The Week That Was – 20th October 2023

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is time for the week that was, but a
very special Friday today because it is indeed the Camp.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Quality Radio auction.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
It is back for twenty twenty three, an awesome day
where we'll both Hot one hundred and Mix one oh
four nine change our programming for the day to raise
money for Camp Quality. We don't change the week that was, though,
because there is so much happening on a Friday morning.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
And I'm very pleased to say that.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
In the studio this morning for the CLP, we've got
Steve Edgington, good morning.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Good morning, Katie, great to be back in.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Dawn, great to see you. We have got independent member
for our low and Robin Lamley, good morning. And we've
got another independent this morning. We got Keasier Furick as well.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Good morning to you morning, Katy.

Speaker 4 (00:40):
Morning bush people.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
And then we've got for the ALP, Minister Selena Rubo.

Speaker 5 (00:44):
Good morning to you morning, Katy, and shout out to
the Ktown crew. Please stay cool with that forty degrees today, Well.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
It sounds like it's going to be very warm and
a massive swimming carnival on this weekend as well.

Speaker 6 (00:53):
I think in Catherine, so plenty happening. Yes, no, swimming
lessons for our daughter. Because of the carnival. They're they're
coming from near and far for that carnival. So it'll
be fantastic, no doubt. But look, I want to start
off this week with the fact that the Voice we
know that Australians voted, and the Voice referendum was rejected
by the majority of voters in every state.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
After millions of Australians backed a no vote, rejecting a
constitutionally enshrined Indigenous advisory body. It was a disastrous result
for the Prime Minister. The no vote was on track
to claim a majority support in New South Wales, Tasmania,
South Australia, Queensland, w WA, Victoria and the Northern.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Territory as of yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
When I check those numbers, sixty three point four percent
of the vote being counted, sixty point five percent of
Australians voted No, thirty nine point five percent voted yes.
Now there is no doubt that the Prime Minister's got
some very well got a massive job on his hands.
He's not only got to unite the country, but he's

(01:57):
also got to seriously work on the issues that are
experienced by Indigenous Australians. Selena, I might go to you first,
what was your reaction?

Speaker 5 (02:05):
Thanks, Katie. You know, I was very deflated because of
the results. Obviously I was supporting yes and for the
various reasons of wanting to expediate change in this country.
As the Minister Forrabtion Affairs here in the Northern Territory
work very closely around close the gap. Many Australians would
know close the gap. Not everyone would know the details
of that, but that is every jurisdiction and the federal

(02:28):
government looking to close the gap between First Nations Australians
and the wider country around several different key areas, particularly health, education, justice, infrastructure,
so the work around the voice. Definitely deflated and disappointed,
but absolutely respect the outcome. Not happy with the outcome,

(02:49):
but absolutely respect the outcome of the process. When we
look at the history of referendums, we've had forty five
now in Australia and only eight of those referendums have
gone through through. So people are very conscious that a
change to the constitution is a big thing. I don't
think the average Australian actually would know what's in the constitution,
but in terms of the importance of the Constitution. I

(03:12):
think Australians do understand that. Obviously disappointed, but when we
look at the territory results, we you know, we had
some really great outcomes. Majority in the Bush voting yes
and wanting voices heard. Majority of Territorians in the Bush
are Abagal Territorians, So I think that's a really interesting
piece that you know, again, we'll continue to look at
the data as it comes through, as that counting comes through,

(03:34):
but we'll continue our work as a labor government. We've
got local decision making where we're talking about enhancing decision
making for communities that affect community so that's a really
big piece of what we're doing.

Speaker 7 (03:46):
We'll continue that work.

Speaker 5 (03:48):
But yeah, I was disappointed with the voice, but it
doesn't mean that we're going to stop doing the work
that week.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
And look, I feel for Indigenous Australians who are I've
no doubt are feeling disappointed and deflated this week.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
I've got to say, I actually I.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Think it was it was a failure from the federal
government in the sense that they they you know, what
they were asking for. If they'd asked for that constitutional recognition.
I think a lot of Australians would have voted yes.
But what a lot of people weren't sort of sure
of is exactly how that advisory body would work. And
I think what the federal government was asking was for
Australians to trust them, when by very nature we don't

(04:26):
really trust politicians. So it was a hard ask, you know,
in that sense. I voted yes, and I'm proud that
I voted yes. I've got no issue with saying that,
you know, the to the public, and have been for
the last few weeks.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
But I'm very aware that for a lot of.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
Our listeners that was part of the issue is that
they just didn't understand exactly how it was going to work.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
Katie.

Speaker 8 (04:46):
I think what it has demonstrated in the well in
the result clearly and forget act because that's just an anomaly,
is that they didn't they it was the structure was wrong.
We know how referendums run, you know, the majority of this,
majority of that, and everyone has to vote blah blah blah.
But the process is leading up to the actual voting day.
I think were flawed, particularly from Albanizi and whoever were

(05:09):
the master minds behind it, because for example, you know,
when things started to go astray, then we got the threats, well,
if you don't do this, then you won't get any
more welcome to country, you know. And I think for
whatever it was they thought that trotting out these white,
pale faced male and women to say, you know, you
should vote for the voice like the Ray Martins of
this world. And you know Johnny Farnham allowing his song

(05:30):
to be used on all that sort of stuff, is
that it didn't wash with the average Australia.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
I would have liked to have heard more from people
like Marian scrimdaw And you know, I would have liked
of or Selena yourself, do you know what I mean.
I would have liked to people from people on the
ground's or in the territory what to tell me how
it was going to sort of how it was going
to work on a national stage, you guys, you know,
talking on that national stuff.

