I like a good hat so being in Tucson in southern Arizona for a few days I thought I’d catch up with the folks at Arizona Hatters to see if they had anything that caught my eye and suited my head.

I was last in Tucson about six years ago and bought a Stetson Open Road at Arizona Hatters and was looking to replace that hat, which is now sweat-stained inside and out with the red dirt of the centralian deserts and well-battered from being snaffled by dogs, thrown around in all manner of vehicles and being stuck on my sweaty head for too many hours over too many years.

Arizona Hatters didn’t have any Stetson Open Road’s in my size (59, 7 3/8″) in either felt or straw but I eventually settled on a Resistol Stockton - made in the same factory in Garland, Texas as Stetsons are.

At 3 inches the Stockton has a slightly wider brim than the Open Road (2 3/4 inches) but doesn’t feel too large – and is a lot better than the usual 4 inch brim that most “cowboy” hats run too.

Though I have recently been drawn to the larger “Gus” style with their massive 4 1/2 inch – and more – brim for a bit of extra cover on a bright day.

This is the Bailey North Fork straw that appeals most in the Gus styling.

I’d spent a couple hours earlier in the week at the massive Sheplers store at Mesa in Phoenix (one of several in that city and many across the south) but they mainly stocked cowboy-style hats, none of which appealed. But if you are up for a pair of cowboy boots or clothing & accessories at great prices Sheplers is a good place to start.

My other favourite hatshop (apart from the hatter underneath Flinders Street station in down-town Melbourne) is the Village Hat Shop in San Diego, an hour or so drive south of Los Angeles. Well worth a visit if you are in that great town.

Anyways, I’ve got a new hat. And you don’t.

I’ll be off to watch birds at the Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory for a few days.

Wearing my new titfer of course.

I’ve known Lillie Claire for most of her life.

Of all the images I have of her the most vivid is of a three year old, naked, covered in dirt and scratches emerging from the dust cloud after her father rolled his truck on a lonely dirt road outside the small Northern Territory township of Beswick in the mid-eighties.

She was thrown clear from the truck and landed – intact and somewhat bemused – while all around her was wreckage. The truck was a write off.

Then – as now – I knew that Lillie Claire was tough. Tougher than that Toyota Hi-Lux at least.

Lillie has been living and working in the US and beyond for the past few years as an actress and director.

In 2011 she played the lead female role in the WWII Feature Film, ‘Angel of the Skies‘.

You can see the promo trailer which played at the Cannes Film Festival in 2012 here.

The film is now complete and will premiere at Cannes in May 2013.

Lillie says the film is:

…based on a true story of a South African pilot who volunteered for the RAF during WWII, leading his team courageously through the skies to defend Great Britain. I play Deborah Caldwell, his pregnant fiance, who is the voice of justice for the young men who risk their lives and also for the women who must stand by, waiting for their loves to return home.

This beautifully shot independent film was produced and shot in South Africa in 2011 by a very talented Writer/Director/Editor, Christopher-Lee Dos Santos. It’s world premiere is at the Cannes Film Festival this month! We have Distibutors from the UK and Producers from South Africa going to represent us.

Which gets me very much to the point of this post.

Lillie needs some bucks to get to Cannes for the premier of Angel of the Skies and she is crowd-sourcing for funds via this site at YouCaring.com.

As she says there:

I have been invited to the 2013 Cannes Film Festival, May 15-26, to support the feature film that I starred in, called ‘Angels of the Skies.’ but I need your support to be able to get there. I am humbly asking that you find it in your hearts to contribute to my campaign so that I can attend this career-enhancing, life-changing opportunity…because without your support, I will be unable to afford the trip.

From my heart, I want you to know the gratitude that I have for any and all levels of contributions you and your friends provide…it all makes a huge difference.
…
What I will do
If you know me, you will know that I am self-motivated in my career…I don’t sit back and wait for something to happen or someone to bring it to me. My dream is to make a difference through story-telling and it’s too important to leave to chance. I’ve written, produced, and starred in my own films…now I have a wonderful, well-told story that can use my support to help sell. I plan to meet as many people as I can, and follow up on all those connections for my career and for the film. I will also provide a daily update to all my contributors so you get a glimpse of what I’m doing, experiencing, and you can come along for the ride of a lifetime!

Every penny you donate, I will use toward my flights, travel, and any other necessary costs…maybe spend a little on food too! I hope to be sleeping on a friend’s floor in Cannes.

I’ve coughed up a few sous as a contribution to this worthy cause.

What about you?

You can see Lillie Claire’s Workbook page here.

And the promo trailer for Angel of the Skies is here.

Lillie Claire’s IMDb page is here.

And finally – you can donate towards getting Lillie Claire to Cannes later this month at YouCaring.com here.

In my bible of western American birds* the Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia is described as “uncommon and local” and found usually in open grasslands or on agricultural lands.

Well, David Allen Sibley got it bang on the money for me.

Yesterday I was driving around the bottom end of the hyper-saline Salton Sea in south-eastern California and took a small road squeezed between flooded fields that led to the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge close to the Mexican border.

I’d come across a flock of spectacularly-plumaged White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi standing neck-deep in flooded grass on the way out and was cruising back to Highway 111 when I noticed a small bird perched on the side of the irrigation ditch that ran parallel to the roadway.

I backed up and found a few of these Burrowing Owls scurrying about in the open.

I’d seen these ineffably cute owls a few years ago in a field in Venezuala but not yet in the USA.

Unsurprisingly, Burrowing Owls feature significantly in north American First Nations culture and religion. From the page “Owl Myths & Legends” at the WildBirds site comes the following:

The Hopi identify the Burrowing owl with Masau’u, their god of the dead and the night. The same deity is also the guardian of fires and attends to all underground things. As such, he is responsible for the germination of seeds, which lends a more positive aspect to the owl.

To the Hidatsa of the Dakotas, the “big owl” (Great horned owl) was a keeper-of-game spirit, who watched over and controlled the buffalo. “Big owl” had an assistant “little owl” (Burrowing owl) to help with these essential buffalo herding duties. “Little owl” was a protective spirit for a warrior, flying above him if he went to attack an enemy.

