The Domestic and Family Violence crisis in the NT: a symptom of wider chaos

 

Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!

Macbeth, Act two, Scene three

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), a research organisation established by Australian governments, recently published an evaluation report (link here) commissioned (and presumably funded) by the Northern Territory Department of Children and Families into the Territory’s Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCPs). These programs (which to be clear seek to address important issues of individual responsibility) are aimed at reducing the levels of Domestic and Family Violence in some, but not all, regions in the NT. The evaluation focussed on the two MBPCs operating in the NT (link here), one in Darwin and Wadeye run by Catholic Care NT, and the other operating in the Alice Springs Town Camps run by Tangentyere Council. The evaluation was process focussed rather than outcome focussed, and while its recommendations are sensible and, in many respects, predictable, the evaluation was clearly limited in its focus. In setting the scene, the report identifies the broader significance of domestic and family violence (DVF) in the NT (page 18):

The NT arguably faces the greatest challenge of all Australian jurisdictions in addressing domestic and family violence. The rates of DFV in the NT are far higher than any other jurisdiction in the country, with particularly severe consequences for victims and survivors. In 2023, rates of DFV-related assault were almost 6 times that of all other jurisdictions where data is recorded, and 3.5 times the national average. The rate of DFV-related homicide was 4 times that of all other jurisdictions, and 3 times the national average. 2 in 3 (67%) assaults recorded in the NT were related to DFV and over half (55%) of homicides recorded in the NT were DFV related in 2023 [footnotes removed].

The report goes on to state:

While DFV affects people across population groups in the NT, Aboriginal women are disproportionately affected, being over 8 times more likely to be assaulted than nonIndigenous women or men. Aboriginal women in the NT are killed by intimate partners at almost 13 times the rate of non-Indigenous women and men. Over the 20-year period between 2000 and 2021, 70 per cent of intimate partner perpetrated assault deaths in the NT were perpetrated against Aboriginal women…  It is important to emphasise that while DFV is experienced mostly by Aboriginal women in the NT, DFV is perpetrated by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous men [footnotes removed].

The report proceeds to cite research identifying the ongoing impacts of colonialism, the impact of the 2007 NT Emergency Response, and the pervasive impacts of racism as significant contributors to the existence of DFV. While these are undoubtedly ongoing factors in shaping Aboriginal people’s life opportunities, I consider that their significance in driving DFV rates in the NT is both overstated and without rigorous empirical proof. More significant are the wider systemic issues identified in the report on page 19 under the heading Contextual realities of the NT. Unfortunately, the report frames these factors as downstream factors which compound the impact of DFV rather than as drivers or causes of DFV:

The experiences and use of DFV in the NT are compounded by contextual realities that make addressing this violence particularly complex. … alongside structural and system racism, Aboriginal communities in the NT are also disproportionately affected by factors such as poverty, homelessness, inadequate housing, housing insecurity and overcrowding, physical and mental health issues, alcohol and drug use, high rates of unemployment, and socio-economic disadvantage [footnotes removed].

The effect of this framing in the evaluation is to shift attention away from focussing on causation, and towards a focus on remediation. Of course, this ultimately flows through into the framing of the internal and external policy debate. The result is that while the ANROWS report mentions systemic issues, it simultaneously downgrades those that are susceptible to policy action to a category of ancillary or downstream issues that are just unfortunate ‘contextual realities’. The systemic issues that are identified (colonisation; the NT intervention; ongoing racism) are not susceptible to reversal through policy reform. The result in my view is that notwithstanding the reports undoubted merits as a process evaluation, it is simultaneously a contributor (perhaps unintentionally) to the systemic blindness which facilitates the ability of policymakers to avoid dealing with the real issues of causation in relation to domestic and family violence in the NT.

The NT Government’s Families Department website has some very useful information and data on the levels of DFV across the NT (link here) and I particularly recommend interested readers look at the DFV mapping report (link here) which provides a comprehensive analysis of the prevalence rates in the Northern Territory, and purports to identify gaps, opportunities and proposals for reform. Pages 145-147 list a series of potential initiatives under the heading ‘Systemic Reform and enablers opportunities’. Unfortunately, like the ANROWS evaluation, there is no mention of alcohol as a driver of Domestic and Family Violence. Readers are effectively misdirected away from the structural reform and into a labyrinth of myriad potential and desirable administrative changes.

