Transcripts
Mal Brough Discusses the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Legislative Program
06/08/2007
Good afternoon folks.
We just completed or close enough to completed briefing the Opposition's Jenny Macklin with my Chief of Staff and departmental people in the full overview of the legislation that we'll introduce tomorrow.
It is very important that as many people in the general public are across this issue as much as they possibly can be and in light of that this quite detailed briefing to you and the media.
We want to make people aware of as much of the detail. We believe that that is our best defence against those who would put out misinformation in order to destabilise and to send the wrong messages to people in Indigenous communities where often English is a second language and clearly getting messages through can be quite challenging.
So to that end I'll be going through some detail with you today and available for further questions if they arise during the afternoon, my officials. So first of all an overview of what we have.
There are - we're going to go through the bills; the land, what it means, the government's changes, the specific measures of alcohol, pornography, welfare reforms, community stores which are a very important fundamental part of this. And this is wrapped up in over 500 pages of very comprehensive and detailed legislation which are necessarily complex to deal with the range of issues and circumstances that arise.
We will require an additional consolidation legislation in - well in some short order because as you'd appreciate this has pushed the drafting - the drafting resources to their limits bringing in all sorts of external advice as well across a range of areas and so hence do not be surprised if we will require this additional consolidation legislation.
This is in three bills. The first is a new Act and there are two amending pieces of legislation. The first one I'll deal with is the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007. It will deal with the following: alcohol; audit of computers, obviously for pornography; the acquisition of land and property, they are the five year leases; business management areas, particularly the legislation that will underpin the authority of the government business managers; bail and sentencing laws, and also specific measures to do with community stores.
Legislative instruments including regulations can be made under the three bills and clearly until a bill is passed through the House then you can't actually make those regulations and hence they will be available tomorrow - or late tomorrow or Wednesday depending on when they pass.
The bill two is the FACSIA and Other Legislation Amendment Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures Bill 2007. It also deals with issues of pornography, law enforcement, infrastructure and permits.
And the final bill the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment Welfare Payments Reform Bill 2007. It has a new part 3(b) under the Social Security Administrative Act 1999. It deals with the full range of social security amendments, welfare reforms that we're making. The management of welfare payments, the types of the payments, the people affected, the special accounts and the individual bank accounts.
To put this into context the special account for argument's sake had to take into provision things such as child support that the money was still - had the same taxes applied to it, the same provisions that would otherwise apply without losing the capacity for that money to be held by the Commonwealth.
There will be also two bills, two money bills which we'll be making available. As I pointed out in the earlier briefing it comes to an amount in excess of $500 million for the first 12 months.
First of all the prescribed areas for land acquisition. This is responding to the abuse and disadvantage holistically and provides the foundations for the better future for children across the broad front.
We came to the conclusion that just changing any one element would not suffice. You would have to change the living conditions, the parameters in which people were confronted with both their schooling as well as policing but also the physical wellbeing.
To effect improvements and proceed without delay, and that was a key issue here, the government needed to have interest in the land for the duration of the response. The government is not acquiring the land as in purchasing it; we are leasing it for a period of five years.
Those managers that the Commonwealth puts in place can then deal with the land particularly for housing purposes. Land acquisition areas are much smaller than the alcohol areas.
They come in three parts. The ALRA Communities, Aboriginal Land Rights Act communities, comprise 47. They're based on a desktop definition of areas covering the township and the surrounding infrastructure such as sewerage ponds, power stations, et cetera. And they're to be followed by formal surveys of these leased boundaries in a short period of time.
The community living areas comprise 16 areas that already have a lease boundary, usually less than 10 square kilometres, and the existing lease boundaries will be used to define the area except for in three or four cases where the ALRA process will be used.
There's also the town camps and there is 36 of these. They also have existing boundaries that can be used to define these areas. I point out that other areas can be and maybe added to this on advice from our taskforce.
To give an indication of how this will be done - this is the township of Kintore and as you can see there in the yellow we have the airstrip, the township and infrastructure as in surrounded so it's actually a designated area.
There are three groupings for these acquisitions. Those that we're going to acquire at commencement, I think there's 27 of those communities or thereabouts. They are the ones which we already have done the assessment in and are ready to go.
There are group two and group three which will come in two lots all within a six month period. The reason that they're done in this way, we would have had, to my understanding is, put it into legislation each town line by line by line, so hence doing them in a bundle is simply a simpler and more effective way of doing it from a legislative perspective.
