AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 2003 >> [2003] IndigLawB 38

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Boffa, John; Rosewarne, Clive --- "Alcohol & Alice Springs: Meeting the Needs and Wishes of the Community" [2003] IndigLawB 38; (2003) 5(25) Indigenous Law Bulletin 11


Alcohol & Alice Springs:
Meeting the Needs and Wishes of the Community

by Clive Rosewarne and Dr John Boffa

In 2000, the average alcohol consumption per capita in Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (‘NT’) was 70 percent higher than the national average.[1] Twenty-four million dollars worth of wholesale alcohol was sold in Alice Springs in the 1998-99 financial year, with less than two million dollars of this spent on products with low alcohol content. Levels of alcohol related harm were extreme for the same period. In a population of approximately 28,000 people, 2,999 people were arrested for alcohol related offences. The Alice Springs Hospital Accident and Emergency Section dealt with 1,341 admissions that were alcohol related, 442 involved assault. Moreover, these figures only include reported events.[2],[3]

These problems have been well known to organisations controlled by the Aboriginal community for many years. In 1990, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (‘CAAC’) and Tangentyere Council produced a joint alcohol strategy that included measures to reduce the availability of alcohol. In 1995, following a large public meeting convened by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission the People’s Alcohol Action Group (‘PAAG’) was formed. Later this became the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition (‘PAAC’), a community advocacy group which has led a campaign by a coalition of community groups (‘the community groups’) to reduce the availability of alcohol in Alice Springs.

An extensive array of reports had previously highlighted these alcohol related problems and had prompted community action.[4] However, an awareness of excessive alcohol consumption and related harm had not led to a consistent regulatory regime controlling the availability of alcohol. Instead there have been many studies and fragmented approaches to reducing alcohol related harm over the years.[5] In the NT the regulation of the sale of alcohol is controlled by the NT Licensing Commission (‘the Commission’). The community groups are seeking a consistent approach by the Commission which places further limitations on the availability of alcohol.

Reducing alcohol availability is an effective strategy to reduce overall consumption and the harm caused by excessive drinking. ‘Excessive drinking’ refers to both short and long term high risk levels of consumption. Short term high risk levels are 11 or more standard drinks for men, and 7 or more for women. This is commonly referred to as binge drinking. Long term high risk consumption is defined as 43 or more standard drinks per week for men, and 20 or more for women. It has been estimated that in 1998 over half the alcohol consumed nationally was drunk at levels that posed short term health risks and 39 percent at levels that posed long term risks.[6] Those drinking at these levels pose a danger to their own health and the wellbeing of others, particularly family members. They are implicated in a range of anti-social behaviours, and place strains and additional costs upon welfare programs and the community. For example, the provision of health and other services, damages and repairs, policing and courts, and the foregone productive value to their families and community.

Drinking patterns for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are often described as different,[7] however, the over-consumption of alcohol is an issue for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Alice Springs. When the estimated Aboriginal component of purchases of alcohol is factored out, non-Aboriginal people’s consumption level is still 52 percent higher than the national average.[8] Non-Aboriginal people generally have higher incomes, and higher levels of home ownership and access to rental accommodation.[9] They usually consume alcohol behind closed doors, and binge drinking is common. The costs of this over-consumption are borne by the central Australian community, and include traffic accidents, court appearances, juvenile crime and domestic violence.[10] Many of the long term health costs do not show up in NT statistics because people move to east coast cities later in their lives.

Aboriginal people’s drinking patterns are different. Many individuals abstain from consuming any alcohol at all. When chronic drinking does occur it is usually with a cohort of other drinkers, and much of the time in public.[11] This has led conservative voices in the alcohol debate to call for measures that focus on Aboriginal ‘problem drinkers’.[12] This position ignores the reality that excessive consumption of alcohol is a problem which involves both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. It is an attitude which stigmatises Aboriginal people, and suggests that they are not part of the community.

