought, the amount that can be bought in volume or in price.

There is no doubt that pricing is a key component, particularly in the lower price, high-alcohol content end of the market. If you are specifically purchasing alcohol for the purpose of wiping yourself out, then quality is not foremost in your mind and availability and cheapness are key factors, as they are of course with any substance where that type of consequence is the intent of consumption. I make that point also to emphasise the obvious point that it is not just about alcohol that we have to be wary with regard to substance abuse, particularly over time. That is one of the challenges that will need to be faced, and it already has been attempted to be faced of course, both in the Territory and elsewhere.

When you put restrictions on alcohol, people divert to other substances. As I said in the previous debate on this, that has meant other challenges with regard to petrol sniffing and other sorts of substance abuse. Those challenges have been addressed with varying levels of success in recent times, and those challenges will continue, and I have no doubt that federal and Territory governments and the community more widely will continue to seek to address those challenges. But the issue of pricing is a key part of it and that is something that would be addressed by this amendment in a positive way.

Another key part which I want to take the opportunity to re-emphasise concerns the support of the community, particularly in the longer term. Whether you are talking about working with and constraining substance abuse with regard to alcohol or any other type of substance at all, particularly legal substances, then community support is crucial. That is an area where we really need to focus our continuing attention on what happens in the Territory, to make sure that community support is monitored and is built wherever possible. If support is lost and support builds for other approaches, we need to ensure that there is a willingness to move down that path.

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

I would like to ask a few more questions about the working group report and feasibility study. I seek clarification from the minister because it is my understanding from what he said that, following the completion of the feasibility study, the government intends to look at using a pricing mechanism. I seek some clarification from the minister on that point.

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

I understand, Senator Siewert, that that is the case. That is the idea of looking at this process. We accept, as does most of the evidentiary documentation, that this is an area that we need to look at as part of the suite of initiatives to ensure that we stop the rivers of grog.

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

I am going to be a little bit cheeky.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Permission granted.

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

I note the ALP’s comment about wanting something that goes beyond the Northern Territory. I, also, would welcome measures that address the issue of alcohol consumption and overconsumption in the wider Australian community. I look forward to hearing the ALP’s views on how that could be done, but I feel that—given the debate that we have been having on the need for some urgent action in the Northern Territory, and given that we are considering a bill that deals specifically with the Northern Territory and the issues of alcohol abuse and overconsumption—we should be using every mechanism that we can to deliver the outcomes that we are looking for.

As we have just been discussing, and as the minister just acknowledged, price is the best mechanism. We should be looking at these mechanisms now so that we can put a comprehensive package in place, because half-measures do not work. That is why the Greens want to see this now rather than in the future. I appreciate the fact that there is a feasibility study being undertaken and I appreciate the fact that you are going to provide more information to us but I hope that it has a short time frame rather than a long one. I hope that the government—of whichever persuasion—which is making these decisions will act quickly on the recommendations of the working group on the feasibility study.

Question negatived.

I move Greens amendment (2) from sheet 5382 revised:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 4), after section 20, insert:

20A  Sales of liquor for consumption away from licensed premises on certain days

        (1)    The Liquor Act has effect as if it included the following provisions of this section.

        (2)    A licensee of licensed premises commits an offence if:

             (a)    the licensee sells to a person (the purchaser) a quantity of liquor at any time on a Thursday or on a Sunday; and

             (b)    the licensee knows that the liquor is for consumption away from the licensed premises or is reckless as to whether it is for consumption away from the licensed premises.

Maximum penalty: 340 penalty units.

        (3)    An employee of a licensee of licensed premises commits an offence if:

             (a)    the employee sells to a person (the purchaser) a quantity of liquor at any time on a Thursday or on a Sunday; and

             (b)    the employee knows that the liquor is for consumption away from the licensed premises or is reckless as to whether it is for consumption away from the licensed premises.

Maximum penalty: 60 penalty units.

        (4)    A licensee of licensed premises commits an offence if:

             (a)    an employee of the licensee sells to a person (the purchaser) a quantity of liquor at any time on a Thursday or on a Sunday; and

             (b)    the employee knows that the liquor is for consumption away from the licensed premises or is reckless as to whether it is for consumption away from the licensed premises.

Maximum penalty: 170 penalty units.