And from the Owls in American Indian Culture page at the must-go-to-for-all-things-Owl-related The Owl Pages website come the following references to the Burrowing Owl.

The Dakota Hidatsa Indians saw the Burrowing Owl as a protective spirit for brave warriors.

The Hopis Indians see the Burrowing Owl as their god of the dead, the guardian of fires and tender of all underground things, including seed germination. Their name for the Burrowing Owl is Ko’ko, which means “Watcher of the dark” They also believed that the Great Horned Owl helped their Peaches grow.
…
A Zuni legend tells of how the Burrowing Owl got its speckled plumage: the Owls spilled white foam on themselves during a ceremonial dance because they were laughing at a coyote that was trying to join the dance. Zuni mothers place an Owl feather next to a baby to help it sleep.

* The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. (2003) David Allen Sibley, Knopf.

Sometimes you are blessed by accidents of geography or circumstance.

Me? I think I’m blessed by a bit of both.

Sometimes you have to go a long way to see very ordinary birds.

Sometimes very special birds come to you.

The dawn chorus at my house can be a deafening cacophony, particularly when the Fig tree just outside my upstairs balcony is in fruit.

About three times a year the eponymous Figbird Spechotheres viridis takes charge and at the height of the fruiting season – when the fruit is “cooked” as locals say – flocks of Figbirds descend on the Fig tree outside my bedroom to gorge themselves on its beautiful golden fruit.

Sleep be gone at dawn when a hundred Figbirds make their percussive “pow pow pow” calls twenty feet from the pillow.

This bird, with the red skin around its eyes and sulphurous plumage, is an adult male.

Usually the duller female – none the less beautiful with her cafe au lait plumage and blueish skin around here eyes – is the vigorous defender of this prized tree from other species that want their share of its bounty.

And there is no shortage of other species wanting a taste.

This White-gaped Honeyeater Lichenostomus unicolor is a common local always looking for a feed.

And at first blush I thought this noisy intruder to be a Little Friarbird Philemon citreogularis but my Facebook friend Carol Proberts reminded me that – due to the shape of the head and lack of eye-stripe – that this charmingly ugly bird was in fact a somewhat less common Helmeted Friarbird Philemon buceroides that has dropped in for a feed.

Another of my favourite birds is the Varied Triller Lalage leucomela – a quiet – at times – skulker that sneaks in and grabs fruit from under the keen gaze of the female Figbird.

The Varied Triller is a smaller member of the Cuckoo-shrike family Campephagidae and are found in New Guinea and from about the Sydney area to the tip of Cape York Peninsula, in the moister parts of the Kimberley and throughout the Top End.

Apart from the bounty of fruit, dense trees like Figs provide plenty of cover for birds seeking a few moments respite from the chaos that ensues out in the open air – remember that every bird is either prey or preying – and more than a few take time to park for a few seconds or more in the dense foliage.

This Spangled Drongo Dicrurus bracteatus had a brief spell before taking off with it’s equally garrulous partner.

I’ve taken quite a few shots of Drongos – avian and otherwise – in my time, but this is the first time I’ve caught those beautiful blue spangles – hence the name – on this adult bird’s chest.

Another – less spectacular and common but no less beautiful – bird that roosts in the Fig tree is the common Bar-shouldered Dove Geopelia humeralis.

Last – but by no means least – of the birds found outside my bedroom window is this immature Forest Kingfisher Todiramphus macleayii that I often see – and hear –  perched on the power-lines outside my house making its lonesome call.

And finally – the King of the Air of the Top End.

If you are in Darwin in this season take the time to stop and watch.  Look up into the sky. Now and right through the dry season you will, on any day, see these magnificent Black Kites, Milvus migrans.

Now you see them in “kettles” of three hundred or more climbing on still, steady wings, wing-tips feathering the breeze, gliding and soaring on the faintest of thermals high into the sky.

Then pouncing – all graceful shapes cut out of still air – onto a stray discarded chicken-bone thrown by the town drunk onto a city street.

I could watch these birds all day, all week and all year.

And do.

And will – as long as I have breath and eyes to see.

All this and more I see from the balcony of my bedroom.

Am I blessed or just lucky?

This is a guest post by David Ross, the Director of the Central Land Council based in Alice Springs. He delivered this talk at the Aboriginal Governance Summit, held at Tennant Creek on 18 and 19 April 2013.

I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners, the Waramungu people, and thank them for their welcome this morning.

I would also like to say how heartening it is to see so many of our leaders here today for this important gathering.

This Summit is not a conference.

This is a place for Aboriginal people from right across the NT to have an honest, open – and hopefully inspiring – conversation about where we want to go, and what work we need to do to get you there.

That is what Aboriginal Governance is – working together to build structures and processes that reflect your culture, your priorities, your world view, and your solutions to problems.

The peak Aboriginal organisations* in the NT have committed to working together more closely.

Our organisations share a view that Aboriginal Governance is fundamentally about the building of institutions, networks and processes that deliver well-organised action and genuine decision-making control to Aboriginal people over the issues of most importance to your lives and the future of your communities.

Governance is not just a matter of effective service delivery, or organisational compliance.
It is about the self-determining ability and authority of clans, nations and communities to govern: to decide what you want for your future, to implement your own initiatives, and take responsibility for your decisions and actions.

Effective Aboriginal Governance puts us back in the driver’s seat.

So why is the Summit important now?

Let me share my perspective on this question. I have worked for Aboriginal people in central Australia for around thirty years, but the last five to seven years would have to be the most difficult we have ever faced.

We have seen an unprecedented level of change: the Intervention, including compulsorily acquired five year leases and income management; the end of CDEP; severe restrictions on homelands funding; the roll-out of the government’s ‘leasing’ agenda; the removal of permits from communities; the abolition of bi-lingual education; the abolition of community councils in favour of regionalised shires and the abolition of community housing organisations in favour of Territory Housing.

Most of these policy changes were based on a view that Aboriginal people and their organisations have failed, are corrupt or worse.

I have never seen our mob so demoralised, and so unclear about what the future holds for your communities, your families and your children.