Aboriginal organisations, being primarily motivated by concern for their own people, must constantly challenge this line of argument. The argument is based on a racist outlook and factual error. It also undermines broad community support for finding real solutions to alcohol problems faced by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The considerable amount of scarce resources that are consumed in dealing with the problems caused by alcohol are diverted away from programmes that could bring real benefits to Aboriginal people and the town in general. For example, the benefits that can be gained in the short-term from youth diversionary programmes, or longer term benefits from provision of education services.

Placing restrictions upon the availability of alcohol has been shown to be effective in bringing about a reduction in alcohol related harm in both Australia and overseas studies.[13] A number of conclusions can be drawn from the accumulated evidence of these studies. Firstly, reducing alcohol availability is recognised as being the most important measure that can be implemented to reduce alcohol related harm. However, this is not an argument that it should be the only measure introduced. Secondly, the two most important measures to reduce availability are increasing prices and reducing the number of take-away trading hours. Accordingly, the community groups have sought the reduction of take-away trading hours, and the restriction of cheap alcohol products most commonly related with high levels of harm

Some commentators have argued that such measures are an infringement of their personal freedom to consume or to trade in this substance.[14] However, they overlook the fact that these types of restrictions already exist for alcohol and other drugs. For example, the prohibition on the sale of alcohol to minors, and the licensing of the sale of alcohol.

In the NT the regulation of the sale of alcohol is controlled by the NT Licensing Commission (‘the Commission’). Under the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Act 2000 (NT) the Commission has responsibility for various legislation, including the Gaming Control Act, the Gaming Machine Act, the Kava Management Act, the Private Security Act and the Liquor Act 1999 (‘the Liquor Act’). When determining the conditions of any licence s32(d) of the Liquor Act requires the Commission to consider a number of factors that include ‘the needs and wishes of the community’. The long running community campaign for trial restrictions on alcohol availability has tested the Commission’s interpretation of s32.

For years the community groups have been led through a torturous route of consultations, hearings and surveys of community attitudes in order to gain the Commission’s agreement to trial reduced take-away trading hours and target the consumption of cheap bulk packaged alcohol products. This has been described as a debate with continuously moving goal posts.[15]

The community campaign led by PAAC had called for a range of other measures to be implemented by the Commission. This included limiting the potential growth in sales of other cheap alcohol products, such as fortified wines and spirits, if four and five litre wine casks were prohibited. The suggested means to address this product substitution was to place a container size limit of 1.5 litres on these products, and for the limits on take-away trading hours to include a restriction on sales of fortified wines and spirits before 4pm.[16] PAAC also called for a further restriction of take-away trading hours to between 3pm and 8pm from Monday to Saturday, which would be a reduction of 26 hours per week. Some members of PAAC, such as Congress called for quotas which restricted sales of fortified wines and spirits to pre-trial levels. However, after a protracted debate and consultation process, these demands were dropped in an attempt to get a consensus between the community and various industry groups. The aim of the package of restrictions proposed by PAAC was to reduce alcohol consumption to 15 percent above the national average.[17] The recommendation to adopt these measures was disregarded by the Commission.

The campaign also called upon the NT Government to reduce the profile of alcohol within the community, to strengthen the Liquor Act’s harm minimisation and health policy objectives, and to increase the Commission’s staffing presence and autonomy in Alice Springs.[18] To date there has been no action on these issues.

The Commission proposed a trial of alcohol restrictions scheduled to begin in May 2001. The proposed conditions of the trial were that take-away trading hours for all outlets would be restricted to between 2pm and 8pm on weekdays, which would be a reduction of two hours per day. And no liquor of any type was to be sold or supplied in containers greater than two litres. They placed public notices and called for submissions regarding the proposed trial.