As the last line says other communities will be added by this allowable instrument methodology.
The five year leases are from the relevant Lands Trusts. The underlying title remains in place. It takes interest subject to existing registered leases and other interests can acquire later if required.
So this is for a five year period. It doesn't in any way undermine anyone's capacity to move to a 99 year lease should they require. If a 99 year lease is put in place then that obviously becomes the new land tenure and long term land tenure position.
Compensation. Much has been said of compensation. There is a range of issues that had to be taken into account there, they're outlined. But most importantly the Northern Territory Valuer-General will determine the rent payable to traditional owners, rent and improvements can count as compensation is our advice.
If compensation cannot be agreed between the parties, that being the Commonwealth and the traditional owners, then of course applications to any Court of a competent jurisdiction will always be available. They are for the Aboriginal Land Rights Act land.
In the community living area land, this is under the Northern Territory Act, also being acquired for five years, they have - we'll be dealing with the relevant association or the Northern Territory Commissioner is two of these deregistered organisations at the moment.
Again the same principles apply, underlying title remains with the association. The same preservation and native title rights, they are suspended, they suspend future acts regime non-extinguishment principles apply.
In relation to the town camps, very complex, these are special purpose leases. These do not take - these are not there for traditional owners for those who are unaware. They make up both special purpose and Crown leases and they are in place under Northern Territory legislation.
The legislative effects gives the Commonwealth Minister the power of the Northern Territory Minister including resumption and forfeit. In other words the power that currently resides with the Minister in the Northern Territory, the appropriate Minister there now will reside with the Commonwealth Minister. Again the underlying title is owned by the Northern Territory Government not aboriginal land.
The ownership of new infrastructure and facilities beyond five years. The Commonwealth has made it very clear a general principle of where we are going way beyond the Northern Territory is to ensure that we actually know that the assets that we build on land can be retained and that asset is not diminished over time in the way that it has been under current circumstances.
So, consistent with these previous decisions, all investments will now have a continuing Commonwealth interest registered into the future, that is beyond the five years.
So, if we are to build something in one of these towns, whatever it may be, whilst the five year leases are there we need to have underlying certainty of that tenure of the additional capital infrastructure that the Commonwealth is buying. As I say, that is not specific to this measure. It's just reinforced in this measure. It is a principle that the Commonwealth is applying to all of its indigenous assets that we're purchasing.
Permits. As you know the permit system we undertook a lengthy consultation and received numerous submissions regarding this. It is our belief that the system has - well really has resulted in a limited interaction between the outside world and communities to the detriment to those people. There's been a removal from the real economy. It's led to a closed community mentality with greater opportunities for abuse, not less.
People have held this up as what you use when you don't have police. Much of the fear that has been generated as a result of the government's announcement that we'll be removing the permit system from just less than one per cent. In fact, point one of one per cent of the Northern Territory, is that people would have the free for all. You'd have all of the carpetbaggers, et cetera, come in. That would be true if there were no police there but, of course, we are moving to have police in all of these communities and to have security.
So, rather than having a meaningless piece of paper where sometimes you had traditional owners on one hand, allowing someone or disallowing, and on the other hand an opposing point of view from the land council is that we now say, for these towns that the 99.8 per cent of aboriginal land, the permit system remains and for .2 per cent of the Northern Territory, .2 of one per cent, that the permit system will be removed.
This will apply to the public areas in towns, roads, barge landing and airstrips; in other words, normal areas that you would expect the public to be able to access. It doesn't go into people's private property. It certainly also makes provision for sacred sites and it makes provision, of course, for homelands and even, in these public areas at times where ceremony is to be conducted, the locals can actually apply to the Northern Territory Government to have people not be able to enter on their land at that time.
The permit system goes beyond the five years. This is a permanent change. This is not a part of the exclusively - designed as part of the Northern Territory response, but we obviously see it as a key component to improving access to towns and ongoing protection of people and as you can see, visitors can still enter to attend court hearings and all of those sort of things and only issue of the permit can revoke it. Okay? That's the circumstances at the moment.
Sacred sites will still be protected and the amendments that we are making will ensure that people have this certainty going forward. And that the sort of things that have occurred that have ensured that people have been removed from the real economy and from real scrutiny and sometimes used the permit system to, in fact, as a weapon almost against people. It's been used to threaten, to intimidate. That will be removed.