Aboriginal people in the Territory have been on the receiving end of constant changes in policies and programs by every level of government – it is clear to me that governments have lost their way in Aboriginal Affairs.

They don’t know what the solutions are and their own governance and implementation capacity is the lowest it has ever been.

At the end of the day governments will come and go, but our people will still be here.

That is why this Summit is about you and your governance agenda.

It will highlight that despite the difficult political environment and the constant media stories of failure and defeat, many Aboriginal people and their organisations are doing great work and exercising strong governance in all its forms: from the management of Aboriginal organisations or enterprises, to the ongoing exercise of traditional law and culture, the assertion of legal land and native title rights, and the hard job of making wise decisions about resources and money.

There are many examples of strong, effective and legitimate Aboriginal governance in the NT, and now is the time to recognise and celebrate these, and consider how to build on these strengths to achieve greater practical self-determination.

I want you to reclaim the concept of self-determination.

Self-determination has been bastardised and shoved into the closet by governments.

But to me, it means having genuine decision-making power and responsibility about what happens on your lands, in your families and communities, in your governing systems, and in your future development.

It’s about having meaningful control over your own lives and cultural well-being.

So what can we do now – drawing on your law and culture, your relationships and values, your skills and resources – to shape your own future, to control the things that are important to you, and achieve the outcomes you want?

This Summit will be a wasted opportunity if we only focus on what government should do for you.

Of course, the role that government plays is critical and there will be many messages and actions discussed over these next two days that will need to be communicated to all levels of government.

But I am very keen that we don’t spend all our time and energy talking about what should be delivered by governments. That is not self-determination in action!

I am most interested in what you can do for yourselves, how you determine your own future.

If you are unified and solid, then you stand a chance of getting governments to support your vision.

I welcome here today Mr Mick Gooda, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, who will be speaking after lunch. Amongst other things he will be talking about the importance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and how this can be used to progress the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia. The Declaration affirms your rights, including the right to equality, to self-determination and self-government – it is an essential framework.

The Central Land Council supports the Declaration, and urges the Australian Government to enter into a new relationship with Aboriginal people based on recognition of these rights.

Make no mistake, I am a firm advocate of the need to address the fundamental injustices and inequalities which flow from the lack of a negotiated ‘government to government’ relationship between Aboriginal people and the Australian Government, and the lack of recognition in the Australian Constitution. Both need to be remedied.

But, as history tells us, these rights will not be delivered on a platter, they need to be fought for, and non-Aboriginal Australians will need to support your struggle. And even though times seem tough, we have already fought for, and secured, some impressive rights and wins.

But that is just the beginning: because now we have to face what might be an even bigger challenge: You have to be able to practically deliver on your rights and promises, in order to ensure that life is better, on the ground and for future generations.

In my view we have two big challenges ahead.

Firstly, we need to be unified, strong and strategic in our negotiations for stronger rights and this is difficult when many of your communities and families are suffering the impacts of alcohol and drugs, and consumed with so much internal conflict. We can’t ignore the problems that are ruining young lives – drugs, alcohol, violence, lack of education, loss of cultural knowledge – we need to confront them and look at our own personal role and behaviour.

Secondly, you need to be ready and capable to take on the responsibility that comes with achieving greater rights and more power.

Power and responsibility are inextricably linked – it is like the Kirda-Kurdungurlu relationship – you cant have one without the other.

To exercise power you need to accept the responsibilities to lead, to govern, to work – to make tough decisions and to increase your own skills to implement those decisions. And this, as you all know, is no easy task.

You have to ask yourselves:

Where do you want to be in twenty years?

How do you want your clans, nations and communities to be governed?

What role can your cultural values and laws play in strengthening your governance solutions?

How can you support women and young people to play greater leadership roles?

How can you use the organisations you already have, to help us get there?

How do you build new structures and build your capacity?

Can your organisations – both new and old – help to keep traditional decision-making processes strong and reinforce your law and culture?

These are critical questions that we hope will be addressed over the coming two days.

I believe that we need a plan, a roadmap for claiming actual control over your own lives based on your own informed decisions about your governance arrangements, and a shared commitment to build a future for your kids that allows them to excel in both worlds.

Neither the political nor the legal system will give you self-determination. It must be created by you, and fought for and implemented by you.

To do that you need to be ready with the skills, cultural authority and confidence to claim those rights, and turn those rights into realities on the ground.

You can start by acting now on the things you do control, and make decisions about priority issues to tackle.

You can decide now to work together to be strong and unified, to increase your governing skills and capabilities to exercise your rights, and to adequately prepare your young people for the weighty responsibility that comes with any quest for greater control and power.

The next two days is only the start of this conversation – but let’s start it now.

This is a time for you, as Aboriginal leaders from across the NT, – to talk together, and share your solutions and insights about what you know works well for you.

Let’s start determining for ourselves, what you want your diverse forms of governance to be like in the future, and work together to make it happen.

====================================

* Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory – APO NT – is an alliance comprising the Central Land Council (CLC), Northern Land Council (NLC), Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT (AMSANT), North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) and Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (CAALAS).

I caught up with Nate Rice in his small office on the top floor of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, a squat building tucked away in a corner of Logan Square in downtown Philadelphia.

Nate’s office – not much bigger than a broom cupboard – is a mess. He sits at his desk surrounded by books, papers, the detritus of his latest field trip and his dirty laundry and tells me about his life and work with birds.

Nate is in the office but, like all field biologists, is looking forward to his next field trip “I became a biologist because I like to be in the field – not because I like to sit behind a desk. If I don’t get into the field for a couple of months every year, if I don’t get to places where there is no light pollution and no humans … I go batshit crazy.”

Nate is the latest of a long list of esteemed ornithologists that have had charge of the Academy’s collection of over two hundred thousand specimens.

As Nate tells me “Some of the most famous ornithologists in the world have been associated with us – John Audubon, Alexander Wilson, Rudolph Meyer De Schauensee, James Bond, Leo Joseph, Frank Gill – all of those folks have worked here and contributed to the collection and to the growth of the collection.” The Academy dates back to 1812 and has been on this site since 1876.

