Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

we are working as fast as we can—the price of cheap takeaway grog. This measure will not affect the price of standard or premium takeaway liquor and will not affect the price of alcohol consumed on licensed premises. International evidence shows that heavier drinkers and younger drinkers—which is exactly the group we need to be targeting with this intervention—respond more to price controls. Other data, from the Northern Territory Living with Alcohol Program—which ran from 1995 to 1997, where there was a levy on cask wine—showed that there was a one-third reduction in the consumption of alcohol and no shift to other types of alcohol. I understand that the federal government cancelled this particular program because only the Commonwealth can levy a tax. In Tennant Creek, they removed four- and five-litre casks, which worked well until industry brought in two-litre casks of cheap port in 1999. In the past, where we have had effective strategies, either industry or, unfortunately, in the other case, government have acted to undermine the effectiveness of these programs.

After increasing the price, the most effective supply reduction mechanism is to reduce takeaway trading hours. To this end the Greens are also proposing an amendment to this bill to introduce two takeaway-free days a week: Sunday—which is already a quiet day in the Northern Territory, with some restrictions in place—and Thursday, which is commonly known, particularly in some places, as ‘Thirsty Thursday’, which is the day on which many people still receive their Centrelink payments. Thirsty Thursday programs have been successfully run in the past in the Northern Territory—for instance, in Tennant Creek. While changes which allowed those on income support to change the day they received their Centrelink payments have, to some extent, reduced the impact of takeaway-free days, we believe that can be relatively easily dealt with by returning to making regular income support payments on one prescribed day a week. We understand that the Northern Territory police support the idea of having takeaway-free days. Even without synchronising dry days with pay days, we believe that simply by having a couple of quieter days a week could make a major difference to the level of alcohol consumption and alcohol related harm and its consequent cost to the community.

After increasing the price of takeaway alcohol and reducing the number of days on which takeaways are available, the third most effective strategy would be to reduce the number of outlets where takeaway alcohol is available. We understand that this is not a matter for Commonwealth legislation. However, it is a matter on which the Commonwealth government, working together with the Northern Territory government and the community, could make a significant impact by buying back liquor licences from inappropriate outlets, such as petrol stations, corner grocery stores and fish and chip shops. You can buy grog almost anywhere in the Northern Territory. We believe that the best way to proceed would be for the communities concerned to identify problematic licences with the NT government, which the NT government could buy back, perhaps with Commonwealth support.

When the Northern Territory intervention program was presented to the Senate, the Australian Greens did not oppose the provisions relating to alcohol supply, because we believed they were a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. However, we were not convinced and remain unconvinced that by themselves the current measures will be successful in making the kind of impact on drinking in the Territory that is needed to deal with the problems there.

The Northern Territory, per capita, has by far the highest rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol related harm. Territorians consume, on average, 15 litres of pure alcohol per person per year, which is around 1,300 green cans, as compared to the national average of nine litres. It is estimated that 80 per cent of Territorians drink in a high-risk manner, according to the NHMRC guidelines. The high level of drinking costs the whole community through higher rates of injury, including homicide and suicide, and through higher rates of accident, particularly motor vehicle accidents.

It also affects the whole community through higher rates of chronic and acute health problems, through lost productivity, absenteeism and injury in the workplace. The Northern Territory consistently scores the highest rates of harm on all these measures. There is no doubt that there is a drinking problem in the Territory which is not just an Aboriginal problem. Changes which can reduce the level of problem drinking for all Territorians will benefit the whole community.

We need to recognise that alcohol misuse is not just a symptom of social isolation, poverty, poor education and employment but also a cause of serious social problems. The government bill introduces some amendments to the trigger for seeking and recording details of takeaway alcohol purchases and for how these records are stored. We do not have a problem in changing from the difficult-to-administer 1,350 millilitre trigger to a purchase price of over $100 or to the specific volumes of the commonly known ‘chateau cardboard’.

However, the Greens note the concerns of alcohol experts and the Northern Territory community organisations that simply requiring sellers to record sales may not of itself have an impact on grog-running into Aboriginal communities if there is not timely action to follow up large and suspicious purchases. To this end, the Greens are seeking to amend the bill to add provisions that would require liquor retailers to immediately report large or suspicious purchases to the Licensing Commission. In this case, the provisions to require reporting of suspicious purchases are similar to those provisions already in place to report suspicious purchases of fertilisers. ‘Large purchases’ are simply defined as twice as large as those which would trigger an obligation to identify and record purchases.

In relation to the new provisions in the bill relating to tourist activities, as we note there are probably very few members of the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities facing drinking problems who are likely to be booking themselves on champagne cruises. It probably will not affect their consumption of alcohol. As I have articulated, there are other measures to address these problems. Interestingly, the stated intent of the new provisions which amend section 19 to give the minister discretion to lift some or all of the emergency alcohol provisions for some or all of a prescribed area is where there are comprehensive and effective alcohol management plans in place.