Speaker 4 (05:52):
Because they're in touch with their communities, you know, thirty
three percent experience, you know.

Speaker 8 (05:56):
But you know, you had all those high level business people,
mostly white, mostly rich, mostly well off in companies and
all that sort of stuff, and all these companies coming
out and saying yes, we support the votes the closer
you got to the urban areas, they were the people
that voted yes, you know, the people who are affluent.
Even my bloody sister in law and Perth was going
to vote yes. And I just dropped the conversation straight
away because I really quite like my sister in law,

(06:21):
what the hell are you voting yes for? You're in
a nice, comfortable light, in a nice suburb in Perth
and you're voting yes.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
You know so.

Speaker 8 (06:28):
But then you took out went out to the regions
and the more remote areas, and that's when it started
to become no. So I think yes a lot of places.
I think the federal government, Albanzi and his crew who
was actually running the campaign, missed the mark and to
me that shows that they were out of touch with
the sentiment of our country.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
What were you hearing, Steve in a place like Tenant, Craig,
you know, what were people saying there?

Speaker 9 (06:51):
Well, I think Katie, over a long period of time,
what I advocated for was the federal government to get
out on the ground and tell people and explain to
people what the the voice was all about. There was
no doubt in my mind that constitutional recognition was definitely
supported by a whole range of people that I spoke to,
But when it came to the Voice, people didn't really
understand how it could achieve practical outcomes on the ground

(07:15):
in the Barklay and I think the overwhelming message though
coming out of the Barclay was that people want a voice.
So we saw a very high percentage of Yes voters
in the Berkley region. Creek was around about fifty to fifty,
very close there. But the message to me is what
people are being telling me for a long long time.

(07:36):
They do want to voice, they want change on the ground,
but what they want to see is practical change in
the communities. And this is why the cop is focusing
on changing the local government structure in communities, because what
people are saying is that they're disempowered. They're not being
listened to. The service delivery has dropped in many remote communities,
but people want to be empowered to look after their

(07:57):
own communities.

Speaker 10 (07:58):
My view, CAD is it's done and dusted. We've spoken
about it to death. I was over it probably about
two weeks before the referendum. I voted yes, but I
was fully mindful of the fact that it probably wouldn't
get up and it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference.
So I think we just need to quickly move on.
We have lots of voices in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal voice,

(08:21):
the Selena is here today. We're very fortunate most of
them are quite capable. Marion Scrimser was marginalized because obviously
Marian says too much and she's.

Speaker 2 (08:30):
Too lady honest.

Speaker 10 (08:32):
But she should have been rolled out in hindsight, because
there was a lot of commentary nationally about how Jacinta
was rolled out with her lived experience from the Northern Territory.
It should have been mitigated by someone like Marian. But
they didn't go down that track because obviously Marin's a
bit of a risk. God bless you, Marry, and I
love what you do and I love how you do

(08:53):
it because you are honest and frank and real. But look,
I think we just have to move on, start working
really hard as we have been, both you know, the
opposition and the government and independence to make life better
for Aboriginal Territory.

Speaker 5 (09:11):
Yes, all very interesting comments obviously from my parliamentary colleagues.
But one thing I guess, particularly around the yes, campaign.
We're very conscious of the grassroots reason why this was
being brought to the country. It was not led by
politicians and it was not understand that people do look
to their politicians to get that political know how and

(09:33):
how would this effect change and what does this mean,
you know when it comes down to you know, the
every day Australia and the everyday Territorian. But it was
a grassroots campaign. It was around decision made from the
ullary statement of the Heart and it was the government
of the day Albanesi Labor government that brought that referendum up.

Speaker 7 (09:51):
It has to be a government that brings a referendum
to light for the people.

Speaker 5 (09:54):
But it wasn't something that was pushed by politicians. It
was something that then became political.

Speaker 1 (10:00):
What do we make of the calls from Senator just
Enter Price this week for the Albanese government to hold
a royal commission into indigenous child sexual abuse.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
It was voted down.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
The NTI senator has also called for an audit of
billions of dollars being spent on programs for Indigenous Australians
and closing the gap after you know, after Saturday's referendum,
we spoke to just Enter Price on the show yesterday.
I had also spoken to Chatsy Paike earlier in the week,
the same day that she had made those calls, and

(10:30):
he was pretty scathing in his remarks to just Center
or in response to the senator, what.

Speaker 2 (10:36):
Does everybody in the room make of?

Speaker 1 (10:38):
You know these calls now for a royal commission into
Indigenous child sexual abuse and also looking into the way
in which money is spent.

Speaker 10 (10:47):
I applaud her, Katie. I think there is a lot
of work that needs to be done in this space.
We had the intervention which was triggered by a Royal
commission into these concerns around the sexual abuse of Aboriginal
children that was tabled in two thousand and seven. That work,
I don't think was ever completed to anyone's satisfaction. I

(11:08):
don't think there was much data collected at the time.
I have heard stories since that the rate of child
sexual abuse actually increased during the time of the intervention.
No one's proposing another intervention, which I've heard alleged by
Labor over the last twenty four hours. I think it's
time that we just revisited what we did all those

(11:28):
years ago, which is pretty much almost twenty years ago. Now, Katie,
it's still a problem. We know it's not. I don't
see why labor is trying to minimize this problem. There
is data there. Go and talk to all the people
that work in pediatrics at the Alla Springs Hospital, Catherine
Hospital and Darwen Hospital and they will tell you what's
going on. Our child protection system is overburden. We still

(11:51):
have the highest number of notification rates of anywhere in
the country by double We still have such a profound
problem in this space. To minimize it and shut it
down on political lines, I think is just so detrimental
to Aboriginal people.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
Oh exactly.

