Community-Controlled Liquor Outlets and Permit Systems

d’Abbs, Peter; Hewlett, Nicole

doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0401-3_7

Peter d’Abbs³ &
Nicole Hewlett⁴

1119 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews two strategies for managing alcohol deployed in some Aboriginal communities: community-owned liquor outlets, usually in the form of licensed clubs, and liquor permit systems that authorise approved individuals to import and consume liquor in communities where doing either is otherwise not allowed under local restrictions.

The rationale underlying community-owned outlets is that they retain the revenue derived from drinking by community members in the community, foster a culture of moderation and deter illicit importation of liquor (i.e. ‘grog running’). Historically, most community-owned outlets have failed to achieve either the second or third of these objectives, but rather have become centres for heavy drinking and associated harms. Some community-owned outlets, however, have succeeded in fostering moderate drinking, and the chapter outlines factors conducive to their doing so.

The use of individual liquor permit systems today is confined to some remote communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, and some Inuit communities in Nunavut, Canada. Evidence of their impact is sparse but suggests that liquor permit systems can enhance community management of alcohol provided three conditions are met: permit committees and others responsible for administering permit systems are adequately supported and resourced; effective controls are in place to deal with illegal supply of alcohol, and the rules and procedures that constitute the permit system enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the community.

4 designs. 1. A U-shaped closed figure has wavy lines. The area enclosed by some lines is shaded and has dotted patterns. 2. Heart-shaped leaves stemming from a single stalk with an intricate oval pattern inside. 3. A circle has wavy lines along the area with inverted U-shaped patterns, dots, and curves alternately. 4. A pattern made of closely-placed parallel lines, like a woven mat.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

7.1 Introduction

In Chap. 5, we examined attempts to reduce alcohol-related harms by restricting the conditions under which alcohol was sold to residents of specified communities. These restrictions usually limit the days and hours of sale and/or the kinds and amounts of liquor that may be sold. Such measures target populations rather than individuals. Two other strategies used by some Aboriginal communities to manage access to alcohol are (1) operation of community-owned liquor outlets, usually in the form of licensed clubs and (2) liquor permit systems that authorise approved individuals to import and consume liquor in communities where doing either is otherwise prohibited. In this chapter, we explore both options, beginning with evidence relating to community-controlled outlets.

7.2 Community-Controlled Liquor Outlets: The Rationale

The idea behind establishing licensed outlets under community control in Aboriginal communities has wide appeal: it offers an alternative to a status quo in which drinkers in many communities must choose between purchasing liquor at inflated prices from unscrupulous ‘grog runners’—that is, individuals buying and selling liquor on the black market—or heading into towns where alcohol is legally available, but where drinkers are often forced by laws and policing practices to consume in unregulated, sometimes dangerous settings. In contrast, a community-controlled liquor outlet promises to enable drinkers to remain in their community, close to families and to drink with their friends in a relaxed setting that encourages moderation while at the same time keeping profits in the community.

The idea is not a new one. Brady (2017) describes its origins in the Swedish city of Gothenburg in the late nineteenth century, where it attracted international interest, including in Australia. Today, the Renmark Hotel in South Australia, founded in 1897, claims to be the first community-owned hotel established in the British Empire and remains to this day in community ownership.^{Footnote 1} According to Brady, however, community hotels have generally struggled to meet what she calls the ‘inherently paradoxical goals and principles’ of remaining economically viable without contributing to the harms created by alcohol misuse (Brady 2017: 55).

The ending of legal prohibition of Aboriginal drinking in Australian states and territories through the 1960s and 1970s led some Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups to promote community-owned liquor outlets or, in a few cases, purchase of existing liquor outlets by Aboriginal bodies. In the 1980s, the Aboriginal Development Corporation, a statutory authority established by the Commonwealth Government to foster Aboriginal enterprises, facilitated the purchase by Aboriginal organisations of hotels in Walgett, NSW; Oodnadatta, SA; Woden, ACT and Fitzroy Crossing, WA (Brady 2017: 58–59). The strategy is a distinctively Australian one. In other countries with indigenous populations, such as Canada and New Zealand, short-term licences are more likely to be sought for special events in specified facilities, rather than long-term licences for permanent facilities (Shaw et al. 2015: 34–40).

In the decades that have passed since, community-owned liquor outlets have been established in a small number of Aboriginal communities in South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Some have endured, others have closed—either at the behest of the communities themselves or as a result of changes in government policy. Several examples have been studied.

7.3 Beer Canteen in Yalata, South Australia, 1969–1982

As mentioned in Chap. 5, one of the first documented examples of a licensed outlet in a community was a beer canteen that operated in Yalata, on the west coast of South Australia, between 1969 and 1982 (Brady et al. 2003; Brady and Palmer 1984). The impetus for the canteen came not from Aboriginal residents of the community, but from the Lutheran mission that administered Yalata over two decades between 1954 and 1974. The mission authorities hoped that by setting up an outlet selling controlled quantities of beer in the community they would put an end to the importation of port wine, at the time being purchased in the township of Ceduna, 200 km away, and subsequently from a roadhouse established 47 km from Yalata. They also hoped to foster a more moderate style of drinking than the unsupervised bingeing typically associated with the externally obtained port (Brady and Palmer 1984).

Neither of these hopes was realised. As Brady and Palmer (1984) observed, the cans of beer carefully rationed by the canteen to individuals became currency in games of ‘two up’, through which Aboriginal drinkers were able to impose their own systems of accumulation and distribution. The beer was consumed in small drinking groups away from the settlement—the same groups that drank the more intoxicating port wine, the importation of which continued unabated. Brady and Palmer analysed clinic data on alcohol-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. They found that alcohol-related deaths accounted for 30% of all deaths occurring in the community between 1972 and 1982. In the six-month period that they examined in greater depth, two-thirds of a drinking population of around 100 people were found to have sought medical attention at least once because of their drinking (Brady and Palmer 1984).

In 1982, the canteen closed in response to the wishes of the community, in part as a result of the growth of evangelical Christianity in the community. In an extract from their analysis that is reproduced in Box 7.1, Brady and Palmer argue that in introducing the beer canteen, the mission authorities made four assumptions, all of which turned out to be wrong. Although written more than 30 years ago, their analysis, we suggest, has continuing relevance for contemporary discussions about licensed outlets in Aboriginal communities.

