The Week That Was – 23rd June 2023

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's time for the week that was.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
And joining us in the studio this morning, Billy and
the member for Namajira and representing the CLP.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Good morning to you.

Speaker 3 (00:09):
Katie, and good morning to everybody here in Darwen.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Great to have you in the studios. Oh hang on,
I'm going to yeahs a dweller studio and well Matt
Cunningham my only other panelists this morning from the Darwin region.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Good morning to you or from Darwin. Good morning.

Speaker 4 (00:25):
I'm going to have to take that un noticed, Katie,
it's confidential, confidential.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning, that's on fire already, Geezy.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Question for the record.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Good morning to you and English people from well the
seat of Goida, the Independent member for Gorda, and we've
got Daryan Young who is indeed Labour's member for Daily.

Speaker 5 (00:51):
Good morning to you, Good morning and good morning to
our Bush members and the rural area as well well.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
The r is so rural and right beyond Sarah Maline
is being represent it today.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
Isn't it. The towns are out numbered.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
We are look out, look at and I tell you what,
it has been a very interesting couple of weeks. We
know that the Northern Territory parliament past Budget twenty twenty three.
Late yesterday, the Northern Territory Government reckons Budget twenty twenty three,
broadens our investments in new industries and jocks, addresses cost
of living pressures, strengthens essential services, tackles complex social challenges,

(01:26):
and protects our great Territory lifestyle. But the budget estimates
process has uncovered some very interesting facts and figures well,
some that we couldn't quite get to the bottom of
as well, and plenty of questions answered, but quite a
few unanswered. In fact, nearly two hundred questions I believe
have been taken on notice.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
It's been an interesting time, hasn't that?

Speaker 3 (01:48):
It certainly has, Katie.

Speaker 6 (01:49):
It's been been a big couple of weeks and some
pretty big holes found in some of the figures that
Labor have put forward in this year's budget, particularly around
the growth of the territory.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
The treasurers said that to.

Speaker 6 (02:03):
Get the economic growth that we need, we need to
get to a population of three hundred thousand people, and
to get there we know that we needed two point
two percent growth in our population every year, but the
forecast for this year's.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Point four percent, and then onwards it's only one percent.

Speaker 6 (02:19):
So to reach those figures, to reach that forty billion
dollar economy that Labor keeps speaking about, we need to
hit those population numbers. And the figures don't bear that out,
they actually don't match it. So how do we get
to that forty billion dollar economy? But the bigger thing too,
is that Labor refused to acknowledge that the impact the

(02:39):
crime is having on business and our economy right across
the territory. They couldn't even come up with effectively numbers
to say that they've actually considered what the effect crime
is having on our economy, and that was really quite.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Damning, a big, glaring emission from Labor.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
This week, it's certainly been like it's been a very
interesting week and the lots of topics I think that
have been of great interest to our listeners. So I
do just want to take you across to the topic
that I think has dominated well quite some time, really
not only just this week, but over the last few
weeks and indeed the last couple of months, I think

(03:16):
it's safe to say, and that is the police commissioner,
the former police commissioner's payout. So plenty of questions have
been asked about that payout to former Police Commissioner Jamie Chalker.
Now this is what the Chief Minister had to say
on the show on Monday.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
Take a listen.

Speaker 7 (03:30):
In terms of the budget, I can absolutely assure your
listeners it is not coming from our frontline police resources
within our agency.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Is it coming from them?

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Because the Treasurer firmly said that it is coming from
the police budget.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
So where's it coming from?

Speaker 7 (03:43):
So, as I was about to say, within our agencies,
they have a human resources allocation for budget, so that's
for any payouts that they might need to make, any
work safe issues, those types of things.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
So police have an allocation for that. It comes from that.

Speaker 7 (03:58):
But if police go over that budget this year, I
will absolutely make sure that they get a Treasurer's advance
for the difference. So some agents, so you're prepared to
top it up absolutely because this is not coming from
our frontline police resources, Katie and I want to make
sure that our police, who are extremely hard working, know
that and your listeners know that. So there's that hr
budget component. Some agencies go under some years, some years

(04:21):
they go over. But I will absolutely make sure this
confidential matter and I can't speak to it. Or speak
to the amount. I do know the amount, Katie, but
I cannot speak to that. But I will make sure
not because Katie, that was a confidential matter that was
settled with the courts.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
But the fact is it's taxpayers dollars. So it is
money that Territorians are paying their taxes to pay out.
And it was bungled. This was bungled by your government
in terms of ending his contract, Katie.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
A process was followed.

Speaker 7 (04:52):
It is a matter for the courts and I cannot
say any more from that.

Speaker 8 (04:54):
I would go the way the exit of the past
police Commission has been handled or manag It has been
just appalling. If it was if it was done as
it has been done in a private firm, then heads
would have rolled by now. I mean the man had
his contract come May. They had to decide whether the
contract was going to be renewed, and with some other

(05:15):
heads of departments, and they could have just said no,
we're not going to renew your contract. He could have
worked out till the end of the year and he
just could have gone. But no, they sent him a
letter which wasn't checked legally. And it appears that no
one has written this letter because I heard the Police minister.
I was there and she said, no, it didn't come
out of my office. So who's office did that letter
come out of? And it also they put this is why,

(05:37):
this is why you need lawyers, because they put things
in that letter which were factually incorrect. Now I've been
told that from a very high authority within police.

Speaker 9 (05:46):
From a high authority. It came out in court.

Speaker 4 (05:48):
It said in the letter that Jamie Chalker had asked
for the Australian Defense Force to come and help deal
with the crime issue in Alice Springs and that was
one of the reasons that you know, he was being
you know, well, this is one of the reasons that
the government was using to say that they wanted to
get rid of him.

Speaker 9 (06:04):
Now, Jamie Chalker, at the same time he's.

