Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Parliament does indeed kick off again today. So I know
we don't have a huge amount of time with the
Chief Minister, but we know that yesterday changes in parliament
to the IKAK with the NTS corruption watchdogs set to
soon be prevented from investigating minor misconduct, while journalist shield
laws have been strengthened. Not everybody agreed with what was
(00:21):
going on. Two MLAs did try to delay the new laws,
claiming that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruptions Office is currently
investigating some labor ministers and that changes would water down
the iqaq's powers. Now, the Independent member farrahlu and Robin
Lamley raise concerns before Parliament that some ministers may have
a conflict of interest in this matter. Now the Chief Minister,
(00:44):
Natasha Files joins me on the line. Good morning to
your Chief Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Good morning Katie, Good morning listeners, and I hope you're
feeling better.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Thank you. Now why were these changes needed to the
i CACK.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So the ICAC has been in place for a few
years here in the territory and as good practice with
any legislation, it's important to review its function. We had
a discussion paper, an exposure draft bill, and we then
made amendments to the Act around how it operates in
the territory.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
But so Robin Lanley's raised concerns and said that in
the House we have people that are being no doubt
investigated by the i caact ICAC, that should recuse themselves,
that should declare that they've got a conflict of interest.
Are there any MLAs currently being investigated by the IKAC
and would that mean that there is a.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Conflict, Okatie, when you're under investigation or you're involved in
an ICAC matter, you I serve noticed that you cannot
discuss that. But what I can say this bill there
was no conflict with any minister's government members or I
believe anyone in the Parliament. The bill was, as I said,
a discussion paper, an exposure draft, and it clarifies the
(01:56):
intention for the IKAC to investigate the matters of most
serious and systemic improper conduct and corruption. But Katie, to
give you an example of the changes just quickly, what
we clarified yesterday was that if you are involved in
an ICAC matter, but you are a low level you
are not found of any finding. You don't need to
(02:17):
be named unless you're an MLA, so we strengthen if
you're a member of the Legislative Assembly, I believe you
should have a higher level of scrutiny. But we've seen
reports where low levels and it's just inappropriate behavior has
seen people named and they've got that tarnish if you
google their name forever. So that's what the act change.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I get that, Like, I understand what you're saying with that,
and I think that that is fair enough.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
But the point that I understand.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Robin Lamley was trying to make is that if there
are conflicts of interest or are there conflicts of interest,
because essentially, if there was a member in the House
yesterday that could be involved in an investigation, but then
is voting on changes to do with the IKAK, is
that appropriate?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So, Katie, there is no conflicts of interest in the
legislative changes that were made yesterday, and if there is,
if there are any matters underway, and there may be
matters investigating other members of the House, Katie, But as
I said, this legislation did not create a conflict. I
believe for any member of the Parliament yesterday.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Are the icac's powers being watered down with these changes?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
No Katie, I believe this strengthens and I just gave
you one example where an MLA is held to a
high level of accountability, but fix up in terms of
that aspect around the people that are not found of
corruption or misconduct, but to get caught up in this.
We also, Katie, when someone has given a notice to
appear to the ikak, the legislation now requires the IQACK
(03:50):
could let that person know what it's about. We have
had feedback from submissions of people that went through the
ARCAC process where it caused great stress because they didn't
know what raw brush elements they were being asked to
go to the ikat for. So, as I said, the
act has been in place for a number of years,
it's good governance to review it. But I don't believe
it watered down any aspect.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I mean, from what I can gather, the concern here
is that essentially we've got politicians determining how exactly the
aykak is going to operate, when in actual fact, there
may be times when the Aykak is going to need
to investigate matters that do pertain to those politicians. So
can you see how people might feel as though those
lines are a bit blurred.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
So it was the Northern Charactor of Parliament that passed
the legislation initially to establish an independent Commissioner against corruption.
It is appropriate for the Parliament to make amendments to
the legislation, but it's based off Red Shanahan did a review,
a discussion paper, and an exposure draft skill so it's
not like it's being done these changes behind closed doors.