The governance changes. These are key if we are to ensure that the money that is currently being spent and the large additional sums of money that have been dedicated actually result in the changes that everyone is looking for.
The Australian Government will have existing powers through our funding agreements and rights as leaseholders over the land and the fixtures. And the number of reserve powers intended for use only where no reasonable alternatives to ensure rapid improvements in the prescribed communities.
That means that not the norm but the exception would be that the powers, the reserve powers would allow us to be able to overturn funding decisions and to ensure that the best interests of Indigenous people is actually maintained.
Those delegations will be held at very senior levels within the department and the powers will not extend to town camps or outstations.
Giving directions to entities delivering government funded services in relation to non-fixed assets will be an important aspect and giving directions to entities to perform specific tasks or actions is also catered for.
We are appointing, as you know, external managers to community government councils and incorporated associations. There will be people who will have non-voting observer rights on those organisations in the relevant communities to ensure that good and proper governance is undertaken and to be able to report to the managers and to the taskforce as needed.
They will have the ability, these government managers, to vary funding agreements and, obviously, only when it's in the best interest of the Indigenous people that the money's designed for.
Moving on to alcohol in the defined, prescribed areas. The new bans extend beyond 73 communities initially announced to the following: it covers drinking on land and returning to communities; it prevents easy passage of grog into and between communities and it covers the following lands: the ones that we described as the prescribed lands earlier, the ALRA land; the land under sub-section 461Alpha of the Northern Territory Land Acquisition Act and the town camps as per the declaration by the Minister; any other areas that the Minister of the time declares in or out, and that will often be provided by advice from the taskforce.
The Commonwealth will have effect of modifying the operation of the Northern Territory legislation. Northern Territory will still be responsible for the administration of the Act, including the signage and to using existing infrastructure enable long-term ownership by the Northern Territory.
In other words, what we are putting in place here, is until, as we said at the announcement, as such times as the Northern Territory not only has appropriate legislation, but can actually support that legislation in a way to protect people from the rivers of grog.
Important parts of the Northern Territory Liquor Act continue; example, the Alcohol Transition Exemption, as per the news item this morning, We support the Northern Territory's moves to having a database where people who are problem gamblers, et cetera, have identification.
If Northern Territory changes back or amends in an unfavourable way the Commonwealth's powers here, can disallow the change within six months via the Governor General. Minister's still have the key roles and decision making capacities.
Moving to the offences for alcohol. The actual prescribed penalties are based on the legislation from Queensland which underpins their alcohol management programs in Far North Queensland. It will be an offence within prescribed areas to bring liquor, possess liquor or consume liquor, the supply of it, the transportation or possessing liquor intended for supply.
It distinguishes this legislation between personal use and an intention to sell. Personal use is for ten penalty units for a first offence, which is $110 per unit, and 20 penalty units for any subsequent offence.
Intention to supply presumed if the amount is in excess of 1,350 ml of pure alcohol. If higher grade offence it will be up to 680 penalty units which is equivalent to $74,800 or 18 months imprisonment.
It provides discretion for penalty infringement notices to be issued for personal use offences instead of fines by the police. Additional offences for interfering with signage, selling take-away alcohol and not complying with the requirements to record details.
As you will recall in our earlier briefings, if you purchase more than the equivalent of three cartons of heavy beer from any outlet in the Northern Territory, you will be required to provide photo ID and that information is to be kept by the licensee as well as the destination of that alcohol. Failure to do that will be an offence. Failing to keep the required records of transaction by the licensee will also be an offence.
Currently, it's quite a complicated issue in the Northern Territory. There are literally thousands of drinking permits currently exist in the dry part of the Northern Territory communities. These are issues by the NT Licensing Commission to various groups or individuals.
Approximately 35 licensed premises are on communities. All of these licences we are going to review over the next month and we have the option to turn off or modify these requirements in the legislation to the benefit of those communities. We will be involving the Northern Territory Government with these reviews and they're to be conducted by the end of this month is what we aim to achieve.
Specifically about takeaways, the purpose of these requirements is to aid investigations and prosecutions. The new requirements will apply across the Territory, as already stated, not just in the restricted areas.
Again, where a person buys in excess of 1,350 millilitres of alcohol - and that's pure alcohol - in other words, how much in quantity that depends on the actual alcohol volume of the product, light beer, heavy beer, spirits, et cetera, and they'll have to review the photographic identification and take the details, as I've already outlined.
