Chapter 3 - Effectiveness of the Eight Point Plan
3.1
Much of the evidence received by the committee indicates that the
substantial reduction in petrol sniffing in central Australia has occurred as a
result of the implementation of the Eight Point Plan with the rollout of Opal
fuel being the single greatest contributor at this point in time. However, as
noted in chapter 2, for the Eight Point Plan to be effective in the long-term
the rollout of Opal fuel must be accompanied by adequate progress and greater
focus on the other seven points of the plan.
3.2
The committee believes that there remains a great deal of progress to be
made especially in expanding the rollout of Opal fuel, providing for it to be
more widely distributed and implementing appropriate and adequately resourced
youth and other support programs in all affected communities.
3.3
This chapter will discuss the effectiveness of the Petrol Sniffing
Strategy (PSS) as well as gaps in the response so far. It will also identify
key areas where a greater focus is required to effectively address and control
petrol sniffing and other substance abuse issues.
Independent review of the strategy
3.4
In 2006 an independent review of the first phase of the Petrol Sniffing
Strategy was undertaken for the Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). The report, Review of the First
Phase of the Petrol Sniffing Strategy (Urbis Review), is publicly available
and provides a comprehensive analysis of the basis for the PSS and its early
implementation.[1]
The Urbis Review reported positively on many aspects of the strategy, including
the policy basis and the regional approach taken. However, it also found that
while some elements of the Eight Point Plan were well advanced (such as the
roll out of Opal fuel), no progress had been made on others (such as agreeing
on uniform legislation).[2]
3.5
The Urbis Review concluded that the PSS Eight Point Plan was 'well
conceived as a response to petrol sniffing in Aboriginal communities and the
broader context within which sniffing has occurred'.[3]
It also noted that part of the strategy's effectiveness has been the
combination of appropriate supply and demand measures which has resulted in:
- a greatly reduced level of petrol sniffing through the
introduction of Opal which has created 'a valuable breathing space or
"window of opportunity", giving new heart to communities and
reinvigorating community opposition to sniffing'; and
- more active and visible policing as well as more youth programs
and activities for young people which has 'helped to keep down levels of
sniffing and antisocial behaviour'.[4]
3.6
The Commonwealth government's submission noted that the PSS continues to
evolve:
Over time implementation of the strategy will develop in
response to evidence regarding success of the Strategy and remaining areas of
need, needs expressed by communities and other stakeholders, and to developing
Government policy.[5]
Effectiveness of the Eight Point Plan
3.7
The committee considers that the evidence it received throughout the
inquiry was very supportive of the overarching strategy, its goals and the
eight steps as outlined in the plan. While concerns about the plan were raised,
these were largely related to progress with implementation and the level of coordination
between departments and jurisdictions.
3.8
Most of the submissions commended the achievements of the PSS in
substantially reducing the incidence of petrol sniffing in central Australia.
The Commonwealth government's submission stated that it is committed to the
Eight Point Plan and considers it to be:
...a comprehensive, flexible and holistic approach to tackling
petrol sniffing in remote Indigenous communities...
...To date all evidence, including the recent Review of the First
Phase of the Petrol Sniffing Strategy has indicated the 8 Point Plan is well
conceived and consistent with priority areas identified by the Overcoming
Indigenous Disadvantage headline indicators and COAG Closing the Gap priority
areas.[6]
3.9
However, other submissions attributed much of the success of the
strategy to the rollout of Opal fuel and noted that many other areas of the
plan have not been fully implemented. Mission Australia noted that 'the measures
in place to control supply need to be complemented by measures to lessen demand...to
steer people away from the practice'.[7]
Dr Brian McCoy stated that for the Kutjungka region the Eight Point Plan 'has
been largely confined to the roll out of Opal fuel'.[8]
3.10
In addition CAYLUS noted:
The 8 Point Plan resulted from good intention by government, the
plan has led to increased resources some of which have been well used and some
of which arguably have been misdirected. The 8 Point Plan hinges on multiple
Commonwealth Departments working closely together to implement programs,
eliminate red tape and fill service gaps. The reality has been that this has
not always happened and that this has undermined some initiatives.[9]
3.11
The committee met with representatives of Voyagers Ayers Rock Resort and
The GPT Group in Yulara. While these representatives had no concerns with the
actual PSS, they were concerned about the execution of the strategy and what
they saw as the poor coordination between levels of government and their
respective agencies.
3.12
This sentiment was supported by the Urbis Review which found that:
To date the implementation of the PSS has not involved a
consistent or comprehensive whole of government approach...and at present there
is relatively little awareness in one jurisdiction of what is happening in the others.
Planning and coordination among Commonwealth Departments at SES level was part
of the original intention, but to date there has not been a great deal of
involvement at the most senior level.
As noted elsewhere, there appears to be substantial room for
improvement in relation to a whole of government approach to implementation of
the Strategy.[10]
3.13
The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) recognised that the PSS:
...could do more to address youth specific
drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitations services, utilise social health
teams in primary health care services, and connect more strongly with mental
health policies and programs.[11]
3.14
The committee also notes that the recent Evaluation of the Impact of
Opal Fuel by DoHA 'found no reports of individuals accessing substance use
services to help with the move away from sniffing'.[12]
This could either indicate that insufficient efforts are being made to assist
the remaining sniffers to seek assistance or it could also indicate a lack of
appropriate services available within close proximity to the sniffers
community.
3.15
Overall the committee considers that the Eight Point Plan remains an
effective strategy for addressing petrol sniffing in central Australia. The
committee is also pleased to see the proposed implementation of the strategy in
locations outside the area originally nominated, as recommended in the
committee's previous report, and hopes the government will continue to extend
the strategy's implementation to all communities with a substantial petrol
sniffing problem.
3.16
However, while there has been progress made to reduce petrol sniffing
the committee is aware that in many communities petrol has largely been
substituted for other substances and that the causes of hopelessness and
boredom that drive the demand for petrol sniffing have not been sufficiently
addressed.
3.17
The Eight Point Plan was developed to simultaneously address the full
range of complex interrelated causes of petrol sniffing and substance abuse and
it is essential that all points in the plan are implemented. The committee is
of the view that some points of the plan have not been implemented to the
extent required for the strategy to effectively and holistically address the
causes and issues associated with petrol sniffing and substance abuse in the
long term.
3.18
The committee notes the following issues that were raised both in the
Urbis Review and in evidence during this inquiry as areas where improvements
can be made in order for the strategy to deliver its broad intention.
The role of CAPSSU
3.19
The Urbis Review noted that the Central Australian Petrol Sniffing Strategy
Unit's (CAPSSU) responsibilities so far have related only to the implementation
of the Eight Point Plan in the Northern Territory. This is despite the fact
that the designated implementation area was extended to an additional 18 or so
remote communities as well as the town camps of Alice Springs.[13]
3.20
The committee notes that it is often the preference of Indigenous people
to have services and government officers located in their regions, as opposed
to being centrally located in Canberra. The committee questions why CAPSSU has not
received commensurate funds and staff to implement the full range of PSS programs
in the extended zone. The government should make more of the opportunity that
CAPSSU offers to engage effectively with Indigenous communities and
organisations in the region.
3.21
The Urbis Review noted that staffing shortages in CAPSSU were partly the
result of the states and territory governments not contributing staff as originally
intended, which means that CAPSSU to date has only been staffed by the
Commonwealth government. In relation to the funding of CAPSSU, the Review notes
that as:
...no significant funds [were made] available under the PSS for
activity in the expanded NT zone, one of CAPSSU’s concerns has been to try to
identify other possible funding sources for this purpose.
In particular CAPSSU has been successful in obtaining funds
available under the NTER for a program of school holiday youth activities in
several communities in the expanded zone; it continues to seek funding through
the NTER for various other youth activities.[14]
3.22
In addition, the Urbis Review noted that increased pressure was put on
CAPSSU's resources when it was required to assist with measures under the
Northern Territory Emergency Response, as CAPSSU and FaHCSIA representatives
observed 'carrying out these NTER responsibilities has inevitably reduced the
CAPSSU staff time available for progressing the Eight Point Plan, and
"strained the whole organisation"'.[15]
3.23
Both CAYLUS and the NPY Women's Council expressed concerns that CAPSSU
was not operating effectively as a coordination body for the implementation of
the plan in central Australia. At the hearing in Alice Springs the committee
inquired as to whether the role of CAPSSU should be reviewed to assess its
efficiency. Vicki Gillick from NPY Women's Council responded:
What are the costs and where is the efficiency in having that
unit if the main thing they have administered is one contract...