Box 7.1 Lessons from a Beer Canteen

From Brady and Palmer (1984: 75–76).^{Footnote 2}

In their attempts to direct and curb Aboriginal drinking acts, Europeans associated with this community have consistently misunderstood and misread the actions performed by Diamond Well^{Footnote 3} Aborigines. There have been four major assumptions made about the drinking at Diamond Well:

(a)
The first was that the ready availability of beer at the Canteen would lessen the demand for fortified wine (port) and therefore bring the carting of wine to an end.
(b)
The second was that the reallocation of beer cans by gambling (Two-up) indicated that the supply of beer was ‘inadequate’, and that gambling was in any case a problematic exercise which encouraged ill-feeling.
(c)
The third was that structured educational programmes would be able to instruct Aborigines how to drink ‘properly’, and alert them to the deleterious effects of excessive drinking.
(d)
The fourth was that the Aboriginal community and its Council had both the desire and the power to intervene in or prevent uncontrolled drinking.

All four assumptions were incorrect, and yet they have guided missionaries, government officials and even funding allocations to the community. The assumptions continue to be important and remain central to the development of community policies regarding drinking.

The instigation of the Canteen was, as we have shown, not a purely altruistic innovation on the part of the Lutheran Church. Its inception made no impact whatsoever upon the business of running port from outside sources through the use of taxis and later Aboriginal-owned vehicles. The Canteen may have had some beneficial impact in the sense that it provided an overt statement for the Aboriginal people of their right to purchase alcohol on their own premises. The Two-up game was a means by which the Aborigines undermined the White-imposed regime of the Canteen and transformed it into a wholly Aboriginal exploit. It did not evolve necessarily because the ration was inadequate but because the game injected a social and interactional component into an otherwise bland interchange. We found no evidence to support the assumption that the gambling itself aroused ill-feeling or hostility among participants.

Aborigines at Diamond Well have evolved a style of drinking which acts to fulfil certain requirements. They drank large amounts of port, irrespective of the availability of beer, though consumption was related to availability of cash and vehicles. They drank in their camps rather than in the settlement, with their own choices of drinking partners and on their own terms. It was generally accepted that drinking was synonymous with getting drunk—this was in fact the desired state. When the state of drunkenness was achieved, then other business could be accomplished—assignations fulfilled, arguments fought through, Europeans accosted—all encompassed and protected by the state of desocialisation which drunkenness wrought. Attempts to trammel and contain these established and deliberate patterns of consumption through instruction on the dangers of intoxication, or even undisguised efforts to make Aborigines drink in the Western ‘sociable’ sense have, in the past, failed and will probably continue to fail.

The fourth assumption is less easy to criticise. It has to do with matters of jurisdiction and of responsibility and is veiled with the jargon of self-determination and decision-making. Affairs on Aboriginal settlements, as we have stated, are ostensibly under the control of their Aboriginal Councils but are, in effect, strongly influenced by immediate and more distant advisors and government policy. Suggestions that ‘something’ must be done about drinking arose largely from concerned Europeans and occasionally from abstainers or ex-alcoholics among the Aboriginal population. These suggestions, accompanied by examples of disruptive behaviour, have been endlessly mooted at Council meetings over at least a decade. Councillors (some of whom were drinkers themselves) were expected to consider a variety of means by which their own drinking behaviour was to be contained. Moreover, men and women whose area of jurisdiction and influence over others was contained within certain structural boundaries were supposed to pass judgement, in effect, on others and interfere in the drinking business of social groups over which they had no right or powers of jurisdiction. Despite a public display of concern over the issue of drinking, evidenced by the minutes of Council meetings, the members of the community subscribed to the view that drinking was a universal right. As a result of this belief they avoided committing themselves to long term or authoritarian intervention strategies on the one hand, while simultaneously instituting minor ‘rules’ of comportment to keep the Europeans happy, on the other.

The missionaries, Brady and Palmer concluded, misunderstood not only the nature of drinking in Aboriginal communities, but also the ways in which social control was exercised. Drinking, they argued, took place in a context of structural powerlessness—that is, a setting in which Aboriginal people were dependent on non-Aboriginal authorities for meeting almost all of their daily needs—such as income, housing and material goods—while having few resources of their own for use as negotiating levers. Faced with this unsatisfactory situation, Aboriginal drinkers could escape temporarily into a transformed state of intoxication in which they experienced a feeling of power and control, however fleetingly, and with whatever adverse subsequent consequences. This was why the purpose of drinking was to get drunk. Many community councillors shared this predilection for drinking, but even if they did not, the authority to interfere in the behaviour of others, in this as in other Aboriginal communities, was constrained by strong traditional norms of personal autonomy. Similar ill-founded assumptions, Brady and Palmer argue, have continued to inform policy making by non-Aboriginal authorities—a point further developed in Brady’s more recent discussion paper on beer canteens and licensed clubs in Aboriginal communities (Brady 2014).

7.4 Liquor Outlets in Queensland Communities

In 1984, after one hundred years during which Aboriginal access to alcohol in Queensland was heavily restricted, Aboriginal councils on former reserves were granted qualified local government powers which included the authority to operate licensed canteens under the Community Services (Aborigines) Act (Martin 1998). The Queensland Government subsequently promoted community canteens as a source of local revenue, to the point where several Cape York communities became dependent on revenue from alcohol sales to fund local services (Smith et al. 2019). In some instances, beer canteens appear to have been introduced against the wishes of a majority of community members. In the north Queensland community of Palm Island, a public meeting was held following the passing of the 1971 Aborigines Act—which allowed beer to be sold on reserves with the approval and under the control of the Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs (McCorquodale 1987; Barber et al. 1986). Those present were told that the state government had decided to establish a beer canteen on the island, despite indications that a majority of those present opposed the idea (Barber et al. 1986). A beer canteen was initially set up in the town hall, and in 1976 a purpose-built canteen opened on Palm Island. Five years later Willie Thaiday, a Torres Strait Islander who spent part of his adult life on Palm Island, claimed that police on the island were doing nothing to stem a tide of ‘broken chins, split heads, gunshot and knife wounds’ fuelled by alcohol (Thaiday 1981: 47).