A specific issue around boating and fishing has been raised over the last couple of weeks. After representations from the Northern Territory Government about the potential impact of restrictions on tourism, boating and fishing industry and recreational boating and fishing we've made what we think to be reasonable changes which will provide for this exemption.
It allows the Minister to include exemption to cover these areas. In other words, these areas on the water for specific purposes are exempt, but in the example where someone might buy a tinny and place it in the water and ferry people to and from, that will be an illegal activity.
Also, tight exemption - should the exemption be abused to the detriment again of children and these families in any way, then we have the capacity to remove it in those circumstances.
Moving to pornography. Clearly a major issue in Indigenous communities and one that's been underpinned by the report and by my own observations and anecdotal evidence provided to me over the last 18 months.
Restrictions to counter - well, actually, it's an interesting term this - the grooming of young people. It's an interesting statement, but one of the uses, it's been put to me, for use of very explicit pornographic material is in fact to groom young people to believing that this is normal and hence, not finding it abhorrent or finding it in fact inappropriate. So obviously, that is what we're trying to counter.
The possession and/or supply of material in all of the following categories will be an offence: a publication classified as Category 1 Restricted or Category 2 Restricted, a film classified X-18+, obviously things that are refused classification already are, but we make that explicit, and an advertisement for any of these.
Police powers to seize such material, and unless a magistrate orders otherwise, any material forfeited is to be destroyed. Those responsible for publicly-funded computers must install filters, control and audit the use and provide information to the Australian Crime Commission if they detect any such material.
In the past it's been brought to my attention when people doing the right thing have found this sort of information, they have in fact obviously removed it from the computers, but not necessarily passed it onto the appropriate authorities. We need to actually get rid of people out of these communities who are obviously using this material for the purposes that we've already outlined.
Moving onto income management regime, the welfare reforms. The bill provides for a person's welfare payments to be subjected to income management and if he or she satisfies the relevant conditions associated with one of the five measures.
In other words, what we are putting into these bills are all of the welfare changes that we have outlined to date: the Northern Territory Emergency Response; the child neglect measures; the school enrolments; the school attendance measures; and the Cape York trial.
How much is going to be involved? It varies as in how much is going to be involved in the income management or the quarantining is determined upon the various circumstances and the individual measures. For the Northern Territory Emergency Response, in the first instance, generally 50 per cent of income support, excluding the DVA payments and 50 per cent of family tax benefits.
For school and child neglect measures, generally 100 per cent, that's up to 100 percent of income support and 100 per cent of family tax benefits. Instalments can be quarantined.
For all of the above, 100 per cent of advances, the lump sums and the baby bonuses, the instalments compulsory for income managed people, all of that will be managed. For the Cape York trial, the notice specifies amounts that is managed, including DVA, aged care and carer pensioners are excluded in those instances.
The key question is, what happens to this money when it has been quarantined? Welfare payments will be placed in a person's income management account. This is the special public moneys account, it's not for use of government. So whilst it's not held in an individual's account, it cannot be used by the Commonwealth. There are no alterations to the tax liabilities, child support, liabilities, et cetera.
Individuals do not, at any stage, lose any entitlement to this income. They can get, and will receive, regular statements of their debits, their credits and their balances. They will need to meet with Centrelink to discuss their needs and patterns of expenditure. We're only too well aware that'll they vary very much from circumstance to circumstance.
There are certain rules that will underpin how that money and what that money can be spent on. First of all, requirement to apply funds to the known priority needs of the person, the person's partner, children and other dependents. That is the first priority.
Priority needs are actually outlined and they include food, clothing, housing, health, childcare and development, education and training, employment, transport and funerals. Centrelink cannot unreasonably refuse access to funds for other purposes if all the priority needs are met. Funds other than those allocated as discretionary cash cannot be spent on excluded goods such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling or pornography.
In some cases, there will be money left over. The bill provides flexibility in methods to meet people's priority needs. So vouchers, stored value cards, expense payments, payments to various account types. In other words, there's not just one methodology of delivering this, it is dependent upon what is available in the locality and the range of methodologies, including obviously centre pay that can be used.
It also provides for the discretionary cash subject to legislative instruments not needed for the Northern Territory, as only 50 per cent of the payments are captured up there. Individuals will have standard appeal rights in relation to income management, except for the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
Obviously, it's just not practical to have everybody in this emergency phase being able to go through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, potentially the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, so hence, this change.