They've been very open in what the changes are strengthening.
(04:53):
For example, as you mentioned journalist protections, if they are
providing information around individuals.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
All right, I'm going to have to move along because
there is quite a bit that I want to cover
this morning, and I want.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
To talk alcohol.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Last week you tabled a three year review into the
Liquor Act in Parliament and said that you intend to
introduce legislation in the November sittings.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Now a very quick listener question.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
First, could these proposed changes mean that someone done for
low range drink driving would end up on the band
drinkers Register?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So, Katie, there was a report handed into looking at
the legislation that was introduced in twenty nineteen. The review
there was fifty five recommendations. We will now work with agencies,
but particularly police, around which recommendations will target problem drink is.
In terms of that actual recommendation for someone on a
low live, low level drink driving range absolutely unacceptable. But
(05:49):
as I said, I will work with police around what
they think will be effective, and I think that there
has been early indication from police that that is not
a priority. There's other priority areas will tackle alcohol.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Related harm, all right, So a huge actually just to
go back to that, So you're ruling that out.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
If you're a lowlan range drink driver, you're not going
to go on the bdr OK.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I don't want to make policy on the run, but
I don't believe that that recommendation targets the problem drinkers.
I do not find it acceptable at all for drink driving.
You know that alcohol as a factor in pedestrian and
vehicle accident is far too high, But at the same time,
for me, I'm not convinced that to priority.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
A huge point of contention in recent months has been
this two kilometer law when it comes to public drinking.
You and your government have been at pains to say
that this is still an offense, but the review outlines
clear as day that in Section one hundred and thirty
one hundred and seventy one two provides that if a
person contravenes the provision, the person may be searched under
(06:49):
Section two hundred and thirty six of the Liquor Act,
and the liquor may be seized and disposed of under
Section two hundred and forty three of the Liquor Act.
There is no penalty for the contravention of this provision,
which aligns with Recommendation seventy nine of the Royal Commission
into the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Northern Territory Police Foreign Emergency Service has raised concerns that
while they're empowered to conduct searches of persons for possible
contraventions of Section one hundred and seventy one, they do
not have the correlating power to identify the person that
they're searching or seizing alcohol from. Why have you not
(07:30):
been honest with territorians about.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
This, Katie. We've been every bit upfront with Territory.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Well you haven't though, because you've been saying that it's
you know that it's still an offense. But the reality
is all that can happen is that alcohol gets tipped out,
So Katie, it.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Is not legal. Is not permitted to drink within two kilometers.
If someone is drinking within two kilometers, there is a
range of steps that police can take. But Katie, in
terms of the recommendation around identification and third strengthening police powers,
we are very much committed to doing something in that
space and it's finding that balance where we target the
(08:07):
problem drink is. But we don't inadvertently have someone getting
potentially fine or facing offenses for having a beer when
they're at a boat ramp, for example. So it is
not permitted to drink within two kilometers. It is illegal
to drink within two kilometers.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
But literally all that can happen is that your alcohol
gets tipped out. The police can't even search somebody's well,
they can't even look at someone's license.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
So Katie, there they can if someone is committing another offense,
they can do that. There is a range of steps
they can take. But this is trying to find the balance.
But we take on board the feedback around them requesting
information around who that individual is and will work towards them.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
But you really did try to steer the public in
another direction here with this rule didn't.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
You, Katie, I disagree. It is not. It is against
the law to drink, and it's not just within two
kilometers of a license venue. It's around dal and Ala Springs,
Catherine Parmerston, TANet Creek, the waterfront for example, and declared
local government areas. There is exceptions, but Katie, it is
illegal to drink within two kilometers. We've been very upfront, but.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
We've been everybody's been saying right from the get go
when this discussion started. You know, if it is illegal,
why are there still people drinking publicly in those areas?
And I mean your own review really demonstrates why.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
So, Katie, alcohol is a space alcohol policy where we
need to continue to be agile. You put in place
one measure, you need to do further work on that
or work on other measures. And that's what we're doing.