The Commission received 2,500 responses. The Commission later described these responses as follows:

[O]pinions received from the community fell readily into two groups, those for and those against the restrictions poles apart, with very little common ground and both with significant numbers in their favour. The common ground of the opposing opinions was that restrictions alone would not work.[19]

In June 2001, the Licensing Commission reported that a majority of 65 percent of respondents were against the restrictions. Therefore, they would not be proceeding with the implementation of the trial until the community groups identified what additional measures were needed to make the trial work.[20]

This decision was interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Commission interpreted the Liquor Act’s requirement to take ‘into account the needs and wishes of the community’ as something they could quantify, measured through an absolute majority of received public responses to a gazette notice. The Commission did not provide a breakdown of the number of people that each response represented, and an individual citizen’s response seemed to have been given equal weighting to an organisation of Aboriginal people who might represent many thousands. That such a process favoured those skilled and empowered enough to respond was not considered by the Commission to be a distorting factor. The Commission also discounted ample statistical evidence from previous surveys of the community which showed that these types of measures held majority community support.[21]

Another concern with the Commission’s approach is that anecdotal comment indicates some of the 65 percent opposed might have been so because they thought the gazetted restrictions did not go far enough. There were individuals who directly indicated to PAAC members that this was the reason they had not even responded to the gazette notice. The Commission has never provided a breakdown of the aggregated for and against figures on which it based its decision. The Commission’s comment that ‘the common ground of the opposing opinions was that restrictions alone will not work[22] indicates that a proportion of the respondents may have opposed the proposed restrictions because they thought the measures did not go far enough.

Furthermore, the Commission wrongly interpreted the scope of s32 of the Liquor Act. When determining the conditions of any licence s32(d) of the Liquor Act requires the Commission to consider a number of factors that include ‘the needs and wishes of the community’. They stated that ‘[s]trictly speaking Section 32 applies only [when considering applications for liquor licences and setting licence conditions] and not in the present exercise [ie trials of restrictions]’. Having quashed the community’s expectation that they had a right to claim standing under s32, the Commission defined s32 as requiring the Commission merely to allow community input. They stated that ‘[n]evertheless the Commission will continue to have regard to the needs and wishes of the community ... in any proposal to implement liquor restrictions’.[23] The Liquor Act does not provide the Commission with this interpretative power.

The Commission then went on to engineer a solution based on what it saw as common ground between the yes and no vote, which was the view that restrictions alone were inadequate. The Commission required the community groups to identify ‘a range of complimentary measures’ that would meet the officially unstated needs and wishes of the community, before it would reconsider the proposal to introduce the alcohol restrictions. This was a perverse decision by the Commission for a number of reasons. Firstly, there seemed to be no basis for this requirement under the powers given to the Commission by the Liquor Act. Secondly, it ignored the vast array of measures that were already in place. The community groups had indicated that existing measures were being undermined by the high levels of alcohol consumption and liquor restrictions were needed to support them. This argument for the need to have the trial was turned on its head. The Commission argued that community programmes were the missing link to make the trial work, rather than the trial being the missing measure to help the community programmes work.

Nevertheless, the community groups agreed to the Commission’s requirement for six new complimentary measures, and provided them to the Commission as a means to get their agreement to commence the alcohol trial. The Commission gazetted the proposed trail which in addition to the restricted take-away trading hours and restrictions on wine cask size, included a third provision that only light beer was to be sold in bars before noon. This last condition was not part of the community groups’ campaign and seems to have been initiated within the Commission. After a failed legal challenge by sections of the local liquor industry, a twelve-month trial was finally gazetted to come into effect, ominously for its success, on the 1st of April 2002. The trial was to be evaluated at the end of this period. For this purpose the Commission appointed two scientific evaluators and established an Evaluation Reference Group (‘ERG’)[24]

After 12 months of restrictions, the evaluation of the trial showed that the reduced trading hours had an impact upon the level of alcohol related harm.[25] However, the potential of container size regulation to reduce consumption levels was undermined by drinkers shifting to cheap cask port, with its sales increasing by 1000 percent.[26] This shift had been predicted by PAAC but efforts to forestall it were successfully blocked by the liquor industry during the development of the trial. The Commission left open a loophole that was exploited by the liquor retail industry. On the day the trial started one liquor outlet received massive free publicity through local newspaper and TV news which showed patrons the sort of product they could get instead of the restricted four litre casks. The average price of two litre port dropped to 28 cents per standard drink, the same price as four and five litre wine was previously, and its consumption went up.[27]

The Commission announced that the liquor restrictions would continue until it had the opportunity to consider the evaluation report, even though the initial twelve month trial period had ended. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress lobbied hard for an evaluated trial to be continued for a further three months with strengthened provisions on pricing, which it argued would force a shift away from cheap products strongly linked to alcohol related harm. This proposal was supported by other community groups, butt opposed by liquor and tourism industry groups on the trial ERG.