In the Cape York community of Aurukun following the 1984 Act, drinkers called for a beer canteen, but according to Martin (1998), they were repeatedly outvoted by women, non-drinking men and others at public meetings. In November 1985, however, the shire clerk convened a committee meeting of the council, open only to councillors, a majority of whom were male drinkers. The committee voted to establish a beer canteen (Martin 1993: 185–86). Martin describes what followed:

Initially, the canteen was opened only three nights a week, from 5pm to 7pm, and each drinker was limited to two ‘jugs' of beer, each of 1.14 litres and selling at $6 per jug. The Council established rules whereby non-drinkers were not allowed to purchase beer on behalf of their drinking relations or partners, and a check list was kept at each session to monitor and police the amount bought by each person. Gradually however, under pressure from male kin on Councillors and as the result of the incentive to maximize Council profits, these rules were relaxed and amended.^{Footnote 4} The ‘two jug limit' was no longer enforced, and the number of trading days was increased in mid June 1986 from three to four per week. The canteen as a result showed a steady increase in takings . . .. With the nominal two-jugs per drinker limit, a price of $6 per jug and just over 250 people who were known drinkers, there should have been a maximum taken in any one week of some $9000. By the end of the sample period however, weekly takings were on occasion reaching over $15,000. (Martin 1993: 186).

In another paper—an extract from which has been reproduced below in Box 7.2— Martin describes the impact of these changes at the community level in the months following the opening of the canteen. Martin collated income and expenditure data over 52 weeks between September 1985 and August 1986.

Box 7.2 The Impact of Establishing a Beer Canteen in a Cape York Community

Extract from Martin (1998: 14–18).^{Footnote 5}

Because of the relatively closed nature of the cash economy of this township, with few sources of income outside of CDEP and welfare payments, and a limited number of locations in which money could be spent, it was possible to accurately quantify virtually all expenditures on a weekly aggregated basis. Some 13 weeks into the survey period the Council opened a canteen, which allowed a comparison to be made of expenditure patterns prior to and subsequent to its establishment. Data were detailed enough that the expenditure on illicit alcohol could also be quite accurately estimated each week both before and after the opening of the canteen.

In comparison with those in the broader Australian community with a similar per capita income and dependent on welfare incomes, Aboriginal people in this township spent on average twice as much per capita on food over the total survey period. This was a reflection of the extremely high price of basic commodities in this remote location. However, up to nine times as much of their income, -23% -was used in the purchase of alcohol (Martin 1993: 110). The establishment of the canteen was clearly implicated in a major shift in expenditure patterns. There was, for instance, a significant reduction in expenditure on basic foodstuffs and other items from the store, as can be seen from Fig. 7.1. This shift in expenditure away from basic sustenance to alcohol for this community has been mirrored elsewhere in Cape York, when canteens moved from restricted hours to 10 am to 10 pm trading.

A bar chart cum line graph of the sales of food and basic goods in dollars versus weeks. In week 16, sales are at their peak. The line has a decreasing trend over the weeks. — **Fig. 7.1**

At the same time. as demonstrated in Fig. 7.2, relatively more was spent on convenience foods and other items from take-away outlets than had previously been the case; that is, fewer foods requiring preparation were being purchased. Children, in particular, were increasingly given cash to buy take-away foods. rather than having food prepared for them. Sales of alcohol from the canteen continued to trend upwards (Fig. 7.3). in part because of removal of the initial limits to the quantity of alcohol that individuals could purchase, and also because of price increases set by the Council.

A bar chart cum line graph of the sales of takeaway food versus weeks. During week 51, sales are at their peak. The line has an increasing trend over the weeks. — **Fig. 7.2**

A positive-negative bar chart cum line graph of the sales of canteen alcohol versus weeks. During week 47, sales are at their peak. The line has an increasing trend. — **Fig. 7.3**

One of the main reasons advanced by those supporting the establishment of a canteen in this township was that it would reduce the expenditure on illicit alcohol, as well as encourage more responsible drinking patterns. There is no evidence to support either of these contentions. Large quantities of illicit alcohol continued to flow into the township. Expenditure on illicit alcohol—on average between $7,000 and $10,000 per week—was only marginally affected by the availability of alcohol in the canteen.

Neither did drinking become more ‘responsible’. Arrest rates and criminal offences escalated dramatically from the time the canteen was established, even though there had been a significant amount of alcohol, both licit and illicit, available prior to this (Martin 1993: 175). The above data underscore a distinctive feature of drinking amongst the Aboriginal people of this township; most who were not abstainers, particularly men, drank to the limit of available alcohol. Within the canteen, this meant that those who had the cash purchased the two or three of the litre jugs that had been decreed the limit while this was still enforced, or organised for non-drinking partners or relations to purchase extra beer on their behalf to circumvent the limit. This was not, however, sufficient for many committed drinkers; men in particular stated that they ‘drank for satisfy’, that is until they were completely inebriated. Drinkers would often get ‘charged up’ before the canteen opened, and after closing time, would seek out the illicit alcohol sellers or ‘sly groggers· to purchase beer, cask wine or spirits at hugely inflated prices (Martin 1993: 190–1).

During this time, very large profits were made by those illicitly reselling alcohol (‘sly groggers’). Cartons of beer, comprising two dozen 375 ml cans, which sold in the regional town for around $25 at this time, had a standard price of $240 on the illicit market. Poor quality cask wine sold for between $100 and $150, and spirits fetched $150 per bottle. These prices were relatively fixed and did not, in fact, reduce for some years. While the extent of the illicit alcohol trade was accentuated in this township by particular historical, geographical and social factors, it is a significant feature of most Cape York Aboriginal communities. lt exists because there is a demand for alcohol that is essentially not price-related, and because there are individuals who are prepared to make the large profits despite the (fairly minimal) risks of prosecution and the major social dislocation which results from their trade.

One conclusion which can be reached is that just as the locus of Aboriginal drinking practices lies in the particular group, and not solely in the individual (Martin 1993: 198), so too in the policy context the locus of demand must be seen to lie within the group, rather than just in the aberrant individual. A further implication of these data is that if the present extremely high levels of alcohol consumption are to be lowered, the supply of alcohol has to be controlled in some way.

In his paper, as well as documenting some of the adverse effects of the canteen on community life, Martin describes an interesting community-based initiative designed to control the importation and use of alcohol and reduce associated harms. Called the Aurukun Alcohol Law Council, its founding principles are set out in Box 7.3.

Box 7.3 The Aurukun Alcohol Law Council

Extract from Martin (1998: 23–25).