...It is probably timely to have a look at the CAPSSU, what it has
achieved, and what it is expected to do. It was expected to deal with a
tri-state approach to this issue and various aspects of an eight-point plan.
But that quickly seemed to be whittled down to dealing with the Northern Territory...
...If they are monitoring a contract to one service provider and a
bit of school holiday funding do you really need a substantial unit made up of
various arms of government?[16]
3.24
CAYLUS suggested that the Commonwealth government:
...in order to best maximise the use of current and future 8 Point
Plan resources and ensure better coordination, consider locating remaining and
future 8 Point Plan resources within one department. Based on experience of on
the ground results we would suggest that Health would be the most appropriate.[17]
3.25
When the committee met with the GPT Group in Yulara they noted that
CAPSSU had performed well given the difficult circumstances but they considered
that the implementation of the PSS would be more efficient and better
implemented through a coalition of NGOs, government and community
representatives.
Recommendation 4
3.26
While the committee recognises the importance of a local 'on the
ground', coordinated presence for the effective implementation of the Eight
Point Plan, it is concerned about the Central Australian Petrol Sniffing
Strategy Unit's ability to effectively implement the Petrol Sniffing Strategy.
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government immediately
commission an independent review of the role and function of the Central
Australian Petrol Sniffing Strategy Unit, specifically:
- its capacity to implement the strategy effectively;
- whether its current location in the Alice Springs Indigenous
Coordination Centre as part of FaHCSIA delivers the requisite level of
accountability and governance standards;
- processes in place for the effective ongoing monitoring,
evaluation and reporting of the Unit's role;
- its ability to effectively engage and consult with Indigenous
people and communities; and
- the effectiveness of the tri-state whole-of-government approach
including the staffing and collaboration between departments.
Consolidating the rollout of Opal fuel
3.27
The committee acknowledges the already extensive voluntary rollout of
Opal fuel in central Australia. This is a testament to the combined commitment
and effort of the communities, governments and the private sector and has done
much to reduce the incidence of petrol sniffing in central Australia. There has
also been considerable work undertaken to expand the Opal fuel rollout to areas
outside the zones defined by the Petrol Sniffing Strategy which is also a
welcome development.
3.28
Although the rollout of Opal fuel has been extensive, much of the
evidence provided to the committee indicated that further attention and
commitment is required to achieve a comprehensive rollout of Opal fuel in the
central Australian region. Given the newly increased production capacity at the
BP refinery there is the potential to almost double the current production
levels of Opal fuel and further increase the number of communities supplied
with Opal fuel which would go some way to addressing the remaining sources of
sniffable fuel.
3.29
In the conclusions and recommendations of the Urbis Review it was
recommended that the government give further consideration to the:
...need to bring into the fold a small number of service stations
which have to date refused to stock Opal fuel, and also to consider the
introduction of Opal in places such as Laverton (WA) which function as service
centres for some Central Desert communities. The effect of the continued ready availability
of premium unleaded fuel also needs further consideration.[18]
3.30
At the Adelaide hearing the committee was provided with a map (see
below) by BP Australia showing desired supply areas and existing petrol supply
terminals across Australia. The map shows that there is only one Opal depot
outside of Adelaide and that is in Alice Springs. While there is a fuel
terminal in Darwin, it is owned by a third party, Vopak, where regular fuel is normally
sourced from Singapore for distribution to northern Australia. The committee
understands that BP has been in discussion with DoHA about how Opal supply can
be increased around Australia paying particular attention to the areas depicted
on the map in orange.
3.31
In addition to expanding the rollout of
Opal fuel to remote communities the Commonwealth government noted:
...petrol sniffing is a problem that affects many communities
outside the zones defined by the Petrol Sniffing Strategy, for example, urban
areas such as Brisbane's Fortitude Valley. Addressing outbreaks of petrol
sniffing in areas outside the declared Petrol Sniffing Strategy zones and in
areas that are not as isolated as communities in central Australia is an
obvious challenge for the Strategy.[19]
Mandating Opal fuel
3.32
There is currently no legislation to mandate the use of Opal fuel;
uptake so far has been on a voluntary basis. Although there has been some
resistance to Opal fuel in a few communities, as noted in chapter two, the
committee acknowledges the overwhelming voluntary uptake. With this level of
cooperation there has been little requirement for the introduction of legislation
to mandate the supply of Opal fuel.
3.33
However, over the course of the inquiry the committee has consistently
heard that supplies of unleaded petrol are continuing to enter some communities
as a result of several strategically located retailers—particularly Rabbit Flat
Roadhouse (NT), Ti Tree Roadhouse (NT), Tilmouth Well Roadhouse (NT) and Laverton
Roadhouse (WA)—in the Expanded Central Desert Zone continuing to refuse to
stock Opal fuel. The committee was advised that in addition to these five
roadhouse there are an additional five—Laramba store (NT), Maryvale Station
(NT), Cadney Park (SA), Jervois roadhouse (NT), Ross River Resort (NT) and the
Urandangi community store (QLD)—that have also refused to stock Opal fuel.[20]
3.34
The submission from Maggie Kavanagh in Balgo notes that as a result of
the continued sale of unleaded petrol at both Rabbit Flat and Halls Creek opportunistic
sniffing still occurs and involves a significant number of young people.[21] The
submission notes that the delays in supplying Opal fuel in Halls Creek are the
result of a wider distribution problem—discussed in more detail later in this
chapter—however the issues with Rabbit Flat roadhouse are described as
'philosophical'.
The community feels let down that the [C]ommonwealth government
has not been more pro active in driving the rollout of Opal into these areas.
The community has written to Rabbit Flat Roadhouse and Shell asking them to put
Opal fuel in as soon as possible[22].
Balgo community would clearly benefit from a petrol free quarantined region
that includes the closest outlets of Halls Creek and Rabbit Flat.[23]
3.35
The committee also heard evidence that there are still fairly frequent
outbreaks of petrol sniffing in Laramba community in the Northern Territory—despite
its strong history of controlling petrol sniffing—because it is situated in
close proximity to the Tilmouth Well roadhouse and Laramba store which still
persist in supplying regular unleaded petrol.[24]
3.36
On the committee's visit to Alpurrurulam—which is outside of the
designated PSS zone—the committee heard that although Opal has been in the
community for almost two years there are still some instances of sniffing
because regular unleaded petrol is being brought in from towns cross the border
in Queensland such as Mt Isa, Urandangi and Emerald Station. The committee was
advised that Urandangi Station had agreed to switch to Opal but as yet there
were no suppliers of Opal fuel in that area of Queensland. However at the
committee's hearing in Canberra the Commonwealth government advised that this
store had actually refused to supply Opal fuel, as Ms Lesley Podesta noted:
There might have been a reason that they declined that they did
not disclose to us, but we approached them and they declined to participate.[25]
3.37
The committee enquired about whether attempts had been made by the
communities and organisations to approach roadhouse owners and communicate the
impact of their refusal to stock Opal. CAYLUS responded:
I spoke to Bruce Farren, who runs Rabbit Flat, and at that stage
Bruce said that no Aboriginal had ever requested that he stock Opal.
Subsequently the Balgo community wrote to him and requested that. The police
from Balgo have been to visit him and also asked for that. We asked for that.
People from Yuendumu asked for that, but there has been no response in any case...
