Neil Westbury article on regressive changes to remote alcohol laws in the NT

 

If you have tears, prepare to shed them now…

Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 2.

 

Neil Westbury has today published an article in Pearls and Irritations (link here) that outlines succinctly the huge problems with the recent NT Government legislation relating to the regulation of alcohol in the NT, the background to the legislation, and most importantly identifies a sensible and feasible pathway forward directed to harm minimisation and respect for the rights of women and children in particular to live safe lives. His article is highly recommended.

 

Westbury has a long background in NT Indigenous policy issues, has worked for both the Commonwealth and the NT Governments, and most recently was a member of the Gilbert Review into the proposal (now withdrawn) for a Dan Murphy superstore in Darwin. I published a post summarising key structural issues raised by the review in relation to remote alcohol policy in the NT (link here). One thread in that post was an argument that the NTG was failing to act in the public interest in relation to alcohol policy, and I called for the Commonwealth to engage more proactively. Again, it is worth reading that post (and for those with a deeper interest, the Gilbert Review itself) in the context of the current developments.

 

In February, I published a post outlining my concerns at the possibility that a failure of the Commonwealth to establish a transition process out of the Stronger Futures Legislation would create a regulatory vacuum by returning us to the status quo ante (link here). That prediction has unfortunately come to pass in relation to some SFNT measures, for example Community Living Area provisions. However, I failed to predict the alacrity with which the NTG would act on the alcohol provisions.

 

In summary:

• the Commonwealth, by allowing the SFNT legislation to lapse in July this year, has sought to flick responsibility for the conditions in remote communities to the NTG;

 

• the NTG has legislated to lift controls on hundreds of remote communities and locations (the default) with an option for communities to apply for community specific alcohol exemptions.

 

A much more responsible legislative response would have been for the NTG to legislate to retain the current restrictions on alcohol within communities as the default, along with provisions for communities to apply to replace the restrictions with managed access to alcohol (this was essentially the SFNT model).

 

Why has the NTG gone down the path of lifting restrictions?

 

The ostensible reasons given by the former NT Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, for the approach taken by the new legislation were that restrictions were racist and communities should have freedom of choice (link here). This argument was refuted publicly and comprehensively by Dr John Boffa (see the Westbury article) who pointed out that the restrictions were a special measure allowed under the Racial Discrimination Act.

 

Other arguments raised by the new NT Chief Minister Fyfe and Minister Paech include that the current restrictions are not perfect (neither are our road rules!), and that they were imposed by the NT Intervention (link here). In fact, the SFNT legislation was passed by the Labor Government in 2012 and differs from the Intervention legislation passed in 2007 in being subject to, and on its face compliant with the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA).

 

That the NT Government is resorting to rhetorical sleight of hand signals that it is hiding the real reason for switching the default from restriction to free access.

 

My take for what it is worth is as follows. The NT Government has long been in thrall to alcohol interests, and drinking culture permeates all levels of NT society. The major cities and towns are strongly focussed on servicing the tourism industry. There has long been issues with visitors from remote communities (so called itinerants) coming into the major centres for a range of reasons, including access to health services, and undoubtedly access to alcohol. NT governments have struggled managing the flow of visitors for over three decades, not least because they refuse to regulate access to alcohol as it would impact the availability of alcohol to non-Indigenous tourists and Territorians alike. The issue of ‘itinerants’ and ‘long-grassers’ has long been a hot political issue in Darwin in particular. In the NT, Governments stand or fall based on the electoral results in the Darwin electorates.

 

In these circumstances, the current NT Government appears to have decided that rather than maintaining a system — based on their own reluctance to effectively regulate alcohol in towns — where remote residents who wish to drink have an incentive to come into town, they have decided to shift the problems back to remote communities. These consequences include significant violence, significant health issues and concomitant costs, risks to women and children, adverse impacts on education provision and school attendance, and the continuation of significant dysfunction within communities. See my recent post on the challenges for remote communities to get some sense of what this looks like on the ground (link here). This is the impact of the proposed policy framework from July, and all my experience tells me that it is also the intention. It is inconceivable that those advising the NTG were not aware that these consequences would flow.

 

The cynicism and hypocrisy involved in replacing the inconvenience of homeless drinkers in Darwin and other centres towns with a miasma of ongoing despair in remote communities and homelands is extraordinary. It points to a significant failure by the previous Commonwealth Government, undermines and shreds the little remaining credibility the current Labor Government in the NT, and will be a major test of the ethical and political character of the incoming federal Labor Government. 

 

As Neil Westbury argues, the Commonwealth Government ought to step up, listen to the multiple concerns emerging from Indigenous organisations in the NT, and find a way through that engages with all interests involved and most importantly avoids imposing unacceptable costs on remote communities.

 

If the new federal Government fails to act, they will be implicitly endorsing the extraordinary cynicism and hypocrisy of the NT Government and will share the responsibility for the devastating outcomes for the lives of remote community residents that will inevitably emerge. Moreover, this will not be an outcome without political consequences.

 

In such an eventuality, the guaranteed losers will be the residents of remote communities, and particularly the non-drinkers, especially women and children who daily face extraordinarily difficult challenges which most Australians can barely imagine.