Amendments enacted in 1995 to the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978, by which Aurukun was established as a local government shire, provide an interesting example of legislation that seeks to operate at both structural and internal levels.^{Footnote 6} Crucially, these amendments were initiated through an extended process of community consultations and negotiations which themselves formed a part of a wider community development exercise that had raised alcohol as an issue of fundamental concern to Aurukun people. A broad consensus was developed amongst both drinkers and non-drinkers as to the principles by which alcohol supply and consumption should be regulated in Aurukun (Adams, Castelain, and Martin 1994). The details of the amending legislation were then negotiated with relevant State officers. This process ensured the broad support for the measures which is essential to their successful implementation. Moreover, the process by which this legislation was developed itself provides one instance of how the wider structural dimensions and those lying within the Aboriginal domain can be linked.

The stated objects of the new Part 6 of the Act include providing mechanisms to control alcohol being brought into the Shire, deterring the illegal sale of alcohol, and minimising alcohol related disturbances. This Part of the Act attempts to link the operations of Aboriginal custom and tradition together with those of the mainstream legal system through a number of specific mechanisms.

Part 6 of the Act establishes an ‘Aurukun Alcohol Law Council’ as an advisory and decision-making body recognised under Aboriginal tradition and, as far as appropriate, operating in accordance with it. Mechanisms are provided for the Law Council to declare both ‘public places’ and ‘private places’ either ‘controlled’ or ‘dry’. Alcohol cannot be consumed or brought into dry places at all, while there can be limitations declared by the Law Council for a controlled place on the type or quantity of alcohol consumed, possessed, or carried in a vehicle, aircraft or boat. Public places are defined as roads, places occupied or under the control of the Shire Council or of the State, such as the barge landing, the airport, and the school. Private places are those occupied by individuals, groups, or entities other than the State or Shire Council, or places over which a person or group have the authority to control access under Aboriginal tradition. Private places then would include individual dwellings, or outstation areas.

The Law Council can declare public places to be dry or controlled on its own initiative, or on written application from the Shire Council or a State agency. However, declarations over private places can only be made by the Law Council following written or personal application from the occupier (as in a dwelling) or from those with authority under Aboriginal tradition (as for an outstation or traditional land area within the Shire). The Law Council can, however, be proactive over a particular private place by inviting the relevant people to make an application to have it declared dry or controlled. It must provide assistance to those who may wish to make a written application.

Before the Law Council can decide whether a place should be dry or controlled however, whether it is private or public, it has to display written notices with information on the proposal inviting both written objections and supporting submissions. As well as issuing written notices, the Law Council can consult with the Aurukun community in any way it considers appropriate, for example through public meetings or discussions with relevant individuals. Any person who considers their interests are affected by a proposed declaration over a public area can make objections or supporting submissions. However, declarations over private places can only be objected to or supported by those who occupy or use it or neighbouring areas, or by those who have the right under Aboriginal tradition to control access over it or neighbouring places. The operations of this Part of the Act are shown schematically in Fig. 7.4.

A schematic presents a 4 cross 4 matrix of public, and private places versus dry, and controlled places. Declarations, support, and objections by the law council are also present. — **Fig. 7.4**

...

Crucial principles in Aboriginal traditions of this region are recognised in the way in which ‘private places’ are defined, and in the mechanisms by which the Law Council can make declarations over them.

Firstly, the definition of private place encompasses both the situation within the township itself, in which indigenous mechanisms for controlling access to places are severely compromised, and the lands around it within the shire, where there is a vibrant indigenous system relating groups to defined sites and areas and broadly establishing those with the authority to control access to these places. Secondly, the requirement for declarations over both categories of private place to be formally initiated by occupiers or those with traditional authority as the case may be, incorporates fundamental Aboriginal principles relating to personal autonomy and the right to speak for traditional lands.

Once the due processes have been undertaken, declarations of places as dry or controlled have the force of law. Infringements can be investigated by the State police or Aboriginal police officers, and penalties for possessing or consuming alcohol in contravention of a declaration are set out in the Act and can be instituted by the courts. This means that the Law Council, importantly, is removed from dealing with particular instances of infringement, which can place individual members in situations of conflict with kin. However, early experience with the operations of the Alcohol Law Council demonstrates that without effective support mechanisms including proactive and committed staff working with the body, the potential of such a legislative scheme will not be realised.

Part 6 of the amended Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978 thus provides a more sophisticated set of mechanisms for controlling the consumption of alcohol than are provided for in most other legislative schemes.

The Law Council as described by Martin was an attempt to bring Aboriginal processes and perspectives and those of the state into an integrated framework and to enhance control over alcohol at both community and household levels, while at the same time recognising the rights of drinkers. Whether or not it represented a viable strategy we cannot know, as its implementation was effectively forestalled by the decision of the Queensland Government to commission a review of alcohol-related violence in Cape York communities and, in 2002, to introduce new restrictions on alcohol availability. These events are described below.

The most detailed account of the impact of a licensed canteen in a Queensland community is McKnight’s monograph on Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria (McKnight 2002). McKnight was an anthropologist who first visited the settlement in 1966 when it operated as a Presbyterian mission. Over the ensuing decades, he spent a total of six years in the community before writing his account, bluntly entitled From Hunting to Drinking: the Devastating Effects of Alcohol in an Aboriginal Community. McKnight does not downplay the traumatising effects of the violent history of dispossession with which the various tribes that today occupy Mornington Island or the adjoining mainland had to contend, or the disruptive impact of changes in the 1960s, such as the collapse of Aboriginal employment in the pastoral industry. But in explaining the transition from a peaceful settlement to one where, by 1997, a person was 25 times more likely to be killed on Mornington Island or the nearby community of Doomadgee than anywhere else in Queensland, he points to two events: the establishment of a canteen in 1976, and the creation of a shire council in 1978 that assumed control of the canteen. By the 1990s, the canteen had become the social, economic and cultural centre of the community and the source of a rising tide of violence, including suicides. McKnight estimates the suicide rate among Mornington Island residents between 1996 and 1998 as 34 times the Queensland rate (McKnight 2002).

The canteen was closed in 2009 after the Queensland Government introduced legislation prohibiting local councils from holding liquor licences and since then Mornington Island has been legally ‘dry’. Today, the prevalence of home brewing on the island has prompted renewed calls for the canteen to be re-opened (Butterworth 2021; Mellor 2021).

