Ideas@TheCentre
Double standards to blame for alcohol problem
Double standards have contributed to the alcohol problem facing many Indigenous communities and towns in the Far North. A form of apartheid exists with separate bars for Indigenous patrons – derogatively called ‘animal bars.’ These have been set up for binge drinking with concrete tables, bar stools secured to the ground, and wire mesh or metal bars around the serving area. Different rules around the responsible serving of alcohol tend to apply – and patrons are allowed to drink until they become severely intoxicated.
Australia has a long history of treating Aboriginal people differently. First, they were subject to discriminatory laws that prevented them from living where they chose, and drinking legally. When these laws were finally abolished, they were replaced by equally damaging affirmative action and ‘culturally appropriate’ polices. Separate Indigenous curricula have led to lower standards in education, while communal land ownership has denied Indigenous Australians living on their land the same opportunities for homeownership that others Australians enjoy.
Consequently, 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 1980s. But pressure to produce profits often made the clubs reluctant to regulate the sale of alcohol, and many failed to enforce responsible serving laws.
The absence of police in many remote Indigenous communities has led to the establishment of night patrols, but they have no powers of enforcement so are not an effective replacement for police. The cost of remote policing is higher than in urban areas, but this cannot continue to be used as an excuse as the cost of not enforcing the law is even higher.
Many of the alcohol restrictions across the Far North may not have been necessary if existing liquor legislation had been enforced properly.
At the same time, total bans on the possession and consumption of alcohol (like the restrictions introduced under the Northern Territory Intervention) have proven difficult to enforce.
People will always find ways to circumvent the law. This is because while controls on alcohol may reduce levels of alcohol-related harm, they do not address the demand for alcohol. Addressing the demand for alcohol requires initiatives that address the underlying causes of the problem – poor education, lack of employment, and opportunity for homeownership – not just the symptoms.
Real change will occur only when all the double standards that permeate Aboriginal people’s lives are addressed.
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her report Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns was released by the CIS this week. Click here to watch Sara discussing her report.