...At the Ti Tree roadhouse, I have not been able to speak to the
owner but I have met the owner at various forums. I have seen him in forums
since before Opal came, and he has opposed it from the very beginning, and
continues to oppose it. He does not live in Ti Tree so he does not have to live
with the effects, but he has continued to oppose Opal roll-out there. Because
he owns it outright, he can do that.[26]
3.38
The committee understands that the Commonwealth government is continuing
'to consult with these stakeholders to progress the introduction of Opal fuel
to these locations'.[27]
The Northern Territory government has also been in contact with the
roadhouse owners in the hope that 'people will soon see the benefits rather
than the disincentives, and they usually come on board once they are able to
get all the information'.[28]
However, numerous submissions and witnesses raised concerns that the
recalcitrant roadhouses are unlikely to ever voluntarily introduce Opal fuel and
noted the lack of progress following years of consultations. The committee also
notes that one of the roadhouse owners has publicly voiced their personal opposition
to supplying Opal fuel.[29]
These remaining sources of regular unleaded petrol within the Petrol Sniffing
Strategy Zone are a concern to the committee and agree with the NPY Women’s
Council that:
It is absolutely vital that the widest possible coverage of Opal
is achieved in the Central region so as to close off opportunities for
sniffing.[30]
3.39
In order to overcome this barrier preventing a comprehensive rollout of
Opal fuel, submissions and witnesses argued that legislation mandating its
supply was necessary. Alderman Melanie van Haaren on the Alice Springs Town
Council argued that the use of Opal fuel should be legislated:
I believe it should be legislated...Given the depth and gravity of
the problem, particularly in the Top End of the Northern Territory, it would be
negligent not to do something to that affect...There can be no room for
complacency around that. We have evidence and proof that it is a simple
initiative with an enormous benefit for youth and families. There really should
be no excuse for not moving on it.[31]
3.40
Similarly, the NPY Women's Council was of the view that:
...legislation is necessary in order to maximise the reduction of
supply. This reduction is of course the main advantage of the implementation
of Opal fuel and the main reason for its success in vastly lowering the
incidence of sniffing in the region.[32]
3.41
CAYLUS also agreed stating that the roadhouses:
simply refuse, for no good reason, to stock the fuel. It is also
not good enough to simply rely on the future good will of retailers in an environment
like ours. The use of Opal in our region needs to be legislated in order to ensure
that the gains of the Opal Rollout are more than temporary. If the NT
Government is unwilling the Commonwealth Government should act.[33]
3.42
In addition, when the committee met with representatives of The GPT
Group, a member of the Opal Alliance, in Yulara they recommended that a
legislative framework be put in place to mandate the supply of Opal fuel in a
specified area.
3.43
NPY women's Council provided the committee with legal advice it had
sought in relation to legislation mandating the use of Opal fuel. The advice
from Blake Dawson Waldron lawyers notes that:
The regulation of the sale of petrol is generally a matter for
the States rather than the Commonwealth...each State approaches the regulation of
the sale of petrol differently. South Australia, for example, requires
retailers and wholesalers to have a licence to sell petrol, while Western
Australia does not have a licensing scheme but regulates from whom retailers
purchase petrol. The Northern Territory requires that wholesalers who supply
fuel to retailers have a licence...
...Given the disparate regulatory regimes in each State, it is
difficult to recommend a uniform approach to drafting legislation which
mandates the use of Opal across an area that covers South Australia, Western
Australia and the Northern Territory.[34]
3.44
The advice provides three options for mandating the use of Opal fuel
through cooperation by each state and territory to enact similar legislation in
each jurisdiction which would either expressly or by necessary implication
mandate the use of Opal.
3.45
The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of New South
Wales provided evidence on the constitutional powers available to the
Commonwealth to create laws mandating the supply of Opal fuel. The submission
recommended, in contrast to the legal advice from Blake Dawson Waldron lawyers,
that the most efficient method was for the Commonwealth government to take
responsibility for enacting the legislation rather than each state and
territory as 'it is difficult to pull off uniform complementary legislation and
then hard to keep it in sync'.[35]
The Centre concluded that there was no 'constitutional barrier to the enactment
of Commonwealth legislation requiring the replacement of standard unleaded fuel
with low aromatic fuel (OPAL) in Central Australia'.[36]
The submission recommended a combination of the Commonwealth's constitutional corporations
power and the territories power which could effectively:
...prohibit the stocking of standard unleaded fuel, and thus
promote its replacement with OPAL, in areas within or near the Territory.[37]
3.46
The committee inquired as to whether the Commonwealth government had
looked into introducing legislation to mandate the use of Oapl fuel, to which DoHA
replied:
We are certainly undertaking some work to do a detailed
cost-benefit analysis in regard to potentially introducing legislation. It is
advice that has not been provided to government. As a department, we are not in
a position to give advice to government yet, because we have not undertaken
that work. I am sure you will be aware, Senator, that it is Australian
government policy that a regulatory impact statement, including detailed
cost-benefit analysis, is part of a process. We are about to commence work
around a cost-benefit analysis, so it is probably premature of me to speculate
on benefits or otherwise about legislation.[38]
3.47
The committee recognises and agrees that a concerted effort has been
made on behalf of both government, non-government organisations and affected
communities to encourage retailers to supply Opal fuel. Following evidence
provided to the committee it appears that for several years there has not been
any positive signs of progress and the committee is now of the view that
legislation to mandate the supply Opal fuel appears to be the only way to
achieve a comprehensive rollout of Opal fuel in central Australia.
Linking Opal fuel to the BasicsCard
3.48
The committee has also considered the proposal of making the exclusive
supply of Opal fuel at a roadhouse or other retail outlet a condition of
approval as a merchant for the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard is used by people
whose Centrelink payments are being income managed so they can purchase essential
goods and services through the usual method of EFTPOS. As retailers have to
apply to become an approved BasicsCard merchant there has been some suggestion
that the approval should be contingent on the retailer supplying Opal fuel.
This would mean that roadhouses in the Northern Territory as well as those in
or nearby other income management trial areas in Western Australia would have
to switch to supplying Opal fuel if they wished to be an approved BasicsCard
merchant. This would avoid the need to introduce legislation at the current
time although it would have little effect on the Laverton roadhouse where the
BasicsCard is generally not in use.
3.49
The committee inquired about this option for encouraging the use of Opal
fuel in areas where income management was in place. The Commonwealth government
advised that:
...there are some complex both legal and practical issues
associated with that—particularly when you are dealing in the Territory, where
there is mandatory income management—such as whether, if you took away the
BasicsCard, that would disadvantage certain elements of the community because
they cannot access services in the most convenient way. I think it is a very
complex problem and not one that I am aware that we have actively explored at
this time.[39]
Recommendation 5
3.50
Given the continuing resistance to Opal fuel by some retailers across
all jurisdictions in central Australia, the committee recommends that the
Commonwealth government complete, as a matter of priority, the necessary work
to determine whether legislation is both possible and practicable.
3.51
If these retailers do not voluntarily agree to supply Opal within 6
months, and if it is established that there are no legal impediments to the
implementation of Commonwealth legislation, the Commonwealth government should
immediately commence the drafting of legislation to mandate the supply of Opal
fuel within the petrol sniffing strategy zone.
Recommendation 6
3.52
In the event that the introduction of Commonwealth legislation is not
possible, the committee recommends that state and territory governments
introduce legislation to mandate the supply of Opal within the petrol sniffing
strategy zone.
Contractors and the use of Opal
fuel
3.53
In its previous report the committee recommended that similar procedures
to those implemented by the community of Maningrida in Arnhem Land, where all
contracts were conditional on the contractors not bringing unleaded fuel into
the community, be used by other communities.[40]
3.54
The committee was informed during this inquiry that contractors still bring
sniffable fuel and other volatile substances into communities, such as
Mutitjulu in the Northern Territory. DoHA's impact evaluation of Opal fuel also
found that contractor’s equipment is a common source of the regular unleaded
petrol currently used for sniffing. The evaluation recommended that:
...educative material and verbal reminders given by staff working
with communities experiencing sniffing stress the need for Councils and other
employers to stipulate that contractors must use Opal fuel, and lock away any
volatile substances such as glues that they use.[41].
Recommendation 7
3.55
Given that the committee in its 2006 report recommended that all
governments replicate the procedure used in Maningrida to prevent contractors
bringing regular unleaded petrol into communities by making it a term of
contract, the committee reaffirms this recommendation and recommends that
contracts for service in areas where petrol sniffing is a problem contain terms
which prevent regular unleaded fuel entering the community and require that all
other volatile substances and inhalants be locked away when not in use.
Central Australian exclusion zone
3.56
During the previous inquiry the committee considered areas that should
be included in the initial Opal fuel rollout in order to strategically limit
the supply of sniffable fuel and maximise the effectiveness of the rollout. The
committee concluded then that:
It is therefore imperative that the application of the Petrol
Sniffing Prevention Program outside the designated area is improved and that a
more strategic approach is implemented. At the present time Opal is supplied
under the Petrol Sniffing Prevention Program only in response to a community’s
request. There is also no supply of Opal to roadhouses and townships outside
the designated area even though these may be critically placed as last fuel
stops before entering Opal communities. The Committee considers that this is a
lost opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the Petrol Sniffing Prevention
Program and the identification and roll out of Opal to these roadhouses and
townships would be an efficient means of reducing black market and inadvertent
supply of sniffable fuel.[42]
3.57
Some of the last fuel stops identified during the previous inquiry
included Laverton, Leonora, Yulara, Curtin Springs, Mt Ebenezer, Erldunda, Marla
and Coober Pedy.[43]
The committee notes that much of the evidence received during this inquiry
indicated that many of these 'last fuel stops' are yet to supply Opal fuel and as
such remain a source of sniffable fuel for central desert communities within
the PSS zones.