We've released this report, we're having a discussion around the recommendations,
and we'll keep doing the work in this space. It's
not straightforward, all right.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
So with the recommendation in terms of police officers being
able to you know, being able to identify somebody, being
able to actually check their license to see whether they
have got any warrants, out for their arrest or anything
like that. Are you going to move forward and try
and introduce some legislation at the next parliamentary sittings?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
So, Katie, I've committed to doing legislation based on this review.
I think to me that is a very practical step.
We are going to see police change over to a
new IT system surpro in the coming weeks, which I
think will be excellent in terms of them having real
time information out on the beat. So I'll work with
the commissioner around how that would be enacted.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
So is practical?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Why didn't you go along with the oppositions legislation last week?
Speaker 2 (10:35):
So, Katie, that bill was introduced some time ago. Like
the fuel bill, they just leave them sitting. They brought
it back in simply to pay politics. I'm going to
work with the Police Commissioner and make sure we have
the correct laws in place, that we're not inadvertently doing
something that will create loops or gaps further down the process.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I mean, the police have actually said though in this report,
why they need it to happen. So wouldn't it be
a better thing to get it happening sooner rather than later.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I just outlined my concerns around their legislation, and I said,
when I cabled this report in the House, we would
be doing legislation, but rather than tabling the reports and
introducing legislation in the same sitting, give it the space
of just a few weeks so that we can make
sure that we hear feedback from the community, feedback from
those t stakeholders before that next trans is introduced.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Now, one of the other really interesting changes that I'd
noted when reading the document was that as part of
this part of the suggestions to address that public drinking
and associated anti social behavior, that the Liquor Act be
amended to empower the other appointed officers like transit officers,
public housing safety offices, park ranges and council ranges, and
(11:45):
contracted security officers with the authority to search individuals and
seize any unopened container that's believed to contain liquor. Is
this something that the government's looking at? I mean, is
it really the job of those kind official?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So, Katie, we need to find that balance between if
someone can be trained and have the skills and it's
safe for them to do that, would that work. At
the same time, I have had conversations and I don't
want to burble our Lord Mayor, but the Mayor said
he didn't think it would be appropriate for ranges. It's
a discussion point. The practicality of implementing it. How would
we do that is what's under consideration.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
All right.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So, I mean the counselor said that they feel that
it's going to be dangerous situation for their ranges.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So wouldn't you just rule that out?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
So, Katie, I've had feed that from some security organizations
that they would welcome that ability if their people could
be trained up in that. And for example, if someone
was doing the wrong thing and they could just tip
that alcohol out, would that be appropriate. That's what's being considered.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Is that going to be a safe move?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
I mean, even the police have said that it can
be quite a dangerous situation when you're approaching people and
tipping out their alcohol.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
That's what needs to be considered, Katie. We want to
make sure that everyone is safe and that we're not
inadvertently people in danger. So that is a suggestion, a
recommendation from this review. And as I said, there is
different points of view in the community. Can we find
a way to work that through potentially?
Speaker 3 (13:12):
All right? Another aspect.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
At this stage, it doesn't sound as though the government's
really going to implement this one, but I'll ask anyway.
During COVID nineteen we know that the Director introduced special
requirements for the sale of takeaway alcohol, including the requirement
for a person to prove that they've got a legitimate
residence to consume takeaway alcohol. The same measure has been
voluntarily applied in places like Perapp and Fanny Bay with
(13:36):
the Liquor accord. At this stage, is it something that
the government's going to look at to cater that as you.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Just outline, was bought in under an emergency provision. People
did feel authority self that was a useful tool. So again,
some of the liquor accords have been doing it. They
would like to see that across all the outlets to
stop that issue. So we're investigating how would it be
implemented ahead of any possible changes.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
So not ruling it out.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
No, Katie. I think that any tool that stops people
that are get caused harm with alcohol we must consider.