In the Northern Territory Emergency Response there will be an internal review by an authorised review officer, but the longer-term appeals are not allowed for in this legislation.
CDEP and its phase-out in the Northern Territory. This will be phased out in the Northern Territory by 30 June next year with participants moved to income support. The CDEP changes will occur on a community-by-community basis.
So once we have legislated, it doesn't automatically follow that every community loses its CDEP program because that, again, would be a recipe for disaster. This is about managing things in an appropriate, staged fashion.
The bill introduces a Northern Territory CDEP transition payment which assists eligible individuals to manage any changes in income resulting from their move to income support. There are two categories of people on CDEP: those doing two days a week and those that do the two days a week plus top-up.
It is where that top-up does not result in a full-time job or a part-time job paid for by the appropriate authority, whereby this transition payment will be there through until 30 June next year. It will also have a major component of STEP available to these communities to raise people's, not only expectations, but numeracy and literacy skills or their other skills so that they can actually become employable.
Community stores are a key focus. It has already become very clear to us that there is low-quality food, poor management and financial practices and ridiculously high prices in too many stores.
The major risk would be to do nothing in this area, would be to require people's income management, in other words, their quarantined money to be spent in a store that's doing the wrong thing by them in the first place. That won't assist with a child's nutrition, it won't assist with a parent's capacity if they're paying inflated prices.
The government could be seen as supporting poor businesses and we will not allow that to happen. So therefore, we'll introduce a licensing scheme to ensure basic standards and integrity.
An independent advisory board to advise on licensing decisions - and to that end, I've already written to the three major retailers in this country requesting that they provide to us people who are well qualified, clearly, that would have an interest in assisting us in this role.
The advisory board would obviously give that advice as to the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the licence holders. It would grant a six-month licence at first and longer thereafter.
If an operator fails the licensing conditions, given opportunities to improve where they're at, then we can actually remove their licence to operate. To do so, obviously we have things like outback stores in place that could take over. So no-one is going to be leaving, the government will not be leaving a community without a store.
But there may be an opportunity here to introduce competition into communities as well and show people that the prices they've been paying and the array of goods that they have been provided are totally inadequate and many times inappropriate to the wellbeing of that community.
It will be a last resort that we undertake compulsory acquisitions of assets and appoint a new operator with a licence, should they fail. But it is an option that we have available to us. We understand that this is a key driver and component to the success of communities.
In summary, the emergency provides for a broad and urgent approach to a number of fronts to protect and improve the situation for children. It is very broad, it is very encompassing and it certainly does enter into new fields that the Commonwealth has not been in the past.
At the moment we have people on two sides of this debate. We have almost the same voices saying, why didn't you do this 10 or 12, or however many years ago? Then we have others saying, why aren't you fulfilling the Little Children are Sacred Report recommendations?
I make it very clear to you all that I do not believe in any way, shape nor form that the recommendations flowing from that report reflected the urgency or the need that is needed to countenance the problems that these children suffer each and every day. They simply don't come within a bull's roar of doing that. In fact to me, they were more of the same.
As a government, we could well have done that. It would've cost us less in monetary terms. We would've been seen to be doing something about it, but what we would've been doing above all else is actually giving up on those children having a chance of a future.
For the best will in the world, ministers of all persuasion, state and federal, have tried interventions, but they have all been of the same nature dealing with after the event, or simply playing around the edges.
We make no excuses whatsoever for the dramatic impact that this will have. Because nothing less than a dramatic change from what we have will ensure that assets last longer, that children live in clean houses, that the rivers of grog stop, that the excessive gambling that destroys lives is also stopped, and that people actually can see without that fog of drugs and alcohol consuming their community and see that there is a future, that they have to be part of it.
My last comment is that this is not the end, it is the beginning. You cannot have a long-term strategy without having a stable baseline. These bills are about trying to establish the baseline. It is very expensive. We make, and had no, illusions about the extent of the difficulties, the challenge that would confront us, and we also understand that there would be a price tag to it.
What price do you put on the cost of a baby of six months of age with gonorrhoea? Let's say it as it is. That is the price that we're willing to pay to try and prevent that from occurring, to ensure that children actually do have a future, that school actually means something and that fear isn't something they live with every day of their lives.