3.58
The NPY Women's Council noted that its 'members frequently complain that
regular unleaded fuel gets to Warburton and other Ngaanyatjarra communities'
through Laverton. During the hearing in Alice Springs Valerie Forster, the NPY
Women's Council Director, from Wanarn in Western Australia advised the
committee that:
In our communities, we have Opal right across the Ngaanyatjarra
region, but we have petrol sniffing because there is premium from people who
come back from Kalgoorlie and Laverton. They bring in premium. I believe that
is where they get petrol and that is when the kids start sniffing petrol, when
people or visitors bring in premium petrol. There are a couple of roadhouses
that are situated between Kalgoorlie and Laverton and they also sell premium.
If we can try to get Opal into those places, maybe petrol sniffing will somehow
come down and we can stop young kids who are now sniffing and do other
activities.[44]
3.59
The Western Australian government confirmed that Laverton was
'identified as the primary source of supply associated with the latest
outbreak' of petrol sniffing in Warburton.[45]
3.60
In addition at the Alice Springs hearing Ms Julie Anderson advised the
committee of an additional source of sniffable fuel in the region:
Some of our young people sniff petrol at
Finke, but that is being brought in from a nearby place called Mount Dare....Mount
Dare is a roadhouse on the edge of the national park on the road to Dalhousie
Springs.[46]
3.61
The Alice Springs Town Council reiterated that an effective exclusion
zone for central Australia would need to include areas:
...more than one tank’s range out of the region. That may mean
incorporating up to Tennant Creek and down to Coober Pedy, which is out of our
area. But that is probably the kind of radius you would need if you wanted to
create an exclusion zone in Central Australia, because otherwise a vehicle
could make it from those destinations into our region and still have half a
tank of sniffable fuel.[47]
3.62
The South Australian government also noted that communities in the
Nullarbor region would also benefit from the:
...rollout of Opal fuel along the Eyre Highway [which] would
reduce a ready source of petrol to a small number of sniffers at Yalata and the
Maralinga Tjarutja Lands which join the APY Lands in the West of South
Australia.[48]
3.63
Dr Brian McCoy noted that the ongoing access to sniffable fuel in
neighbouring communities outside the designated Opal fuel rollout area is compromising
the effectiveness of the roll out.[49]
Opal fuel supply in northern Australia
3.64
The committee notes that significant supply chain and fuel distribution
logistics issues are limiting the rollout of Opal fuel to northern Australia,
especially across the East Kimberley Zone, as well as causing delays in
expanding the rollout to other communities outside the designated zones. For
example in Balgo:
The commonwealth government has been informing Balgo that Opal
will be put into Poinciana Roadhouse in Halls Creek since December 2007. Shell
has still to make an agreement about supplying Opal to Halls Creek and Opal
fuel has still not been established in Halls Creek or Rabbit Flat roadhouse.
The community understands that the delay in Halls Creek is due to delays in
supply issues.[50]
3.65
This was confirmed by the Shell Company of Australia in a written
response to the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous
Communities in December 2008 regarding the supply of Opal fuel in Halls Creek.
Shell explained that regular unleaded fuel is currently supplied to the area
via Darwin or Broome and that to supply Opal to Halls Creek via road would be a
12 000 km round trip which is not feasible. One possible solution was to:
Put tanker barrels on the railway from Adelaide to Darwin and
then hook the barrels up to a prime mover and drive them from there. The round
trip for a driver would be 4 days from Darwin as compared with 3 days from
Broome, from where Halls Creek is currently supplied. The round trip time for
the truck barrel would be somewhere between 12 and 14 days and would require 2
dedicated trucks during low season and 3 dedicated trucks in peak season...[51]
3.66
However Shell discounted this option as:
...Shell's primary estimates are that the cost of delivering fuel
in such a manner to Halls Creek would significantly exceed the subsidy (30 cpl)
offered by the Federal Government at present for delivering low aromatic fuel
to Northern Australia...
...By far the simplest and most cost effective solution would be
to have a supply of low aromatic fuel in Darwin (and Broome if possible),
available for distribution to Northern Australia...once such a supply is
available, delivery of low aromatic "Opal" fuel to northern service
stations and communities will be a far more practical proposition.[52]
3.67
The possibility of the construction of a bulk storage facility in Darwin
was noted in the Commonwealth government's submission.
To overcome the supply chain issues, DoHA is working to identify
a more efficient and accessible option for Opal fuel distribution in remote
areas in northern Australia. This is likely to be achieved by establishing a
bulk storage facility for Opal fuel in Darwin, in addition to the current
storage site in Adelaide. This is expected to be resolved by the end of the
2008-09 financial year.[53]
3.68
However, at the hearing in Canberra the committee was advised that the
option of constructing a bulk storage facility was:
...still under investigation. We have scoped it. It is a very
costly and complex infrastructure project. It would take a considerable period
of time. It is Northern Australia. It is a very expensive issue. If we do this,
it will require us to enter into very long term tenure. We are looking at it
but we are also actively pursuing what other fuel distribution mechanisms are
available across Northern Australia. It is a very high cost option.[54]
3.69
At the hearing in Adelaide BP Australia explained in greater detail the
possible issues with a bulk storage facility in Darwin:
Mr McKenzie—We do not have spare tanks in Darwin, so the issue
of supply ex Darwin does make sense...We...just do not have a tank for it. So if we
want to build a tank we need tenure, we need capital and we need volume to give
Vopak what they need in order to have a reasonable rate of return.
Senator SIEWERT—What volume are you talking about?
Mr McKenzie—It is all dollars, I suppose. Hypothetically, if we
were to build a five million litre tank that would be almost two years in
construction. It would then need at least a five-year tenure and probably
throughputs of about 10 million litres a year. Just to remind everyone, the
throughputs out of Adelaide are at 17 million litres at the moment. Some of
these communities are looking at about 120,000 to 150,000 litres a year, so it
is one road train, one truck worth of volume per annum. To move 10 million
litres is still a considerable amount of volume in a place where diesel is the
majority use fuel.[55]
3.70
The committee acknowledges the considerable cost and investment required
by the Commonwealth government to construct a bulk storage facility in Darwin.
However, without such a facility the supply of Opal fuel to northern Australia will
remain costly and prevent Opal from being widely available. BP Australia provided
the committee with an example of the current effort required to get Opal into
Nhulunbuy which took three months of planning.
The physical movements are from Kwinana to Adelaide by ship—a
small component of a very large ship—into a reasonably small bulk terminal.
From there it goes onto a road train. Road trains run from Adelaide to Darwin;
they carry about 140,000 litres of product. There will be a few compartments of
Opal; it is mostly diesel with up to, say, 50,000 litres of Opal. The road
train would then run to Alice Springs. It would probably put half the Opal into
Alice Springs as part of its regular movement. You do not run trucks empty, so
it would fill those empty compartments with diesel and take those all on to Darwin.
At Darwin it gets discharged into a depot and the Opal gets loaded onto an
isotainer, which is a container with a tank inside. A barge operator then picks
it up from that Darwin depot, takes it to the wharf and puts it on his barge,
which runs weekly into Gove with every other supply for that region. It takes
two days to get to Gove, and then at Gove it gets put into the Rio diesel
terminal, which is a safe place to store fuel.[56]
3.71
Although the committee agrees with BP Australia's comment at the
Adelaide hearing that in regards to supplying Opal fuel 'nothing is impossible;
it just takes lots of conversations, lots of willingness,'[57]
the committee does not believe that these complicated supply chains and high
delivery costs are sustainable in the medium to long term. Even BP noted that
the process in place to supply Nhulunbuy with Opal is only a short term
solution. The committee concludes that without the construction of a dedicated
bulk storage facility in Darwin the costs and supply chain logistics associated
with distributing Opal fuel to northern Australia will be prohibitive and
unnecessarily complicated.