Remembering the majority of people do the right thing. They
just would like to have a drink after work or
with friends on the weekend. But it causes so much
anti social behavior of crime and harm in our community.
We should try and stop it from getting to those
that do the wrong thing.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
All I know you pressed for time because Parliament is
getting under way this morning, but there's a couple of
things I want to ask you about.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Firstly, worker safety.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
The union representing shop and retail workers has accused your
government of breaking its promise of a safety audit at
late night outlets which is committed which are committed to
of course, in the wake of the bottle shop worker
Decklan Lavity's death. Now seven months later, the SDA union's
calling for action with an audit only conducted at thirty
(14:53):
five businesses, why hasn't this gone further?
Speaker 2 (14:58):
So, Katie, it has gone further. The audits that did
have undertaken. Also, Work Safe Inspectors have undertaken a campaign
about providing information and guidance to like late night retail
venues and they've carried out eighty nine visits to relevant outlets.
So in terms of the audits, as you said, thirty
five are being conducted where we've engaged with the business owners.
(15:21):
The sea race concerns around some businesses might not be
keem to do that work, but the workers feel unsafe,
and that's where WorkSafe have also conducted those visits to
premises to ensure that they're as safe as possible.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
I mean, the calls were made after a service station
worker lost an eye after being assaulted recently in a
terrible attack. Even earlier this week, we saw a female
servo worker who was forced to hide under the counter
as people threw soft drinks at her before stealing cigarettes
and money from the till. Do you can see that
(15:57):
you're letting those workers down right now, Katy.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
That's disgusting behavior. It's unacceptable. How can we, through the
design of these shops make it safer, particularly when we
know it's higher risk late at night, and that's exactly
what those eighty nine visits to relevant retail outlets are about.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But how can we actually stop it as well by
stopping people engaging in this behavior in the first place, Katie.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
We work in that space as well with then know
that a multitude of factors that lead to it, but
we can't just have one solution. And in terms of
those late night retail venues, we will continue to work
with workers and businesses to make them as safe at.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
All, right, just a very quick one before we finish up.
The Northern Territory Labor Party not holding its annual conference
this year. The conference is well in the party's constitution
as I understand it, and happens every year bringing together
delegates from sub branches and trade unions to debate motions.
Let's go on to form your party platform. Why is
(16:56):
it not happening so.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Katie, they're not held every year. They are held regularly
I think by annually. But the party has made a
decision to focus on developing policy the work that we've
done in government ahead of the twenty twenty four election.
But we absolutely talk to our members right across the
territory on a regular basis and anyone that's seen to
join jump online.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Has it been canceled because the left faction don't agree
with your moves on fracking and middle arm.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
No, Katie. I meet with the left faction regularly, engaged
with the unions and I don't feel it that reason.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
So you're not copying flack because of those decisions around fracking.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
O Katie. I caught flack every day from everybody, but
I can assure you it's nothing to do without the
reason why the conference. As I said, it's around that
policy work. We've done a huge amount in government. There's
a huge amount more to do.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Is it appropriate, though, to go into an election without
having that conference or without hearing the rank and file
of the party.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So, Katie, we will continue to work with the rank
and file. They meet regularly in their branchers and will
continue to work with them.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
I guess there'll be people listening this morning, Chief Minister, thinking,
if you're not even prepared to listen to the Labor Party,
how can they expect that you're going to listen to them?
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Katie, There's plenty of structures within the Labor Party that
allow for.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
We seem to have lost the Chief Minister there. I'm
not too sure what's going on. Can you hear can
you hear me their Chief Minister?
