Chapter 6
A national strategy to address alcohol-related violence
6.1
This chapter outlines evidence heard by the committee regarding a
nationally-consistent approach to addressing alcohol-related violence.
6.2
Under the Constitution, only states have the power to regulate alcoholic
liquids.[1]
This is not an area which the Commonwealth can directly legislate without state
and territory negotiation, potentially through the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG). The Commonwealth government's approach to illicit drugs and
alcohol is outlined in the National Drug Strategy (NDS) 2010-2015, which is
'the product of collaboration between Commonwealth, state and territory
governments, and extensive community and sector consultation'.[2]
The National Alcohol Strategy (NAS) is being developed as a sub-strategy of the
NDS. Both strategies are being revised and are to be considered in mid-2016 by
the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum, which comprises ministers with
responsibility for alcohol and drug policy.[3]
6.3
As the previous chapters demonstrate, any strategy to address alcohol‑related
violence requires consideration of a plethora of issues. These included reforms
to liquor trading such as lockouts or early cessation of alcohol service, as
well as the responsible service of alcohol, the availability of public
transport, the nature of criminal punishments, alcohol advertising regulations and
public education campaigns.
A nationally-consistent approach?
6.4
The committee heard mixed evidence regarding the implementation
of a national strategy which is 'consistent' in its approach to addressing and
reducing alcohol-related violence.
6.5
Some submitters expressed support for the concept of a
nationally-consistent approach. Ms Caterina Politi, whose son was killed in
2012 as the result of a one-punch attack, argued that: 'We are all part of
Australia...The message, education, punishment and deterrence approach needs to
be consistent nationally'.[4]
6.6
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) was strident in its support for
action by the federal government, stating:
The message arising from the [AMA National Summit on Alcohol]
was clear – Federal Government action on alcohol is overdue...the AMA's
recommendations for Commonwealth action on alcohol, including an updated National
Alcohol Strategy that should:
-
provide for a consistent national
approach to access and availability;
-
an effective and sustained
advertising and social marketing campaign around unsafe drinking and the harms
associated with excess alcohol use;
-
increasing the availability of
alcohol prevention and treatment services;
-
measures that respond specifically
to the particular needs and preferences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people, and other culturally and linguistically diverse groups;
-
statutory regulation of alcohol
marketing and promotion;
-
clear and consistent monitoring
and measurement of alcohol use;
-
review current alcohol taxation
and pricing arrangements; and
-
prohibiting political donations
from the alcohol industry and the development of a code of conduct to guide
government engagement with the alcohol industry.[5]
6.7
In respect of the NAS, the AMA submitted that it was 'a matter of
priority' and expressed hope that the 2016-2021 NAS would be finalised and
released, given the previous NAS expired in 2011.[6]
The AMA recommended that the new NAS should 'specify a clear role for the
Australian government in coordinating a consistent approach across the national
to access and availability provisions'.[7]
The Department of Health likewise submitted that the 'existing collaborative
approach', through the NDS and the NAS, 'is an appropriate policy mechanism to
lend support to a national strategy to harmonise laws and education on alcohol
related violence'.[8]
6.8
The McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol & Youth (MCAAY) and Public
Health Association of Australia (PHAA) argued that '[a] consistent national
framework of measures to reduce alcohol-related violence and other harms will
support market equality across jurisdictions and is likely to increase consumer
acceptance of measures.[9]
The Deakin University Violence Prevention Group (DUVPG) stated that it would
'increase...the perception of fairness, market equality and equal opportunity for
commercial interests'.[10]
6.9
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) of Western
Australia submitted that Australia lacks nationally-consistent policy in
support the NAS:
The lack of governance arrangements and coordinating policy
infrastructure also undermines a more consistent approach to areas that fall
under the responsibility of state and territory governments. For instance,
there is a lack of cohesive policy guidance and infrastructure to support a
more evidence based approach on regulating alcohol outlet density and opening
hours. There is a need for national guidelines outlining how these issues
should be considered in planning and liquor licensing decision making, and
defining levels of risk related to outlets densities that can be used to
control laws in each jurisdiction.[11]
6.10
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
likewise argued that '[a] nationally consistent, streamlined and coordinated
framework should provide the overarching structure for the implementation of
programs and policies aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm' and suggested
that the new NAS could be the starting point for this.[12]
6.11
A number of submitters discussed the importance of nationally-consistent
data collection. The Queensland Nurses' Union (QNU) stressed the importance of
a nationally-consistent database for information about drinking and violence.[13]
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and RANZCP recommended that
Australia have nationally consistent data on alcohol consumption which could be
compared and made public.[14]
The MCAAY and PHAA recommended the consistent national collection of
alcohol-related data including wholesale alcohol sales data, emergency
department presentations, hospital admissions and alcohol-related crime data.[15]
The Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies (WANADA) stated:
Wholesale sales data provides the most accurate and efficient
data collection on consumption levels, yet it is not routinely collected in
Australia. While several jurisdictions collect alcohol sales data under the
National Alcohol Sales Data Project (NASDP), variation in the type of data
reported and the absence of Victorian, South Australian and Tasmanian data
ultimately prevents a nationally consistent approach. A greater focus is needed
to address current gaps and support the systematic and consistent collection of
alcohol-related data across jurisdictions, covering not only alcohol sales but
also hospital presentations and admissions, and alcohol-related crime data.[16]
6.12
The WCTU of Australia submitted that consistency is desirable with regards
to alcohol marketing:
While the Commonwealth is responsible for regulating most
aspects of alcohol marketing, state and territory governments can regulate
aspects of advertising, pricing promotions and point-of-sale promotions through
liquor licensing legislation and restrictions on advertising in public spaces
and on stated-owned assets such as public transport. We do need a nationally
consistent approach to alcohol advertising and the Commonwealth Government
needs to take responsibility for this.[17]
6.13
St Vincent's Health Australia (SVHA) recommended that 'standards in
relation to advertising and promotion are clear and consistent' and apply to
all forms of advertising.[18]
6.14
Some submitters also considered national-consistency in the legal
sphere. The Law Council of Australia (LCA) recommended that
nationally-consistent model legislation be developed in accordance with the
outcomes of relevant research to standardise alcohol licensing laws, the
responsible service of alcohol, and 'lockout' provisions.[19]
6.15
Additionally, Associate Professor Julia Quilter and Professor Luke McNamara
argued that serious consideration needs to be given to the development of a
nationally standardised legislative terminology in this area, but acknowledge
that this would be a difficult task given the different ways in which
intoxication can affect people in different contexts.[20]
They further argued that if a nationally consistent 'one-punch' offence were to
be recommended, it should be drafted so that it is an offence which is less
serious than murder and manslaughter.[21]
6.16
Other submitters opposed the concept of a nationally-consistent approach
to tackling alcohol-related violence. The Brewers Association of Australia and
New Zealand submitted that '[n]ationally mandating closing time or lockout laws
would fail to appreciate the differences between different cities and regions
and risk imposing unsuitable and irrelevant solutions'.[22]
Keep Sydney Open held a similar view, stating:
...inner-city, suburban and rural areas vary wildly in their
characteristics. Similarly, our cities differ from each other. Newcastle does
not have the same cultural, economic or employment properties of more
significant cities. Even between major cities, a city like Melbourne has a
strong creative cultural element embedded in its inner-city and surrounding
areas that lends itself to a more positive drinking culture. On the other hand
Sydney, while not suffering from any epidemic – levels of violence, has gone
about replacing its cultural diversity with a focus on gambling, particularly
since the 1990s.[23]
6.17
Ms Martha Tsamis likewise argued that each location has its own unique
set of issues which have to be understood in order to be addressed, and that '[a]ny
consistency of approach to liquor licensing, violence mitigation and
development of the night time economy (NTE) across jurisdictions must be
evidence based, multifaceted, and progressive'.[24]
6.18
An additional objection was raised by Alcohol Beverages Australia (ABA)
which expressed concern that a national strategy may, depending on its
implementation, clutter policymaking:
Given there is a regularly updated National Alcohol Strategy,
an additional initiative of 'a nationally consistent approach, negotiated, developed
and delivered by the Federal Government together with all state and territory
governments to address and reduce violence' risks working at cross-purposes to
the National Drug Strategy and the National Alcohol Strategy.[25]
6.19
The objections raised apply primarily to nationally‑consistent
strategies, not to a national strategy more broadly. As Step Back Think
submitted, a national approach to alcohol-related violence should be 'adaptable
to local contexts'.[26]
Funding a national strategy
6.20
Of those submissions that addressed the question of how a national
strategy could be funded, many suggested that increased tax on alcohol would be
the logical source of funds for a national strategy.[27]
The Australian Drug Foundation (ADF) argued:
...the committee is interested in the funding or potential
funding of a national strategy to reduce alcohol related violence. Increasing
the price via taxation and hypothecating that money is a natural and feasible
source of funding for a national strategy, so I would recommend increasing the
price of alcohol via taxation as the most effective and cost-effective means
government can choose to reduce excessive drinking and therefore all of the
harms that have been mentioned so far.[28]
6.21
Professor Tanya Chikritzhs, Professor Steve Allsop, Mr William Gilmore
and Mr Vic Rechichi raised the example of the Northern Territory 'Living With
Alcohol' program introduced in 1992, and funded by a tax on beverages with more
than a three per cent alcohol content:
The levy added 5 cents to the price of a standard drink. The
average rate of acute alcohol attributable deaths in the NT during the decade
the program was in place dropped by a third (36.6%) with an earlier study
evaluating per capita alcohol consumption in the NT four years after the
introduction of the program estimated consumption to have declined by one
fifth. Such results 'present an argument for the effectiveness of combining
alcohol taxes with comprehensive programs and services designed to reduce the
harm from alcohol'.[29]
Committee view
6.22
The evidence received by the committee thus far suggests the need for a national,
but locally adaptable, approach to address alcohol-related violence in
Australia. Submitters and witnesses have identified a range of issues, such as
entertainment precincts and their regulation, changes to the criminal law (for
example 'one punch' offences), advertising, taxation and public education, as
matters worthy of consideration.
6.23
The committee believes that alcohol-related violence and effective
strategies to address it are important issues that warrant further and more
detailed investigation than the committee has had the opportunity to undertake
to date. In the event that the committee's inquiry continues in the current
Parliament, the committee intends to explore in greater detail both the issues
and possible solutions outlined by stakeholders, and give thorough
consideration to whether and what a national approach to address
alcohol-related violence might comprise.
6.24
However, if the committee is unable to conclude its inquiry by
30 June 2016 as a result of a simultaneous dissolution of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, the committee strongly recommends that the
new Parliament re-refer the matter of a nationally-consistent approach to
alcohol-related violence to the relevant committee for inquiry and report.
Recommendation 1
6.25
In the event that the committee is unable to conclude its inquiry
during the current Parliament, the committee recommends that the 45th
Parliament re-refer the matter of a nationally-consistent approach to
alcohol-related violence to the relevant committee for further inquiry and
report.
Senator Glenn
Lazarus
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page