Opal fuel in Yalata
3.72
Given the additional production capacity at the BP refinery for Opal
fuel there is scope to actively encourage and expand the supply of Opal fuel to
other communities. One such community which has been consistently raised during
this inquiry is Yalata in South Australia where the incidence of petrol
sniffing has not declined in contrast to the substantial declines seen in the
APY Lands where Opal fuel has been made available.
3.73
UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide raised particular concerns about the delay
in the fulfilment of the commitment to supply Opal to Yalata community and the surrounding
areas in the Nullarbor region of South Australia.[58]
UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide suggest that Yalata has been overlooked even though
the community has a long history of petrol sniffing:
It is the first community that is mentioned in the Hansard of
the South Australian parliament, back in I think 1979, around petrol sniffing.
It is not a fleeting mention; it is a serious situation there. It does come and
go. There was a coronial inquest out there into a petrol sniffing death last
December and there appeared to be no sniffing in the community at that time,
but it has gone like this for 30 years.[59]
3.74
The Commonwealth government in its submission outlined plans to introduce
a portable fuel tank system in Yalata, given that there is currently no
suitable infrastructure for normal retail fuel supply.
The portable facility will enable community members to purchase
Opal and Diesel fuels from two 30,000 litre fuel tanks set inside specially constructed
shipping containers. An outdoor payment terminal will provide the opportunity
for 24 hour access and a cashless system of fuel supply with significant labour
cost reductions.[60]
3.75
The Commonwealth government noted at the hearing in Canberra that the
delays with the supply of Opal fuel in Yalata are only due to the issues
associated with the lack infrastructure as the community has been approved to
receive Opal. The government advised that it has also agreed to provide the
funding for the infrastructure—which has not previously been granted in other
cases—as it considers the need in this community to be such that this support
was warranted.[61]
3.76
The Commonwealth government advised the committee that the provision of
Opal fuel in Yalata is progressing with the government currently:
...working with the community to look at the business opportunity
that this [infrastructure] will provide, to look at the plans that need to be
put in place to make sure the community has the capacity to maintain the upkeep
of that fuel unit and to make sure that the revenue that is generated is
managed appropriately within that community. The South Australian government
and the Ceduna Indigenous Coordination Centre are working with that community.
There is currently an Indigenous Small Business Fund application to complete
this work. Once this has been approved, we will undertake some work with a
consultant to provide relevant skill training within that community to ensure
that they are able to operate this as a business.[62]
3.77
The South Australian government also noted that some of the delays in Yalata
are due to:
...a sense of reservation from, in particular, the Yalata
community—and from other communities—around the impact and effects of Opal fuel
on vehicle maintenance and vehicle running. That has been part of the
conversations around allaying those particular fears. There is obviously also
the issue of the previous roadhouse that was located close to that community
and about the re-establishment of that roadhouse and the implications that may
have for that community in terms of broader fuel supply. The fact that they are
located on the Eyre Highway also has other implications for the supply of Opal
to communities further west of that area...Those are the types of conversations
that are happening in relation to community concerns about mandated processes
for their communities versus other, non-Indigenous communities located along
the highway...[63]
3.78
The committee believes that this seems to be a reasonable explanation
for the delay and urges the Commonwealth government to better communicate these
delays with the community and other interested stakeholders to avoid any unnecessary
confusion or adverse media attention, which was the case with the recent media
coverage from the committee's Adelaide hearing.[64]
3.79
In addition, UnitingCare Wesley raised concerns with delays in the
rollout of Opal fuel to the surrounding communities of Ceduna and Nundroo which
is where Yalata currently gets its supply of regular unleaded fuel. The concern
is that if these communities are also not converted to Opal fuel once Yalata's
supply is in place the remaining core group of 5 petrol sniffers will still be
able to access sniffable fuel. UnitingCare Wesley stated that:
...we were originally given information saying, ‘We are exploring
its rollout into surrounding centres.’ That is no longer on the radar. A
serious question is: why hasn’t it already being provided to Nundroo, which is
the closest community, so for the last three years people could have got Opal
from that community?[65]
3.80
In response to this concern the Commonwealth government advised the
committee that it is not responsible for the delay of the supply of Opal fuel
to the surrounding communities. The issue is that these communities have not
made an application to DoHA for the supply of Opal fuel, the process for which
is outlined in chapter 2 of this report.[66]
Were the communities to apply to DoHA and be approved the supply of Opal could
begin providing there were no safety concerns or delays associated with supply
logistics to be overcome.
Recommendation 8
3.81
The committee reaffirms its previous recommendation that the
Commonwealth, state and territory governments revise and agree upon priorities
to consolidate and extend the rollout of Opal fuel to utilise the current
production capacity of 40 million litres per annum. The immediate focus should
be on:
- delivering a comprehensive exclusion zone in central Australia;
- the option of establishing a bulk storage facility in Darwin in
order to provide a sustainable long-term distribution system in northern Australia;
and
- actively expanding the rollout of Opal fuel to the far west coast
region of South Australia and Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory.
Premium fuel
3.82
One particular remaining challenge to further reduce the supply of
sniffable fuel is the availability of premium fuel—necessary for use in some
high performance vehicles and cars manufactured before 1986—for which there is
currently no low-aromatic alternative.
3.83
In the absence of an alternative to premium fuel at present the
Commonwealth government, in association with the fuel industry and community
organisations, have developed guidelines outlining preferred standards for the
responsible sale of premium unleaded petrol. The guidelines stipulate that:
- bowsers should be secured and locked when not in use;
- sales of premium unleaded petrol should be monitored and in
particular sales in small containers should be limited; and
- suspect purchases should be reported to the Substance Abuse
Intelligence Desk.[67]
3.84
BP Australia also noted that the formulation of these guidelines is:
...where we have been focusing our efforts with the department on
developing guidelines for retailers on the responsible sale of premium fuel to
try and educate them and help them provide service to those communities.[68]
3.85
The committee also asked the Commonwealth government whether the fuel
retail industry had provided any feedback so far on whether they were happy to implement
the guidelines. DoHA responded:
The fuel industry have been incredibly receptive and very
responsible in regard to this and we have made sure that they complement the
existing guidelines around the responsible sale of volatile substances. We think
it is very positive. We have continued to periodically seek advice from
industry about what options they see in regard to alternatives to the premium.
It is a commercial process from their point of view and they have chosen not to
share that with us at this stage.[69]
3.86
The committee notes that the development of these guidelines is
essential in order to regulate the supply of premium fuel and it is important
to provide support to retailers at the local level to promote the importance of
and assist with the implementation of the guidelines as the only short to
medium-term solution available.
3.87
The NPY Women's Council recommended the government go further than
provide guidelines and instead regulate the sale or supply of premium fuel
through legislation requiring retailers to store the fuel 'in a locked bowser
accessible only to specific persons or their employees and it is supplied
directly into the tank of a vehicle whose driver can demonstrate that their
vehicle cannot operate without premium fuel'.[70]
3.88
Although the above measures for regulating the sale of premium fuel
could be effective to limit the supply of sniffable fuel they do not
necessarily obviate the need to consider the development of an alternative low
aromatic Opal equivalent premium fuel. As the Alice Springs Town Council noted
'the availability of sniffable Premium fuel in Alice Springs does mean that a
source of sniffable fuel is still relatively easily available'.[71]
3.89
BP Australia was asked whether an alternative to standard premium fuel
was being considered, BP responded:
Our focus so far has been on addressing the 80 per cent of the
problem. As I mentioned, Opal itself is a very small production run—we are
talking several million litres compared to billions of litres. Premium is even
smaller than that again. So it would—because of the small production
runs—again, increase the cost exponentially, I would imagine. [72]
3.90
The Commonwealth government was also asked at the Canberra hearing if it
was undertaking any work to develop an alternative to premium fuel and if so
what progress has been made. The government responded:
We do not have any information on what work is being done with
regard to an alternative to premium. It is a commercial operation and it is the
company’s decision whether or not to be public on that.[73]
3.91
Therefore it appears that neither DoHA nor BP Australia are actively
involved in the development of an Opal alternative to premium fuel. The
committee understands the potential high costs involved—due to the smaller
quantities required—as well as the additional logistical barriers to supplying
an Opal equivalent premium fuel especially when such barriers have not yet been
overcome for regular Opal fuel.