They are the real reasons and the motivations that have underpinned what the government has done here and the government is determined to see this through 100 per cent. I reiterate, it is not the end, it is the beginning.
There is a lot more to be done, but I want to take the opportunity to thank the draftsmen, the department, the taskforce and everybody that has put an enormous amount of effort into having this come to fruition. It has been a mammoth task.
They have put in an inordinate amount of time and effort because they, too, believe that children are sacred and that children should be protected. That is the motivation that all of us should look to as we move forward and try and ensure that every Australian child does have the sort of future we would expect of them.
MAL BROUGH: Questions?
QUESTION: Can you detail the $500 million dollars in terms of which areas they…
MAL BROUGH: The appropriation bill will outline that in detail.
QUESTION: Okay.
MAL BROUGH: When's the appropriation bill available, folks? Tomorrow?
UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, it'll be tabled tomorrow.
MAL BROUGH: Yeah, so it's across everything from education, CDEP, health, policing, it's across the managers, it's a whole - and that is new money.
QUESTION: Can you say how much of that is compensation, though?
MAL BROUGH: Look, no, I can't, no.
QUESTION: Can you clarify for us, Minister, what the total will be?
MAL BROUGH: This bill is for the first 12 months. The out years are, obviously, part of the budgetary process, so that's when you'll get the out years. But obviously you can see the magnitude.
And you've got to understand this is on top of, for argument's sake, CDEP programs. So it's not of - this is instead of housing, education, welfare changes. So…
QUESTION: So the bill won't - we won't see the out years until next year's budget?
MAL BROUGH: This bill is for the next 12 months because we haven't made any provision to appropriate moneys, as you would appreciate, in the last budget for this moving forward.
QUESTION: Is there a danger that we're spending a lot of taxpayer's money on communities that aren't economically viable, that we're going to build houses where there will be no jobs?
MAL BROUGH: I'm spending money on trying to save children right now. This is a three phase operation. We are in phase one. Phase one is about securing and protecting children and giving a sound basis in which to be able to move forward.
QUESTION: The problem is [indistinct] cost tens of millions of dollars a few weeks back. Can you explain why that is no longer the case, why there has been a blow out, and where is the money coming from?
MAL BROUGH: A blow out is when you actually have a program that goes wrong. This isn't a blow out. This isn't a - the same as when you have a cyclone. You have at the first blush what you think may be the cost, and then when you dig in and you see what's actually there you recognise what the initial cost was estimated to be was in fact way below.
The reality is here I think there were many skeptics who thought that this would never happen because if it became too expensive the government would back away. The Prime Minister has given, like myself, an unequivocal guarantee that we are providing these resources to people because we are trying to fundamentally change something which really is a scar on Australian society.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, it sounds like this is a different program we're talking about, then. What was the lowest - smallest scale program…
MAL BROUGH: There was no program. There never was a program. It is the first blush of what you think it may take into account. The emphasis was particularly on policing. The area of policing, for argument's sake, is in the order of about $50 million dollars, tens of millions of dollars. But we are going much further. We've recognised things such as CDEP need to change fundamentally, because we would not have been able to stop the cash getting into the communities.
That is the single largest sum of money from the welfare payments transfer into communities, is through CDEP. Without the changes that I've outlined today, and that we'll legislate tomorrow, that money would continue to flow.
So therefore all our best intentions are changing, family tax benefits and the other social welfare payments would have been negligible if we didn't address that issue.
So they are the sort of things that when we have gone through into the legislation, and the practicalities of delivering the security that we're looking for for children became a reality.
QUESTION: You said in, just when you were speaking before, that you've been given advice that in some cases providing services to towns would be good compensation for - is that right?
MAL BROUGH: It could be.
QUESTION: Does that mean that those towns won't get any money for these compulsory…
MAL BROUGH: Well, towns don't get anything. Traditional owners do. So it'll be up - the negotiations between traditional owners and the government, and the normal requirement or capacity for people to, if they disagree, to have these matters sorted out through the courts are there. But we would hope it wouldn't come to that.
And, of course, we are going to be putting additional infrastructure into these towns, and, you know, a key component is to improve the living conditions, to upgrade homes. Potentially, in some cases, increase the number of homes, and there's a large sum of money dedicated to that in the appropriations bills, but also other infrastructure.
So those sort of things will be discussed with traditional owners on a case by case basis, and how that will apply in relation to what is adequate compensation.