I’ve come to the Academy to visit the collection of John Gould’s Australian birds, many of which were collected by his field researcher John Gilbert – a story in itself that I’ll return to soon. Talking to Nate about the rich history of the Academy’s collection, and why it is important, is a definite bonus.

I asked Nate about how, and why, he adds to the collection.

NATE RICE: We have specimens in the collection that are well over two centuries old. I send those specimens and data from those specimens all over the world to conduct research on everything from the evolution of birds, modern ecological questions and environmental issues.

I also add to the collection. I add about a thousand new specimens to the collection each year. Much of that is done by way of salvaging birds. In North America 100 million birds a year are killed running into windows, wires and cars. I also collect – directly collecting birds – that is, shooting or sacrificing birds from mist nets.

BOB GOSFORD: What about the, in the minds of some, controversial practice of shooting birds in the field for addition to the collection?

NATE RICE: There are a couple issues there. There is a group of people, and I think it is fairly small, that just can’t get over the killing. I shoot birds. I’ll admit that, it is part of my job. There are people out there that just can’t get that their minds around that.

I am as passionate as birds as anybody on the planet. I don’t like to shoot birds. I don’t get off on that. I’m not sadistic in that sense.

I understand the moral of not wanting to shoot things but principally you have to understand that this is for a purpose. As for rare birds, generally speaking, rare, threatened and endangered birds are totally off-limits for collecting. I get them into the museum by way of them hitting windows, being hit by cars and also through zoological gardens – zoos – that have captive breeding programs where birds die. They get sick, the die of old age and that is a great way to get them into the collection.

I will say that some species of birds that are considered rare and endangered, when you look at them on the ground they are actually not. They are more abundant than people think. It is just that they are often in damned inaccessible territory. I’m not against collecting – and I’m talking about surgically collecting – removing one or two individuals from a viable population.

There is an amazing amount of research traction that you get out of those specimen that are immediately used for phylogenetic and population genetic work. The benefit to a species that has a small population of having a few specimens collected far outweighs any potential loss to the genetic structure of that population. That has been proven and I will stand by that to my last breath.

BOB GOSFORD: Why do collections like the Academy’s need so many specimens, using John Gould’s Musk Duck specimens for example, of each species?

NATE RICE: Great question! If we look at a pond of Musk Ducks, they might look similar to us. Obviously the juveniles look different but if we get them in the hand and start measuring them, we get an awful lot of differentiation.

If your look at that pond full of Musk Ducks we see a lot of variation in the depth and tones of the browns and blacks of their plumage, lots of variation on the ground at this time.

But if we went back to the Musk Ducks that John Gould collected and we compare them to what we see from specimens collected today, we will also see variation. Temporal variation over time.

We might see some micro-evolutionary change, some small steps on the evolutionary ladder. And for certain we are going to see ecological change occurring, and that is because bird feathers are great at capturing the historical and environmental conditions at that time.

So we can go back to the Gould Musk Duck specimens and get a glimpse at what the environment was like in Australia in the 1830s. We can see what nutrients were available and in what concentrations. What contaminants were in the environment?

And, if we have done a good job in our collection, and added a couple of specimens every decade or every few decades from certain points on a map we suddenly have a tapestry to look at. For example we can ask what has happened over the last hundred and eighty years. That is one reason why you really need large series of specimens and dozens, even hundreds of specimens collected over centuries.

That material then becomes a very, very powerful research tool. Not just to evolutionary biologists, not just to bird taxonomists – which is historically what bird collections have been used for – but now ecologists, nutrient biologists and people that study global warming.

These traditional museum study specimens are being used for all sorts of things beyond traditional bird taxonomy. And there are Musk Duck specimens in Museums across the globe – it is a world patrimony – a resource for all of us.

BOB GOSFORD: What is the future for collections like that at the Academy?

NATE RICE: Our recent affiliation with Drexel University will open lots of financial and resource doors for us and this year we’ll be adding internationally recognized ornithologists to the staff.

Even in the bad years we’ve always managed to keep and maintain the bird collection at very high research standards. And we’ve always managed to grow the collection, either through salvage work or purchasing collections or direct collecting.

We get our funding from almost across the board. Historically we would get some money from the City of Philadelphia, though that doesn’t happen anymore.

Most of the museum’s funds come from private individuals and almost all of our research grants are Federal grants.

In the US the National Science Foundation funds a lot of that work. The National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control also provide funds and a lot of our field work is underwritten by these centres that are very interested in what’s happening on the influenza and West Nile virus front – these are organisms that can kill people.

That money helps us get into the field. Birds fly – they fly thousands and thousands of miles and whatever is in their lungs and blood goes into the environment.

That is one small part of the story and why collecting and preserving specimens is so important.

You can be anti-collecting, anti-shooting, whatever – we respect that. But please come in and learn how to skin and preserve bird specimens!
They are dead. They ran into a window, got killed by a cat, hit by a car – but they are so important – so why are we going to throw them away? I consider these to be free specimens.

It takes time and it is not easy to prepare a specimen. But it is great fun.

In part two of this interview I’ll talk to Nate Rice about his particular ornithological obsessions – hacking through south-east asian jungles with machetes and going to the end of the road – and beyond.

This is a guest post by the Keep River Kite.

One would have thought that the nadir of NT Government efforts to rid public spaces of people overindulging in warm wine or bitter beer was the mid-1990’s when Chief Minister Shane Stone thought it time to “monster and stomp” on those people deemed to be making poor use of said spaces.

Stone was not shy in providing resources for police to take huge numbers of people into “protective custody”, a spell of six hours in the “drunk tank” at the nearest station, for persons intoxicated but not having broken any laws.

He enacted the infamous mandatory gaol terms for property offences, including minor receiving charges, so those drunks dabbling in a spot of crime often had protracted stays in prison.
However the mainstay of the monster stomp was being swept up out of a park and, via the cage on the back of the police ute, being deposited next to the stainless steel dunny in the cop shop drunk’s cell to sleep it off.

Tens of thousands of these internments occur annually in the NT.

The 2013 version of the CLP has taken the thrust of the Stone approach and ramped it up with a heavy emphasis on detention.

Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation (only in the Territory!) Robyn Lambley has announced the imminent formation of Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunals that will be empowered to detain persons who have not committed crimes but are regularly drunk in public.

Periods of detention will be 12 weeks, during which the person will undergo rehabilitation with a side salad of training in “life skills and work readiness”.

There are approximately 3000 persons in the NT that are regularly taken into protective custody. The worst 800 are expected to be ordered into detention at one of what will be six “secure” rehabilitation centres. $100 million has been set aside to pay for all of this, inclusive of security personnel at the centres, over the next three years.

In a place where wild failed schemes are as regular as the storms of the wet, this one is the most untamed and brainless yet.

In essence the government is creating six new gaols to be populated by the hardest drinkers in the Territory, none of whom will have committed a crime to have got there. Even Minister Lambley recognises these are hard nuts to crack, hoping for a 20% success rate.

The NT already has two sprawling long stay drunk tanks – the Darwin and Alice Springs Correctional Centres.

NT crime is grog fuelled and record numbers of people battling the bottle are locked up. Prison inmate numbers have skyrocketed in the past 15 years. In the prisons “get off the grog” courses are run and the shocking levels of recidivism are testament to their failure.

Each and everyone of the 800 people to be targeted by the AMT Tribunals will have been locked up many times in drunk tanks.

The vast majority will have been sentenced to prison and have undergone grog rehabilitation (as far as it is offered) inside or will have attended one of the numerous alcohol rehabilitation centres in the NT, either as part of a court order or off their own bats.

The idea that seriously grog hungry individuals will be transformed by spending weeks in detention going over old ground is simply ridiculous.

Not a chance.

A hopeless and alarming frittering away of valuable funds and resources.

One can expect that the average drunk who manages to remain tidy enough to not be committing crimes is going to be resistant to being imprisoned.

Not a great start to embracing change.

Anybody even remotely involved in grog rehabilitation knows the “pre-contemplative” individual is a lost cause.

The issue of tension within these centres will have to be addressed. No matter how these centres are dressed up and no matter how many words of encouragement are showered upon the inmates, many are going to get very stroppy and clashes with staff and security will occur.

Will leaving such a centre without permission become a criminal offence?

The inescapable conclusion is that these centres will serve merely to further criminalise the inmates who, at least on this occasion, were placed there without having committed a crime.

The people who end up before the tribunal will inevitably be marred by a bevy of issues. Some will have been behind the foetal alcohol syndrome eight ball from the off. Some will be victims of sexual and other abuse. Some will be victims of domestic violence.

Most will be cognitively impaired, many by dint of head injuries. Each person will have specific and deep seated needs that underpin their self-destructive drinking that should be addressed.

What will be on offer will be a very expensive, duplicitous and superficial tonic of no use. Funds and resources that should be ploughed into preventative measures such as better support of pregnant mothers and educational programs for kids will be caught up in this charade.

I expect court challenges to this scheme will destroy it. Minister Lambley trumpets that it is the first scheme of its type in Australia.
That it is, as in Australia we have the fine tradition of only locking up people who commit crimes or who are so mentally unwell they must be committed.

This scheme smacks of the sort of re-programming found behind iron or bamboo curtains. Even if it is only to see the re-introduction of the farcical Banned Drinkers Register that took her fancy, Julia Gillard should step in here now and can this garbage before the courts do.

Apart from anything else, speedy action will reduce the mounting scars our reputation as a fair nation is accruing.

This is a guest post by Deakin University legal academic Martin Hardie.

At the moment it is as if the whole country, or at least the footballing part of the country is sitting, waiting for ASADA to say or do something, even, if possible, make a decision as to what happened and when.

In recent days the media has published stories to the effect that both the Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority (ASADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) were consulted and approved the use of the various substances in issue in footygate.

If this is correct is raises serious concerns about the ability of ASADA to provide good and reliable advice to athletes as to what they can or cannot use. In an article I co-authored recently we raised some of the issues at play when an athlete or support person might have in consulting ASADA.

The allegations made in respect of ASADA’s approval of certain substances compound these problems.

It raises the question: if ASADA did give such approval what are they currently doing and why?
Is this in any way related to the fact that they only seem (once again) to be taking on the smallest fish in town (even if they are Sharks in name)?

If various clubs, the NRL, or even (God help us) the untouchable AFL had knowledge of the use of these substances why is it that the focus is not on them rather than a small group of players from the poorest Rugby League team in the country?

We could also ask whether what ASADA is currently doing is yet another fishing expedition, similar to the one that they undertook in the wake of the Armstrong case?

Without having any real intelligence of their own, in that instance, ASADA investigators turned up at the doorstep of retired cyclists early in the morning demanding that the cyclists tell ASADA everything that they knew.

Everything about what you might ask? Aren’t investigations and interviews of this type meant to be based on some evidence that the investigator puts to the suspect? Rather than the investigator, who knows nothing, asking the suspect to tell them a story from which they might glean some information?

Maybe part of the problem is that in the scheme of things ASADA doesn’t really do that much at all.

Is it that ASADA is really just one great big bloated exercise in governmental symbolic legitimation?

Last year the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made a decision to the effect that the ASADA Act and Regulations required ASADA’s Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel to make findings that anti-doping rule violations had occurred. This decision was mandated by the text of the Regulations and the definition of a finding contained in them.

What was ASADA’s response? They managed to get the Minister to change the Regulations to make it clear (they say) that ASADA’s Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel does not make decisions that violations have occurred but that they only decide that a possible violation might have occurred.

In a case of a ‘positive’ doping test result, that is what is known as an Adverse Analytical Finding. The ASADA Regulations now have created a situation where a laboratory makes a decision that an Adverse Analytical Finding has occurred and then this finding is managed by ASADA or the sporting body in a process known as Results Management.

Once this process is complete ASADA sends the Adverse Analytical Finding to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel who then decide what ASADA and the Laboratory have already found, namely that there has been an Adverse Analytical Finding. But this finding is not a finding that the rules have been violated as it only opens the door to disciplinary action by the sport.
The point is that ASADA merely confirms what the Laboratory has already confirmed, not once, but twice.