Recommendation 9
3.92
The committee considers that the 'guidelines for the responsible sale of
premium unleaded petrol' are a necessary response to the availability of
sniffable premium fuel and recommends the Commonwealth government finalise and
distribute the guidelines without delay, making sure that adequate support is
provided to ensure their implementation.
Recommendation 10
3.93
That twelve months after the distribution of the 'guidelines for the
responsible sale of premium unleaded petrol', the Commonwealth government
undertake an audit of both the uptake and effectiveness of the guidelines in
reducing access to premium fuel for the purpose of sniffing.
3.94
Subsequently, if the audit finds that these guidelines are not proving
effective, the committee recommends that, while conscious of the potential
commercial costs, consideration is given to subsidising the development of an
Opal equivalent substitute for premium fuel.
Mintabie, South Australia
3.95
Some additional concerns were raised about the opal mining town of Mintabie
in South Australia that is situated on land leased from the APY Council. At the
Alice Springs hearing Janet Inyaka reiterated that on the APY Lands there is
one town:
...making problems for all the communities and that place is
called Mintabie. That is the only place that is destroying our communities.[74]
3.96
Other NPY Women's Council members have frequently cited Mintabie as a
source of cannabis, premium fuel and alcohol for the NPY region, noting that:
The NT MLA for McDonnell, Ms Alison Anderson, has advised NPYWC
that on or around 11th July 2008, whilst attending the funeral of her late
brother at Amata on the APY Lands, she observed four young people sniffing
petrol at a house in the community. The main resident of the house informed her
that the (premium unleaded) fuel had come from the Mintabie Opal Field and was
selling for $70 a soft drink bottle.[75]
3.97
Protracted negotiations regarding a new lease have been undertaken by
the APY Council and the Mintabie Progress Association. Negotiations on the
terms for the new lease have stalled on issues of restrictions on retail
activities in the town due to concerns raised APY Land community members. UnitingCare
Wesley Adelaide argued that:
...the protracted lease negotiations be concluded as quickly as
possible and that the final lease increase APY and the State Government’s
capacity to reduce the amount of sniffable petrol and other prohibited
substances entering the APY Lands via Mintabie.[76]
3.98
The South Australian government advised the committee that negotiations
between the APY Council executive and the Mintabie Progress Association over
restrictions on the retail businesses in the community are progressing and
that:
In the last 12 months there have been some fairly constructive
conversations in relation to the operation of Mintabie community on the APYs.
That lease was due to expire at the end of last year. The APY executive have
agreed to extend that so the negotiations can continue to allow for resolution.[77]
Delivery of youth services
3.99
Providing alternative activities for young people is a key plank in the
Eight Point Plan to combat petrol sniffing in central Australia. Indeed there
is universal agreement about the need for dedicated diversion and prevention
programs for young people to prevent them from turning to substance abuse. As
the plan is designed to operate for a period of ten years the committee expects
that the implementation of the plan and considerable progress on its objectives
can be made.
3.100
The committee acknowledges that considerable progress has been made in
relation to reducing petrol sniffing. The space created by this decline is a
window of opportunity to be embraced. While youth services are recognised as a
key element of the plan, there is significant unmet need:
As a result of poverty, illness, poor
educational outcomes and high levels of substance misuse in communities there
are high levels of need amongst Indigenous young people in the region.
Stakeholders in the region clearly state that there are substantial levels of
unmet need. This is across the spectrum of what is commonly characterised as
"youth services" including sport, recreation and cultural activities,
activities to supplement mainstream educational programs and facilities, to
health related services including substance misuse programs.[78]
3.101
At its hearing in Alice Springs the committee heard evidence that
services and interventions for prevention and diversion were working but that
much more was needed to continue and expand this good work. Sean Brennan from
the Gilbert + Tobin Centre for Public Law put it this way:
...we
urge governments to boost their investment in complementary measures, such as
well designed youth services on a community development model, because it is
vital that the window of opportunity created by Opal is not wasted for want of
adequate resources on that front.[79]
3.102
As noted in chapter 2, the key youth service funded under the Petrol
Sniffing Strategy operates in only four communities. Mission Australia stated
that it is sufficiently resourced to provide services to the four communities
and that 'the approach of being intensive in selected communities rather than
trying to spread a small amount too far is appropriate', however they also
'believe there is a case to extend that [youth services] to other communities'.[80]
3.103
A recent survey undertaken by CAPSSU of youth services in around 22
communities in the central desert region of the Northern Territory (outside
Alice Springs) found that youth program staffing included one substance abuse
worker, 16 youth workers, 16 casual Anangu trainee youth workers, 3 outreach
workers, 2 education officers and 5 sport and recreation workers of which 8
youth workers and the Anangu trainee youth workers were part of the NTIYSP. In
addition, the Mt Theo youth rehabilitation program in Yuendumu employed a
further 10 elders, 14 workers in the youth program, and 75 casual
participant/workers.[81]
Considering that 8 youth workers are employed in just four communities under
the NTIYSP the fact that the remaining 18 communities have only 8 youth workers
among them indicates a continuing lack of both staff and services for young
people in the area.
3.104
In addition, the DoHA commissioned Evaluation of the Impact of Opal
Fuel completed in October 2008 found that 'the access to and quality of
youth services were patchy, and the funding sources for youth services were
widely varied'.[82]
The study also found that in the sample of 20 communities across the region:
- 6 communities did not have a youth program;
- 7 communities experienced no change in the availability of youth
services; and
- 2 communities experienced a decrease in the availability of youth
services.[83]
The study also recommended that the six communities without
access to youth services be provided with them.[84]
3.105
The committee is also concerned by the finding in the DoHA study that 'there
has been no coordination between the provision of Opal fuel and access to youth
services in communities in the sample'.[85]
This coordinated approach to supporting the rollout of Opal fuel with other
elements of the Eight Point Plan, especially that of youth services, is one of
the fundamental principles of the PSS and the committee acknowledges that a
coordinated approach to consistently providing youth services has clearly not
happened. In order for this to occur further effort and commitment is required from
all governments.
3.106
Most witnesses and submissions also expressed concern about the lack of
youth services in areas outside the four NTIYSP communities. Dr Brian McCoy
noted that in the Kutjungka region, youth services are:
...limited in both personnel and resources. The Balgo youth centre
(formerly the old Mission girls’ dormitory) can no longer be used; it is more
than 40 years old and needs to be replaced.[86]
3.107
The NPY Women's Council raised the issue in relation to the community of
Kiwirrkurra in Western Australia which has:
...150 young people in a community of about 300, so they have a
really high population. However, because they are not part of the Ngaanyatjarra
shire they do not get those services. There is also no accommodation or funding
for youth workers. We provide some services. We run some school holiday
programs with funding from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department and
people from our domestic violence service, our youth service and others visit
that shire on a regular basis...
... Kiwirrkurra is forgotten and it is a long way away. It does
not have youth programs and, in some ways, it is not even on the radar for
those programs.[87]
3.108
The submission from Maggie Kavanagh in Balgo notes that:
There are not enough organised activities for young people under
the age of 14 years. Currently the community relies on school volunteers to
run after school basketball for younger kids in conjunction with the Garnduwa
program. People would like to see weekend camping trips, a properly funded
after school program, school holiday programs and structured activity based
programs for younger children.[88]
3.109
The Commonwealth government's submission stated that 'central Australia is
a particularly difficult region in which to provide youth services' due to the:
- patchwork of programs and providers;
- difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified and experienced
workers;
- lack of infrastructure; and
- high levels of need in the client group.[89]
3.110
While the committee acknowledges these difficulties it believes that
there is an urgent need for the reach of youth services to be expanded to all
areas covered by the PSS zone. The committee also recognises that providing
comprehensive youth services—including treatment, diversion and preventative
programs—is resource intensive, however the committee believes that the costs
of not providing these services far outweighs the costs of providing them. As Tristan
Ray from CAYLUS put it:
...we
need them, and we need the underlying infrastructure across the region, not
just in a few communities but in all of the communities in the region. We think
that they are financially effective in terms of preventing a whole range of
problems. We see them doing so many things.[90]
3.111
In addition, the provision of youth services is not consistent across
all three state and territory jurisdictions, and while there have been
significant gains in some locations, there is still much to be done. Indeed, in
some areas covered by the PSS there are no services at all for young people. In
its submission the Western Australian government acknowledged that while there
were plans to offer youth services for affected communities, these had not yet
commenced.[91]
Recruitment, retention and training
of staff
3.112
Another serious issue of concern is the ability of youth services to
attract and retain qualified staff. The committee was very pleased to be able
to meet with several enthusiastic and committed youth workers during their
visit to Mutitjulu, one of whom had worked in Kaltukatjara (Docker River) for
several years. The committee recognises that building relationships in
Indigenous communities is very important and is best served by long term staff
who are well supported and trained to work with young people, often in
difficult and challenging circumstances.