        (5)    It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (4) if the licensee proves that the licensee took all reasonable steps to ensure that the employee was aware of obligations of employees under this section.

20B  Sales of certain amount of liquor for consumption away from licensed premises

        (1)    The Liquor Act has effect as if it included the following provisions of this section.

        (2)    A licensee of licensed premises must report to the officer in charge of the nearest police station:

             (a)    any single purchase of a quantity of liquor that has a purchase price of $200 or more including GST;

             (b)    any single purchase of a quantity of wine that exceeds 10 litres and is in a single container or is in 5 or more containers of at least 2 litres each; or

             (c)    if the licensee has reason to believe that the purchaser of any amount of liquor intends to supply the liquor to a prohibited community.

        (3)    An employee of a licensee of licensed premises must report to the licensee:

             (a)    any single purchase of a quantity of liquor that has a purchase price of $200 or more including GST;

             (b)    any single purchase of a quantity of wine that exceeds 10 litres and is in a single container or is in 5 or more containers of at least 2 litres each; or

             (c)    if the licensee has reason to believe that the purchaser of any amount of liquor intends to supply the liquor to a prohibited community.

        (4)    A licensee commits an offence if they do not comply with subsection (3).

Maximum penalty: 340 penalty units.

        (5)    An employee commits an offence if they do not comply with subsection (4).

Maximum penalty: 60 penalty units.

This amendment relates to further controls on the sale of liquor. As I articulated in my speech during the second reading debate, after price the next mechanism that you can use to reduce supply is to reduce the total number of trading hours during which you can buy takeaway. The first clause of this amendment seeks to put restrictions on the days on which you can buy takeaway.

This mechanism has been used in the Northern Territory before, on what is commonly known as ‘thirsty Thursday’. It has been shown to be successful. I acknowledge that the government would need to move back to having Centrelink payments on one day but I think that is a fairly simple administrative arrangement.

This has worked in the past. I have spoken to experts and community members about these amendments—admittedly it has been very rushed, because these amendments have been rushed—and they have said that it would be a good idea to have a second day, and that Sunday would perhaps be a good day. So we thought it would be good to put two days in place, to reduce the number of days on which takeaway can be bought.

The second clause in the Greens amendment deals with sales of certain amounts of alcohol for consumption away from licensed premises. It seeks to do something with the information that is being collected. This clause is a bit tricky and I think some people will see it as a bit of a police-state reaction. Everybody agrees that we have to stop the rivers of grog. We are concerned about collecting this information—I appreciate that the legislation has progressed what was in the bill that passed through this chamber in the last sitting—so the Greens amendment allows the police to take action to pursue large purchases of alcohol and/or suspicious purchases of alcohol. The police will be able to do something to stop the rivers of grog going into communities. They will be able to stop the grog-runners.

People may see this as an imposition on their lifestyles: they buy $200 worth of alcohol and all of a sudden the police come to their door. We appreciate that the police would be sensible about how they implement this law. If we are going to get serious about these issues and deal with them we need to take some pretty serious action. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the things that work are not popular. When it comes to dealing with alcohol, if something is popular it will not work. I can guarantee that this will not be popular but it will help address the grog-running into those communities that we are trying to keep grog out of.

I will ask the minister a question about this because it seems to me that the bill is unclear at the moment about what is going to be done with the information when it is provided to the commission. When we sat down to look at the bill and these amendments, we were unsure about the operating factor and what happens once the information goes to the commission. So we are seeking to do something that will stop grog-running. This amendment was suggested to us by Aboriginal community members as a way of dealing with this issue. We have talked to the communities about this and we thought it would be another way to deal with grog-running into communities.

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

Whilst giving an answer to the senator, specifically with regard to the way we use the material that is collected, I thought I would make another couple of comments to clear up our view on the amendments. Senator, the provisions of the original Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act were effectively for prescribed communities, and all the areas we are dealing with now are outside of the prescribed communities. You will be aware that it is clearly an offence under the new legislation to have alcohol anywhere. The assumption is that, upon discovery of a criminal offence or the intent to commit a criminal offence, the police will be able to call on information about similar levels of alcohol purchased, for example, because the amount of the purchase will be taken down as well as who the purchasers were. You can imagine the difficulty that police may have in circumstances where they have no ready reckoner saying, ‘We suddenly discovered this much alcohol in the community.’ With that, they can go to the place they suspect it has come from and they may find very similar areas that may narrow down their investigation. It is all about narrowing down. There is no magic wand with this, but the police have provided us with the information that this is a very useful tool, and to me as a practical person it does seem that that is very likely to be correct. So the clear answer is that the information collected will be held by the liquor Licensing Commission but will be available to police officers on request.