Speaker 4 (06:07):
Being accused of doing this, is on the record, on
the public record, speaking on ABC Radio saying the last
thing we want is the Australian Defense Force to come in.
The last thing we want is people, you know, in
army uniforms running around in Ala Springs with guns trying
to round people up. So how on earth did that
information get into that letter? And the details of that
letter were read out by Arthur Moses, his lawyer in court.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
So that's what I'm saying. That letter came out of
a minister's office.

Speaker 8 (06:32):
Yeah, they didn't get some listed general's advice, I'm told,
and more fool them. So where did that letter actually come?
That went to Jamie Chalker? And of course once he
got the letter, he would have gone straight to his lawyers,
and then the ship fight started.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
And that's the thing, and unfortunately it is something that
continues to raise John money. That's exactly right, and I
do think that the Chief Minister did herself a favor
on Monday by actually just being honest and saying that yes,
she does know how much it is, but there is
a confidentiality clause so she's not able to outline that.
But the fact is it is taxpayers dollars. People want
to know how much it was, but they also, you know,

(07:05):
I want to know why they're footing the bill for
something that they feel as though has been bungled. But
what we have learned, what was revealed is that the
legal fees paid by the Northern Territory government were almost
seventeen thousand dollars sixteen thousand, eight hundred and seventy three
according to the ABC.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
Now that's obviously not the payout. That's the legal fees
I mean for anti government. Yeah, that's my understanding.

Speaker 4 (07:28):
So look at the external legal fees. A doesn't wages,
the costs the wages of people working for the SFNT.

Speaker 6 (07:38):
And I have absolutely no doubt the Northern Territory government
retains some fairly high profile and powerful lawyers to represent them,
considering this was going to go to the Supreme Court
and the Police Minister and the Chief Minister we're going
to be dragged in front of the Supreme Court to
testify in this.

Speaker 3 (07:54):
So I don't think.

Speaker 6 (07:55):
The entire cost of the legal fees has probably come
out yet. I think there's going to be some more
dollars in there's some way, because a couple of phone
calls and a couple of emails to some of these
guys racks up ten thousand bucks pretty quick.

Speaker 5 (08:06):
I think it's like a confidential matter with in terms
of the seizing the Police Commissioner's contract, and that's the
matter at the end of the day. It's how a
lot of negotiations work when you see contracts for people
at that level of government, and we should leave it

(08:28):
at that as well.

Speaker 3 (08:28):
It's now settled. We're moving on.

Speaker 5 (08:30):
We're working with looking at getting a new police commissioner,
so that process is in place at the moment and
we're looking forward to moving on and working with our police.

Speaker 4 (08:40):
What was also intriguing Katie is that the ministers, when
they're in estimates, are refusing to answer some of these
questions around the costs. And then a story comes out
via a government spokesman from the fifth floor that says, oh,
this is what the legal costs were, and also includes
a line saying, you know, the ABC understands that the

(09:00):
payout was less than a million dollars. You know, how
can you have a situation where the police minister's up
there saying she doesn't know how much the payout is.

Speaker 9 (09:10):
Somebody's got but someone on the fifth floor knows. Someone
should know. Sh shouldn't the ministers know rather than the
advisors know.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, someone has.

Speaker 8 (09:17):
To know because someone has approved money going from a
government bank into mister Talker's bank.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Now someone must.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
I do just want to point out that Durani Keysier
sharing a monkro phone.

Speaker 1 (09:27):
So if you're wondering what.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
Now, look, it's you know, obviously that's one of the
interesting things or one of the interesting things that has
unfolded throughout the week. But I'm keen to hear from
all of you that have been keeping a close eye
on estimates what has been one of the you know,
one of the more interesting facts and different bits of
information that have flown through. I mean, I want to
talk about some of the public housing numbers a little
later on, but I guess for me, I found it

(09:52):
very fascinating. As you've just touched on, Matt, how you
know a lot of these questions have really gone unanswered.
You know, there's been very serious questions that have been asked,
and this is the opportunity for the opposition and the
Independence to indeed put those questions to the government and
try their best to get some answers to questions that
quite frankly, you're not able to get throughout the years.

(10:12):
So I found that all very fascinating. I know that
Robin Lambley had said, you know throughout some of the questioning,
is it normal practice that one part of government doesn't
know what the other part of government is doing? Or
is this just a smoke screen and you don't really
want us to know what's going on.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
And I tell you as a viewer, that's a bit
how it fell.

Speaker 6 (10:31):
It was quite evident during the process Cadde, a lot
of ministers didn't want to answer questions. Look, we know
that they know the answer those and the experts were
there in the room with them who knew those answers.
I just didn't want those answers to come out during
the estimate.

Speaker 3 (10:44):
Answers though they were.

Speaker 5 (10:45):
The questions were answered just because questions because of the question,
and ministers question the question.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
So what I want to give those answers at the time.

Speaker 6 (10:56):
It doesn't mean to have an answer, and you'll get
your chance to have a bit of a say in
this can mate. So the ministers knew the answers to
those questions, they chose not to answer them because at
the time that might have not looked great for them
in the media. So we're going to have to wait
now for thirty days and those answers will come out
with a heap of other answers as well, and.

Speaker 3 (11:12):
It will all be one big pile. They'll all sort
of get lost in that whole thing.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
Time fascinating though, is that what it then becomes is
like at the moment, there is quite a bit of info,
you know, to get through, so the media is trying
to cover what they can and you try to get
that information. But now in thirty days there's going to
be more stories come out, so's it's sort of one
of those situations where.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
You're delaying me inevitable in a lot of ways.

Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yeah, look, it was.

Speaker 6 (11:36):
It was one of the worst estimates I think I've seen, Katie,
for ministers dodging questions. I said, I've been in four now,
this is probably the worst I've seen. And I've been
on the other side too, Katie, one of those public
servants sitting back in the office waiting for that phone
call to provide those instant answers for ministers who are
sitting in estimate.