Speaker 9 (12:08):
And I think what Robin's saying there is even though
the Royal Commission has been voted down. I think the
critical issue is if you go back to two thousand
and seven the Little Children are Sacred report. I think
everyone around here would agree that many of those recommendations
really haven't been considered in full. But when it comes
to looking at what's going on at the moment, Robin's
touched on a lot of statistics around what's going on

(12:30):
around child sexual abuse, but in reality, the services that
are going on at the moment, you would have to
say that the services that we're providing at the moment
simply aren't delivering. And this is why we're calling for
an audit and review of money coming into the Northern
Territory because at the moment, with crime continuing to climb,
the rates of sexual abuse and other forms of abuse

(12:53):
against children in Northern Territory continues to climb as well.
So what we need to do is a full audit
and review of the money coming into find out what's
working and what's not working, but making sure the money
is going to where it's needed work.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
I think if some of those services aren't working in
the way that's intended, well, we need to make sure
that money.

Speaker 2 (13:11):
Is inviting to the areas that it is working.

Speaker 8 (13:13):
It's one thing to put the money into programs, but
then you've got to work out and judge whether there's
been any outcomes and outputs. People just put money into
the processes, but they never they never get I'm an
I'm being general, I know that, but a lot of
the time, you know, they don't work out yes, did
that program work and how did it work. I just
want to make comment on calling for an audit. I
have no issue with an order of anything, whether it

(13:35):
be your safety systems or whether be your finances whatever.
But you just can't call for a blanket audit of
programs and money in the Turkey because there are audits
underway all the time. If the land councils have to
have an audit, the National Audit off it does it,
you know, and they have done it in the past,
you know. And if there's issues with their anti government
money program, well that's what our orderit a General's office
is for, you know.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
So I reckon it could be a bit of a
waste of money or a bit of waste.

Speaker 8 (13:57):
How are you going to do a national audit, I mean,
not a territory wide audit all the money that comes
in from the Commonwealth, I mean, I.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
Think it's more into the services that are meant to
be closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage.

Speaker 4 (14:06):
Yeah, but are you talking comm worth money or anti
government money?

Speaker 1 (14:09):
So I guess yes, my understanding is the Commonwealth money.

Speaker 8 (14:11):
Okay, well, then you've got most common Wealth grants. As
I understand from Salina's in a ministry in cabinet is
they're all tired.

Speaker 4 (14:17):
A lot of the time they're tired, and you have
to account for them.

Speaker 8 (14:20):
Maybe the processes on the ground and in within the
bureaucracy aren't as good as what they could be. Now,
I'm a firm believer because I was taught this way
in the mining industry. When you do an audit, you
should always find something that needs to be improved. So
if you've got a perfect ordit coming out, whatever it
is is safety with finances or how money's spent, then.

Speaker 4 (14:38):
You haven't looked properly or carefully enough.

Speaker 8 (14:39):
So I don't have an issue with trying to work
out where the money's going because I've in my past
life had dealings with land councils and I know there's
a hell of a lot of money that's been wasted
only the two large land councils. So I don't have
an issue with the audit. But make sure you set
your methodology up very well to ensure you get what
you're trying to get, and that is where's the money
being spent and is it being spent well?

Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yeah, Selena, what did you make of just enterprises calls
earlier in the.

Speaker 5 (15:03):
Week, Yeah, Katie, I was listening to sort of what
the intent was, and I understand the intent and the
reason for it. But when we talk about the practicality,
we had a Royal Commission into the Care and Protection
of Children and young people in the Northern Territory. That
Royal Commission costs fifty million dollars. Peter Dutton was part
of the Ministry federally then there was no money put

(15:26):
into the implementation of that fifty million dollar Royal Commission
and the recommendations. Our Northern Territory Labor Government received that
Royal Commission when we came to power in twenty sixteen,
when it was completed I believe beginning of twenty seventeen,
and since then we've spent I think it's the figure
Katie is two hundred and fifty million dollars implementing the
recommendations of that Royal Commission. So when we add that

(15:49):
up three hundred million dollars into a Royal Commission and
the implementation of those recommendations, I would love to see
some of those figures from the federal government and of
course the continuing figures from the NT government. That goes
into that service delivery, that goes into providing the services,
goes into identifying areas where there are gaps. So three
hundred million dollars hitting the ground as opposed to having

(16:10):
to be told what to do. I think is a
much better use of territory money, federal money to make
sure that it's not just an Aboriginal kids issue. It
is protection of kids and territories in it, which got
to get away from the black and white, which is
what Senator Price is pushing. We talk about not dividing
the country and saying that sexual abuse of children, Aboriginal

(16:30):
children is the only issue. We want to make sure
all our kids black white, brown color between how can.

Speaker 10 (16:35):
Be safe to the attention of child protection in the
Northern Territory are Aboriginal.

Speaker 5 (16:40):
And rob and I would love to see any of
the support services and the funding attached to improving services
go to all of our territory kids just as much
as the next person.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
So you reckon, do you reckon that that money into
a royal commission? You think it would be a waste
of money basically.

Speaker 4 (16:55):
Well, if you'd be a waste of money too, I
think there's better ways to do it.