I refer to the first part of the other amendments you just spoke to. I think we would refer to this as the Siewert ‘thirsty Thursday’ amendment. I agree—there has been a long history of having particular days of the week that you can buy takeaway alcohol. In your good state, Senator Siewert, Kalgoorlie never had two-up on payday. It is a very sensible approach. ‘Thirsty Thursdays’, particularly in Tennant Creek, were much spoken about. As you have indicated, they were unsuccessful because of the choice and the flexibility that was provided through Centrelink income supplements. I was approached in Tennant Creek in 2003 to reverse that, and the minister agreed to do so on the basis that the community came forward and said that that was a good thing, rather than having the choice and balance that we would have ‘thirsty Thursdays’. It was unfortunate that the community at that time was unable to provide that support.

In terms of ‘thirsty Thursdays’, this is a non-prescribed area. The mechanisms that you are speaking of are available to the Northern Territory government at the moment. You may not be aware—I know a bit more about it because I live in the Northern Territory—that there are a number of initiatives from the Northern Territory government with regard to alcohol, not generally but regionally. There has been one in Alice Springs, which I spoke about in an earlier response, and they are considering Katherine and Tennant Creek as models of alcohol control and quite stringent measures. One would hope that they look at the suite of opportunities available to them in those considerations. But we would see that as fundamentally outside of the prescribed areas and not our responsibility. The reason that we have only talked about this legislation—saying ‘the recording of’ and those sorts of things—is that we know that it is to do with the traffickers and our responsibility for the prescribed areas. That is why there is that link.

Senator Siewert, I have not had your amendments for very long. I will speak generally to the last part in terms of the reporting to the police officer. I respect that you have put this together quite quickly; I will not take time pulling feathers off it, but there are some issues. I understand and respect the intent, but I do not think reporting specifically to the police force is useful. You can imagine that, in a place like Katherine, where there are a huge range of farms and those sorts of things around the place, people would simply come up and get a pallet of beer for the three months over the wet. I can assure you that the police officer in charge of the Katherine police station has better things to do than dealing with that. I respect the intent, but I feel that a lower amount being available to police should they have something is still a practical measure and meets the intent of your amendment in terms of whatever the police officers would have done with the information that would have been provided to them under your amendment.

I know, Senator Siewert, you have made the comment that it might be unpopular and it might not work, and that is true, but there is no point in it being unpopular and not working either. I can assure you these amendments come to this place as very simple amendments that have arisen from clear unintended consequences. A number of people have reflected here that already there are cracks appearing. This is emergency legislation, and I know you accept that. I can assure you these amendments are there because there have been unintended consequences. We have moved to ensure that those unintended consequences are removed, and if there are more unintended consequences in the future we will come back here and amend the legislation again.

This is a very practical amendment that I think will improve the situation. Whilst, as I said, I really respect the fact that you have not had much time—you are a small organisation but you have brought these amendments to us—I and the government do not believe they will improve the situation on the ground, and that is why we will not be supporting them.

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

I want to place on the record Labor’s position on these amendments, and that is that we are not able to support them for a number of reasons. Like the government we respect the intent and acknowledge that there has been a fair amount of lateral thinking involved in trying to draft some amendments to the act that will actually strengthen the government’s hand in relation to managing the movement of alcohol, but we do see proposed amendments 20A and 20B as problematic.

Certainly the point you raised yourself, Senator Siewert, about the receipt of Centrelink payments not being all on the same day is one of the problematic issues. We also acknowledge that the issues around people travelling and the logistics of having to comply with this regime would seem to make for a very complex regulatory environment and one that perhaps does not give any real sense to the idea of curtailing the movement of alcohol.