As we reported earlier (see Sect. 5.10), by the 1990s, the mounting evidence of high levels of injury and violence associated with alcohol in some Cape York communities was attracting increasing concern. A study of injuries in five Cape York communities conducted in 1995 and 1996 compared clinic register data over the six months January–June 1996 between a community with a beer canteen and another, less remote Cape York community that did not have a canteen. It showed the injury rate in the former to be approximately double that in the community without a canteen. The study also included a clinical file audit of all clinic presentations over a 12-month period in the community with a beer canteen (Gladman et al. 1997). A total of 24% of all new presentations, and 34% of presentations resulting in medical evacuations, were for injuries, 51% of which were associated with alcohol.

In July 2001, in response to calls from Apunipima Cape York Health Council and other organisations, the Queensland Government appointed Justice Tony Fitzgerald to examine the extent and causes of violence, injury, ill-health and crime in north Queensland communities and recommend steps to address them. Fitzgerald’s report, as mentioned in Chap. 5, depicted alcohol misuse as a cause of high levels of injury, mortality and other problems, including fetal alcohol problems, abuse and neglect of children and untreated mental health problems. Central to the problem of alcohol abuse, according to the report, was the combination of illegal and legal sources of alcohol supply: the former through ‘grog running’, the latter through the dependence of community councils on profits derived from canteen sales, while the same councils were responsible for the wellbeing of the community (Fitzgerald 2001; Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2001). Fitzgerald’s criticisms were not directed at community-based licensed liquor outlets per se, but at the structural arrangements that encouraged high levels of sales. Accordingly, the report did not call for canteens to be closed, but for councils’ financial dependence on them to be terminated.

As we saw in Chap. 5, the Queensland Government’s response—as set out initially in its 2002 policy labelled Meeting Challenges, Making Choices and subsequently amended on several occasions—ultimately prohibited local councils throughout Queensland from holding liquor licences (Clough and Bird 2015; Queensland Government 2002, 2008). In most Aboriginal communities where councils had previously operated canteens, attempts to foster alternative administrative arrangements came to nothing, resulting in most of the canteens closing and the communities becoming legally ‘dry’.

These policy shifts, however, did not spell the end of licensed liquor outlets in Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. As of June 2021, outlets continued to operate in Pormpuraaw on western Cape York and on Palm Island, while several premises in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) on Cape York were licensed to sell alcohol to residents and guests only.^{Footnote 7} In addition, the Kowanyama Sports and Recreation Association Club in Kowanyama had a temporary licence to sell take-away light or mid-strength beer.^{Footnote 8} In an interesting case study that probably has echoes in other communities in the region, Moran traces the history of attempts by groups in the Kowanyama community to manage the availability of alcohol in the face of equally persistent efforts by government bodies to promote their own desired outcomes (Moran 2016: 15–28).

One community where a locally-owned outlet appears to have contributed to managing alcohol effectively is Pormpuraaw. Following the Queensland Government’s introduction of legislation prohibiting councils from operating liquor outlets in 2008, the Pormpuraaw United Brothers Sports Club (PUBSC), a local community club, applied for a restricted club licence to replace the licence previously operated by the Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council (Smith et al. 2019). The application was granted, initially with a provision for take-away purchases of up to six cans of mid-strength beer per person per day (Smith et al. 2019). Following an alcohol-related tragedy in the community, the licence was amended in 2009 to allow on-premises sales only. According to a 2019 study of Pormpuraaw’s Alcohol Management Plan, the club, ‘supported by government licensing restrictions, is one example of a dynamic, community-driven alcohol management measure reducing alcohol-related harm and contributing to community development across multiple measures' (Smith et al. 2019: 32). The club is permitted to trade up to 25 h per week, with sales restricted to six 375 ml cans of mid-strength beer or unlimited amounts of low alcohol beer per person per day. Meals are provided, and the club also hosts special events such as fishing contests and televised sporting events. Patrons require a club licence that is scanned on entry and must return a zero breathalyser reading in order to enter. The PUBSC Board periodically bans individuals from attending the club for specified periods at the request of family members, the Community Justice Group or other groups (Smith et al. 2019).

The study found that rates of two indicators of alcohol-related harm—hospital admissions for assault and recorded offences against the person—both of which had already declined following the introduction of restrictions in 2003, dropped further following the establishment of the PUBSC-run club. However, the study also identified several areas of concern. In particular, the club was not an antidote to illegal ‘sly grogging’, which continued unabated, leading the researchers to call for a regional approach to addressing alcohol supply chains. Governments had also failed to honour commitments to provide funding and other resources for measures to reduce demand for alcohol, in particular for an alcohol rehabilitation facility.

7.5 Liquor Outlets in Northern Territory Communities

Under the 1979 NT Liquor Act introduced shortly after the NT was granted self-government by the Commonwealth, Aboriginal communities gained the power to impose their own conditions on access to alcohol. As explained in a previous chapter (see Sect. 5.3), most communities used this provision to ban alcohol altogether. A small number, however, established licensed clubs. Some of these—such as Ngukurr in the Top End and Santa Teresa in central Australia—abandoned their attempts because of the difficulties entailed in managing the clubs. Others persisted; by June 1995, eight communities in the NT had licensed clubs, although one of these did not trade in that year. All of them were located at the Top End of the NT (d'Abbs 1998).

Clubs sometimes attract controversy. The most extreme example is probably the Murrinh Patha Social Club (MPSC), which commenced trading in 1979 in the Top End community of Wadeye (formerly known as Port Keats). Port Keats had been established in 1935 as a Catholic mission that brought together several disparate tribal groups (Moore 1994). The MPSC was established in response to concerns about residents travelling to nearby towns and drinking heavily, placing financial and other strains on their families back in the community. It was promoted by its advocates as a way of fostering a culture of drinking in moderation (Brady 2017).

Brady (2017) traces the rise and demise of the MPSC in her monograph on Aboriginal-owned liquor outlets. Initially, it operated as intended, trading for two hours each weekday evening and 2 1/2 hours on Saturday, selling strictly limited quantities of beer. But before long, it became a centre for heavy drinking which in turn led to violence, especially against women and children, and damage to property. By 1988, health clinic staff were at desperation point in the face of alcohol-related child malnutrition, domestic violence and petrol sniffing by young people. The club manager on several occasions requested help from the NT Liquor Commission, which reportedly did not respond (Moore 1994). Finally, in the same year, a group of non-drinkers, some of them affiliated with an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group in the community, and led by Freddie Cumaiyi, an ex-drinker and Elder, smashed their way into the club, seized and poured out the beer and demolished fittings (Brady 2017: 118–22). Predictably, news media reported the event as a riot. Brady, however, later interviewed several participants and onlookers, all of whom described the event as a carefully premeditated and planned intervention, orchestrated by Cumaiyi. Onlookers applauded, no one was injured and the police had been notified beforehand (Brady 2017).