Speaker 5 (11:53):
Yeah, and sometimes you know, like I said, just because
the answer you get doesn't mean ministers haven't answered the
question and answer, Well, there is answers that ministers give,
and like you said, there's some questions that get put
on notice and you'll get those answers for those in
thirty days. We want to ensure that ministers do give
the right answers, and that's sometimes why they take them

(12:14):
on notice. Otherwise we'll be giving up false information. So
it's important that we are transparent and that's why those
questions are unnoticed.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
Do reckon easier. I've sat on lots of estimate committees.

Speaker 8 (12:30):
There were more questions taken on notice than I think
ever before, but there were I mean, the answers are there.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
I know they're there.

Speaker 8 (12:37):
Yeah, Having saturdaysance as the speaker, there's a volume of
information that's at your disposal on every possible thing. Now
there's lots of the government knows the kind of questions
the opposition is going to ask. They just do you
know from publicity from issues like Howard Springs, that's a
given X Chalker ex Commission, Please, that's a given. So
the information is there across the departments. But they're embarking,

(12:59):
obviously on a strategy, as the government has done it
many times, is to not give out information and to
shut down scrutiny. They shut down the scrutiny committees. They
don't want select committees to look at key issues in
the community or within know in regards to crime and police.
So again it's I think anyway, it's about avoiding close scrutiny,
and quite honestly, I mean a few people I've spoken

(13:20):
to that sort of know about these things.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
They sense a bloody waste of time. You know that says, seriously,
what do you actually hope to achieve as a collective?

Speaker 8 (13:28):
We not forget the politics about it, but did we
actually find anything?

Speaker 1 (13:32):
Because the government well, which is incredibly disappointing. Really what
you think about it? You know the facts.

Speaker 8 (13:36):
I want to know how many times police have gone
to our school because of an incident, not the police auxiliaries,
because it's part of obviously my campaign to show that
we need police back in the schools, school based constables,
not auxiliaries. So it's nothing for me personally to gain,
it's for my community to gain and for the school community.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
I want to be easier.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
I reckon right there, you've actually hit the nail on
the head. I think happens so often in politics, whether
you're part of the Labor Party, whether you're part of
the COLP, whether you're an independent is so often people
get caught up in who their opposition is and what
the opposition is asking them, and not liking the question
that their opposition is asking them, and forgetting about the
fact that that questions come from the community. And that

(14:19):
they're questions that the community actually want answered exactly.

Speaker 8 (14:22):
And now we all know the trouble that went on
in Howard Springs. Forget the you know, whether they should
state at Howard Springs or Fostery's Pavilion as the government
tried to make out, you know myself and the opposition
being mean because we wanted to put them in Fosky's pavilion.
Excuse me, people from Daily River going to Fosky's pavilion
every time it floods. Nothing wrong with Fosky's pavilion, for example,

(14:42):
but people want to know because they some people surprisingly
have a genuine interest in wanting to find out how
government is doing what they're doing and why are they
doing it better in the minds of some people.

Speaker 5 (14:52):
Yeah, and to be fair, at those times with the
floods with Daily River, but we didn't have the setup
of Howard Springs and the COVID facility. So now that
we we have that in place, when there are natural
disasters and emergencies, we should be able to cater for everyone.
It doesn't matter where you come from, whether you come
from a Bush election at well, no, not everyone trusted,
and that's not fair to say, most people did the

(15:13):
right thing, and it was a very small cohort of people, unfortunately,
and that's what has happened, and that's the facts.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
Well, and it was unfortunate though even on that, you like,
at the start, the Chief Minister had said it was
where in tear. I asked her again on Monday whether
she still believed that it was we're in tear out there,
and she said, no, I do not think that it is.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
You know, after saying that it happened.

Speaker 6 (15:33):
In prastructure, Minister said during instruments that it was were
in tear. So calling a million dollars worth of damage
where in tear, like broken windows, is like the occasional
broken window, Yeah, I can go where that.

Speaker 3 (15:45):
Is where in tear, But hundreds and hundreds of.

Speaker 6 (15:48):
Broken windows specifically blocked up plumbing maliciously blocked up.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
That's not where and tear.

Speaker 6 (15:54):
There was all these things that happened that we that
were asking about that we wanted the answers.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
So we need to.

Speaker 5 (15:59):
Go back to you know, when when those questions were
first ask So I was still doing those assessments on
the Howard Springs facility as well, So you need to
get the overall pictures because true.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
Fact, it is funny though, because a lot of people
out there, you know, listening to this show. A lot
of people had contacted us and said, Katie, there's extensive
damage out there, but it didn't seem as though the
government wanted to.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Hear that at the time. I made of mine wrote
an article on the weekend about how.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
Peter Betty is a little bit more used to be
a little bit more honest in these situations. Matt Cunningham,
you penning a piece for the Northern Territory News on
the weekend, really saying that, you know, sometimes I think
it's a situation where you do the wrong thing, you
just got all when you've.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
Maybe got it wrong, just front up and say.

Speaker 6 (16:41):
Just fress up, just fess up, you mess up, sticking up,
screwed up mistake.

Speaker 4 (16:47):
In the case in the case of how it springs,
I don't think you could blame the government for what happened.

Speaker 9 (16:51):
I mean, in which.

Speaker 4 (16:53):
Case you should just go out there and say, look,
there are as disart simulated. There's a small number of
people who did the wrong. It caused some damage and
that won't be tolerate the full stop into story you know.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
And had been said right at the start, it would have.

Speaker 4 (17:06):
Saved I think the problem was there was the wear
and tear comments that I'm sure the Chief Ministry in
hindsight probably would like to have her time again on that.
But then you know, you have the Deputy Chief Minister
come out and say, no, it's not where and tear,
it's it's you know, serious damage.