QUESTION: Does that necessarily imply then, Minister, that compensation payments are probably going to be a couple of years down the track while there are negotiations about what sort of infrastructure might be put in?
MAL BROUGH: Well, one of the things I was very keen to insure, and that is why the five year leases are there, is that if you start at a process whereby you continually are negotiating where you're going to end up before any action starts, all you do is give people false hope.
So we have made it clear that we are leasing this land for five years on the basis of the constitution of fair terms, and that that will then be negotiated with the traditional owners as time unfurls.
They will not be receiving that money for the five-year lease, you know, like the first group on day one. And in many cases, the traditional owners don't even live on those properties or in those towns. So they have to be - that's where the land councils will have an important role to play as well.
QUESTION: But there is money for compensation in this first year?
MAL BROUGH: The whole issue is accounted for yes, so it'll be clear for you when you have a look at the…
QUESTION: Is there some reason why we can't get these figures today? You obviously had some in your head.
MAL BROUGH: Look, yes, we have. The appropriation bills come into the House tomorrow and I simply just don't have them with me here today, and as soon as I have them for you…
QUESTION: Can we get them…
MAL BROUGH: As soon as I have them for you, Michelle, in their complete form, and as I said to you already, there's nothing here - I'm not hiding anything, far from it, because this is about the Commonwealth committing additional money, is that we have things such as the regulations, which are not yet complete.
This has been a mammoth undertaking and we want to make sure that what we put into the House is as robust and as accurate as we can make it when it comes to the appropriation.
QUESTION: Well, it's hard to know, it's hard to get our heads around these components when we don't have any rough idea of…
MAL BROUGH: Well, Michelle, I've given you the - it's just over $500 million. I hope to be in a position late this afternoon to be able to provide you with additional information.
As I have said to you at the start of this briefing - and I reiterate now - is that no doubt you'll have other questions when you got back - and this information is available to you, we've just briefed the Opposition - is that we will make that information available to you because it's in our interests to do so as soon as we possibly can.
I hope it sort of reinforces in you just how challenging this has been to try and get this legislation right and to also be able to cost it.
I mean, the point was raised about, you know, it was tens of millions of dollars. Well, we still want to make sure that what we put into the House is as accurate as we can make it as well.
QUESTION: Just with costing, how did you actually come up with a figure for the compensation for these towns. Have you negotiated with the traditional owners?
MAL BROUGH: No, we haven't negotiated with the traditional owners. There are methodologies which are not my consideration, that's not what I do and I can't go into that detail for you right now. But look, we're only too happy to talk to traditional owners about what that will be and what is appropriate. Happy to talk to people about how we come up with what is just terms when we have 99-year leases because there is your precedent with the people of Ngiui, for argument's sake, and you're only too well aware that we are very well advanced in Groote, and discussions, or I should say, announcements are imminent there as well.
So look, the important thing - we shouldn't lose focus on it - is it's very easy for us to get bogged down in detail, and some of the questions that have been raised go to those sort of things where what we have tried to do is to ensure that we have the capacity to actually secure the position on the ground without disadvantaging anyone under the Constitution or any other way, shape nor form. We will not allow people to be disadvantaged or in some way to lose, but we are also determined to ensure nothing slows down the process which allows us to provide for the safety of these children in the Northern Territory.
QUESTION: Well, will some communities be able to essentially get more money if they're willing to forfeit their compensation so they'll get more resources to build up infrastructure in their communities?
MAL BROUGH: No, I'm not ready with you with the question, so I mean, it seems at odds. Look, you're actually starting a negotiating position which you are not in a position to do so. It's between them and us. You know what I'm saying is that traditional owners will discuss with the government, and if things do not work out where a particular group don't - can't come up with a decision, then there is recourse to the courts.
So - and there's nothing more I can add to that point at - right now.
QUESTION: [Indistinct] On alcohol, a couple of questions. How can you stop the prohibition creating criminality we've seen - you know, we all know about prohibition in the United States and I know that was a very long time ago, but how do you stop a criminal element taking advantage of the crim… of the prohibition element?
MAL BROUGH: It's there now. I mean, there is a criminal element there now. How you stop it is you actually have law enforcement, which doesn't exist now. It's a very simple pros… proposal, is that today you have, in many communities, supposedly dry communities. Alcohol is banned, there is no law enforcement. There's a permit system and there are rivers of grog. Unless you actually have law enforcement in place to enforce the laws of the day and the laws of the land, you get nowhere. So that's first and foremost.