In November last year, I published a post with the title Justice Reinvestment: divert and distract (link here) where I stated:

Importantly, while the costs of Indigenous hyper-incarceration are overwhelmingly borne by First Nations individuals, families and communities, there are wider societal costs that provide a potential platform for future advocacy. I am not referring to the financial costs of our prisons, substantial as they are, but to the less tangible costs that degrade the moral and ethical foundations of our society. How can informed citizens live in a society where the preconditions for social dysfunction have been allowed to develop, largely through neglect rather than deliberate intent, to the point where in some parts of the nation, domestic violence is endemic, employment opportunities are minimal, (government owned) housing is in extraordinary states of overcrowding and disrepair, and where young people are less literate and numerate than their parents. As the NT Coroner Elizabeth Armitage noted in her concluding comments to the recently released Inquest into the deaths of four Indigenous women (link here), ‘94% of the very youngest children in detention (10-13 year olds) have been exposed to family violence’.

In March this year, in a post titled Misdirected focus: the case for institutional policy reforms to alcohol supply (link here) I quoted an NIAA submission to a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry which stated inter alia:

AOD [alcohol and other drugs] are involved in more than half of all police-reported family and domestic violence incidents in Australia, and are likely to be involved in a substantially greater proportion of all family and domestic violence…. For homicides in the period from 1989–90 to 2016–17, 72% of First Nations offenders were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident, as were 71% of First Nations victims…

In the conclusion to that post, I wrote inter alia:

If Australia was serious about reducing family violence within Indigenous contexts, we would implement significant policy reforms in relation to alcohol advertising, taxation and retail availability.

A commentator wrote in response:

… your conclusion says it all, really. The work has all been done by WHO [World Health Organisation], which over time has refined and distilled its best practice advice based on solid research gathered by its expert committees over decades. And if you had to choose the three items with the best evidence attaching to them, it is those three you mention: dealing with alcohol advertising; taxation; and seriously attacking the easy and cheap retail availability of alcohol. 

Concluding comment

The tragedy of our nation’s continued propensity to avoid facing up to the issues that are causing immense harm and damage to the life opportunities of tens of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across remote Australia (and beyond) is approaching the point where it will spiral out of control and adversely impact mainstream institutions.

The Northern Territory is in a state of perpetual governance crisis, where underfunded schools are no longer fit for purpose, jobs are not within reach of young Aboriginal kids, alcohol and drug abuse is rife, as is domestic and family violence, and where violence and mayhem are increasingly spilling into the major towns and cities. Recently, the organisation representing the traditional owners of the Darwin region called on the four land councils to take some responsibility for the mayhem arising from the misbehaviour of out of town visitors (link here).

The reaction and knee-jerk responses of politicians and the wider Territory community is to blame the victim and seek ever increasing punitive laws and actions by governments. Last week, the Chief Minister announced she would recall Parliament (scheduled to sit tomorrow) specifically to rush through stronger bail laws following the murder of a storekeeper by a young Aboriginal man with a lengthy criminal justice record. On Saturday, the Weekend Australian (26-27 April 2025) published an article by Liam Mendes headlined ‘Same old story in red-flag Territory’ ($ link here $) which recounted numerous instances of shocking and appalling violence perpetrated against innocent citizens by young offenders. The article noted that ‘Territorians have been here before’ recounting how the CLP Government had come to office promising to get ‘tough on crime’, but that the community were increasingly sceptical: ‘The Chief Minister’s declaration …that “nothing is off the table” meant very little to exasperated residents’. Mendes concluded by noting ‘It is clear that the Territory’s justice system is broken. The answer isn’t to lock every defendant into overcrowded, overrun, disgusting watch houses.’ The author is right of course, although his concluding comment that the Government should have acted sooner is arguably misguided insofar as it implies that there are (unspecified) short term solutions.

The problems in the NT have been decades in the making and have their roots in the failures of governments at all levels to adequately support the maintenance of a viable social and economic institutional infrastructure in remote communities. Reversing this longstanding policy neglect is not susceptible to some quick fix. In recent years however the systemic dysfunction in remote communities that governments have been prepared to tolerate for decades because they were metaphorically ‘out of sight’ has begun to colonise mainstream Territory cities and towns.