Speaker 9 (17:20):
And then the Chief Minister went back to wear and
tear again.

Speaker 1 (17:23):
Just so something that on the same page.

Speaker 4 (17:27):
Like we're stupid when you don't do that. I use
the example on the weekend of the shade structure. I mean,
you know, why, why on Earth, five years down the
track has someone from the government not stood up and said, yet.

Speaker 9 (17:40):
We got it wrong, we planted the wrong vine. We're
pulling that one out, put the right one in.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
The other day. Matt I had to wear a hat.
Sol didn't get some.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Knew you still did.

Speaker 3 (17:50):
Bill.

Speaker 8 (17:52):
I've been saying four years, four years, it's the wrong
it's the wrong plant. That we digress from there. But
I think one of the symptomatic of how this government operates,
and perhaps the CLP when they were in government did
the same. Perhaps it's just the government there. They won't
admit when there's a problem. They didn't admit openly and
frankly when there was a serious problem in Dalla Springs.

(18:14):
There is a problem. There was a problem with Howard Springs.
It got wrecked, albeit by a certain number of people.
If the government knows the certain number of people only
did the damage and not the bulk of the people,
well it shouldn't be too hard for police to go
and talk to them and get information and perhaps charge them,
because you can't tell me those people didn't come in
and stood at the front gate and the authority said
go find a room. They would have in all allocated rooms.

(18:36):
They would have all had names attached to rooms. So
it can't be that hard to find the perpetrators of
wrecking every window, every far extinguisher, blocking up the pirming,
trashing all the mattresses, breaking all the chairs, and leaving
litter out.

Speaker 4 (18:48):
And the victims in this situation are the other people
who are in there.

Speaker 9 (18:52):
Springs, you know, and they're the people who well.

Speaker 8 (18:55):
It's academic whether it's going to be used again, because
the defense is going to take it over.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
So perhaps they might have to go back to Foski.

Speaker 9 (19:00):
She's so right.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Apparently to run any word on the street, that's the
word on the roads in the rural area, couldn't confirm.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
We are going to take a very short break.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three
sixty eighties the week that was.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
You are listening to the week that was.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
And I do want to speak about a very serious
conversation that we'd had earlier in the week with Samara Lavity,
the grieving mother of slain bottle shop worker Declan Lavity.
She slammed Natasha Philes on social media, saying that she'd
minimized and downplayed her son's death during Monday's estimates hearings. Now,
it was a scathing a scathing post aimed at the

(19:43):
Chief Minister. We spoke to Samara Laberty earlier in the
week and it was pretty heartbreaking stuff. I mean, she
is clearly a mum who's absolutely devastated. She wants to
see some serious change when it comes to bail, and
she wants to make sure that you know that people
who are you know, have have committed a serious offense,

(20:05):
a serious violent offense and not able to get bail. Now,
I did interview the Chief minister on Tuesday morning it
was actually not Monday, Tuesday morning this week and spoke
to her about Samara's post, and you know, she had
said that they are acting with urgency. She said that,
you know what I can say is that police decide
who gets bail. Now, that in itself caused some issues

(20:26):
with those comments, which she's later apologized to the police for,
but she had said that police are best plays because
they're highly trained, they understand the circumstances, and they can
restrict bail to anyone that they believe will be a
threat to our community.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
So I guess where we.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
Sit right now is we are in a situation where,
you know where we have got quite a few people
in the community who really do feel as though there
needs to be some more urgent and stronger action taken
as a result of what we have seen over the
last few months. And like I said, it was heartbreaking

(21:01):
to speak to Samara Labaty. She also had told us
and I know that there'd been some discussion about this
on social media. But she did also reveal that when
she had arrived in Darwen the day after she arrived
in Darwin after her son had passed away, that she
allegedly had a rock thrown at her, you know, when
she got out to go and do some grocery shopping
in a car park, and you know, it was actually, like,

(21:25):
it's pretty it was really heartbreaking to talk to her
and think that, you know, what her view of the
Northern Territory must be as a result of everything that
has gone on.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
And she did say that she's really.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
Grateful for the support that she's received from the community
and that there's so many wonderful Territorians out there.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
But she was like, it was tough to listen to.

Speaker 8 (21:45):
It's all a lot of it's about leadership. You know,
you've got to lead from the front.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Now.

Speaker 8 (21:50):
I listened to something to you know, I read the
comments that the mother had put on social media, and.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
She wants to make a difference.

Speaker 8 (21:59):
She wants to make a difference so that no other
family goes through what she's currently going through and will
go through till end of her time and her the
father's time as well. So she wants to make a difference.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's
what should be encouraged and she will keep She sounds
a determined woman and she's going to keep at the
government and others to effect change such that it doesn't

(22:21):
happen to anyone else's family. Now best I can understand,
I remember the bail laws and I listened to Minister
Peate talk about when the question was, you know, how
do you define it? Was it a sharp weapon or
a knife or whatever? And you know, I said this
at the time, there's three categories. There's prohibitive weapons, naughty
bad ones shouldn't have them. There's control weapons, which you
can have like cattle progs, like bow and arrows, that

(22:41):
kind of stuff. And then there's offensive weapons. And the
government changed to the first two, but they didn't put
any changes into the third one. Now, offensive weapon is
anything that is used to create harm star pickers, jemi bars, knives, scissors, whatever,
and they refuse to put changes into that section of
the Weapons control at Now the question is why.

Speaker 6 (23:03):
We bought those amendbers forward CYSA to bring offensive weapons
in as part of that ballery form.

Speaker 3 (23:09):
And Labor, and Labor didn't want to do it.

Speaker 6 (23:12):
And there's so many things that form those offensive weapons,
and we see those used across our communities all the
time to cause harm to people, and it was a
bit of a no brainer to bring those offensive weapons
into that legislation to provide that protection and that suurery
to our community that people who use those weapons will
be treated by the law as the law sees fit.