In July 2003, after completing its evaluation of the trial, the Commission decided to maintain the restricted take-away trading hours and bar sale times for low alcohol beer. It stunned the community groups by acceding to calls by the tourism industry and police for the reintroduction of four and five litre cask wine containers as a means of dealing with the shift to cheap port.[28] The Commission rejected the view that price had determined the shift to port but did not state any other reason for it. The Commission argued that if it banned two litre port then there would be a shift to other products, including more expensive products such as beer and spirits. However, the evaluation revealed that there had been no shift to beer or spirits as a result of the initial trial, and this provides strong evidence that product substitution is determined by price. The Commission provided no supporting evidence to support its view that if port was banned there would be a shift to expensive products such as beer and spirits. On this issue evidence based decision-making was abandoned. The Commission claimed that there was no evidence before it to support the view that price is a major determinant of consumption.[29] Community groups believe that this is not true, and could provide a basis for a challenge to the decision on the grounds that the Commission erred in fact.

In its July 2003 decision the Commission described its responsibility under s32 as needing to take into account the ‘change[s] or other schemes or strategies [that] are put before us’ and not assume public support ‘prevails over time and without question’.[30] However, the Commission rejected the pricing mechanism targeting the shift to two litre port put forward by CAAC and other Aboriginal organisations. According to the Commission’s own definition it has breached the requirements of s32.[31]

The community groups working on alcohol issues in Alice Springs now have to consider their options in pursuing action through the Commission, particularly with regard to s32. One option is to take legal action challenging whether the Commission has met its obligations under s32 to take into account the needs and wishes of the community. Such an action would aim to have the court establish who is defined as ‘the community’ under s32. Especially, whether s32 includes the liquor industry or other interested industry members who are governed by the Liquor Act. A second important principle to clarify would be what size of representation is needed to persuade the Commission that the community wanted action, how it would be measured, and over how long the community would have to sustain their interest to ensure action is taken. Another option for the community is to mount a public campaign for the overhaul of the Liquor Act to strengthen its harm minimisation objective. In addition, the community can work to ensure that there representatives of Aboriginal community organisations on the Commission.

Acknowledgements: For critical review and comments, Stephanie Bell, Donna Ah Chee and Dr Dennis Gray. For editing Dr Christine Schlesinger.

Clive Rosewarne (Research/Policy Officer) and Dr John Boffa (Public Health Medical Officer) work for the Aboriginal community-controlled health service in Alice Springs the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Inc. They have been involved in the community campaign on alcohol issues in Alice Springs and are active members of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition. Clive can be contacted at CAAC PO Box 1604 Alice Springs 0871 or e-mail: clive.rosewarne@caacongress.com.au


[1] Figure derived from adjusted data from the research of Dr Dennis Gray, Curtin University National Drug Research Institute.

[2] Marge Hauritz and Finn Finnsson and Gillian McIlwain ‘Dollars Made From Broken Spirits’ (2000).

[3] Recent figures have again revealed that the Northern territory has the highest per capita homicide rate in the country and that the majority of these homicides are alcohol related. In addition alcohol is a major contributor to the unacceptably high level of domestic and family violence that has recently received much media attention.

[4] Prior to the Hauritz et al Report (above n 2) see Lyon, P ‘What Everybody knows About Alice: A Report on the impact of alcohol abuse on the Town of Alice Springs’, Tangentyere Council Alice Springs (1990); Maggie Brady and David Martin ‘Dealing with alcohol in Alice Springs: An assessment of policy options and recommendations for action’ (1998).