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Yeah, ky, I do need to head into Parliament.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
I do apologize so sorry.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You were just saying though that there's plenty of platforms
or plenty of ways that Territorians can get hurt or
just the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Everybody, Katie. As you know, I make myself available, whether
it's through the media, local community groups, key stakeholder groups,
or party members.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Chief Minister, thank you for your time this morning. We
appreciate you moving the days around.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
And apologize for that frank connection just on the run
to get into Parliament.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
No worries, thank you,
Parliament does indeed kick off again today. So I know
we don't have a huge amount of time with the
Chief Minister, but we know that yesterday changes in parliament
to the IKAK with the NTS corruption watchdogs set to
soon be prevented from investigating minor misconduct, while journalist shield
laws have been strengthened. Not everybody agreed with what was
(00:21):
going on. Two MLAs did try to delay the new laws,
claiming that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruptions Office is currently
investigating some labor ministers and that changes would water down
the iqaq's powers. Now, the Independent member farrahlu and Robin
Lamley raise concerns before Parliament that some ministers may have
a conflict of interest in this matter. Now the Chief Minister,
(00:44):
Natasha Files joins me on the line. Good morning to
your Chief Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Good morning Katie, Good morning listeners, and I hope you're
feeling better.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Thank you. Now why were these changes needed to the
i CACK.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So the ICAC has been in place for a few
years here in the territory and as good practice with
any legislation, it's important to review its function. We had
a discussion paper, an exposure draft bill, and we then
made amendments to the Act around how it operates in
the territory.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
But so Robin Lanley's raised concerns and said that in
the House we have people that are being no doubt
investigated by the i caact ICAC, that should recuse themselves,
that should declare that they've got a conflict of interest.
Are there any MLAs currently being investigated by the IKAC
and would that mean that there is a.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Conflict, Okatie, when you're under investigation or you're involved in
an ICAC matter, you I serve noticed that you cannot
discuss that. But what I can say this bill there
was no conflict with any minister's government members or I
believe anyone in the Parliament. The bill was, as I said,
a discussion paper, an exposure draft, and it clarifies the
(01:56):
intention for the IKAC to investigate the matters of most
serious and systemic improper conduct and corruption. But Katie, to
give you an example of the changes just quickly, what
we clarified yesterday was that if you are involved in
an ICAC matter, but you are a low level you
are not found of any finding. You don't need to
(02:17):
be named unless you're an MLA, so we strengthen if
you're a member of the Legislative Assembly, I believe you
should have a higher level of scrutiny. But we've seen
reports where low levels and it's just inappropriate behavior has
seen people named and they've got that tarnish if you
google their name forever. So that's what the act change.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I get that, Like, I understand what you're saying with that,
and I think that that is fair enough.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
But the point that I understand.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Robin Lamley was trying to make is that if there
are conflicts of interest or are there conflicts of interest,
because essentially, if there was a member in the House
yesterday that could be involved in an investigation, but then
is voting on changes to do with the IKAK, is
that appropriate?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So, Katie, there is no conflicts of interest in the
legislative changes that were made yesterday, and if there is,
if there are any matters underway, and there may be
matters investigating other members of the House, Katie, But as
I said, this legislation did not create a conflict. I
believe for any member of the Parliament yesterday.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Are the icac's powers being watered down with these changes?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
No Katie, I believe this strengthens and I just gave
you one example where an MLA is held to a
high level of accountability, but fix up in terms of
that aspect around the people that are not found of
corruption or misconduct, but to get caught up in this.
We also, Katie, when someone has given a notice to
appear to the ikak, the legislation now requires the IQACK
(03:50):
could let that person know what it's about. We have
had feedback from submissions of people that went through the
ARCAC process where it caused great stress because they didn't
know what raw brush elements they were being asked to
go to the ikat for. So, as I said, the
act has been in place for a number of years,
it's good governance to review it. But I don't believe
it watered down any aspect.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I mean, from what I can gather, the concern here
is that essentially we've got politicians determining how exactly the
aykak is going to operate, when in actual fact, there
may be times when the Aykak is going to need
to investigate matters that do pertain to those politicians. So
can you see how people might feel as though those
lines are a bit blurred.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
So it was the Northern Charactor of Parliament that passed
the legislation initially to establish an independent Commissioner against corruption.
It is appropriate for the Parliament to make amendments to
the legislation, but it's based off Red Shanahan did a review,
a discussion paper, and an exposure draft skill so it's
not like it's being done these changes behind closed doors.