Speaker 5 (16:59):
And Katie Will, we do have set up is that
accountability and no Steve mentioned it, but we do have
the accountability through the new mechanisms with our Northern Territory
Executive Council and Abitual Affairs. What we've done is we
have mirrored the national structure on joint council and closed
the gap. It sounds very bureaucratic, I know, but what
we do have is the federal government sitting at that table,
the Northern Territory government sitting at that table, and our

(17:21):
peak Organizations of the Northern Territory APONT sitting at that
table to drive the change, to look at where the
gaps are and to ensure that every single agency in
our Northern Territory government has accountability.

Speaker 7 (17:32):
For those dollars, federal or territory.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
And just go back to child sexual abuse and those
calls for a royal commission, Just to be clear. So
you saying that it would be a waste of money,
and you'd like you don't think that it would be beneficial.

Speaker 5 (17:45):
Not saying a waste of money. What I'm saying, Katie,
we know that there are issues. What I would like
to see is if there was money for a royal commission,
that that money would be better spent hitting the services,
making sure our non government organizations, particularly our abitual controlled
organization are the service providers where there are gaps that
we fill those gaps.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
Cadie and the Barklay.

Speaker 9 (18:04):
Over the last many many years, there's been issues around
service delivery in the Barklay. What we've been arguing is
that there needs to be better coordination collaboration between all
of the service providers. But to tackle some of the issues,
and if you go back to twenty eighteen, there was
a very well publicized sexual abuse of a two year
old that led to the Barkley Regional Deal. Part of

(18:25):
that Barkley Regional Deal, I certainly made sure that one
of the key initiatives was to look at government investment
and service system reform. Now that particular initiative we signed
that regional deal four and a half years ago. All
levels of government still haven't tackled that key initiative to
look at government investment and service system reform, and that

(18:46):
involves looking at the dollars coming into the Barkley to
make sure it's going to where it's needed most, to
have better collaboration coordination between service providers. But all levels
of government still haven't tackled that important issue.

Speaker 3 (18:58):
Four and a half years later.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
We are going to have to take a very short
break and the.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
Phones are already running hot for the camp quality radio
auction and before we get into some of the other
very serious issues of the day, keys.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
Here just very quickly. You're actually going to be donating
a half day farm tour.

Speaker 8 (19:14):
That's right, that's right, Katie Family farm tour have for
two families, four adults.

Speaker 4 (19:18):
How many children to do?

Speaker 8 (19:19):
Max my six kids, So we don't want too many
children running around the place. But it's it's sort of
spring country, so.

Speaker 4 (19:28):
We do want a lot of babies.

Speaker 8 (19:29):
We've got a couple of baby sheep of sheep, and
we've got we've got baby dots.

Speaker 2 (19:33):
Do the children get to feed the baby goats and sheep.

Speaker 8 (19:37):
Like the friend's past shirt. And we've got very friendly
donkeys that can be hand fed with carrots. We've got
friendly cows. Got about eight ten freeloading lazy cows at
the momentous rides quad bikes. I've got to my brother
in law's got a nice trailer. We can go for ride.
It's very dry and.

Speaker 4 (19:54):
Dusty, so I came in the morning and then they can.

Speaker 8 (19:57):
They can. We've got extra chaff bags and they can
shovel into documentaux take it home for their garden.

Speaker 2 (20:01):
There you go, so you give them a job while
they're out there.

Speaker 8 (20:03):
So love that parents.

Speaker 4 (20:11):
And then barbecue lunch.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
Barbecue lunch at the end.

Speaker 4 (20:15):
For the lunch and it's not one of the animals
will be fitting.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
Goodness me, you're really selling it theirs. Well.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
People will be able to get in contact with us
and bid on that after ten o'clock this morning. But look,
I do want to get into those serious issues once
again of the week because we know that the government
has promised to introduce new alcohol laws that would give
greater police powers to deal with public drinkers and put
people on the band Drinkers Register. So the Chief Minister
table this three year review of the Liquor Act in

(20:48):
Parliament and said that she intended to introduce legislation in
the November sittings. Now, one of the things that I
thought was a bit rich really from the Northern Territory
government is that the opposition had also tabled this, like
they had also put forward legislation this week to give
police greater powers. Now, when you read through the review
that was table what we can see is that there

(21:10):
is a proposal that an amendment be made to provide
police with the power to identify the person that they're
searching or seizing alcohol from in regards to contravention of
Section one hundred and seventy one.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
So public drinking.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
Now, we spoke a lot about this through our weeks,
so the listeners would very much be aware of what
we're talking about here. But there is no doubt the
way that we're doing things currently when it comes to
alcohol up in the top end, we're not getting it right.
You know, when you've got groups of people that are
drinking publicly. We have got some very serious issues that
have occurred on our streets publicly. I'm talking domestic violence,

(21:43):
I'm talking sexual assault. You know, you're talking assaults. There
is some terrible stuff happening on the streets in the
top end. Something's got to be.

Speaker 9 (21:53):
Done exactly, and I think you know, when you look
at the legislation that we put forward CODI, it addresses
all of those commendations in the liquor review. But importantly
that liquor review is all we got was a summary report.

Speaker 3 (22:05):
So we're still waiting to see the full report.