In footygate, there are no “positive” test results but what is in issue is whether there is any other evidence of the use of a prohibited substance.

Think about this, as the football world sits waiting for ASADA to say something or make a decision that someone has broken the rules, what in actual fact will happen (after a long drawn out period in which people’s lives and reputations are destroyed) is that it might be possible that a violation occurred.

Don’t we already know that? Anything is possible, but what we want to know is “did it happen?”

ASADA of course will say, “well the decision as to whether something occurred is made by the sporting authorities” and while this is true, the problem then becomes that not all sporting authorities and sportspeople are treated the same.
Let’s put to one side the possibility that a sporting body might try and cover up a violation, such as has been alleged in the Armstrong case (of course this couldn’t happen in Australia, let alone in the AFL) and thus treat one athlete in a manner different from another. If we turn to the various sporting rules (e.g. the Cycling, NRL and the AFL anti-doping rules) we see that in each of these sports the role of ASADA and the manner of hearing violations is very different.

In the case of cycling any hearing to decide whether a violation has in fact occurred takes place in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Such hearings are usually heard with a CAS Member sitting in Australia. Any appeal from that decision then goes to the Appeals division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which might sit in Australia or at its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. In cycling the hearing is in CAS and ASADA acts as the prosecutor.

In a case against a Rugby League player, following a decision of ASADA that a violation might possible have occurred, the NRL acts as prosecutor and the case is heard before the NRL Anti-Doping Tribunal.

Importantly, and in order to supervise those decisions there is a right for ASADA and WADA to appeal the decision of the NRL Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS.

If we turn to look at the situation in respect of the AFL we see once again that following a decision of ASADA that a violation might possibly have occurred, the AFL acts as prosecutor and it is heard before the AFL Tribunal.

From this Tribunal there is a right of appeal to the AFL Appeals Board. For all intents and purposes this is where it ends.

The AFL does allow an appeal to CAS in the case of violations occurring in relation to international events, but this of course does not relate to the AFL competition, wherever it is played, but to AFL matches between different nations or other forms of international competition.

The only relevant competition might be the matches played between Irish Gaelic football teams and an AFL team, but even these matches might not fall within the provision.

Another difference is who actually issues the infraction notice, which occurs after ASADA decides that there might have been a possible violation.

In the case of cycling it is ASADA, whereas in the case of the two football codes it is the NRL or the AFL that issues the notice. If for example the AFL decides that the possibility is not good enough for them and they don’t issue the infraction notice it is effectively the end of the matter.

This is all (more or less) law and procedure, but what happens if Steve Dank is right when he says ASADA was consulted and approved the substances?

This may or may not lead to a defence of some sort or another for the players and others who may face allegations.

It raises very complex issues concerning the role and effect of representations made by administrative decision makers.

But maybe even more importantly it suggests strongly that the left hand of ASADA doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, or maybe, even worse. We are going to have to wait and see what happens next, but the question that really needs to be asked in the light of the allegations of approval by ASADA is whether it is competently and effectively using the large amount of public resources that they command and whether it is really doing its job properly.

The public believes and expects that ASADA makes decisions about violations, but it seems that they really don’t want to do that. One could ask, “What’s the point of their existence?”

Further, if ASADA did in fact give the green light to Steve Dank, is it really fair that they now, after the fact, turn that light red?

Is it to much to ask that we might soon have an authoritative final decision from ASADA? That, after the application of their vast resources, they have now found that something possibly might have occurred?

I’ve written on the subject of Birds & Fire – and their cultural connections – at The Northern Myth here.

I’m excited to announce a call for observations from anyone interested in the behaviour of birds around fire and have today issued the following Media Release calling for comments and observations.

I’ve had a great response to this topic in the past and look forward to your further contributions or suggestions.

I’ll be presenting a paper at the upcoming 36th annual meeting of the Society of Ethnobiology – see more here.

My abstract for that paper follows:

Birds, Fire and Human Culture Australian Landscape

Time: Friday, 17 May 2013 – 11:20am – 11:40am
Author(s):
GOSFORD, Robert – Darwin, Australia. Ethnoornithology Research & Study Group

In this paper I will explore the relationship between birds and fire in the Australian mythical and physical landscape.

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that some species – particularly raptors – are active promoters of fire in the northern Australian savannah landscapes, using small fire-sticks and embers to spread fire throughout the open grass and woodlands of the semi-tropical north.

There is also evidence of similar behaviour from other parts of the world, including Africa and the Americas.

I will briefly examine the fire-bird mythology of the Yanyuwa people, an Aboriginal language group from the west coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory, with a specific example of the propagation of fire on a landscape scale by one species of raptor.

This presentation concludes by speculating on the importance of this line of investigation.

On one hand, “ornithogenic” landscape modification by fire would necessitate a re-evaluation of our knowledge of historic landscape processes.

On the other hand, as an Australasian ‘myth’ states, it opens the possibility of fire manipulation by humans as a behavior learned from kites that could be comparable to weaving learned from spiders, flight based on birds, etc

And this is the media release:

MEDIA RELEASE

ETHNOORNITHOLOGY RESEARCH & STUDY GROUP

BIRDS AND FIRE – A CITIZEN SCIENCE PROJECT

A Darwin-based ethno-ornithologist is asking for contributions from members of the public to an exciting new citizen science project that for the first time will examine the relationship between birds and fire in the Australian landscape.

Bob Gosford, moderator at the Ethnoornithology Study and Research Group, wants to hear from people with experiences and observations of birds and fire. “Birds and fire have long been linked in the Australian Aboriginal landscape and there are many accounts of birds – particularly Black Kites – carrying firesticks from the front line of wild-fires to spread those fires,” said Mr Gosford, “Now we are looking for more accounts from members of the public of this behaviour.”

“We think that the upcoming northern fire season will provide many opportunities for people to observe bird behaviour in and around fires. We would welcome any observations of birds carrying firesticks and spreading fires. We are particularly interested for observations from those that know fire best – the volunteer and professional fire-fighters and the many rangers that will spend the next few months fighting fires across the NT.”

