Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:03 pm
Time: 10:03 pm
Results for alcohol restrictions
1 results foundAuthor: Hudson, Sara Title: Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns Summary: Double standards in the responsible serving of alcohol have contributed to the growing alcohol problem in remote Indigenous communities, and are one reason why alcohol restrictions are now in place in communities across the Far North. But until the same standards are applied everywhere, there is no way of knowing whether such restrictions are really necessary. More controls on alcohol will have little effect until all the double standards that permeate Aboriginal people’s lives are addressed. Australia has a long history of treating Aboriginal people differently. First they were subjected to discriminatory laws that prevented them from living where they chose, drinking legally, voting, and being paid a fair wage. When these inequitable laws were finally abolished, they were replaced by equally damaging affirmative action and ‘culturally appropriate’ separatist policies. Denied the same educational and housing opportunities provided to others, remote Indigenous Australians have become increasingly reliant on the state to meet their every need. The harmful effects of excessive alcohol consumption are a problem across Australia but more pronounced in many Aboriginal communities because nearly every resident is reliant on welfare. The absence of a real economy and appropriate controls on alcohol has created social environments where welfare payments are spent on alcohol and heavy drinking has become endemic. Few canteens on Indigenous lands and taverns in remote areas serve alcohol responsibly, with devastating results for communities. Aurukun was once described as a ‘liveable and vibrant community,’ but following the introduction of a regular supply of alcohol and no controls on its use, levels of violence, abuse and neglect skyrocketed. In 2000, the town’s homicide rate was estimated at 120 times the state average. In the 1970s, increasing liberalisation of liquor licensing laws saw an increase in the number of liquor outlets and extended opening hours of premises. Along with an increase in the total number of licensed premises, there was an increase in the numbers of licenses to sell takeaway alcohol. As a result, per capita consumption of pure alcohol in Australia grew rapidly in the 1970s (from an average of 9.3 litres in 1961 to a peak of 13.1 litres per person in 1974–75). Since then, state and territory liquor authorities have tried to offset this increasing liberalisation with new legislation to mitigate the harms caused by excessive alcohol consumption. This has contributed to the overall reduction in total per capita consumption of alcohol nationwide to around 10 litres of alcohol, but the Far North has not followed these trends. Per capita alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory remains high (14.35 litres in 2006–07), with the average consumption among Indigenous Territorians even higher at 16.1 litres. Many Indigenous people (particularly women) are concerned at the level of harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption and have used Aboriginal land and liquor legislation to restrict and even ban alcohol. The decision to introduce additional restrictions should be up to communities to decide, through a democratic process where everyone gets a voice no matter how marginalised they are. The problem is what to do in places where alcohol causes significant problems and communities do not want to be ‘dry’ or restrict alcohol. Community initiatives to introduce alcohol restrictions have been followed by territory, state and Commonwealth initiatives, including the Queensland government’s Alcohol Management Plans in Cape York and the federal government’s Northern Territory Intervention (NTI) in 2007 that introduced alcohol prohibitions in ‘73’ prescribed communities. The NTI restrictions have proven ineffective: they have increased ‘sly-grogging,’ displaced the drinking problem to ‘drinking paddocks’ on the outskirts of communities, and increased the number of homeless or itinerant drinkers in the larger towns and cities where alcohol is freely available. Drinking to extreme intoxication often occurs in ‘drinking camps’ on town fringes where there are no formal controls. Until recently, their existence has been unofficially tolerated because it has served everyone’s interests to segregate Aboriginal drinkers. Non-Indigenous people do not want them in the pubs and taverns in towns, and Indigenous drinkers have enjoyed the freedom and perceived the tacit license to do what they like as a minor victory over those who disapprove of their drinking and behaviour. However, recent concerns about the increasing numbers of itinerant drinkers coming to Alice Springs and causing problems have led to suggestions for more ‘wet canteens’ or ‘clubs’ in communities. The idea of drinking in a controlled environment, where people can consume alcohol with food and enjoy other recreational activities, has its merits but the failure of past experiences must be kept in mind. If on-premise options are to be a viable means of reducing the harms associated with drinking takeaway alcohol, then their risks need close attention. Poor governance and management is likely to be an issue. The pressure on such enterprises to produce profits for the community’s benefit could make them reluctant to regulate the sale of alcohol. Clubs also risk continuing (and institutionalising) racially segregated drinking, with the potential for different (lower) standards in the responsible serving of alcohol. In Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek, where the impetus for alcohol restrictions came from strong local women and where responsible serving of alcohol is now being enforced, there has been a noticeable decline (between 20% and 40%) in the number of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol-related admissions to hospitals. Having stricter controls on alcohol has made these towns more pleasant places to live, but the restrictions have not addressed the reasons why people are drinking in the first place. Controls on alcohol supply help mitigate the harms that alcohol causes, but they will not solve the alcohol problem. Restrictions may act as a circuit breaker and provide a ‘breathing space’ for other changes to occur, but they do very little for problem drinkers who will continue to try and obtain alcohol through other means. Alcohol restrictions should go hand in hand with proper enforcement and initiatives that address the underlying causes of the problem, not just the symptoms. Unfortunately, in all the states and territories where alcohol restrictions have been introduced, government has failed or been slow to deliver on promised rehabilitation programs and on real and substantive reforms to education, employment and housing. As a result some residents have transferred their addiction to other drugs and others have found ways to circumvent the law by bringing alcohol in illegally. The gradual erosion of the benefits of alcohol restrictions highlights the futility of introducing restrictions without addressing the aimlessness and boredom of lives lived on welfare. Details: St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Centre for Independent Studies, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: CIS Policy Monograph 116: Accessed August 10, 2012 at: http://cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-116.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-116.pdf Shelf Number: 125952 Keywords: AboriginalsAlcohol Related Crime, Disorder (Australia)Alcohol RestrictionsAlcoholismIndigenous Peoples |