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

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance: restrictions on the sale and service of alcohol at licensed venues and their impact on crime, health and enjoyment. I want to take a bit of a different perspective here and look at where I would argue the most restrictions have been placed on alcohol use: in Aboriginal communities. This has been much debated, including, of course, the bans that were introduced along with the Northern Territory intervention. I would like to look at what role restrictions have played, their appropriateness and what else we should be doing.

If you look at what the World Health Organization has outlined around the social determinants leading to greater risk of harms from alcohol, you will see that they list wealth; education attainment—the level of education people are able to access; housing—whether people are able to access stable and affordable housing; and racism and discrimination that people experience. I would argue that if you address the systemic causes of alcohol abuse—in fact, substance abuse—you would have a much better chance of tackling alcohol harms.

I am very aware of the reality that alcohol and substance abuse can and does cause harm in our community, which is why we all work so hard to try and find solutions. The impacts of alcohol on our community do need to be addressed. I think it is an absolutely critical issue and, in fact, so did the committee in the House of Representatives. In the other place in June last year a report was tabled on an inquiry into the harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I would like to quote one of the key findings from the inquiry in the other place:

Alcohol is the fifth leading cause of disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The burden of disease attributable to alcohol among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is twice the level of non-Indigenous people.

This is a shocking and tragic statement to have to read out. The simple fact is that we need to be addressing the issues around alcohol abuse across Australia. Given that I am the Greens spokesperson for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, including health, I thought it was particularly important—if we are talking about restrictions and what we do to address alcohol abuse—that we focus on where restrictions have been applied the most.

We have just heard, in some of the debate, about the devastating impact alcohol-related harms can have. We know alcohol can lead to increased violence, including family violence. The inquiry in the other place also heard evidence that alcohol can have an impact on the transfer of cultural knowledge between generations, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities bear historic burdens from colonisation, stolen wages, systemic racism and other challenges that continue to the present day. In other words, we need to be addressing those systemic issues which are related to what the World Health Organization has outlined in the social determinants of health.

This is a serious issue that we need to address, but in doing so we need to ensure that the measures are driven by the community and are for the community rather than being paternalistic, top-down interventions which only serve to disempower. My argument here would be that paternalistic, top-down approaches have been taken in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there being no better example than the bans that were introduced during the Northern Territory intervention. Solutions must be driven within the community, not from outside. For far too long Aboriginal communities have had policies imposed on them from the outside. As I said, we saw this during the Northern Territory intervention, and we are again seeing it with the cashless welfare card. Governments keep doing things to Aboriginal communities, rather than with them. It is interesting that Senator Leyonhjelm has introduced this MPI around restrictions yet he seems to support imposing other top-down measures on communities.

Community led solutions make a real difference. I would like to point to the example of Fitzroy Crossing in my home state of Western Australia—one that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, also know very well. With people like June Oscar and other women from that community as community leaders, they drove a campaign for alcohol restrictions that called strongly for self-managed alcohol accords. As part of that process, research was conducted into what effect these measures would have, and it showed a reduction in domestic violence, in general violence and in stress for service providers. It also showed increases in food and clothing purchases and care for children. This community pushed for accurate measurement of the alcohol measures that were put in place in that community. The researchers specifically wanted to make sure that they could measure any difference that was applied. This is a clear community led initiative and it shows that measures, such as alcohol restrictions, if the senator wants to call them restrictions, can make a difference, if they are community driven.

One of the key issues the community is focused on is the impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. FASD, as it is commonly known, is associated with, obviously, alcohol abuse. FASD can have a devastating impact over a person's lifetime, and we need coordinated, effective strategies to reduce the prevalence of FASD through effective prevention programs and education of mothers. I will just make a comment here that people talk about FASD in Aboriginal communities, but it is not just in Aboriginal communities; it is in communities throughout Australia.

We need to have community led solutions, and important work has also been done in the Northern Territory, despite my criticisms of the bans when they were first introduced. There is an attempt now for a more sensitive approach. Strategies need to be targeted and culturally appropriate so that they reflect the needs and context of local communities. This works best when communities are empowered to make decisions about their own systems and, most importantly, they must be supported by the community and must empower community members to help manage the systems and ensure that they are working properly.

The point I am trying to make is that we need to consider this issue in the context of the harm we are trying to address. In this context I would that alcohol restriction measures do need to be put in place. They need to be community driven and focused on outcomes. We cannot ignore the fact that alcohol does cause harm in communities across Australia. Therefore it is not as simple as arguing that we should not have restrictions, but they need to be community driven and evidence based, which is why it was so important to look at whether we could achieve change through the alcohol measures that were put in place in Fitzroy community; whereas, when you look at the bans that were put in place in the Northern Territory, they did not actually address the issue of alcohol abuse.

There were a number of people who were very disappointed when the banned drinkers register in the Northern Territory was withdrawn by the then CLP government. There was evidence that it was starting to have an impact, so we need to make sure that we have a rational, sensible debate about how we address alcohol related harm and alcohol abuse.