(23:34):
But that doesn't sit there now. And like the stuff
that Declan's mum, that was pretty horroring listening to that interview.
And she wants to see some change and the only
people who can make that change of the government. We've
tried to bring that change forward a number of times
in our parliament. We get shouted down. It's up to
the government, it's up to labor to make those changes effectively,

(23:54):
because she wants to make sure the declon's death is
not that's some actual, real change comes out of that,
and change that the community can see and keep our
community safer.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
Now, Duran, I know that the Northern Territory government is
currently undertaking that bail review. The Chief Minister I believed
through the week. Matt, you may be able to tell
me did say that would be made public. How far
off are we, you know, from from seeing that review
and knowing what's going to change. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (24:26):
Look, firstly, my heart goes out to Samara labrity for
losing her son. You know, no one wants to see that,
and you know, we're all elected members and we're here
to ensure that, you know, we better our communities. So
it's a devastating thing for any parent to go through

(24:46):
and her family as well. But we have made some
changes to the Bail Legislation and Weapons Act and we're
currently reviewing that and that's a process at the moment,
and that sits with cabinet. I don't sit in cabinet,
so you know, like Kesier, like Bill Yarn, I sit
outside of cabinet, and that they're currently revering that right now.

(25:08):
But we have strengthened some of those laws around edged
weapons knives, for example, to ensure that people don't get
bail if they commit those crimes. And we'll always have
to continue to review this to ensure the safety of
the community.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Look, it's you know, there's no other way to put it.
It is absolutely devastating. And I guess at this point
in time, we are in a situation where it is
a wait and see exactly what the government comes out
with and how extensive those changes may or may not
be at this point in time, and I think there
was governors here, they're not policy strategy.

Speaker 6 (25:45):
Yeah, there was the whole media like stepping out knife crime.
That announcement was made months ago and like were months
in and then the Attorney General during estrumate said well,
we're going to be looking at a policy or a
practice reminder state to bring into the Northern Territory, possibly
off from.

Speaker 3 (26:01):
Queensland in August. Yeah, so how many months down the
road are we.

Speaker 6 (26:07):
From the government making that announcement we're going to stamp
out in ife crime and we still haven't seen a
great deal.

Speaker 1 (26:12):
And look, you know that's the question that a lot
of people are asking.

Speaker 8 (26:14):
Really and Minister Chancey Pate was here on Friday before
last whatever and yes, the government, as I understand it, well,
he said, they were looking at the Scotland experience, which
is probably one of the best in the world to
look at the worst because they had a terrible situation.
But then they implement a change and parts of England
and other places you know, or even Queensland in to
state what they've done. So I think they've just got
to get on with it.

Speaker 1 (26:35):
I mean I get it.

Speaker 8 (26:36):
And in sympathy and fairness to the government, sometimes things
do take time. You've got to talk to people, you've
got to research, you've got to write, but just get
on give us some actual definite time.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Thing is, you know, the government's been drag kicking and
screaming on a few different things throughout this year, and
one of those is obviously the alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. Now,
just to sort of pivot a little bit here, we
know that the Alla Springs are salt data, well it.

Speaker 1 (26:59):
Has been released.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Well some of that information has been released, and you've
got the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress where due to catch
up with doctor John buff Woffer after ten o'clock this
morning about some of this data and what it's revealed
in terms of those alcohol restrictions. Now, the reason, you know,
I'm sort of pivoting this way is is the government
sort of getting dragged, kicking and screaming to make some

(27:21):
of these changes. It's something that they certainly had to
be dragged, kicking and screaming on earlier this year in
Alice Springs. Having a look at some of what has
come out, you know, the DV assaults are down thirty
seven percent. All assaults are down thirty five percent, property
offenses down twenty five percent.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
It's pretty astronomical to think.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
That, you know, to think that they had to be dragged,
kicking and screaming on this one.

Speaker 4 (27:46):
Well, it sort of goes back to the point we
were talking about before, Katie, about governments needing to admit
when they get something wrong. Now, you know this all
blew up in January at a national level, but we
were talking to people here for months. You know. I
had Robin Lamley in my studio would have been last October,
I reckon so talking for fifteen minutes about the disastrous

(28:08):
impact of lifting those alcohol restrictions in Alice, Springstown camps,
Matt Patterson, others. I mean Robin got up and screen
blue murder about it. In the Parliament. You know, it
would have been last September.

Speaker 6 (28:20):
We were talking about it in during before the invene,
saying if you do this, if you remove these restrictions,
these are the impact it's going to have a hat hand.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
But it wasn't just us, it was everybody.

Speaker 9 (28:29):
There was across the goverment.

Speaker 8 (28:30):
A cople of government had a paper out I think
it was from the Prime Minister and Cabinet kind of
department saying, empty government, you need to get prepared when
this sunset clause comes in.

Speaker 1 (28:39):
So it was everyone was saying.

Speaker 9 (28:40):
Man, and it was it wasn't even you know, a
left versus right thing.

Speaker 4 (28:43):
You had the left leaning NGOs and you had the
Hotels Association all in agreeance.

Speaker 9 (28:50):
This is a disaster that is about to happen.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
Don't do it. I think happened too.

Speaker 5 (28:55):
This is being politicized, affair bit and putting it back
on our government that this was a federal legislation through
the intervention and that sun set clause came in and
they're just trying to wipe their hands clear of it.
We know that Scott Morrison was in at the time
and he didn't want to work with us on this.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
So I agree with what Duran's saying that the federal
coalition government shares equal responsibility for this decision. And I've
seen some of the letters, and I've seen some of
the letters interpreted in odd ways. You know, there is
a letter from Ken Wyatt to the anti government back
in March or April of last year where he's saying,

(29:33):
go for your life, you.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
Know, to make the decision of what they want to do.