Speaker 9 (22:08):
I still don't know why there was only a summary
table by the Chief Minister. But getting back to drinking
in public places. Look, the comparison I made in Parliament
was that if you were drinking consuming alcohol in a
restricted area, you'd be facing twelve months imprisonment. Police would
have the power to question you, take your name, do

(22:29):
a whole range of checks to see whether you might
be the subject of a domestic violence order, a bail order,
all of those issues. But if you're drinking, say at
Fanny Bay here in Darwin, Catherine TenneT, Creeker, Ella Springs,
police don't have the power to ask that person their name.
So potentially you could have two people sitting there drinking

(22:49):
in breach of a domestic violence order. Now, giving the
police the ability to do those important checks could actually
prevent further domestic violence from happening in the future or
later that day. What surprised me was that the Minister
for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence didn't agree
with what we were saying. Now, this is absolutely outrageous

(23:10):
that the minister who has responsibility to prevent domestic violence
didn't want to entertain the thought that police should have
powers to make inquiries at the point where people are drinking. Now,
now this is an opportunity to deal with those issues
there and then on the spot.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
As a former police officer, I mean, what do you
make then of you know, people or police officers going
up and having to tip out alcohol. Now, presumably that
can actually put you in a dangerous situation in some
ways in a sense that you know, for some people,
you may not have a lot of money.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
You've purchased some alcohol.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
Then if it's being tipped out, does that potentially put
you in a dangerous situation.

Speaker 9 (23:47):
One of the most potentially dangerous situations is where we
have patrols in somewhat secluded areas where there might be
a group of say fifteen or twenty people. Now two
police officers having the power to tip out grog. We
know that some of these people are disadvantaged. They've paid
a lot of money for grog, and when police start

(24:09):
tipping out the grog, they're in a potentially dangerous situation
because people react. What police need is the proper powers
to deal with these issues, and that includes questioning people
there to make the proper inquiries.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
Why the laws different.

Speaker 9 (24:24):
If somebody was living in a town camp here in Darwin,
they would be arrested, charged and phase twelve months imprisonment
for consuming alcohol. But if they come to a public
place like sa Fanny Bay, police don't even have the
power to ask in their name. So what the government
is doing is actually the way the laws are designed.
At the moment, people out Bush could potentially be facing jail.

(24:47):
You come to town, you don't even have to give
your name, So this is actually condoning public drinking. This
is why people are coming to town. The laws need
to be strengthened, firstly to give police the powers and
to act as a deterrent people drinking.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
What you're saying is somebody could actually be coming from
a community they're not able to drink.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
They shouldn't actually be drinking in town either. And nature
that's right.

Speaker 9 (25:07):
And police don't have the power to even check to
see whether a person has a under a band drink
or order a bail condition that they can't drink. But importantly,
that domestic advance is out of control right around the
Northern territory. Make a basic check. And I heard one
of the ministers say, oh, please deal with these issues
that I think the Member for Fanny basid why don't

(25:29):
you use section forty seven of the summary offenses that
let's give police the powers they need to do the
job properly.

Speaker 5 (25:35):
Katie, there's no question that alcohol is the largest contributor
to harm across the Northern Territory. Absolutely acknowledge that, which
is why there has to be a multifaceted approach.

Speaker 7 (25:45):
We can't just look at one area.

Speaker 5 (25:47):
We have to look at all sections of legislation, we
have to look at all service delivery, we have to
look at all issues right across the territory, whether it's
in the bush, whether it's in our regional towns, whether
it's here in our urban centers. I mean, Steve's being
a little bit dish in genuous when we're talking about
Minister for Debertstick Violence, Family, sexual Violence Prevention, Kate Warden.
She's also the Police Minister, so she hears regularly and

(26:09):
meets regularly with our police, with our police Commissioner, with the.

Speaker 7 (26:12):
Grassroots police officers.

Speaker 5 (26:14):
On the grounds the police aousked for.

Speaker 1 (26:17):
This, so the Police Association have said that they actually
want it.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
Now I get what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
There is no doubt it's a multi faceted approach and
it is absolutely needed to be when it comes to alcohol.
But here You've got a situation where you can't even search,
like you can't even check someone's ID when you go
to tip out their alcohol.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
Like, to me, that is.

Speaker 1 (26:34):
Unbelievable, and I think it's probably been a huge surprise
for a lot of territorianes that listen to the show
learning that throughout this one.

Speaker 5 (26:41):
And Katie that liquor review, which is why we do
reviews of legislation to see what is up to date
and what can be improved and what can be changed
to better the safety of community. When we're talking about
that review, fifty five recommendations were provided through that review,
so that's what we'll be looking at as government. It
was tabled in Parliament this week, so they'll be ong
work in that space. But when it comes to ensuring

(27:03):
that we have police resource, that's huge commitment from us
as government.

Speaker 7 (27:07):
We continue to do that.

Speaker 5 (27:08):
Hear the feedback from community, hear the feedback from our
frontline services. And alcohol is also a health issue, Katie,
So that's where that really big approach around service delivery,
around health services and trying to look at the prevention
of alcohol harm in our community in the frontline.

Speaker 7 (27:24):
Of it, as opposed to what we're.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Doing right now though, is not working, and what is
happening on the streets is not okay. What we're seeing
on the streets of Darwin, I'm assuming in Tenant, I'm
assuming in Catherine, in Alice Springs, it's not okay. You know,
we have got people that are drinking themselves to dangerous,
dangerous situations, not only for themselves but also for others.

(27:45):
And if you're able to implement something, and you're able
to do one thing that could potentially help this week
to stop somebody from being a victim of domestic violence,
or to stop somebody from being assaulted on the street,
why wouldn't we do that, Katie.

Speaker 9 (28:00):
The crux of the issue is here that we had
the legislation before Parliament this week. It addressed all of
the issues in this summary of the Liquor Review. It
was there, ready to go and addressed all of the recommendations.
But the government still knocked at right.

