Opinion & Commentary
Apartheid at the local pub
Go for a drink in one of the "animal bars" in the far north and you will feel like you have been transported to apartheid South Africa.
The Kimberley Hotel in Western Australia has two separate bars. One is called the "sportsman's bar" and is frequented by mostly non-indigenous people; the other is known as the "animal bar" and is where the local Aboriginal people go. There is a stark contrast between the two.
The sportsman's has fairly pleasant decor and serves food, while the animal bar has been designed for binge drinking, with concrete tables and metal bars around the serving area.
Different rules for serving alcohol apply at the sportsman's and animal bars. A security guard stands outside the sportsman's bar to prevent unruly customers from entering. But if someone is kicked out of the sportsman's bar for being too intoxicated, they can walk around the corner to the animal bar and get served.
Double standards in the responsible service 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.
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 aimlessness and boredom of lives lived on welfare has seen heavy drinking become endemic.
Under the banner of self-determination, beer canteens and social clubs were established on indigenous land in the 1970s and 80s. But pressure to produce profits often made the clubs reluctant to regulate the sale of alcohol, and many failed to enforce responsible serving laws.
Patrons were able to buy alcohol on credit and drink until they became severely intoxicated, with devastating consequences for communities. After a canteen was introduced in Aurukun, the town's homicide rate skyrocketed to 120 times the state average.
To protect the public good and prevent harm to others, governments throughout history have introduced restrictions such as age limits to control alcohol.
But the combination of excessive welfare and lack of enforcement of liquor laws has seen alcohol-fuelled violence become a serious problem in indigenous communities and frontier towns, and residents and government have turned to more drastic options.
The Northern Territory intervention has seen alcohol bans imposed on remote communities across the top end. Alcohol management plans (which restrict and ban alcohol to varying degrees) have been introduced in Queensland's Cape York.
Two towns in Western Australia, Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek, have also introduced restrictions on the sale and strength of takeaway alcohol.
While it is difficult to make a direct comparison between these three very different strategies, all provide certain benefits. In all three states alcohol restrictions have helped to make communities quieter and more pleasant places to live. At the same time the restrictions have encouraged sly grogging and increased the number of itinerant drinkers moving to the larger towns and cities where alcohol is freely available. This has been most noticeable with the bans under the intervention.
The most drastic measure, prohibition, seems to be the least effective strategy and restrictions that involve community members have more positive results than top-down, government imposed approaches.
Alcohol-related crimes and alcohol-related admissions to hospitals dropped by between 20 per cent and 40 per cent a year after restrictions were introduced in Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek. In comparison, only some Cape York communities have seen a drop in alcohol-related violence after the introduction of alcohol management plans.
In the territory the number of alcohol-related incidents recorded by police in prescribed communities actually rose by nearly 80 per cent following the intervention (though this is partly explained by additional policing).
The restrictions introduced in Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek are just one of many examples where local Aboriginal people have taken the initiative to combat alcohol-related harms. Not widely known is the fact that before the intervention more than a hundred communities across the Territory had declared themselves "dry".
The ineffectiveness of the intervention's restrictions demonstrates the futility of blanket bans. The Labor government has now recognised this and is negotiating individual alcohol management plans with communities.
But before additional restrictions are considered necessary, policing of existing liquor legislation must be the same for everyone. Extreme measures, such as prohibition, only seem to be effective in small, remote outstations where there is no market for sly grogging. Controls may help reduce alcohol-related harms but they do not address the demand for alcohol.
To do that, the double standards and lower expectations that dominate just about every aspect of Aboriginal people's lives need to change. Continuing to treat Aboriginal people differently - as many publicans in the far north do - only perpetuates disadvantage and dysfunction.
Centre for Independent Studies research fellow Sara Hudson's paper Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns was released today.