Speaker 9 (29:38):
Yes, absolutely, absolutely don't think you call.

Speaker 5 (29:40):
The federal government out on this bill, your own party,
of the Liberal Party in Canberra, you're just coming back
to us and that's not fair.

Speaker 3 (29:46):
So you need to be honest.

Speaker 6 (29:48):
Gave the responsibility of the Northern Territory government, which is great.
We want the ability to make our own decisions here
in a territory I should be shared decision making.

Speaker 8 (29:58):
I can recall very vividly the Chancy Pak saying we're
not having race based policies. That's exactly right, We're not
having that. These people and these Aboriginal people in this
camp can't drink and these people can drink racist rubbish.
And then minute there's mister Pike and Natasha Files the
Chief Minister, standing next to mister Albers, saying we're going
to do it.

Speaker 4 (30:18):
I interviewed the Chief Minister literally that day, three hours
before that press conference, in a live interview, and she
was saying the same thing, we are not going to
have race based policies. We are not going to overturn
this meeting with the Prime Minister. Next minute and this thing,
you know, like but but it was obvious, you know,
it was obvious it needed to change the statistics if

(30:40):
you look, you're talking about these status now. But we've
seen these statistics and we reported on this a month
or two ago when you look at the hospital admission data,
and it is obvious and immediate that come July when
those restrictions all of a sudden and.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Presentations for now just a couple of weeks away from July.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
So what is going to happen here?

Speaker 2 (31:03):
You know, are we going to see a situation where
these restrictions are continued on or are they going to
be lifted?

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Durant?

Speaker 2 (31:09):
You know, I know that you're not part of of
the cabinet, but what are you thinking here?

Speaker 1 (31:13):
I mean, you must be able.

Speaker 2 (31:14):
To see yourself the way that you know, the way
that things are rolling out the people of Alice Springs
saying that those limitations on certain days are having a
positive impact.

Speaker 5 (31:23):
Yeah, clearly they're having a positive impact. But I think
we need to go back to that we need needs
based funding up here, and this is exposed exactly why
we need that funding.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
That since before the budget, you know, and that's how
much money has actually been earmarked for Alice Springs as well,
Like it's an enormous amount of money for Alice Springs.

Speaker 5 (31:43):
It is an enormous amount of money, but it's exactly
what we need for Alice Springs because it shows that
that needs based funding is now working. We've got a
reduction in crime, we've got a reduction in break in,
so we've got a reduction in domestic violence and we've
put the money exactly where it's needed.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Do you reckon that we're seeing those reductions as a
result all that needs based funding and as a result
of those programs being in place rather than the alcohol
restrictions being in place.

Speaker 5 (32:07):
Well, it's a combination of all, isn't it. So you
need to be able to transition out of that as well.
So we're currently working with communities on alcohol management plans
as well. Individual communities. I know, for example, Belle Ewen
are starting that work in my electorate. So it's about
working with the communities and what they want for their

(32:30):
community to be able to transition out of that.

Speaker 6 (32:33):
Look, the Prime Minister came Bell Springs back in January
and effectively the Chief Minister and Attorney General drag kicking
and screaming to make those changes.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
And then before.

Speaker 9 (32:49):
Why did it take the.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
Three years before they weren't doing it.

Speaker 6 (32:53):
And effect with other Prime ministers said like this is
a criss we need to take action now. Made the
announcement about the funding and that was back in January.

Speaker 3 (33:00):
Here we are, we're sitting.

Speaker 6 (33:01):
In just about July, and there was a promise to
two hundred and fifty million. Okay, it's down to what
is one hundred and sixty five and some it's going
to be quarantine and put aside for.

Speaker 3 (33:10):
Hopefully the people out of the bush should they need it.
And definitely there hasn't been any funding yet to run
like thet's gone down because it's back in place.

Speaker 6 (33:23):
And I've seen those figures from the People's Action against
Alcohol coalition in our springs and you see the numbers
leading into July last year and they're similar to the
years before, or I think they gave back nearly five
or six years. Then you see that spike between July
and January, and that spike is unbelievable, the amount of harm.

Speaker 3 (33:44):
And issues that happened in that six months.

Speaker 6 (33:46):
And then okay, the restrictions were brought back in effectively
it's stronger futures by another name. We're introduced in January,
and we've seen those numbers drop back down to what
they were prior to that.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
And what are people saying in Alice, So they saying
that they want those restrictions to stay in place. There
are people saying that they want them lifted.

Speaker 3 (34:03):
There's some mixed feelings there, Katie.

Speaker 6 (34:05):
Look, I think people like the restrictions for the fact
that it has taken those issues away and we've seen
a significant reduction in some of those harm related issues
and everyone's being able to sort of breathe a little
bit easier. We're starting to see that stuff increase the
game that the big issue that people find is the
Mondays and Tuesdays being alcohol free days. I think a

(34:27):
lot of people I've spoken to would be happy to
see the single sale, like you can only get just
per day continue. They're okay with the restrictions ours, but
the Mondays and Tuesdays the people I've spoken I would
like to see those go. Now there's all these measures
put in plays really really quickly. It's very hard to
determine which ones are having the biggest effect. But I

(34:48):
suppose the Mondays and Tuesdays are also having an effect
on our tourism. There's falls and against for that, and
I get that, and I understand it. But if you're
a tourist poking through our springs you want to grab
your bottle of wine as you travel through, well, bugger,
you can't do it on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Speaker 5 (35:03):
BECA.

Speaker 3 (35:03):
It's a bit of an inconvenience.

Speaker 6 (35:05):
But we've got to have a look at how all
those measures have played out.

Speaker 3 (35:09):
What's working and what's not.

Speaker 6 (35:10):
The BDR data is showing that sales are now back
to pre restriction levels.