The outcome, perhaps inevitably, was a mixed blessing. While levels of harm declined and indicators of children's health and wellbeing improved following the club’s closure, the amount of alcohol being purchased outside the community also increased, with associated increases in vehicle crashes and fatalities. A debate about whether or not to re-open the club ensued. In 1992, it recommenced trading as the Kardu Numida Social Club under the control of the local council, which put in place an ambitious program designed to foster moderation. These efforts, however, also failed to achieve their aims, and shortly afterwards, the council itself collapsed. Today, the club remains closed (Brady 2017).

Most Aboriginal-operated liquor outlets are located in remote settings, but in another of her case studies, Brady recounts the creation and eventual demise of an outlet in Alice Springs. In 1993, the Twereretye Club was granted a licence to sell beer for on-premises consumption (Brady 2017: 139–73). Brady describes the difficult political environment that the club’s founders had to navigate from the outset, with support from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal bodies but also opposition—both from Aboriginal bodies who saw it as only adding to the damage caused by alcohol and, particularly in the early years, from the NT Liquor Commission, which twice refused it a licence, the second time being overruled by the NT Supreme Court.

The club never achieved either the economic viability envisaged or the anticipated level of patronage from Aboriginal drinkers. Brady offers a number of explanations: opposition by Aboriginal groups who believed that abstinence was the only strategy for dealing with alcohol misuse; under-estimation of the social significance of established patterns of drinking take-away liquor by Aboriginal drinkers, and competition from commercial outlets which, unlike Twereretye, were licensed to sell cheap take-away liquor. In 2005, the club closed its doors. Brady suggests that, had the distinction between economic and social objectives been better understood, and the importance of the latter more appreciated, the club might have received the support it needed to survive (Brady 2017).

7.5.1 Community Clubs and Urban Drunkenness

One of the most persistent arguments advanced in favour of licensed clubs in communities in the NT—mainly by non-Aboriginal people who do not live in them—is that they will reduce the number of Aboriginal people coming to town and drinking. For example, in November 1995, after police in Alice Springs had taken more than 400 Aboriginal drinkers into ‘protective custody’ for public drunkenness over a three-day period, Alice Springs mayor and former Assistant Police Commissioner, Andy McNeill, called publicly for the establishment of licensed clubs in bush communities (Hartshorn 1995). Two years later, the then NT Chief Minister Shane Stone was quoted as calling for bush communities to be ‘forced to accept wet canteens to prevent problem drinkers from heading to town to get grog’ (Northern Territory News 1997). Similar pronouncements continue to be made today. In August 2020, the NT Police Commissioner called for what he described as a ban on alcohol in Aboriginal communities to be lifted, a stance supported by NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner who, after drawing attention to the availability of alcohol in Darwin, asked rhetorically ‘Why can’t Aboriginal people make that same choice on their country about whether they have or haven’t got community clubs?’ (Abram and Brash 2020). It is difficult to believe that such politically prominent individuals are genuinely unaware that the choice is already available, and that the reason only a handful of communities in the NT have licensed clubs is that other communities do not want them. Moreover, the then Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt in 2019 indicated that the national government would not stand in the way of communities establishing licensed clubs should community members wish to do so (Smail and Jeffery 2019).

Quite apart from the ethical implications of putting pressure on communities to facilitate the sale of a substance that has inflicted such devastating damage on Aboriginal people, the limited evidence available suggests that, contrary to the assumption underlying these calls, community clubs do not deter people from drinking in towns. In 1982, the NT Liquor Commission reviewed the operations of the Restricted Area provisions (Reilly 1982). At the time, eight communities operated wet canteens or social clubs. The report found that licensed outlets made little difference to the number of drinkers visiting towns (Reilly 1982). In 1987, d’Abbs was commissioned by the NT Government to review the effects of the Restricted Area provisions of the NT Liquor Act (d’Abbs 1990). One of the terms of reference was to investigate whether restriction or prohibition of alcohol in communities led to increases in apprehensions for public drunkenness in towns. d’Abbs compared the number of apprehensions per 100 adult population originating from communities with and without licensed clubs over three months between April and June 1986. In Darwin, three out of the four communities with the highest rates of apprehensions had licensed clubs (1990).

7.5.2 Licensed Clubs and Drinking Patterns

Historically, licensed clubs in NT Aboriginal communities have been associated with widespread, regular, frequent drinking—a very different pattern from the intermittent binge drinking associated with extended visits to towns by residents of remote communities. In 1988, Watson, Fleming and Alexander published the findings of what remains the most detailed study of alcohol and other drug use by Aboriginal people in the NT conducted to date (Watson et al. 1988). The study was based on a sample of 1,764 individuals from 55 Aboriginal communities, which in turn were stratified by region, community type (major community, town camp, cattle station, outstation) and liquor status (no restrictions, permit systems, licensed clubs, or ‘dry’). Data was collected through both questionnaires and group discussions.

Around two-thirds of males (64.7%) and one-fifth of females (20.1%) reported currently consuming alcohol. In communities with clubs, the proportion of males currently drinking—83.6%—was higher than in other communities, while the proportion of females was similar to the overall level (18.5%) (Watson et al 1988: 10–13). Drinkers in communities with clubs reported a much higher frequency of drinking than those in other settings. As the extract in Box 7.4 shows, the proportion of drinkers consuming alcohol 4–7 days per week was more than double the comparable figure in completely unrestricted communities, and far higher than the proportion in dry communities or communities with liquor permit systems. Conversely, as Box 7.4 also shows, drinkers in dry communities or communities where drinking was regulated by permit systems were more likely to consume their liquor in less frequent drinking ‘sessions’. The contrast is depicted graphically in Box 7.4.^{Footnote 9}

Box 7.4 Drinking Patterns by Liquor Status of Communities

Edited extract from Watson et al (1988: 16)

Table 7.1 Frequency of drinking by liquor status of community (% drinkers, N = 727)

Full size table

A grouped bar chart of the percentage of drinkers versus the frequency of drinking in open, club, permit, and restricted areas. 63.6 percent of drinkers with a frequency of 4 to 7 days per week drink in clubs. — **Fig. 7.5**

d’Abbs (1998) examined apparent alcohol consumption in the seven licensed clubs operating in NT Aboriginal communities in 1994–95, using alcohol purchases reported to the NT Liquor Commission. Apparent per capita consumption by male and female drinkers in each of the clubs was estimated by adjusting for non-drinkers and non-Aboriginal residents. Overall per capita consumption of pure alcohol over the year by male drinkers was estimated at 42.5 L—76% higher than the figure for the NT as a whole. This in turn was 42% above the national level. Similar elevated levels were found among female drinkers, as Fig. 7.6 shows.