Simultaneously, quite apart from the justice system challenges, and the associated issues related to Indigenous disadvantage, the quality of governance and public administration within the NT Government more generally has reached a tipping point and is now in a state of rolling crisis. Over the past year major governance failures have emerged in the Police, in the Anti-Corruption Commission, in the Chief Minister’s Department, and in the high-profile Waterfront Corporation. The senior levels of the NT bureaucracy appear to have been seriously compromised without apparent accountability. The concept of ministerial responsibility appears to have been consigned to the deeper depths of Darwin Harbour. The NT Independent recently published an editorial headlined CLP Government’s cover-up of misconduct at Waterfront part of wider dysfunction in the Territory (link here).

The prospect of any government in the NT pursuing the public interest on any significant issue in the near term is, in my view, a chimera. To take the crucial issue of alcohol, both Labor and CLP Government in the NT have consistently been prepared to prioritise the interests of the alcohol industry over the public interest (link here and link here). The risk is that the Territory’s diseased culture of governance has also infected the Commonwealth’s administration of Indigenous affairs. Three of the last five Ministers or Assistant Ministers have been from the NT, and the current Shadow Minister is also from the NT. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see the Commonwealth holding the NT to account on Indigenous policy issues going forward (not least because it has failed to do so to date).

One way or another, remote Australia requires more serious policy attention (as opposed to political froth) from national policymakers. A good first step would be to progressively and incrementally strengthen controls across the board (ie mainstream and Indigenous) over the availability and price of alcohol. But much more than this will be needed to reverse the progressive decline in governance and its silent handmaiden, economic security, that is currently underway and gathering momentum. The alternative to serious reform is progressive decline into systemic chaos not just in remote communities, but across the NT and potentially elsewhere in remote Australia. Unfortunately, it seems things will have to get much worse before the political willpower to reform will emerge either in Canberra or Darwin.

 

29 April 2025

Alcohol and community safety in the NT

There is a history in all men's lives,

Figuring the nature of the times deceased,

The which observed, a man may prophesy,

With a near aim, of the main chance of things

As yet not come to life…

2 Henry IV, Act 3 scene 1

 

 

In February 2023, the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Chaired by Labor Senator Patrick Dodson, issued the report on its Inquiry into community safety support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory (link here).  The terms of reference provided by the Senate in establishing the Inquiry focussed on three broad issues: the remote alcohol policy regime in the NT leading up to and after the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures legislation in June 2022 and its impact on alcohol regulation; remote employment issues; and justice reinvestment policy issues. This post limits itself to the first of these three topics.

 

Senator Dodson’s Foreword to the Committee Report is both a robust critique of past governments and their policies and a succinct high level summary of the Report’s argument. It is worth reading in full. Here is an extract:

… over the past 15 years, [Aboriginal communities in the NT’s] right to self-determination has been deliberately denied by governments of all stripes. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Acts were both legislative means of structurally disempowering remote Aboriginal communities in the NT. Through these policy regimes, governments have destabilised, disempowered, and disoriented Aboriginal communities. Governments have taken away community power and instead made them dependent on government for survival and have done so with little to no accountability. These actions occurred under the guise of a failure for Aboriginal communities to run their own affairs and to make decisions about what is best for their community.… In order to truly enable community-led solutions, governments need to transfer power and resources to communities. This requires investment based on outcomes, rather than outputs; ensuring data is available at the local level; and listening and acting on what communities say will work best.

 

This argument represents a rhetorical narrative that resonates powerfully with many Indigenous people because it reflects their lived experience of Australia’s history, yet for reasons I set out below it simultaneously serves to gloss over and to some extent erase the complex and in many respects insurmountably difficult issues at the cutting edge of policy development and implementation.

 

A case in point is the Committee’s assessment of the Rudd Labor Government’s Stronger Futures Northern Territory (SFNT) legislation, effectively equating it with the Howard Government’s NTNER legislation. This conflation is facilitated by the fact that Labor while in Opposition voted to support the NTNER to avoid making allegations of Indigenous child abuse in remote communities an election issue, and when in Government continued to support some key elements of the NTNER, most notably compulsory income management of welfare benefits. However policy, and more importantly it tangible impact, is about more than the political ‘vibe’. With policy, the devils (or the angels) are in the detail.