“There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that some species – particularly raptors – are active promoters, preservers & users of fire in the Australian landscape,” said Mr Gosford.

“There has long been a belief that fire in the landscape is caused primarily by people and natural forces like lightning. But what if animals other than humans exhibit pyrophilic behavior?”

Next month Mr Gosford will travel to Texas in the USA to present a paper on the relationships between birds and fire in the Australian mythical and physical landscapes. Mr Gosford’s paper “Birds, Fire and Human Culture in the Australian Landscape” will be presented at the Society of Ethnobiology 36th Annual Conference at the University of North Texas.

Mr Gosford welcomes any reports of birds carrying firesticks – or any other interesting behaviour by birds related to fire – and can be contacted by email at birdknowledge@gmail.com

 What possible connection could there be between the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, ex-Federal politician Mal Brough and the NT Intervention?

As I noted last week, NT Deputy Chief Minister Dave Tollner, wearing his Business Minister’s hat, had

… issued a decree that, pursuant to his powers under section 33AA of the NT’s Liquor Act, at any premises in the NT where liquor is sold for consumption “on premises” no-one “wearing the colours, insignia or emblems of any known outlaw motorcycle gang – or bikie gang would be allowed onto that premises.”

One comment from a local lawyer alerted me to the possibility that the use of s. 33AA of the Liquor Act may have been unlawful in the sense that using the Liquor Act,  a law primarily to do with the control and sale of alcohol – to prevent a class of people from doing certain things at certain places – was wrong-headed and arguably unlawful. This piqued my interest in the legislative history of s. 33AA.

S. 33AA was introduced to the NT Legislative Assembly on 22 August 2007 as part of the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2007.

In the Second Reading speech for the Bill then Minister for Alcohol Policy Dr Chris Burns noted:

… the purpose of this Bill is to introduce urgent reforms to the Liquor Act. Some measures have been contemplated for some time, while others are a result of the release of the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse.

That last comment wasn’t entirely accurate. Another reason for the introduction of the “urgent reforms” in the Bill had unfolded two weeks earlier when Federal Indigenous Affair Minister Mal Brough introduced, with similar urgency, his Northern Territory Emergency Response Bill 2007 (the NTER bill).

In the Second Reading speech for that bill, which provided the legislative teeth for the coup that had caught Clare Martin’s NT Labor government so unawares in late June that year, Mal Brough pledged to “dry up the rivers of grog” flowing through NT Aboriginal communities and that “one of the key measures in this bill provides for widespread alcohol restrictions.”

Two weeks later in the Northern Territory Parliament Chris Burns revealed the link between the alcohol restrictions in Brough’s NTER bill.

The reforms in this bill will dovetail with the amendments being made to the Liquor Act by the Commonwealth government.

Most bills introduced into the NT Parliament “lie on the table” for twenty-eight days. Not this one.

Just eight days later the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill was brought back as a matter of urgency. Mal Brough’s NTER amendments to the NT’s Liquor Act would come into force on 15 September and this urgency focussed the attention of politicians when the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill came back before the NT Parliament on 30 August, the last day of sittings for five weeks.

Dr Burns opened proceedings on the application to suspend standing orders.

Following the urgent passage of the Commonwealth bill, it was necessary for the Northern Territory to pass its own legislation to both complement and ensure the workability of the Commonwealth’s new law before its commencement on 15 September … as I have already stated, we are committed to working with the Commonwealth to minimise the harmful impact of alcohol on Aboriginal Territorians.

Opposition and Independent members raised concerns about the urgency of the legislation and whether it was a “knee-jerk reaction” to the Commonwealth.

Treasurer and Attorney-General Syd Stirling cautioned that his government would be:

Very careful about the use of urgency in this House … what we are doing, despite our reservations about the urgency and the haste with which the federal government passed their legislation, is our darnedest to keep up with them in complementary legislation.

Independent Gerry Wood raised concerns about the Minister’s “major powers” in s. 33AA and sought a response about what the government was:

… trying to do [to] ensure that there are no unforeseen problems with Mr Brough’s legislation … why could the Liquor Commission not use its powers to do exactly what you [Minister Burns] are doing and, therefore, keep the processes as we know it and not give you these vast powers.

Dr Burns responded to Mr Woods’ concerns:

… there are going to be situations where the minister has to act rapidly in the interests of harm minimisation and, to some extent, public order … everyone acknowledges that with the changes to the Commonwealth act, there will be movement of people from one area to another, and there could be growth in problems outside a restricted area declared by the Commonwealth law. It could be that people move to another area adjacent to or whatever, and then it behoves the Northern Territory minister to try to address issues that may arise … there is going to be a likely exodus of people and knock-on effects that will occur.

The urgency motion passed and later that day the Bill came on for debate. The CLP Opposition expressed concerns about the “extraordinary” powers granted to the Minister by the bill but indicated that it would not oppose its passage. Independent member for Braitling, Lorraine Braham raised concerns about the bills exacerbating social divisions in the Northern Territory.

Regardless of saying that we have problems with alcohol in both societies, the federal government is targeting indigenous communities. This bill is targeting indigenous town camps.

Similar issues were raised by the CLP member for Katherine. Gerry Wood again raised his concerns with the powers given to the Minister under s. 33AA. Late in the evening the bill went the vote.

Dr Burns summed up the government’s position.

This is an extraordinary bill with extraordinary powers in an extraordinary circumstance … this bill really flows out of Commonwealth legislation … we are prepared to review this bill when the Commonwealth act is no longer in existence.

The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 passed into law.

Statutory interpretation – the arcane and very necessary art of divining the meaning of legislation – has vexed jurists, lawyers, drafters and politicians for centuries. In Australia the legislative basis of statutory interpretation is found in various Acts Interpretation Acts of the Commonwealth, States and Territories. As then Chief Justice Spigelman of the NSW Supreme Court noted on 2001:

The law of statutory interpretation has become the most important single aspect of legal practice. Significant areas of the law are determined entirely by statute. No area of the law has escaped statutory modification.*

Justice Spigelman noted a number of presumptions of interpretation that operated to protect certain common law protections of fundamental rights: “This protection operates by way of rebuttable presumptions that parliament did not intend” including, where here relevant, “(1) to invade common law rights …”

In her paper – Statutes and the Contemporary Search for Meaning – delivered to the Statute Law Society in London in February 2010 - Justice Susan Crennan of the High Court of Australia provides the following concise summary:

The current explication of legislative intention or the will of Parliament and contemporary approaches to construction, which seek meaning by reference to purpose and by reference to context considered widely, also by reference to fairness and the principle of legality, are all interpretative approaches which work to ensure that meaning is not sacrificed by the application of inflexible principles or rigid theories of statutory interpretation.