They've been very open in what the changes are strengthening.
(04:53):
For example, as you mentioned journalist protections, if they are
providing information around individuals.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
All right, I'm going to have to move along because
there is quite a bit that I want to cover
this morning, and I want.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
To talk alcohol.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Last week you tabled a three year review into the
Liquor Act in Parliament and said that you intend to
introduce legislation in the November sittings.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Now a very quick listener question.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
First, could these proposed changes mean that someone done for
low range drink driving would end up on the band
drinkers Register?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So, Katie, there was a report handed into looking at
the legislation that was introduced in twenty nineteen. The review
there was fifty five recommendations. We will now work with agencies,
but particularly police, around which recommendations will target problem drink is.
In terms of that actual recommendation for someone on a
low live, low level drink driving range absolutely unacceptable. But
(05:49):
as I said, I will work with police around what
they think will be effective, and I think that there
has been early indication from police that that is not
a priority. There's other priority areas will tackle alcohol.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Related harm, all right, So a huge actually just to
go back to that, So you're ruling that out.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
If you're a lowlan range drink driver, you're not going
to go on the bdr OK.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I don't want to make policy on the run, but
I don't believe that that recommendation targets the problem drinkers.
I do not find it acceptable at all for drink driving.
You know that alcohol as a factor in pedestrian and
vehicle accident is far too high, But at the same time,
for me, I'm not convinced that to priority.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
A huge point of contention in recent months has been
this two kilometer law when it comes to public drinking.
You and your government have been at pains to say
that this is still an offense, but the review outlines
clear as day that in Section one hundred and thirty
one hundred and seventy one two provides that if a
person contravenes the provision, the person may be searched under
(06:49):
Section two hundred and thirty six of the Liquor Act,
and the liquor may be seized and disposed of under
Section two hundred and forty three of the Liquor Act.
There is no penalty for the contravention of this provision,
which aligns with Recommendation seventy nine of the Royal Commission
into the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Northern Territory Police Foreign Emergency Service has raised concerns that
while they're empowered to conduct searches of persons for possible
contraventions of Section one hundred and seventy one, they do
not have the correlating power to identify the person that
they're searching or seizing alcohol from. Why have you not
(07:30):
been honest with territorians about.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
This, Katie. We've been every bit upfront with Territory.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Well you haven't though, because you've been saying that it's
you know that it's still an offense. But the reality
is all that can happen is that alcohol gets tipped out,
So Katie, it.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Is not legal. Is not permitted to drink within two kilometers.
If someone is drinking within two kilometers, there is a
range of steps that police can take. But Katie, in
terms of the recommendation around identification and third strengthening police powers,
we are very much committed to doing something in that
space and it's finding that balance where we target the
(08:07):
problem drink is. But we don't inadvertently have someone getting
potentially fine or facing offenses for having a beer when
they're at a boat ramp, for example. So it is
not permitted to drink within two kilometers. It is illegal
to drink within two kilometers.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
But literally all that can happen is that your alcohol
gets tipped out. The police can't even search somebody's well,
they can't even look at someone's license.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
So Katie, there they can if someone is committing another offense,
they can do that. There is a range of steps
they can take. But this is trying to find the balance.
But we take on board the feedback around them requesting
information around who that individual is and will work towards them.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
But you really did try to steer the public in
another direction here with this rule didn't.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
You, Katie, I disagree. It is not. It is against
the law to drink, and it's not just within two
kilometers of a license venue. It's around dal and Ala Springs,
Catherine Parmerston, TANet Creek, the waterfront for example, and declared
local government areas. There is exceptions, but Katie, it is
illegal to drink within two kilometers. We've been very upfront, but.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
We've been everybody's been saying right from the get go
when this discussion started. You know, if it is illegal,
why are there still people drinking publicly in those areas?
And I mean your own review really demonstrates why.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
So, Katie, alcohol is a space alcohol policy where we
need to continue to be agile. You put in place
one measure, you need to do further work on that
or work on other measures. And that's what we're doing.