There had been community action by the Alcohol reference Group & ATSIC Alice Springs. Examples of public campaigns included community forums like the Alcohol Issues Forum, which became the Alice Alcohol Representative Committee (1997-2000) which was a previous incarnation of the PAAC (1995-1998). There were community meetings held under the auspices of the RCIADIC Aboriginal Issues Unit (NT), Central Australian Aboriginal Congress and Tangentyere Council (August 1989), and one organised by local politicians (2000).

[5] Previous actions had included the introduction of a wine cask levy by the NT Government that funded alcohol programs, local action by the Commission to vary remote area licences (eg Curtin Springs Roadhouse), and the banning of glass wine flagons.

[6] National Health and Medical Research Council ‘Australian Alcohol Guidelines: Health Risks and Benefits’, Canberra (2001).

[7] Peter d’Abbs, Ernest Hunter, Joseph Reser, and David Martin, ‘Alcohol-related Violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities: a Literature Review National Symposium on Alcohol Misuse and Violence’, Canberra AGPS (1994).

[8] Dennis Gray and Tanya Chikritzhs, ‘Regional Variation in alcohol consumption in the Northern territory’ (2000) 24 (1) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 35-38.

[9] Alice Springs Town Council, ‘The Quality of Life in Alice Springs Part I’ (2000).

[10] Hauritz and Finnsson above n 2.

[11] d’Abbs et al above n 7.

[12] Erwin Chlanda, ‘Burke weighs in on Alice Booze debate’, Alice Springs News (Alice Springs), 16 August 2000, 3-4.

[13] See for example Dennis Gray, Sherry Saggers, Brooke Sputore and Deirdre Bourbon, ‘Evaluation of the Tennant Creek Liquor Licensing Restrictions: A Report Prepared for the Tenant Creek Beat the Grog Sub-Committee’ (National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, Division of Health Services, Curtin University of Technology, 1998); Peter d’Abbs, Samantha Togni, Natasha Stacey and Joe Fitz, ‘Alcohol restrictions in Tennant Creek: A Review Prepared for the Beat the Grog Committee’ (Menzies School of Health Research, 2000); Griffith Edwards et al, Alcohol Policy and the Public Good (1994).

[14] Erwin Chlander, ‘Liquor Traders Furious’, Alice Springs News (Alice Springs), 26 July 2000, 1-4.

[15] PAAC, ‘Disappointed but determined’, Press Release (31 May 2001).

[16] Industry groups lobbied against this measure claiming that there would be no product substitution, despite the fact that this had occurred during the Tennant Creek trials.

[17] People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, ’Harm Prevention = Harm Reduction’ (Pamphlet released in Alice Springs). The Tennant Creek Trial had seen a 25 percent reduction in alcohol consumption and a reduction in related harms such as assault.

[18] PAAC ibid

[19] NT Licensing Commission, Trial of Liquor restrictions in Alice Springs (October 2001)

[20] NT Licensing Commission, Position Paper: Proposed Liquor restrictions in Alice Springs (June 2001)

[21] Above n 2.

[22] Above n 20

[23] ibid

[24] The ERG was the mechanism to allow community comment. The ERG was comprised of community, industry and government agencies.

[25] Below n 26, 27. Alcohol-related presentations to CAAC clinic were lower, Alcohol-related presentations to the Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department were down by 19 percent. There was a 28 percent reduction in sobering up shelter admissions and police protective custodies were down. Most importantly, there was a significant reduction in alcohol related assaults in the afternoons.

[26] Ian Crundall and Chris Moon, ‘Report to the Licensing Commission: Summary Evaluation of the Alice Springs Liquor Trial’ (Northern Territory Government, 2003).

[27] Dennis Gray, ‘Review of the Summary Evaluation of the Alice Springs Liquor Trial. A report to Tangentyere Council and Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (2003).

[28] NT Licensing Commission, Trial Restrictions on the sale of Liquor in Alice Springs Decision on Licence Conditions following Evaluation of the Trial (July 2003).

[29] ibid

[30] ibid

[31] ‘Community outrage at Licensing decision’, Centralian Advocate (Alice Springs), 11 July 2003, 5; ‘Outrage over move on cask wine’, Centralian Advocate (Alice Springs), 15 July 2003, 1-2.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/2003/38.html