Speaker 10 (28:15):
So what we saw was politics that it's worse played
out in Parliament today. A good piece of legislation makes
perfect sense. Steve's described it well. Selena doesn't really have
a response because it does make sense to tighten it
up to give the police more powers in these situations.
But yet because it was bought forward by the COLP,

(28:36):
the government doesn't even think about it. They just say no.
And it used to waste everyone's time, and it used
to exist previously.

Speaker 3 (28:43):
Police.

Speaker 8 (28:43):
I forget how many years ago police could stop a
couple of people, you know, drinking a public place, doesn't
matter what race cred they were, and ask their name,
and they can quickly run a check like they do
when they pull you over on the road. They run
a check to make sure your car's license and your license,
and it does it's a preventative tool that the police
would be get.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
I do want to ask two other parts of the
summary legislation that was tabled. There are a couple of
parts in there that I thought were quite interesting. One
of those was a change that I noted that basically
suggested that to address public drinking and the associated anti
social behavior, that the liquoric be amended to empower other
appointed officers such as transit officers, public cars and safety officers,

(29:23):
park rangers, council rangers.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
Katie.

Speaker 8 (29:26):
That's one dangerous it's a disincentive for people looking to
go into those employment channels, those kind of things should
be given to the police. Transit officers on buses maybe
might be a bit different, but they are to look
after the safety of buses and people on buses. So
you reckon they put them in a dangerous situation. Why
don't put them in a dangerous situation. They are not

(29:47):
trained to be a law enforcement kind of people, and
it will be a disincentive. Like if someone says, oh M,
I want to become a park ranger and a good,
good job, etcetera career opportunity, but you've also got to
apprehend people who get pissed.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
In the parks.

Speaker 3 (29:59):
No way.

Speaker 8 (30:00):
So I think that's a bad recommendation and the government
should not and anything.

Speaker 10 (30:03):
Noting that our police auxiliaries that stand outside of bottle
shops in Alice Springs, in Tenant Creek and Catherine all
carry guns.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
Yeah, right, so they're obviously it is obvious that then
you are thinking that they could be in a dangerous situation, right.

Speaker 4 (30:18):
I don't know why they did that, but even.

Speaker 9 (30:20):
If you look at the inconsistency in the legislation, is
a police auxiliary standing outside a bottle shop has the
power to ask a whole range of questions, name and
address where are you going to be drinking the alcohol?
But a police officer going out to a public place
in Fanny Bay can't even as well as I do
want to.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
Just ask as well.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
One of the other aspects of this that that it
doesn't look as though the government's going to implement, but
I actually think this is something worth looking at. So
during COVID nineteen, during the Health Emergency, the Director introduced
special requirements for the sale of takeaway alcohol, including the
requirement for a person to prove that they have a
legitimate residence to consume takeaway alcohol. The same measure has

(31:01):
already been voluntarily a prior applied in places like parap
and Fanny Bay via the liquor record. So at this stage,
as I said, it doesn't look like it's recommended that
this measure be legislated.

Speaker 8 (31:13):
But Katie that that will that will discriminate against people
at maraca and Corrobbrie because when that was in place
during COVID, they had to show their license they lived
at Maracaio.

Speaker 4 (31:26):
Sorry, you can't buy takeaway and live with this for years.
Analysis have analysis, but it.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
Doesn't make a difference.

Speaker 4 (31:33):
It's a huge difference.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
It does make it. What do you think what don't think.

Speaker 8 (31:36):
Selena discriminate against people in the top end for living
in a regional area.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
And what do you think they're.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Going to buy the takeaway?

Speaker 1 (31:43):
Well, you've got people like remote communities in your electorate
as well.

Speaker 5 (31:46):
What do you think we had that of Katie And
as you know Stephen Robins said, we've had that another
part of the territory for you know, a long time.

Speaker 2 (31:54):
So make a difference, huge difference.

Speaker 7 (31:56):
It does.

Speaker 5 (31:57):
When we're talking about, you know, again reducing the harm
of alcohol and we're looking at all measures.

Speaker 7 (32:02):
Again there's no quick fix.

Speaker 5 (32:03):
If there was, then we would have solved alcohol is
shoes a long time ago. And every government you know
prior would have solved alcohol is shoes a long time ago. Again,
we need to treat alcohol is shoes as a health measure.
We also need to look at what the response is
to support individuals or groups of people who.

Speaker 7 (32:18):
Struggle with alcohol.

Speaker 5 (32:19):
We also need to ensure that community safety, which is
when we talk about police and the other measures in
the community and the resourcing police, which we've done as
Labor government. But this will continue to be an issue
in the Northern Territory and it continues to have a
response that is measured, but also an.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
Impact that we are going to have to take a
very short break from. Everyone's fired up this morning, even
off air as well. There's so much going on, but
I do just want to talk about the facts. There's well,
the Northern Territory Labor Party, they're not going to be
holding their annual conference this year. Conference is that party's
constitution and it happens every year, bringing together delegates from

(32:57):
sub branches and trade unions to debate my otions that
go on to form.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
Its party platform.

Speaker 1 (33:02):
But the party president has told the a b C
that the next conference won't be held.

Speaker 2 (33:07):
Until after the next election. Interesting times.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
I've been told that it's been canceled because it's been
overtaken by the anti fraggers.

Speaker 10 (33:14):
They're all farting with each other.

Speaker 4 (33:18):
To air their dirty Lenen.

Speaker 8 (33:19):
Katie, I'll give you a I can tell you the
Labor Party people not holding their conference means diddley squat
to anyone in the rule. If they don't, if they
don't want to happen, they don't really vote lab Hell.
Hell will freeze over before that happens. But no one,
no one gives two hoots. I mean if the Labor
Party people don't want to have a loving doubt.