 

The Committee Report usefully summarises both the NTNER legislation (paras. 1.12 to 1.22) and the Stronger Futures (SFNT) legislation (paras. 1.23 to 1.39). In contrast to the NTNER, SFNT removed most of the punitive elements of the previous package, did not involve the Australian Defence Force, allocated significant funding (listed in para. 1.27) totalling $3.4 billion over ten years, and reinstated the application of the Racial Discrimination Act which had been set aside by the NTNER legislation. The Committee preferred to give little weight to these differences, and in it’s comment after assessing these initiatives, it expressed its concurrence with Senator Dodson’s conclusion in the Foreword:

The Committee considers that the NTNER and Stronger Futures legislative packages systemically disempowered communities—in their delivery, implementation and transition—causing immense trauma that now requires concerted effort by all levels of government to enable and invest in the re-empowerment of these communities.

 

To be clear, I do not dispute that finding in relation to the NTNER, and agree that remote NT Indigenous communities have faced and continue to face immense trauma and systemic disempowerment. However, policy solutions (as opposed to political solutions) require rigorous analysis. We should not confuse political advocacy and rhetoric with policy analysis. In particular, I would argue that the sources of these ongoing challenges are not rooted solely in past actions by governments, but are built into the very fibre of the contemporary actions of governments.

 

The dilemma faced by the Joint Standing Committee was that having concluded that the SFNT legislation ‘systematically disempowered’ communities, it leaves very little room for accepting that the SFNT approach to alcohol regulation was and remains, at least in the short/medium term, the best approach to addressing the significant and arguably widening impacts of alcohol abuse within remote communities.

 

In chapter two, the Committee makes what appears to me to be a cursory assessment of the processes leading up to the sunsetting of the alcohol provisions, and the introduction of the NT Government’s ‘opt-out’ mechanism. This allowed affected communities to seek to opt-out of arrangements that had lifted the previous SFNT restrictions. The Committee’s conclusion in effect was that there was a failure of consultation and bureaucratic preparation for the transition from SFNT to largely unrestricted access. My own reading of the process is that both the former LNP Government and the NT Labor Government achieved exactly the outcome that they intended, and the incoming Labor Government in Canberra were not prepared to challenge the NT Labor Government over this issue. In doing so, they grossly under-estimated the consequential political impacts in Central Australia that exploded into national prominence in early 2023, and more egregiously, ignored the impact of the NTG policy on the lives of thousands of Aboriginal women and children.

 

In para 1.6, the Committee notes that the chaos in Central Australia led to policy changes that post-dated much of the evidence they received. These changes are assessed in chapter three of the Committee Report.

 

The first sections of chapter three provide a useful summary of the operations of alcohol controls in remote NT communities over the past two decades. From paras 3.32 to 3.69, the Committee examines issues of alcohol related harm following upon the sunsetting of the SFNT legislation, and the joint Government response in early 2023 to the chaos on the streets of Alice Springs. At para. 3.29, the Committee noted that only one Alcohol Management Plan (AMP) was approved under the SFNT over its ten year life and that a number of communities prepared AMPs but had them rejected. The Committee could have done much more to unpack this issue and provides no detailed data or information. My own understanding is that in the early years of the SFNT legislation, a number of AMPs were prepared, but were sent back for revision as they were effectively attempts to remove all restrictions on access to alcohol and gave inadequate attention to the risks to families and children. After the change of Government, there appeared to be an unannounced policy moratorium  on  considering AMPs. In effect, this involved a return to the NTNER regime of absolute restrictions, albeit effected via administrative fiat. Had such a policy been announced, it would likely have been struck down by the courts.

 

In relation to the operation of the SFNT alcohol regime, the Committee’s comment on the evidence it heard strikes me as particularly tendentious and unpersuasive. It argues that the SFNT legislation ‘focused only on reducing supply and did not sufficiently support people at risk of alcohol abuse or of experiencing or causing harm.’ (para. 3.62). This ignores the significant funding under the SFNT across all sectors, much directed to community controlled organisations, as well as the mechanism in the legislation for AMPs which could have included specific requests for such harm reduction support.