3.113
The submission from the Association of Child Welfare Agencies advocates
the need to allocate adequate resources in regional and remote Aboriginal
communities, and to implement a strategy to encourage the recruitment and
retention of committed and qualified staff.[92]
3.114
The committee asked the Commonwealth government what programs were in
place to address this issue. Steven Vaughan from CAPSSU noted that in relation
to training local Anangu workers:
At the moment Mission are working with their Anangu workers to
continue their training. That contract finishes in 12 months time. No decision
will be made for some time yet as to where that will go. That is something that
the department and government have to decide. But the whole scene has changed
since Mission Australia came on board. We have had the NTER and we have had the
shires come in. They were not really thought of when this all started, and the
shires have taken over responsibility right through the Territory for those
communities so they have their own local government shire structure, which is
still, in some cases, in its infancy, but it is developing. So they will have
community coordinators, youth workers and sport and rec workers within their
structure, employed by the shires. We have encouraged them to work with DEEWR
and Training to start to train their staff, particularly the CDEP staff, for
instance—it is not just training people in the youth work environment but also
to train people to take up this sort of work.[93]
3.115
The committee is pleased to see that the Commonwealth government is
considering this issue. The committee considers that training, developing and
supporting youth workers to ensure that there is an adequate pool of people who
are able to deliver continuous quality services in remote communities is a
matter of urgency. This issue should be given greater attention to develop a
comprehensive policy framework and a long term resourcing commitment.
Integrating early childhood
services
3.116
Although the PSS officially defines youth as aged between 12 and 20, as
noted in chapter 2, a significant number of young children aged between 0 and 5
years have been attending the activities run by Mission Australia under the
Northern Territory Integrated Youth Services Project even though they are
outside the target age group. This is quite a familiar occurrence in other
remote Indigenous communities with many older children having responsibility
for their younger siblings.
3.117
The committee notes that through COAG the Commonwealth, state and
territory governments have signed the National Partnership Agreement for
Indigenous Early Childhood Development which commenced on 1 January 2009.
This Agreement represents the first stage of the reform program
and builds on current activity; with a focus on Indigenous children aged 0-3
years. The evidence shows that substantial benefits accrue from investments
made in the first few years of life and this is even more so for children from
disadvantaged backgrounds. A greater focus on interventions in the early years
will also contribute significantly to the achievement of COAG targets relating to
later life outcomes.[94]
There is also a commitment from the Commonwealth government to
provide universal access to early childhood education for all four year olds,
including those in remote communities, by 2013.[95]
3.118
It appears that by not anticipating the participation of young children
as a condition of attracting and maintaining the participation of older youth
in remote Indigenous communities there is a missed opportunity to provide
targeted early childhood specific programs to this captive audience. In addition,
the attendance of these younger children demonstrates an existing gap in
alternative early childhood services and facilities which if addressed could
reduce the likelihood that those children will turn to petrol sniffing and
substance abuse.
3.119
The committee believes that further consideration should be given to including
or combining early childhood programs with existing youth services to provide
targeted activities for all community members under 25 years of age in remote
Indigenous communities.
Consistent legislation
3.120
While the Urbis Review was generally positive about the basis of the PSS
and its implementation, the review noted that the development of uniform
legislation is an area where little progress had been made:
So far as this review could establish, there has been little
activity to date in relation to uniform legislation. Thus it appears that there
is a need for inter-governmental consultation to reach agreement on relevant
policy issues, as a prerequisite for enactment of appropriate legislation...
...There has evidently been no progress towards ensuring greater
consistency of legislation across jurisdictions.[96]
3.121
Appendix 3 of the committee's previous report provided a summary of
existing state and territory legislation on inhalant abuse which was compiled
by the National Inhalant Abuse Taskforce in 2006. Since this time South
Australia has enacted the Statutes Amendment (Petroleum Products) Act 2007
which has broadened the offences for supplying petrol and made it an offence to
sell petrol without a licence.[97]
Yet there has been no real movement towards consistency between jurisdictions
with varying definitions of a volatile substance, the range of restrictions on
the sale of volatile substances and the grounds for apprehension. However the
committee does note that in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South
Australia it is uniformly illegal to knowingly sell or supply petrol for the purpose
of sniffing.
3.122
The South Australian government outlined that it is working with the
Western Australian and Northern Territory governments through the Cross Border
Justice Project to develop generic legislation to enable police to operate
throughout the NPY Lands. This 'would act as a deterrent to those who take
flight across borders in order to escape apprehension with respect to a broad
range of offending, petrol sniffing and mental health issues'.[98]
3.123
The committee was concerned by the lack of progress on this issue and
the subsequent effect this delay may be having on current cross-boarder police
operations. The committee raised these concerns with the South Australian
government at its hearing in Adelaide. The South Australian government responded:
The need to ensure that there is consistency in those orders has
required the time for all legal parties to have conversations about it. I think
the fact that it has progressed within three years is probably a good sign
given that legislative review and changes can take some time. The end product
in this process will mean that any individual, regardless of where they
originate and regardless of whether there are laws in place or impositions
placed on them will be treated equally by all jurisdictions.[99]
3.124
The committee has subsequently been advised that the South Australian
Cross Border Justice Bill—on similar timeframes to the Northern Territory bill—has
recently passed the South Australian House of Assembly, and is waiting to be
introduced into the Legislative Council with the view to it being operational
on 1 July 2009.[100]
3.125
The inclusion of consistent legislation in the Eight Point Plan
illustrates its vital role in effectively controlling petrol sniffing in
central Australia. The committee believes that a greater focus on providing law
enforcement agencies with a consistent and appropriate legal framework to respond
to incidences of petrol sniffing as well as other substance abuse would further
improve the effectiveness of the PSS.
Policing levels
3.126
As discussed in chapter 2 there has been a notable increase in police
levels in Indigenous communities since the committee last reported. This has
been an encouraging development and has no doubt contributed to the greater
regulation and prevention of petrol sniffing in Indigenous communities.
3.127
In its previous report the committee concluded and recommended that all
levels of government commit to prioritising strategies to achieve a permanent
police presence in all Indigenous communities, recruit Aboriginal Liaison and
Community Officers, establish and support night patrols and consider
multi-function police centres.[101]
These recommendations were echoed by the Mullighan Inquiry into Children on the
APY Lands in 2008 which found that:
It is essential that the permanent police presence in the
communities be established without further delay...Safety in the communities is essential.
It cannot occur without the permanent police presence, which requires the
building of police stations. They should be established as a matter of urgency. [102]
3.128
The committee is concerned that some areas and communities remain
without appropriate levels of policing and this continues to place vulnerable
community members at risk and reduce the effectiveness of the Petrol Sniffing
Strategy in these areas.
3.129
For instance, on the committee's visit to Hoppy's Town Camp in Alice
Springs community members expressed concerns for their safety noting that
there were no regular police patrols and that community night patrols were
inadequate for the number of residents in the town camps around Alice Springs.
The residents of town camps, many whom are elderly, therefore have no
protection from any violent antisocial behaviour perpetrated by petrol sniffers
in the area.
3.130
The NPY Women's Council in its submission identified communities that
still lack a permanent police presence and noted that no APY Lands communities
have a permanent sworn police presence although two stations are in the process
of being constructed, as noted in Chapter 2. This is a concern as:
It has been argued many, many times that there is no substitute
for a sworn police presence in communities, both for deterrence and
apprehension...[103]
3.131
The NPY Women's Council also noted, in a letter to the Chief Minister
provided to the committee, that in the Northern Territory:
The situation remains completely unsatisfactory with no
permanent police presence at Aputula/Finke or Docker River/Kaltukatjara. We are
well aware of what services do exist, and make no criticism of officers located
in the region. Patrols to these communities from, respectively, Kulgera and the
WA-NT cross-border post at Warakurna, do not constitute a sufficient police
service. A previous commitment to a post at Docker River seems to have evaporated.