Speaker 2 (33:38):
Members the.

Speaker 3 (33:44):
Membership. The membership want to have a voice.

Speaker 9 (33:46):
That's they want to have a saying any party election
policy is.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
Who will care is it's the members of the Labor Party.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
And I actually think that that's what's forgotten sometimes is
that you know your party might not agree on different things,
but it is important whether you're a member of the
c LP or the Labor Party. You independents don't have
to worry about meeting with your party members. Just you con.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
I have a conference.

Speaker 4 (34:14):
A lot to myself.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
I have a con.

Speaker 9 (34:20):
Conference, Katie, and everybody had an opportunity to contribute. But
it seems that Labor is the medership. They've got a voice,
but they're not allowed.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
To use it wrong.

Speaker 1 (34:30):
But it seems to me that Labour's been taken over
a little bit by the woke left and they're worried
attacking it, and you know, they need to remember their
working class roots. You've got to actually make sure that
you are meeting and you've got to make sure that
you're hearing the voices of people within the party. Katie,
I love that this is a topic and that people
are interested in Lady Labor Party mechanisms and process. I

(34:54):
appreciate it, but I absolutely agree with Kesier that the
average everyday territory probably does don't.

Speaker 7 (35:00):
Care whether Labor is having a party conference.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
What I would like to say about.

Speaker 5 (35:05):
Our party membership, who do an amazing job as grassroots
members do have access to have that input into the
party through our regular branch meetings. Each division has their
own branch meetings. We have members of the Labor of
the Labor Party Caucus who are part of those branches.

Speaker 7 (35:23):
We also have our.

Speaker 5 (35:24):
Chief Minister and ministers who meet regularly with our party members.
You don't have to have a formal meeting in Parliament,
and access.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
Is in the constitution for Labor post so you.

Speaker 7 (35:33):
Can access your elected good Labor.

Speaker 3 (35:36):
Members, which is good governance.

Speaker 5 (35:38):
And I love that people are very interested in this,
but I also acknowledge that a lot of territories don't care.

Speaker 7 (35:43):
They just want us to do it. We got party members.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Is it because you're scared of what the party is
going to tell you, what the ranking.

Speaker 5 (35:52):
Accident or they just want us to get the job
and make sure that Labor is returned in August twenty
twenty four, and that we do our job as a
Labor government.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
Katie.

Speaker 8 (36:00):
What they could have asked at the conference and this
is what we want, asked Selena in the Seed of Blaine.
You've got a SEALP person, you'll have an ALP person,
and you've got Mark Turner who's now in Independence. So
it is the Labor Party going to give their preferences
to Mark Turner? Are they going to give them to
the CEPS.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
Conferences?

Speaker 7 (36:20):
I love it, keysy Well.

Speaker 5 (36:21):
I mean, I'm sitting here with the current CLP member
with Steve.

Speaker 7 (36:25):
We've got two former Rob and.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
Saw. The Light.

Speaker 10 (36:32):
Party.

Speaker 7 (36:33):
Politics is something that territories don't care.

Speaker 5 (36:35):
They just want you to get on and do their job,
which is shown with Kesy and Independent.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
I remember that when you have a crack at this
moment the CLP, when they have their vote of no
confidence or whatever.

Speaker 2 (36:45):
It was not that long ago.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
I remember.

Speaker 3 (36:50):
We actually held our conference.

Speaker 9 (36:52):
We gave everybody an opportunity to have a say about motions. Now,
I don't know how many motions are going to be
shelved over at the Labor Party, but I'm sure that
the membership have put up motions they want them considered
that they pay a membership every year. They should be
having to say, so, what's going to happen to all
the emotions.

Speaker 5 (37:10):
For the Labor Party and let us see the light
for the process. But I can assure territories if you
care about the Labor Party in our internal processes that
Labor No, I'm talking about the party processes, Robert, I'm
not talking about government. If you care about the party processes,
please join the Labor Party if you would like to say,
and we'd love more membership.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
I do want to just run.

Speaker 8 (37:31):
I just want to point out, for Selena, this will
make us even closer sisters. My mother actually did belong
to the Labor Party.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
They can dream.

Speaker 4 (37:42):
I would have kept that on a secret. We won't
hold it against it. Not very long day.

Speaker 9 (37:49):
But it does get down to good governance. And this
reflects poorly on.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
The Labor Well, let's talk governance, because unfortunately the Tenant
Creek Council, or the Berkley Regional councilor should say, through
this week, well, they found themselves in situation where the
Attorney Journal was stepping in to basically well to basically
suspend all those members of the Barkley Regional Council from
office and placed it under official management. Steve, what's the

(38:15):
reaction been in the Barclay.

Speaker 9 (38:17):
There's been mixed reaction right across the board and I
think generally what I'm hearing is that the issues that
have been going on there for roughly about eighteen months now.
All of these issues started back in February twenty and
twenty two, so there's been a whole range of issues
raised over the last eighteen months. There has been issues
raised by constituents about service delivery, particularly in the Bush,

(38:39):
and this is what we're hearing is that right across
the board when it comes to things like the voice,
people feel that the Barklay has been forgotten when it
comes to service delivery. So there's been no shortage of
complaints around service delivery in the Bush. When it comes
to a whole range of other matters like complaints, internal
complaints around bullying, sexual harassment, mismanagement, there's been issues with

(39:02):
the rates. There's been a whole range of issues constantly
raised over eighteen months. I've spoken to the Minister a
number of times about this and I think at this
stage what I'm hearing is that people feel that the
Minister has made the appropriate decision.

Speaker 3 (39:15):
In the circumstance.