A triple bar graph compares the per capita consumption of pure alcohol in litres per year by male, and female drinkers in communities with clubs, N T, and Australia. The consumption of pure alcohol by male and female drinkers is highest in communities with clubs and lowest in Australia. — **Fig. 7.6**

These estimated mean consumption levels are equivalent to 9.3 standard drinks per day for male drinkers and 5.8 for female drinkers (d'Abbs 1998). The evidence associating clubs in communities with a pattern of high, frequent consumption of alcohol had a number of implications which were summarised by d’Abbs in Box 7.5.

Box 7.5 Licensed Clubs, Frequent Consumption and Health

Extract from d’Abbs (1998: 683).

The above analysis suggests that clubs carry serious risks as well as potential benefits to the communities that introduce them. First, they are conducive to very high levels of alcohol consumption, much of it in the form of frequent, regular consumption rather than binge drinking. Second, the more successfully they are managed, the more they are likely to become powerful economic and political institutions in their respective communities. Because Aboriginal communities also tend to be polarised into two distinct groups of drinkers and non-drinkers, and because clubs, as institutions, represent (and are sustained by) drinkers, this creates a context in which the interests of drinkers may attain priority over those of non-drinkers.

The prevalence of high levels of chronic consumption carries implications for those working in the health area, since the health-related consequences of these patterns may be less visible—to drinkers themselves, among others—than the consequences of binge drinking.

To date, almost all the public concern expressed about Aboriginal alcohol misuse has focused on problems associated with intoxication. Police, politicians, civic authorities and others with a particular interest in public order are all too ready to maintain Aboriginal drunkenness on the ‘social problems’ agenda, while Aboriginal organisations, as pointed out earlier, are particularly concerned with the violence, social and cultural disruption attendant upon intoxication. The longer-term consequences of chronic consumption, however, have received much less attention, probably because they are not experienced as an immediate problem by articulate, powerful groups.

Yet chronic consumption at the levels depicted earlier almost certainly does have potentially serious consequences. A study conducted in one community with a licensed club found drinking to be associated with a 2.8-fold increase in rates of elevated GGT^{Footnote 11} (and, at the same time, lower HDL-cholesterol levels). Drinkers with elevated GGTs were also at higher risk of insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, and albuminaria. These differences, moreover, were partly independent of body weight (Hoy et al. 1997).

Such consequences are not as obviously associated with drinking as are the injuries, fatalities and property damage attendant on intoxication. Nonetheless, an awareness of them is a pre-condition for making an informed judgment about whether or not to establish or maintain a licensed club, and how best to do so.

7.5.3 Licensed Clubs and the 2007 Intervention

The 2007 Intervention (or, to give it its formal title, the NT National Emergency Response (NTER)) by the Howard national government drastically altered the conditions under which licensed clubs in NT Aboriginal communities operated. Under the NTER, possession and consumption of liquor were prohibited on all land designated as Aboriginal land unless specifically exempted by the government. Licensed clubs were exempted, provided they adhered to a new and more restrictive set of trading conditions drawn up and imposed by the national government. Clubs were permitted to trade for no more than 12 hours per week, spread over four days and could sell light or mid-strength beer only, for on-premises consumption only (Shaw et al. 2015: 64).

In 2012, the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and the NT Department of Justice commissioned a study to examine the operations and impact of licensed clubs in Aboriginal communities in the NT under the new conditions. The study was also intended to identify elements of best practices that might be used as guidelines for other communities wishing to establish community-owned liquor outlets in future (Shaw et al. 2015). Researchers conducted fieldwork in 2013 in the eight communities with licensed liquor outlets in the NT—all of which were located in the Top End of the NT. Qualitative data were gathered through observations, interviews with club management and staff and with community members and service providers, as well as through a survey of 362 community residents. Quantitative data was analysed covering liquor sales, assaults, alcohol-related hospital separations and admissions to sobering-up shelters in seven communities^{Footnote 12} (Shaw et al. 2015: 16–22).

The study found that the trading restrictions imposed under NTER in 2007 had brought about a significant reduction in sales. In 2008, the wholesale supply of alcohol to clubs in the six communities for which data was available, measured in terms of pure alcohol content (PAC), fell by 36.2% compared with the previous year. It remained at this level throughout the period covered by the study—i.e. up to and including 2012.^{Footnote 13}

Alcohol-related harms in communities with clubs also declined following the introduction of restrictions in 2007. For example, in 2006–07, the rate of alcohol-related assaults in communities with clubs was 231.6 per 10,000 population—75% above the NT-wide level of 134.9 per 10,000 population. By 2011–12, the level in communities with clubs had fallen by 25% to 174.4 per 10,000 population, slightly below the concurrent NT-wide level of 175.3 assaults per 10,000 population (Shaw et al. 2015: 82–84).

As the study points out, the drop in the amount of liquor turned over by clubs should not be interpreted as indicative of a corresponding decline in consumption by drinkers in the communities concerned. Although clubs were the sole legal liquor outlets in communities, they were not necessarily the only sources of alcohol consumed by community members. Indeed, when asked ‘if you have drinkers in your family, where do they buy most of their grog?’, fewer than half of those interviewed (41.5%) nominated their local club. A higher proportion (44.8%) nominated other outlets, such as nearby roadhouses or towns^{Footnote 14} (Shaw et al. 2015: 71–72).

The study found that a slim majority of a sample of residents interviewed (51.7%) were happy with the current trading hours of their clubs, compared with 43.1% who would have preferred longer opening hours (Shaw et al. 2015: 75). On the basis of these findings, the report recommended that the restrictive trading conditions introduced under the NTER be retained and also applied to any new licensed outlets that might be established in communities.