We are interested in the fact that, given the strength of the first four provisions of 20A, paragraph (5), the fifth provision, just gives a bit too much wriggle room to make much sense. On that basis, we are not able to support these amendments either, but I share many of the concerns that you have raised and I will be interested to hear from the minister about the issue of data management: what information is being collected, how is it going to be stored, how long is it going to be stored, who is going to be able to have access to it, what are the privacy considerations around data management and has the government considered the issues of protecting the privacy of individuals who purchase alcohol? I am thinking, for example, of young women in a store who might have to hand over their personal details, including their address, and how that information might be protected from people who might not have the best intentions—perhaps following them out into a supermarket car park and then following them home. We believe that there is a fair amount of exposure there. There needs to be consideration of the privacy issues around collecting so much data.

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

We have asked both the Federal Privacy Commissioner and the Northern Territory privacy commissioner to work with government. Whilst we have not started the process, they have agreed to the process and to develop guidelines about the use of the material. We think that is most appropriate. The intent is for the data to provide information only to the police if they should require it for an investigation or where they think a criminal act may occur.

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

Has there been any consideration of both the storage and security of the data and also the length of time for which the data will be kept?

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

These amendments clarify that there is a three-year period for which the data will be kept. The organisations that are selling the liquor may choose to keep the data, but the Director of Licensing, either through a process of writing directly to the outlets in the Northern Territory or by submission from the outlets, actually holds the documentation with the Licensing Commission under the same privacy provisions.

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

I would like to ask some further questions around that also. Is it planned for there to be analysis of the data if somebody, for example, is buying relatively large amounts of alcohol in a number of outlets? Will there be a proactive approach taken to identify potential grog-runners?

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

In partnership with the Northern Territory Licensing Commission, the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Police, we are working on how they might mine that data specifically for that purpose. Again, it is useful to stress that the collection of the data is specifically for that purpose at this stage. I cannot see any other reason for using the data apart from compliance with the previous legislation.

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

Previously, in the minister’s answer to a question on our amendments of 20B, the minister said—as I understood it—that the reason that data was being collected was so that if the police found somebody carrying a lot of alcohol they could then trace it back. It looks like there is a two-way thing there. If police find somebody carrying a lot of alcohol in community they can trace back where it was bought—there will be an evidentiary trail. Are you now are saying that it is also going to be used for a proactive approach, which is to see whether people are buying large amounts for sale, potentially, in community?

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

It will be available to the Licensing Commission for both those purposes—that is, to inform and for compliance purposes.

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

I go to the other issue that I raised during the second reading debate, as did Senator Crossin, and that is the closing down of outlets. I know that we also raised this during the previous debate. How far are you into the process of negotiations with the Northern Territory government about getting rid of some of the large number of outlets, particularly, for example, in Alice, where everybody acknowledges that there are an excessive number of outlets in what many people feel are very inappropriate places?

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

I indicated a little earlier that, whilst the Commonwealth always has an interest in the general health of the public, outside of those prescribed areas it is really the responsibility of the Northern Territory government. As I have indicated, I know that the number of liquor-licensed outlets, particularly takeaways, in the Northern Territory has been a concern to the Northern Territory government and I understand that they are looking closely at a whole suite of initiatives, including licensing, slowing down the number of licences and buying licences back. They have all been discussed in the media. I am not sure exactly where they are up to with those initiatives, but it is not something that the Commonwealth is specifically looking at. That is a Northern Territory government responsibility and they are, I understand from my reading in the media, actively looking at all of those issues. But that it is not the sort of space that the Commonwealth is going to walk around in.

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

I understand that it is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government. What we were looking at are the negotiations and discussions over this whole package, the negotiations over what the Northern Territory government is doing and any support that the Commonwealth can potentially give. To clarify—as I understand it you are not involved in that level of discussion and you are not looking at what incentives the Commonwealth can give to encourage the Northern Territory government to maybe have a more speedy response or approach to this issue. You are not engaged in that level of discussion.

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

The task force is in constant discussion with the Northern Territory government across a whole range of issues. With regard to pricings we have said that we, in partnership with the Northern Territory government, are looking very carefully at that space. I am quite sure that the task force will be looking at a suite of issues, including the number of sales outlets, which impact on those prescribed areas. In terms of compliance and information we have clearly looked at volumes, amounts and those sorts of things. I am sure the task force will be looking at all those matters, but at this stage I cannot give you any detail of that area, except to say that it is clearly an area of responsibility for the Northern Territory government. I do know that they are actively working in that area.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that Australian Greens amendment (2) moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.