 

In para 3.63, the Committee notes:

The NT Government’s decision to adopt an opt-in approach for maintaining alcohol restrictions was ineffective at minimising harm from the relaxing of alcohol restrictions. While the government intended to address the racist legacy of the Intervention, it is the Committee’s view that this decision was made without meaningfully consulting widely across affected communities.

The first sentence of the Committee’s comment is undoubtedly correct. However, as a reasonably close observer of these events, I do not accept that the motivation of the NTG was to ‘address the racist legacy of the intervention’. It was certainly the rhetorical rationale adopted by the NTG, but this rationale was and is fundamentally flawed as it fails to acknowledge the provision in the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) for special measures, a core element of the legislative mechanism established by the RDA (link here), and one which the NTG’s legal advisers undoubtedly would have brought to Ministers’ attention if they had been asked.

 

Even if we accept that the stated rationale was in fact genuine, what does that say about the NT Government’s concern regarding the potential impact of alcohol on Aboriginal families, and the quality of life now and into the future for countless women and children? I refer readers to the earlier posts on this blog related to alcohol for more detailed critique of the NTG model (link here for a list).

 

In para 3.66, the Committee finally reaches the nub of the policy issue (an issue that has received virtually no attention in the media):

It is clear to the Committee that the NT Government has sufficient legislative means to manage alcohol-related harm within its jurisdiction where there is the will to do so. This has been demonstrated by its recent legislative amendments to the Liquor Act 2019 (NT). It is the view of the Committee that this is the appropriate role of the NT Government (informed by the views of community), rather than the Commonwealth.

This is the key conclusion, because it is the Committee’s rationale for ongoing Commonwealth inaction. While $300m in funding appears substantial, it is not ongoing, and will disappear like a shower of rain into the desert dust. It is not action to address the issues, but funding to manage the media fallout. The Commonwealth’s inaction ignores what appears to be a deliberately misleading narrative seeking to justify the NTG opt in model by alleging the SFNT alcohol regulation model was racist and discriminatory. It represents inaction in the face of a policy approach designed around making the abolition of alcohol restrictions the default; a model which would also have made the reimposition of restrictions challenging to both implement and to sustain. And finally it represents inaction in the face of clear evidence regarding the impact of shifting to an opt-in model. While the NTG have now shifted to an opt-out model as applied under SFNT, there is no guarantee that it will be managed effectively to ensure alcohol induced harm is minimised.

 

The Commonwealth’s current position amounts to placing enormous trust in an NT Government that has shown it was prepared to place the lives of Aboriginal women and children in particular at risk for what appears to be base political advantage.

 

To take just one data point, alcohol related domestic violence assault offences spiked in Alice Springs, Katherine, and outside major centres in the 12 months to March 2023 (link here). The only location where there was a decline in these offences was in Darwin. Across the NT, there were almost 1000 extra reported assault offences over the year coinciding with the nine months of reduced restrictions. With the majority of NT electorates in the Darwin region, it is not difficult to develop a hypothesis for why the NT Government may have been intent on removing alcohol restrictions in the bush. In the light of the issues outlined above, the unqualified confidence of the Committee (set out in para. 3.66) in the capacity and political willingness of the NTG to manage alcohol related harm astounds me.

 

Paras. 3.67 and 3.68 lay out two formal recommendations to the NTG related to the facilitation of community alcohol plans. These are discussed further below.

 

In paras. 3.69 to3.94, the Committee addresses the issue of community safety. In para. 3.69, the Committee acknowledges the existence of anti-social behaviour following the sunset of the SFNT, and notes:

When witnesses discussed these behaviours, they were almost always directly linked to the poor social and economic factors people were facing.

 

I may be over-reading this, but in my experience, these behaviours are almost always directly linked to the abuse of alcohol or drugs, and only indirectly liked to social disadvantage. Yes, structural factors are important — but if the Committee really believed this, why not recommend actions and funding to address these structural factors. It is as if the Committee does not wish to acknowledge the role of alcohol in harming Aboriginal Territorians. At para. 3.82, the Committee returns to blaming past policies, and extraordinarily to my mind states:

The application of special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) has had little benefit in creating equality for these children.

