Ideas@TheCentre
Address the demand for alcohol, not the supply
Queensland Indigenous Affairs Minister Glen Elmes may have a point when he says banning alcohol does not address the demand for alcohol, and people will always find ways to get around alcohol prohibitions. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind why alcohol management plans were introduced in 19 Queensland Aboriginal communities in the first place.
The ABC’s Four Corners program ‘Return to Aurukun,’ shown last year, highlighted the devastating impact unrestricted alcohol has had on the remote Indigenous settlement in Queensland. For years, the people of Aurukun argued against having an alcohol canteen in their community fearing it would lead to alcohol-related violence and child neglect. All their fears came true with the introduction of a canteen in 1985. By 2000, the once ‘liveable and vibrant community’ had a homicide rate of more than 100 times the state’s average.
Elmes is not advocating a return to ‘the bad old days’ when people were allowed to consume alcohol until they were paralytic. He wants to work with mayors in the communities to find ways of controlling alcohol in a ‘sensitive’ way.
But what this means is unclear. Does it mean replacing the total bans in eight communities with alcohol restrictions like those that operate in the other 11 Queensland communities?
Research suggests that restrictions rather than outright bans are more effective in reducing alcohol-related crime and harm, at least in the short term. Evaluations conducted on alcohol restrictions introduced in two towns, Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek, in Western Australia found there was a noticeable decline (between 20% and 40%) in the number of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol-related admissions to hospitals a year after the restrictions were introduced.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of restrictions appears to decrease over time as people found ways to circumvent the law. Elmes is correct - it is impossible to have police stationed at every street corner stopping sly grog runners.
For long-term changes, governments should be tackling the reasons why people are drinking rather than simply controlling the consumption of alcohol. In the 2012-13 Budget for Indigenous Affairs, the federal government earmarked $695 million over 10 years to improve the safety of communities in the Northern Territory and help them tackle alcohol abuse. But only $2.3 million of that money is earmarked for initiatives aimed at reducing the demand or potential demand for alcohol.
Alcohol abuse has strong correlations with unemployment. Lack of employment, coupled with relatively high welfare payments, contributes to alcohol abuse, which in turn inhibits or prevents heavy drinkers from working. Until alcohol restrictions are linked with initiatives that address the underlying causes of the problem (not just the symptoms) they will forever be a failure.
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns.