We've released this report, we're having a discussion around the recommendations,
and we'll keep doing the work in this space. It's
not straightforward, all right.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
So with the recommendation in terms of police officers being
able to you know, being able to identify somebody, being
able to actually check their license to see whether they
have got any warrants, out for their arrest or anything
like that. Are you going to move forward and try
and introduce some legislation at the next parliamentary sittings?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
So, Katie, I've committed to doing legislation based on this review.
I think to me that is a very practical step.
We are going to see police change over to a
new IT system surpro in the coming weeks, which I
think will be excellent in terms of them having real
time information out on the beat. So I'll work with
the commissioner around how that would be enacted.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
So is practical?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Why didn't you go along with the oppositions legislation last week?
Speaker 2 (10:35):
So, Katie, that bill was introduced some time ago. Like
the fuel bill, they just leave them sitting. They brought
it back in simply to pay politics. I'm going to
work with the Police Commissioner and make sure we have
the correct laws in place, that we're not inadvertently doing
something that will create loops or gaps further down the process.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I mean, the police have actually said though in this report,
why they need it to happen. So wouldn't it be
a better thing to get it happening sooner rather than later.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I just outlined my concerns around their legislation, and I said,
when I cabled this report in the House, we would
be doing legislation, but rather than tabling the reports and
introducing legislation in the same sitting, give it the space
of just a few weeks so that we can make
sure that we hear feedback from the community, feedback from
those t stakeholders before that next trans is introduced.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Now, one of the other really interesting changes that I'd
noted when reading the document was that as part of
this part of the suggestions to address that public drinking
and associated anti social behavior, that the Liquor Act be
amended to empower the other appointed officers like transit officers,
public housing safety offices, park ranges and council ranges, and
(11:45):
contracted security officers with the authority to search individuals and
seize any unopened container that's believed to contain liquor. Is
this something that the government's looking at? I mean, is
it really the job of those kind official?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So, Katie, we need to find that balance between if
someone can be trained and have the skills and it's
safe for them to do that, would that work. At
the same time, I have had conversations and I don't
want to burble our Lord Mayor, but the Mayor said
he didn't think it would be appropriate for ranges. It's
a discussion point. The practicality of implementing it. How would
we do that is what's under consideration.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
All right.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So, I mean the counselor said that they feel that
it's going to be dangerous situation for their ranges.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So wouldn't you just rule that out?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
So, Katie, I've had feed that from some security organizations
that they would welcome that ability if their people could
be trained up in that. And for example, if someone
was doing the wrong thing and they could just tip
that alcohol out, would that be appropriate. That's what's being considered.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Is that going to be a safe move?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
I mean, even the police have said that it can
be quite a dangerous situation when you're approaching people and
tipping out their alcohol.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
That's what needs to be considered, Katie. We want to
make sure that everyone is safe and that we're not
inadvertently people in danger. So that is a suggestion, a
recommendation from this review. And as I said, there is
different points of view in the community. Can we find
a way to work that through potentially?
Speaker 3 (13:12):
All right? Another aspect.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
At this stage, it doesn't sound as though the government's
really going to implement this one, but I'll ask anyway.
During COVID nineteen we know that the Director introduced special
requirements for the sale of takeaway alcohol, including the requirement
for a person to prove that they've got a legitimate
residence to consume takeaway alcohol. The same measure has been
voluntarily applied in places like Perapp and Fanny Bay with
(13:36):
the Liquor accord. At this stage, is it something that
the government's going to look at to cater that as you.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Just outline, was bought in under an emergency provision. People
did feel authority self that was a useful tool. So again,
some of the liquor accords have been doing it. They
would like to see that across all the outlets to
stop that issue. So we're investigating how would it be
implemented ahead of any possible changes.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
So not ruling it out.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
No, Katie. I think that any tool that stops people
that are get caused harm with alcohol we must consider.