Speaker 4 (35:16):
I'm going to verbally you hear kesy, but I reckon
that the smartest idea I heard throughout that whole debate.

Speaker 8 (35:21):
It was the permits. Yes, no permit system. It's about prevention.
Everything's always about prevented before the incident or accident occurs. Now,
what I suggested was that it's not it's like the BDR.
It would even be similar to the BDR. And you know,
I haven't gone through all the logistics or mechanics of it.
But unless you live in that town or location and
can produce a driver's license that says you live on

(35:42):
Larapintra or wherever, you can't buy booze.

Speaker 5 (35:45):
Right.

Speaker 6 (35:45):
That was happening during COVID keys. I had that system
in place and a lot of areas. So if you if
you come from and this was specifically down in a
few areas, if you come into town you couldn't buy alcohol,
well they.

Speaker 8 (35:55):
Should think about it seriously because it would solve a
lot of problems, like when the naughty people came in
from Dargaragou as opposed to all the normal good ones,
if they went into the bottle shop or wherever they
couldn't buy booze, or if the Catherine people gravitate up
here or.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
They have it in northeast arm Land and it works
quite effectively there and then and then it's not and
to solve you know, Natasha and Chancey's issue.

Speaker 9 (36:19):
It's not a race based policy.

Speaker 4 (36:21):
You know, you can get a permit whether you're black,
white or Britain if it works. But you can also
you know, the community can help decide. Hey, that guy
over there, you know he can't be buying grog because
he's no good when he's on right.

Speaker 8 (36:35):
And because there's there's a whole no, no, not a
whole lot. There's a few that camp round the back
of Bunnings, which is sort of near where I live.
And I know they're from Man and Greta some of
them and some of from owen Pelly. Some are O
one's a dry, dry, campy kind area, but the others
are definitely not dry. Now they are buying from the
nearby bottle shops in shopping centers if they clearly they've
obviously got a driver's license all that sort of stuff.

(36:56):
But if they have a driver's license with an address
and owen Pelly a Man and Greta, no think we
need to.

Speaker 5 (37:03):
Go back to the community alcohol management plans and allow
those communities to make those decisions for themselves as well,
you know, like and having some preventive measures in place,
having some education around alcohol and responsible drinking. So that's
stuff that we need to start working on. Like I mentioned,
we're doing that in bell Ywan. There's a few other

(37:24):
communities in the West Daily region we're starting with.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
It was keen to do something as well, so.

Speaker 6 (37:30):
It's a good idea. There's a lot of communities want
to have social cops back.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
We aren't going to have to take a really short break.
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.
It is the week that was still plenty more coming
your way if you've just joined us in the studio
this morning. Duran Young, who is Labour's member for Daily
We've got keys yet, Puric the member for Gorda, Matt
Cunningham from Sky News and Bill Yan from the seat
of Namajira for the CLP.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
Now during the week, we know on Monday.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
This week we spoke to Luke Gosling about the Federal
governments social housing announcement, so two billion dollars on offer
across Australia in an effort to boost social housing. Fifty
million dollars of urban social housing funds for the Northern
Territory as part of that announcement. But it seems as
though there is some pretty serious work that's required when

(38:17):
it comes to public housing more generally. Now, I obviously
get that social housing is very different to public housing,
but when we're talking about money being invested into this space,
because we know that when it comes to well rent
being written off, we're talking four point seventy five million
dollars in urban rent which is currently outstanding here in

(38:38):
Darwin or in the Northern Territory in urban housing. But
we also know that there has been an enormous amount
of money when it goes to repairs on public housing homes.
Now that's not only out in the bush, but it's
also here in our more urban areas. And I guess
the point that I'm trying to make is when you

(38:58):
look at fifty million dollars is being invested into housing,
and then you look at how much money we are
not getting in rent repayments and we're not getting when
you go to those repairs and maintenance, just sort of think, shit, do.

Speaker 1 (39:10):
We need to kind of tighten up the way that
we're doing things here?

Speaker 5 (39:13):
Maybe?

Speaker 1 (39:13):
I mean, and I listened to some fellow that was interviewed.

Speaker 8 (39:18):
If you are in a public housing situation or a
household unit, then you pay rent. Yeah, Now, why is
it any different to someone in an Aboriginal community or
remote community who's in a public housing situation. Someone's salary
should have an automatic deduction. Shouldn't live whatever they get
their center link or wherever they get their money from
to assist them, like are they paying over the counter?

Speaker 1 (39:40):
Are they putting it in the post? So why isn't
it straight away out of there? Then you wouldn't have
the twenty two million dollars.

Speaker 2 (39:45):
The interesting thing so one of our listeners that actually
messaged in and said, Katie, I've lived in public housing
for I think it was twenty seven years or thirty
seven years. And he said that the way that he's
got it set up is that it goes out of
his center Link look out of his pension, so that
it happens right from the yet go.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
And I guess that's the you know, that's the question
that a.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Lot of people are housing is how do you do
it so that then we're not in a res constantly.

Speaker 6 (40:07):
I give the government its dues, they've got those people
working with those in public housing. They get them into Sendlink,
fill out the forms to get those automatic deductions happening
and being everybody's happy, and away they go. And then
the people who have done the forms go into sendlingk
the next day and cancel the payments and then there's
no Then there's no follow up then from housing as

(40:29):
to why those payments are stopped. So there's a disconnected
in there. If you look, you look at our homeless rights,
our homeless rates are the whole country twelve times high
thanywhere else.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
I welcome the.

Speaker 6 (40:39):
Investment into housing and social public housing.

Speaker 3 (40:43):
We definitely need it. There's six to eight.

Speaker 6 (40:45):
Year weight list get to get into public housing, so
we definitely need more, but I think the government have
got to be a little bit smarter about how they're
going about it.