Speaker 4 (39:16):
By the sound of it, Katie, this is not unusual.

Speaker 8 (39:19):
I mean, I mean it's regrettable, but in the parts
happened before in the past. Litchfield Council was suspended because
of the Parmesan. I think bell Ewan was suspended a
couple of times, you know, and it basically just well,
from what I see, it gives some breathing space. You know,
there's obviously some intense internal upheaval in the Farmley region
and you know, issues with the mayor and court cases

(39:41):
and all that sort of stuff, so it just gives
them breathing space. Just step aside, let the administrative people
come in, probably do an audit, go through everything like
service delivery in particular, and those meetings that you have
in the communities to do with shy business, and then
work it out how to go forward, whether it's whether
they all come back in or that they have to
go to an election, which what I think that happened

(40:02):
at Lichfield had to re elect and parmis I see it.

Speaker 9 (40:06):
I see it as an opportunity to chart a better
way forward. And I think what I want to see
out of this is a real plan to come out
how we're going to improve services in the Bush. And
so it does fit in with what I've been saying
for a long time. We need to get back to
basics in communities, improve governance, improve leadership. All of those
things need to happen right across the board.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
I mean, does it make a mockery of the CLP's
calls for us to go back to those local councils.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
Absolutely everywhere.

Speaker 9 (40:31):
Actually it actually supports that because what we're seeing, and
as I said, the strong message coming out of the
referendum was that people do want to voice they feel
that they've been forgotten in many remote areas in the Barclay.
I take that message as a call for help, and
that's the way I look at it right across the board,
and I want to strengthen.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
I want to see people empowered.

Speaker 9 (40:51):
In communities, strength and government, strength and leadership because all
of that was taken away on the first of July
two thousand and eight. We need to return services such
as road, housing, housing, maintenance and repairs and have people
more engaged so that we have better outcomes in communities,
and particularly given the current local decision making policy which
actually skirts around local government. And this is what the

(41:14):
Labor Party hasn't been telling people is that their local
decision making policy doesn't include local government. We need to
strengthen local government so that decisions can be made on
the ground in communities.

Speaker 7 (41:25):
O Katie.

Speaker 5 (41:26):
It's never nice to see a council go into administration,
but for very good reasons, of course, as you know,
supporting outlined already by my parliamentary colleagues.

Speaker 7 (41:35):
I was intended Creek two weeks ago. I did meet
with Steve.

Speaker 5 (41:38):
You know, he's probably the only person in the COLP
who's actually talking about caring about the Bush. So very
happy to talk to Steve and follow his leadership around
listening to his electorate and listening to the Bush vote.
But also in terms of local decision making, which was
just brought up. We've just gone through a very lengthy
process through the Grid Island Archipelago Local Decision Making Agreement.

(42:00):
It's a ten year agreement, Katie, and it is around
five different pillars, and one of those pillars is local government,
which has just been many years in the making. But
looking at a Groode Island Regional Council, so similar to
Tee Island Regional Council covering Bathist and Melville, Groode Island
and miking An Island in the Gulf of Carpentia and
looking at a regional council based there. And that's through

(42:20):
the Local Decision Making Agreement, purely because of the Local
Decision Making Agreement which is our Labor Party policy. So
it does not skirt around as Steve has said, it
absolutely addresses that if a community or a region wants
to explore that that's absolutely open for what the community wants.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Look, we are going to have to take a very
quick break, Geese. We're running out of time fast in
here this morning. Well, what a busy hour it's been.
If you've just joined us, you've missed an absolute cracker
in the studio this morning. We've had Selena Rubaikezi, a Puric,
Robin Landley and Steve Edgington the aighte mate. Now it

(42:59):
is in camp Quality Radio Auction day, So I really
appreciate the fact.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
That you've all been here this morning.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
It's been a massive morning and for the rest of
the day here on Mix one oh for nine, well,
we are going to be going live with the with
you know with the radio auction thousands of dollars have
been raised to date over the years. I reckon we've
been doing this for well for over a decade. So
if anybody out there listening is keen to find that
full list of auction items, you can jump on the
Mix one O four nine website. But we've got some

(43:26):
wonderful stuff up for grabs today. There is so much
going on. Kiezy has got her half day farm Njerius No, sorry,
not a half day.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Everyone came down. You're not going out all day.

Speaker 4 (43:39):
They want to stay all day. They can do the
morning for.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
Nothing in jobs.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
I'll be there for lunch.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Oh goodness, mabe well.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
Steve Edgington, the member for Barkley, thank you so much
for your time today.

Speaker 9 (43:54):
Thank you, Katie, and good morning to all the listeners,
and thanks to all the crew today.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
Thank you. Robin Landley, the member for our mahlu and
thank you so much for your time this morning. Gezi
Puic the Independent k for your time.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
I'll get you to stay for a few minutes if
we can, just to go through that auction item. And
Selena Rubo from Catherine, thank you so much for your
time this morning.

Speaker 7 (44:13):
I'm thank forward to getting home this afternoon.

Speaker 2 (44:15):
Well, Big congrats on having your second baby as well.

Speaker 5 (44:18):
He's eleven weeks old today, baby Phoenix, and he's probably
sleeping in the office right now.

Speaker 7 (44:23):
To Big Sister and to Dad this afternoon.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
Wonderful stuff.

Speaker 1 (44:26):
Well, thank you all so very much for your time
this morning, and we'll have you back on the.

Speaker 2 (44:30):
Show very soon, no doubt, and stick around.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
There's still plenty coming your way this morning, right here
on Mix one oh four nine