Remembering the majority of people do the right thing. They
just would like to have a drink after work or
with friends on the weekend. But it causes so much
anti social behavior of crime and harm in our community.
We should try and stop it from getting to those
that do the wrong thing.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
All I know you pressed for time because Parliament is
getting under way this morning, but there's a couple of
things I want to ask you about.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Firstly, worker safety.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
The union representing shop and retail workers has accused your
government of breaking its promise of a safety audit at
late night outlets which is committed which are committed to
of course, in the wake of the bottle shop worker
Decklan Lavity's death. Now seven months later, the SDA union's
calling for action with an audit only conducted at thirty
(14:53):
five businesses, why hasn't this gone further?
Speaker 2 (14:58):
So, Katie, it has gone further. The audits that did
have undertaken. Also, Work Safe Inspectors have undertaken a campaign
about providing information and guidance to like late night retail
venues and they've carried out eighty nine visits to relevant outlets.
So in terms of the audits, as you said, thirty
five are being conducted where we've engaged with the business owners.
(15:21):
The sea race concerns around some businesses might not be
keem to do that work, but the workers feel unsafe,
and that's where WorkSafe have also conducted those visits to
premises to ensure that they're as safe as possible.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
I mean, the calls were made after a service station
worker lost an eye after being assaulted recently in a
terrible attack. Even earlier this week, we saw a female
servo worker who was forced to hide under the counter
as people threw soft drinks at her before stealing cigarettes
and money from the till. Do you can see that
(15:57):
you're letting those workers down right now, Katy.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
That's disgusting behavior. It's unacceptable. How can we, through the
design of these shops make it safer, particularly when we
know it's higher risk late at night, and that's exactly
what those eighty nine visits to relevant retail outlets are about.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But how can we actually stop it as well by
stopping people engaging in this behavior in the first place, Katie.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
We work in that space as well with then know
that a multitude of factors that lead to it, but
we can't just have one solution. And in terms of
those late night retail venues, we will continue to work
with workers and businesses to make them as safe at.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
All, right, just a very quick one before we finish up.
The Northern Territory Labor Party not holding its annual conference
this year. The conference is well in the party's constitution
as I understand it, and happens every year bringing together
delegates from sub branches and trade unions to debate motions.
Let's go on to form your party platform. Why is
(16:56):
it not happening so.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Katie, they're not held every year. They are held regularly
I think by annually. But the party has made a
decision to focus on developing policy the work that we've
done in government ahead of the twenty twenty four election.
But we absolutely talk to our members right across the
territory on a regular basis and anyone that's seen to
join jump online.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Has it been canceled because the left faction don't agree
with your moves on fracking and middle arm.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
No, Katie. I meet with the left faction regularly, engaged
with the unions and I don't feel it that reason.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
So you're not copying flack because of those decisions around fracking.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
O Katie. I caught flack every day from everybody, but
I can assure you it's nothing to do without the
reason why the conference. As I said, it's around that
policy work. We've done a huge amount in government. There's
a huge amount more to do.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Is it appropriate, though, to go into an election without
having that conference or without hearing the rank and file
of the party.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So, Katie, we will continue to work with the rank
and file. They meet regularly in their branchers and will
continue to work with them.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
I guess there'll be people listening this morning, Chief Minister, thinking,
if you're not even prepared to listen to the Labor Party,
how can they expect that you're going to listen to them?
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Katie, There's plenty of structures within the Labor Party that
allow for.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
We seem to have lost the Chief Minister there. I'm
not too sure what's going on. Can you hear can
you hear me their Chief Minister?
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Yeah, ky, I do need to head into Parliament.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
I do apologize so sorry.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You were just saying though that there's plenty of platforms
or plenty of ways that Territorians can get hurt or
just the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Everybody, Katie. As you know, I make myself available, whether
it's through the media, local community groups, key stakeholder groups,
or party members.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Chief Minister, thank you for your time this morning. We
appreciate you moving the days around.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
And apologize for that frank connection just on the run
to get into Parliament.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
No worries, thank you,
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.