Speaker 8 (40:54):
It's also it's worse than that built in regards to
the waitlist, Katie is that the weight list star six
to eight years, but the emergene weight list there's two
types of list.

Speaker 1 (41:02):
That's also two D three years.

Speaker 8 (41:03):
So when you've got someone like an old person who
needs to get out of where are and go into
public housing, sometimes those weight listen they're also as long
as well.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
Well even you know, like a mum flying, domestic violence situation,
things like that, like you go on, there's it's actually
people who are genuinely in need of housing. And that's
where I guess I find it disappointing is then when
you have got people and not everybody. You know, we've
got a lot of people that look after those homes
that do live in public housing, but when you do
have those that aren't doing the right thing, why we're

(41:34):
not tightening things up a little bit more too?

Speaker 5 (41:36):
I think we need to remember that people in remote
communities are living in overcreded housing. So you know, in
my community of what we have an average of about
sixteen to twenty people per house, So obviously you're going
to need more repairs and maintenance to that a lot
quicker than say myself or I live by myself and

(41:57):
I flush the toilet once or twice a day compared
to someone in a community that might be twenty to
forty times a day. So the repairs and maintenance are
going to be a lot more urgent there. But we
are investing in remote housing. You know, we're building about
one house every two days. You know, we've we've seen
between twenty twelve and twenty sixteen, one house was built
in the last two years of their government, so we're

(42:18):
doing the catch up work for that. We're easing those pressures.
So it does take time to build houses, but it's
also about how to bring a holistic approach to the
housing program. Like it's easy enough to go out and
just build twenty houses in the community and the contractor
goes back to Daln and there's nothing left for the community.

Speaker 3 (42:37):
So what do we do.

Speaker 5 (42:38):
We want to see young people getting trained up to
make sure that they're getting apprenticeships to the housing program,
like we're starting to see and what in Daily River
there's a couple of young fellas that are being trained
with the housing program there. They've got five new houses
being built in Daily River. So we want to see
local jobs and getting outcomes in a holistic approach.

Speaker 4 (42:57):
And I've just been to Griod Island a couple of
weeks ago, and what they're doing over there is really
I mean, if there's hope for this place, it exists
on Grid Island because over there they are getting those
young people that Duran is talking about, some of them
who've been in prison. They're getting these young people, they
are giving them jobs building houses on their own community,

(43:19):
and that's the future. They have the benefit, of course
of having a massive trust fund that comes from a
big mine over there. But if we're going to turn
around these communities, that's exactly what. If you build it,
and if you build your owniness, you're far more likely
to go after than I.

Speaker 5 (43:35):
That came from our local decision making agreements back I
think it was twenty eighteen. Now we signed those agreements
and now we're starting to see the implementation of those
agreements roll out, and there's the type of outcomes we're
getting a gredible.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
That is excellent.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Yeah, that is excellent to hear what just very quickly
because we've got to go to break. But when we
talk urban public housing, though, you know, we get calls
quite often from people that live in different suburbs. I
won't name one in particular, because there's plenty of them
where there are people that are continuously doing the wrong thing.
You know, they're not looking after those warnings. They should

(44:08):
be spoken to need help.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
You would hope that that was the process.

Speaker 8 (44:13):
Failing that, boot them out, put in a worthy family
that's going to look.

Speaker 9 (44:16):
After the joint.

Speaker 6 (44:17):
You've got to be careful about tossing someone out. And
actually they're making them homeless, and but there needs to
be some very strict that they're in. Well, that's true,
and I agree with you keys, but we've got to
do some management. We said we can't a government can't
intentionally make somebody homeless, but they need.

Speaker 3 (44:31):
To be very well.

Speaker 6 (44:32):
The government needs to be very very strict on how
they manage these people. But the other issue, particularly in
Central Australia, there's like forty or fifty houses sitting in
public houses, sitting their vacant and some of them sitting
there vacant for seven years.

Speaker 2 (44:45):
Yeah, that's well because it takes so long to get
them repaired, and you know it shouldn't, but it takes
that long to get them repair. I know that because,
as Matt Cunningham will recall, I worked for a housing
minister in a previous life and.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
Existence call to and.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
Then the government needs a little at their repair and
maintenance program because clearly it's not working.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
Forty houses on spot on.

Speaker 2 (45:10):
We are going to take a very short break. You
are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
We are going to have to wrap up.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Duran Young, the member for Daily Labour's member for Daily,
thanks so much for your time this morning.

Speaker 5 (45:21):
Yeah, thank you for having me, and also to my
colleagues Bill and Keyser and also Matt Cunningham.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
It's always good to be in here on a Friday.
What and not what a nice easyer you. Thank you
alas for your time.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
Member for going to Matt Cunningham, thank you for your
time this morning.

Speaker 9 (45:40):
Thanks Katie, and of course it's a pleasure be on weeknd.

Speaker 6 (45:44):
Was so much on in dar on this weekend, so
I'm looking forward to having a weekend up here. And
hitting a heap of events and getting out and about.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
So it's going to.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Wish you a safe troup home, but you.

Speaker 6 (45:53):
Still don't get home till Monday, and I'm going to
be out sampling what Darwin has on off.

Speaker 3 (45:58):
Until the weekend.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
There's a lot much on this weekend.

Speaker 6 (46:02):
French past, French Past, salty Saturday nights, Big Gang Fredge
past Market Saturday.

Speaker 1 (46:08):
It's all.

Speaker 6 (46:09):
It's all happening, fishing out the world's fiftieth birthday.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
Oh there you go, it's turning fifty. Good for their Bear.

Speaker 5 (46:14):
Springs Markets Sunday as well.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
I'll try Sunset drinks. It won't be.

Speaker 9 (46:27):
At a party of durrownds on Saturday night. I worries
if you missed the very.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Home Well, thank you all very much for your time
this morning.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
It has been the week that was