 

The implication of this statement is to undermine the rationale for a significant swathe of Commonwealth policy measures from Indigenous language support to the Native Title Act. Even if it is argued that it is contextually constrained, it opens the door to future downgrading of special measures, and strikes me as an own goal. The Committee’s comment on community safety (paras. 3.92 to 3.94) ignores the role of alcohol, fails to mention the deep disadvantage arising from the social determinants of poor health, including the shortfalls in basic housing (a matter picked up by Senator Thorpe in her addendum to the report), and instead focusses solely on intergenerational trauma and the need for early intervention. Both these issues should be priorities, but on their own they will provide no short term relief to the ongoing harm caused to both Indigenous people and the wider non-Indigenous community in the NT.

 

The Commonwealth Government response to the Committee report (link here) was released last week. In the introduction, the response notes that the Commonwealth (not the NTG!) has announced investments totalling almost $300m in community safety in the NT since the beginning of this year. The response deals with all nine Committee recommendations, the first three of which relate to alcohol policy and the sunsetting of the SFNT legislation.

 

As is de rigeur for such responses, the response lists each recommendation, and provides a summary response, and then provides a short narrative in relation to each. There are a couple of revealing statements included. For example, in relation to recommendation one, the response asserts that NIAA worked with the NT Government over a period of 18 months leading up the sunset, thus adding weight to my assertion above that the outcome achieved was not a mistake.

 

A second revelation, in the discussion on recommendation two, is that the Commonwealth is providing $14m over two years to assist in the development of community alcohol plans and other support services and a public health campaign, notwithstanding the summary response that the recommendation to the NTG for resources to facilitate this was ‘a recommendation for the NT Government’, and notwithstanding the Committee’s conclusion that the NTG has the legislative means and the political will to manage alcohol related harm in its jurisdiction.

 

The response notes that ‘Independent consultants will be funded to assist in the development of community alcohol plans’. The use of consultants appears to me to be exactly the wrong approach, as it ensures that the work of developing alcohol management plans is undertaken by individuals without any pre-existing or ongoing relationship with the communities affected, and ensures that once it is completed, there is no corporate knowledge retained either by the community nor NIAA. If the Commonwealth is serious about addressing the challenges of remote Australia, a major priority in my view must be to begin to rebuild a cadre of staff either within NIAA, or perhaps within and employed by communities, with the skills and remit to facilitate engagement with governments.

 

The larger problem with this Government response however is that the import of this Committee Report is not to be found in the recommendations, but elsewhere in the swirling narrative which (sometimes explicitly):  

·       avoids the difficult policy issues around alcohol availability and regulation;  

·       downplays the role of the Commonwealth Government vis a vis the NTG in the face of an extraordinary and ongoing policy failure in the NT;

·       ignores the possibility that special interests associated with the alcohol industry play an outsized role in determining regulatory policy in relation to alcohol in the NT; and

·       unsuccessfully seeks to deal with the paradox that the SFNT legislation is simultaneously argued to be retrograde to Indigenous interests yet the evidence following its sunset indicates it was essential to maintaining social stability and reducing social and community harm.

 

In particular, where is the Commonwealth Government’s appreciation of the overwhelmingly negative impacts of alcohol (and other drug) abuse on Aboriginal communities, and particular Aboriginal women and children. Ignoring supply issues — and the even more insidious influence of the alcohol industry on governments — by seeking to shift blame to an alleged historical lack of focus on alcohol demand issues and alcohol harm reduction measures just does not cut it. 

 

Perhaps it is time to give some attention to, and reinforce the relevance of, the 1967 referendum. The referendum that reversed the provision that stated that the Commonwealth could legislate in relation to the people of any race except the Aboriginal race. The referendum that underpins the existence of the Minister for Indigenous Australians and her portfolio, and that facilitates the existence of the Native Title Act and much other Indigenous legislation. The referendum that signalled that the Australian people overwhelmingly expected the Commonwealth Government to do what was necessary to address Indigenous disadvantage.

 

 

Disclosure: I was employed on the staff of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous affairs from 2008 to 2011 when the Stronger Futures legislation was being developed.

 

11 July 2023