Without oversimplifying the issue, there are two primary concepts – purpose and context –  that need to be considered when, for example, interpreting the application of s. 33AA of the NT’s Liquor Act. The purposes of  the Liquor Act are clear and can be found in section 3:

3 Objects
(1) The primary object of this Act is to regulate the sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor:

(a) so as to minimise the harm associated with the consumption of liquor; and
(b) in a way that takes into account the public interest in the sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor.

(2) The further objects of this Act are:
(a) to protect and enhance community amenity, social harmony and wellbeing through the responsible sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor;
(b) to regulate the sale of liquor in a way that contributes to the responsible development of the liquor and associated industries in the Territory; and

(c) to facilitate a diversity of licensed premises and associated services for the benefit of the community.

(3) When the Commission exercises a power or performs a function under this Act, the Commission must have regard to the objects of this Act and must exercise the power and perform the function in a way that is consistent with those objects. (emphasis added)

We then need to consider s. 33AA of the Liquor Act, which reads in full:

33AA Minister’s power to determine additional licence conditions

(1) The Minister may determine additional conditions of a licence if the Minister thinks the determination is urgently needed for the wellbeing of the communities that might be affected by the operation of the licence.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may determine any of the following conditions under that subsection:

(a) a condition about when the licensed premises may be open for the sale of liquor;
(b) a condition about the type of liquor that may be sold on the premises;
(c) a condition about the amount of liquor that may be sold for consumption away from the premises;
(d) a condition requiring proof of the purchaser’s identity for a sale of liquor exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation;
(e) a condition requiring the keeping of records prescribed by regulation for the sale.

(3) In determining the conditions, the Minister:
(a) must have regard to the objects of this Act; and
(b) may consult with the Commission (and in doing so, may seek information, advice or a recommendation from the Commission).

(4) The Minister must table a copy of the determination in the Legislative Assembly within 6 sitting days after making the determination.
(5) A condition of the licence determined under subsection (1) prevails to the extent to which it is inconsistent with a condition of the licence determined by the Commission. (emphasis added)

The Statement of Reasons for the Determination by Minister for Business under section 33AA of the Liquor Act provides the following rationale for the imposition of the “temporary licence restriction”:

This temporary licence restriction will restrict Territory venues where liquor is sold for consumption ‘on premises’, from allowing anyone wearing the colours, insignia or emblems of any known outlaw motorcycle gang – or bikie gang – onto that premises.

…

Interstate experience has shown that large events such as this may pose a threat to public safety and use considerable police and enforcement resources.

…
NT Police believe that the Hells Angels visit to the NT represents a significant threat to the social order and law enforcement of the Territory and that action should be taken to minimise the potential harm to the community.

Consultation

Extensive consultation has occurred with the Australian Hotels Association (Northern Territory Branch) and NT Police. Both have indicated their support for the introduction of a temporary licence condition and accompanying guidelines and poster.

The Northern Territory Licensing Commission views have also been sought on this matter.
…
Having given careful consideration to the issues on this matter; the public interest, and the potential for harm, I am of the view that:

OMCGs are criminal organisations
OMCG members wear their colours and other insignia to evoke fear and intimidation
The presence of OMCGs in the NT represents a significant threat to public safety, increases the potential for harm emanating from licensed premises when OMCG members are wearing their colours and consumes significant police resources, and
Persons wearing the colours, insignia or emblems associated with outlaw motorcycle clubs (bikie gangs) should be excluded or prevented from entering licensed premises from commencement of trade on 31 March 2013 until 4.00 am on 11 April 2013.

The Minister’s Statement of Reasons provides an understandably self-serving snapshot of the justification for and context in which the s. 33AA is meant to apply between 30 March and 11 April 2013.

But is that sufficient to make the use of s. 33AA lawful?

Does it provide an accurate assessment of the relevant context?

Arguably not. It could be argued that the relevant context can be found in the history of s. 33AA – an extraordinary provision “with extraordinary powers in an extraordinary circumstance” - foisted upon an unwilling NT legislature by the Federal government and which the NT parliament could not resist.

It is also clear – from the nature of the debate from all sides of politics in the NT parliament and the clear words of the then Attorney-General – that extreme caution would – should – be applied to any use of this provision.

Is it a proper use of an extraordinary power arising from the appropriate controls on the many – for “the sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor” – to control the conduct of the few?

Who will be next?

Does this represent the first few panicked steps on a very slippery slope?

Whether the use of s. 33AA is lawful in these circumstances is for legal minds greater than mine to wrestle with.

One further question that should be asked is why the Minister didn’t use the existing powers in legislation more directly related to the control of so-called outlaw motor-cycle gangs?

Why didn’t the NT police use the powers in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Group Criminal Activities) Act 2006 or the Serious Crime Control Bill 2009?
Then NT Attorney-General (and now opposition leader) Delia Lawrie said the NT laws:

… include checks and balances to ensure new power and responsibilities granted to police, the courts and judicial officers, are used appropriately and responsibly in targeting serious outlaw gangs and criminals.

And for all the expense, hype and fluster that surrounded the Hells Angels’ visit to the NT, what “significant threat[s] to the social order and law enforcement of the Territory” did these outlaws cause that warranted the attention of dozens, if not hundreds, of cops. What evil were we being protected from?

Yesterday’s Sunday Territorian reported that Operation Sitara had made a grand total of two arrests related to a fight at a pub – and one of the Angels ran a red light.

=============================

* See JJ Spigelman, “The Poet’s Rich Resource: Issues in Statutory Interpretation” (2001) 21 Australian Bar Review 224.