As senators would be aware from our previous comments in the chamber, the Greens are very supportive of community based alcohol management plans and initiatives. We have been critical of the government’s approach in the past for failing to recognise and support these kinds of community initiatives and for failing to consult with communities about what strategies they believe would most effectively help them to manage alcohol related problems.

To this extent we welcome these provisions. But we are keen to see that they are followed up, as we are well aware of a significant number of communities where efforts to put in place alcohol management plans to limit alcohol sales or to declare communities dry have been undermined by a lack of resources and policing, have simply not been supported by governments or have been undermined by the alcohol industry. A significant number of prescribed areas in the Northern Territory are in fact declared dry communities. We hope that this indicates a willingness on behalf of the minister to engage with these communities to help them implement their alcohol management plans and to effectively police ‘dry’ community by-laws.

To sum up, we believe there are three approaches to reducing the harm caused by alcohol. There is supply reduction. We could enhance what the government has already done by putting in a price and availability trigger. I fully expect industry not to like this, because it reduces the sale of alcohol and the places where you can get it. We need demand reduction after we have created space through supply reduction. We need effective education, treatment and rehabilitation. We need harm reduction, through night patrols and sobering-up shelters, for example. The challenge is to ensure that there is action in all of these three areas. There need to be comprehensive and complementary community based action plans that balance these three elements.

On a recent trip to the north-west, I heard stories in a number of places of concerns about individual and isolated measures failing to make a real difference. Over and over again it was articulated to me that people needed comprehensive, continuing programs. For instance, during that trip last week I heard that there are in place sobering-up shelters where you can get a feed, a shower, clean pyjamas and a clean bed for the night but you do not actually get help to reduce your alcohol consumption. The people running the shelters are now questioning whether they are contributing to the problem by simply providing a bed. In three towns that I visited there were no rehabilitation services for the people seeking the shelter services, so these people were not getting help to overcome their alcohol addictions or treatment when they were coming off alcohol. There were also no provisions for counselling or for support to help the families of the people that had alcohol problems.

I would like to quote the comments of Professor Robin Room, President of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, who said, in an article in the Age in May, that there is a recurring problem in the attempt to reduce alcohol harm. He said:

“What’s popular doesn’t work and what works isn’t popular ...

The article continued:

High-profile media campaigns urging the public to drink responsibly are far less effective than reducing density of alcohol outlets, restricting trading hours and increasing taxes, he argues.

But despite international evidence proving the success of such measures, the industry is not supportive.

“I don’t think it helps that the Federal Government put $5 million into Drinkwise, an industry-funded organisation meant to educate the public about responsible alcohol use. Fundamentally, the industry’s interest is in channelling any concerns about alcohol into strategies that won’t affect their bottom line,’’ said Professor Room.

It is time that we stopped caring about the interests of the industry and actually looked at other measures besides those that have already been put in place and are the subject of this legislation. We believe that we urgently need to reduce the supply and that evidence suggests that we do this through price and availability. When are we going to be tackling these problems and making a real difference as to alcohol consumption? We believe that more work needs to be done to develop proper alcohol strategies—that is, if the government is serious about a comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol related problems in the Northern Territory. Obviously, that requires consultation with industry experts, alcoholism experts and the community.

Unfortunately—and, as I said before, we are deeply concerned about it—this legislation seems to have been driven more by the concerns and complaints of the tourism industry that it will hurt business than by what is actually going to be effective in turning around the alcohol problems that nobody is denying are in Aboriginal communities and in the Northern Territory. That is why the Greens, given that the government have recognised the flaws in their legislation—albeit not all of them—are urging the government to support our amendments to improve how to deal with alcohol in the Northern Territory. We hope that they will see the rationality of these amendments.

I am hoping they have actually read the evidence that shows what does in fact help to reduce alcohol consumption. This is coming from the experts; this is not something that we have dreamed up. We have taken the trouble to read the literature and talk to people and the communities about what they think has worked in the past. We would also encourage the government to put funding into programs on a continuing basis. The other thing you hear continually, when you go to talk to community based organisations, Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal communities is: ‘Oh, yeah, we had funding for that program for a year or two and it stopped’; ‘Oh, yeah, we had funding for that shelter but it stopped’; ‘Oh, yeah, we did have funding for that education program.’ I heard last week of an excellent education program that was being run in Derby and actually addressed Aboriginal students’ needs. As I understand it, people were going to it from all over the Kimberley. But it stopped, and truancy numbers have gone up again. Programs that have been working have not continued to be funded, and that is a major problem too. So let’s get it right this time. Let’s put the proper provisions in place, fund them and try to deal with this problem once and for all.