Further, there are no police at Titjikala or Ayeronga, communities which are near
the NPY region although not members, and which have been also been lobbying strenuously
but in vain for a police presence. Other aspects of the intervention and in particular,
any attempts to reduce alcohol and illicit drug supplies, will inevitably fall
short of their potential without police based in communities.[104]
3.132
In addition, the submission from Maggie Kavanagh notes that although Balgo
has a multi functional police centre in the community the centre has
responsibility for two additional communities, those of Bililuna and Mulan, and
thus the two police officers currently police a population of approximately
850, which makes it the busiest remote centre in Western Australia. The
submission further noted that:
There is an urgent need for the policing levels to be doubled as
per the recommendation in the 2004 Coronial Inquiry into Youth Suicide and
Substance Abuse in Balgo and the Kutjungka Region of Western Australia.
Policing has had a positive and major impact on the safety of the community.
In particular the actions of the police in dealing swiftly with outbreaks of
sniffing in Balgo has been a significant strategy in ensuring that petrol
sniffing levels do not escalate and become an entrenched activity. However it
is not feasible to expect the two current officers to maintain this level of
engagement for prolonged periods.[105]
3.133
The committee also notes the recommendation from the Mullighan Inquiry
that police stations on the APY Lands be staffed with four police officers for
the reasons that:
...serious problems are likely to arise if the permanent police
presence becomes effective and is limited to two sworn officers at each
station. Arrests will be made and there will be the obligation to care for
prisoners safely and adequately, even though in the short term.
Persons in custody will require frequent observation...If there
are only two police officers at a police station whenever there is a person in
custody, only one police officer will be available for operational work.[106]
3.134
Although this is a recommendation for police staffing levels on the APY
Lands the committee has been advised that the staffing of the Balgo police
station with just two officers has led to the exact same issues as described by
the Mulligahn Inquiry.
The police service is greatly stretched and particularly so when
there are offenders in custody. In these situations the police are unable to
respond to other matters until custodial care has been completed as it is not
feasible for one officer to be left on duty on their own. Transporting
offenders out of the community is a costly exercise and further restricts the
policing that can occur.[107]
3.135
The committee commends the considerable effort on the part of
governments to make improvements in this area, however many Indigenous
communities remain without a permanent police presence. The committee
understands that policing is traditionally a state and territory responsibility
but as it is included in the PSS and after the success of the SAID, the
committee urges all levels of government to work towards establishing a
permanent police presence in every community.
Strengthening and supporting communities
3.136
The committee notes that this is an area where little specific activity
has occurred. Any activities undertaken so far related to strengthening and supporting
communities have largely been confined to initiatives to provide increased services
for and engagement of young people. The Urbis Review noted that:
...one government stakeholder was of the view that the community
support element of the Eight Point Plan had not been thought through adequately
at the outset – as reflected in the fact that no budget had been allocated for
this purpose. Some FaHCSIA stakeholders also observed that, given that there is
no allocated budget, there is also some ambiguity as to whether certain
activities relating to this component should be regarded as falling under the PSS,
given that strengthening communities is core business for FaHCSIA.[108]
3.137
The South Australian government outlined in their submission that:
There is a need for continued investment in providing
communities with information relating to the causes, effects and strategies for
addressing: petrol sniffing, individual safety, disability and child abuse and
neglect. This approach, coupled with support for community members, will
enable the historical effects of such issues to be addressed and will assist
with future community safety planning. Community driven change provides a
sound basis for individual family change.[109]
3.138
The Commonwealth government's submission stated that the Petrol Sniffing
Strategy Senior Executive Service Steering Committee will, in addition to the
recommendations of the Urbis Review, consider the 'need for focussed strategic
intention in identifying and developing opportunities for education, training
and employment activities within the 8 Point Plan'.[110]
The committee considers this area of education, training and employment for all
members of the community to be extremely important in increasing the resilience
of individuals and the community and thus reducing the demand for petrol
sniffing and substance abuse.
Preventative drug education
3.139
The committee considers that preventative drug education should be an
essential part of strengthening the resilience of communities and reducing the
demand for petrol sniffing and substance abuse. It also appears to be an area
of the response to petrol sniffing that has not had sufficient focus from all
levels of government.
3.140
The submission from Maggie Kavanagh in Balgo notes that there has been
no 'outside delivered drug and alcohol awareness or outreach programs
(currently this only happens through the work of Palyalatju’s youth and men’s’
health projects as part of their work)'.[111]
3.141
This issue was also raised with the committee on its recent visit to
Mutitjulu in the Northern Territory. The community noted that there has not
been a drug education program in language with the appropriate visual aids to
teach the young people about the dangers of petrol sniffing and substance abuse
issues. Given that Mutitjulu was one of the original four designated
communities in the Central Desert Zone—and that for many community members that
English is their second or third language and English literacy levels are
low—such a tailored education program should be an essential element of the
government's response to petrol sniffing.
3.142
This is an area the committee believes the Commonwealth government
should focus greater attention on in order to improve the effectiveness of the
Eight Point Plan.
Evaluation
3.143
The committee notes that evaluation activities have only recently
commenced and have not yet produced substantial results and conclusions to date.
The Urbis Review reported that the capacity of the relevant areas to progress
evaluation activities has improved markedly in 2009 and outlines five key
evaluation activities undertaken, including the:
- development of an Evaluation Plan for the PSS;
- collection of baseline data by DoHA and FaHCSIA;
- an evaluation of the Communications Strategy for Opal;
- an impact evaluation of the Opal fuel rollout; and
- a national audit of communications materials relating to petrol
sniffing and petrol sniffing programs.[112]
3.144
In its previous report the committee recommended that the Commonwealth
government, as a matter of priority, work to improve data collection on
substance abuse by Indigenous people.[113]
CAYLUS notes in their submission that data collection on petrol sniffing has
been patchy.[114]
The committee notes that some data collection has occurred and recognises that
the DoHA commissioned Opal impact survey used the same methodology to collect
qualitative data on the prevalence and frequency of petrol sniffing as the
Nganampa Health Council Survey of prevalence of petrol sniffing on Anangu
Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands. This consistency of methodology is a
step towards gathering accurate and comparable data on substance abuse.
3.145
However, the committee is particularly concerned with the lack of
progress on consistent data collection on petrol sniffing and substance abuse
in Indigenous communities across all the jurisdictions. Much of the evidence
presented to this committee on current rates and declines in both petrol
sniffing and substance abuse were anecdotal.
3.146
Evaluation is an extremely important aspect of the Eight Point Plan and
is essential for the ongoing effectiveness of the PSS in the longer term. The
committee believes that a greater focus is needed in this area and agrees with
the Urbis Review that evaluation should be made a 'priority in the near future,
and where feasible, that specific funds are ear-marked to enable external
evaluations to be conducted'.[115]
Recommendation 11
3.147
That the Commonwealth government, as a matter of priority, expand
current efforts to improve data collection on the prevalence and trends over
time in relation to petrol sniffing and substance abuse in Indigenous
communities so as to collect comparable data across all jurisdictions.
Restorative justice
3.148
The Commonwealth government's submission notes that although the
consistency of legal frameworks across jurisdictions was included in the Eight
Point Plan 'broader relationships with the law and justice system were not
explored'.[116]
The Commonwealth government's submission states that restorative justice models
can address some of the anti-social behaviour associated petrol sniffing which
would have the flow on effect of reducing arrest and incarceration rates in
Indigenous communities. The submission states:
The intention of these restorative justice initiatives is to
employ Restorative Justice Officers to coordinate models for helping local
people develop mechanisms for managing anti-social behaviour associated with
petrol sniffing, in a manner that meets communities’ social and cultural
requirements.
Restorative justice processes encourage communities to
articulate their values and expectations, and to understand the underlying
causes of crime or the unacceptable behaviour. It empowers them to determine
what can be done to repair the damage caused. In doing so, restorative justice
responses can reduce future harm for communities...
...Restorative justice responses have the potential to tackle
substance misuse, where this is a factor in offending, and therefore the
potential to contribute to greater community safety.[117]
3.149
The committee notes the potential benefits of restorative justice
programs but cautions that these programs must not substitute for appropriate
and adequate support for young people to address the underlying causes of
substance abuse and antisocial behaviour. In addition these programs should
only be introduced following community consultation and where there is
widespread community support, nor should they be used in any way for incidents
related to violence or threats of violence.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page