But secondly, the capacity to buy drugs and alcohol are severely restricted, when 50 per cent of the welfare transfer payments are not available in cash. Now we have already seen in certain communities over the last 18 months, and there's been many interdictions of drugs by the Central Australian intelligence desk, with its dog sniffer teams, et cetera, operating across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, that where the amount of cash is restricted in the community, those people selling these sort of things move away. And the place is given some breathing space.
We're not kidding ourselves, we know that this is an enormous challenge, and there'll be a lot of people that will continue to try and do it. It's not the sort of, looking at through rose coloured glasses that you have prohibition and on its own, it fixes the problem. There will be people who will continue to try and provide these soul destroying products into communities. There will be less cash for people to be able to buy it in the first instance and that is a key component, and there will be law enforcement. Those two things are elements that have not been there, with the legislation that currently exists with the Northern Territory.
QUESTION: Minister, once you…
MAL BROUGH: I can only take two more questions.
QUESTION: What's your security situation on…
MAL BROUGH: Sorry, I missed that.
QUESTION: Once you secure the situation on the ground, is it your view that ultimately, some of these communities will be seen to be economically unviable?
MAL BROUGH: It's possible. And this is - these are decisions that people will make for themselves, with the government, but it's their decisions to actually consider these. I don't actually dictate where any Australian lives, never have and never will.
But we also, as I said to the APY Lands Council in Adelaide on Friday, when talking about moving into homelands, is the government cannot and will not supply housing to people where there will not be schooling, where there will not be health opportunities and move away from pet… perhaps even limited, but at least some, employment opportunities. That would be inappropriate. So - and they understood that.
And I think you have to be honest with people, if you want to do that, you want to live in some part of this country, and you had the right and you have the capacity to do it, well by all means do so. But we should not be setting people up to say, that's okay. And we'll build you a house out here for short term benefit. But your children can't actually access a school, there aren't any health clinics within you know, sort of easy reach, and in fact, there are zero employment opportunities.
QUESTION: Where are you up to with the health checks?
MAL BROUGH: They're underway. How do you mean, how are we up with them?
QUESTION: Are all the children turning up for them?
MAL BROUGH: No, not all the children are turning up to them.
QUESTION: About what percentage would that be?
MAL BROUGH: I couldn't give you a percentage. I mean, in one of the communities, a lot of the children had actually moved away, because it was holiday time, okay? So you have to take those sort of issues into account. What I can tell you is that of the several hundred checks that have been conducted, to the last of my briefings, is that there has been information and - come to light, which has meant that the authorities had to be notified of potential child sexual abuse issues. And there has been further clinical, medical clinical tests conducted as a result of those investigations in [indistinct]…
QUESTION: [Interrupts] Have you got any figures on you?
MAL BROUGH: … cases. I wouldn't give any figures, because I think that's inappropriate, because clearly at this stage, they're not in a lot of communities as in that the health checks, that we're still rolling those out. But suffice to say that in the short term that that's occurred and you would have all seen the reports in the paper recently, where the Australian Crime Commission, which we obviously set up 12 months ago in Alice Springs, has already got lines of investigations into virtually every State of this nation in relation to child sexual abuse. So no-one should be under any illusion that this stops at the Northern Territory border.
QUESTION: [Indistinct] taxpayers' money you've spent on communities that are not going to be economically viable?
MAL BROUGH: I have to go, I'm sorry. Last one. Sorry?
QUESTION: Why should taxpayers' money be spent building houses in communities that are not economically viable?
MAL BROUGH: I have one task right now and that is to stop children being hurt. If I start to go into secondary - and you're, what you're talking about now is both normalisation exiting. They are important issues that have to be addressed. But right now, our entire focus, our entire energy is to try and protect children who, tonight - and it's not being melodramatic, it is a fact - will get hurt where there are no police, and we need to get them into place and we need to reduce the cash and reduce the alcohol and the drugs. We do have to address those issues.
We do have to ensure that there are appropriate schools there, and that children are attending them. And trust me, I will not be running away from those difficult issues, but we have to get the baseline first, so that people can actually look at these issues without the cloud of alcohol and drugs, which are really the way in which they are seeing things in a distorted moment - a distorted way at the moment, and the way it's been for a very long time.
That's it, sorry. I - I'm required back in Cabinet, so I'm sorry, I have to go. Thank you.