7.5.4 How Clubs Operate

Despite the concerns sometimes raised about the impact of clubs in communities, little is known about how clubs actually operate. Shaw et al. (2015) reported on the experiences and views of managers, staff, patrons and other community members, and also drew on researchers’ observations in communities. The study identified five elements that shaped the impact of clubs in communities, namely:

Governance;
Physical amenities;
Practices around how alcohol is served;
Club rules;
The role of the club in the community.

Here we summarise some of the study’s key findings in each of these areas.

Governance

The governance of licensed clubs in Aboriginal communities entails formidable challenges, and in the past several communities have shut down their clubs rather than keep struggling to meet them. The report identifies several key aspects of governance, namely:

The legislation under which clubs are incorporated;
The kinds of liquor licence under which clubs trade;
The quality and role of club committees and their relationship with club managers;
The quality and role of club managers.

In all these domains, the study found anomalies, some of which have since been addressed. At the time of the study, some clubs were incorporated under the NT Associations Act, and some under the Commonwealth Corporations Act (which allows profits to be distributed to directors and shareholders but does not require organisations to operate for the benefit of the community). Two clubs were incorporated under the Commonwealth Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act, administered by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC). Of the administrative bodies responsible for overseeing these Acts, only ORIC supported organisations with governance training and guidance—something that the report argued was much needed. Under a revised NT Liquor Act introduced in 2019, all licensed clubs in the NT are required to be incorporated under the NT Associations Act 2003 (Northern Territory of Australia 2020).

Similarly, while most outlets operated under club licences, in which the outlet was expected to operate in the interests of its members, two did so under tavern licences similar to those governing public hotels (Northern Territory of Australia 2020). Since then, under the 2019 revisions to the NT Liquor Act, licence categories in the NT have been collapsed into a single licence, to which can be attached one or more ‘authorities’. The two authorities relevant to licensed clubs in communities are a ‘club authority’ and a ‘community club authority’. Both allow a licensee to sell liquor to club members, guests and visitors for on-premises consumption. The latter also allows the NT Liquor Commission to stipulate a maximum volume of alcohol that may be sold annually (Northern Territory of Australia 2020).

The study also found evidence of variation in the effectiveness of club committees, with one meeting rarely and only when the manager chose to convene a meeting. Three communities revealed evidence of tensions between committees and managers, with committee members claiming that their managers did not keep them informed or implement their decisions (Shaw et al. 2015).

Physical amenities and serving practices

Most of the clubs operated in pleasant physical settings conducive to relaxed socialising and all offered some form of entertainment, such as live or piped music and pool tables. All of them used measures to discourage intoxication, over and above the restriction of selling light or mid-strength beer only imposed by the Commonwealth government under the NTER. These included breathalysing people on entry and limiting the amount that could be purchased on any one day.

Club rules

All of the clubs in the study had formulated rules of conduct to govern members’ behaviour—both inside and, in some cases, outside the club. Box 7.6 is an edited extract from the 2015 report, describing the rules in place in clubs.

Box 7.6 Rules Governing Club Members’ Behaviour

Edited extract from Shaw et al. (2015: 110–13).

Rules related to patron behaviour whilst in the club, the health and safety of patrons, and behaviour in the wider community.

Rules about behaviour in the club.

No humbug

All clubs had rules which prohibited patrons from ‘humbugging’—that is, asking others for money or to buy them drinks. This aimed to prevent tensions arising over the sharing of money, and to ensure that patrons who did have money could enjoy the club in peace. One club had an associated rule that all patrons had to show that they had $20 before they entered the club.

Our researchers found that many people approved of this rule, as this woman commented: ‘Previously there was bad humbug, no humbug a rule now and it is way better’. However, there was also feedback that this rule was offensive because it denied their culture. These people felt that it was part of their culture to share, and there were people in the club whom they could legitimately (in cultural terms) ask for money. They felt that the club had no right to outlaw the practice.

No arguing/fighting/violence

All clubs had rules outlawing any kind of arguing or physical violence. No patrons could threaten staff—either verbally or physically. In addition, no patron could become violent either in or immediately outside the club. Three clubs also forbade people from making too much noise, particularly while barracking for their football teams when matches were broadcast on TV. This rule was recent and was not well received by many patrons who were surveyed, as this comment indicates:

No barracking for your team, you can’t scream. A strict manager—even a pub in Darwin you can sing out for your club. People get pissed in one place then go to another place no worries. Here got to be quiet like a mouse.

No spitting, rubbish in bins, butts in ashtrays

All the clubs had rules about patrons behaving in a way that kept the club clean and tidy. These rules were about spitting, and where to put rubbish. These rules were some of the most frequently cited by survey respondents, which suggested that people were aware of them, and took them seriously.

Dress regulations

Most clubs had dress regulations which stipulated that patrons must have some sort of footwear and that their clothes should not be in bad disrepair. One club also forbade steel cap boots and studded belts, both of which were said to have been used as weapons in the past.

No drugs

Two clubs had rules stipulating that no drugs were to be brought or sold on the club premises.

Rules for the health and safety of patrons

Health rules

Several clubs had rules against serving people with health conditions that made drinking inappropriate. Two clubs had rules that pregnant women were not to be served, and in one, these extended to not serving either parent for the first six months of a child’s life. These arrangements were usually made through the community health clinic. However, one nurse said that she did not participate directly in any process of arranging for an individual not to be served at the club, because she didn’t want to jeopardise her relationship with clients. Instead she approached family members and explained that a particular person should not be drinking and left it to their discretion to approach the club.

Sober Bob

One club which had many patrons from neighbouring communities had a ‘sober Bob’ rule, which required people from other communities to come with a driver who had a valid driver’s license, stayed away from the club for the evening and consumed no alcohol. A security staff member at this club described the arrangement:

We have a nominated driver system for people who have driven from other communities to come to the pub. We take down the car rego, a description of the car and the driver’s name, the nominated driver has to stay outside. If the driver ends up getting drunk, I take the keys. People have to camp with family for the night and I look after the car. They can get the car back and head home in the morning. Last time this happened was 2 years ago. If I see people trying to come to the club already drunk I check the driver, because they must have been drinking elsewhere.

The club management took this policy seriously. One person was banned after returning to their home community without a ‘sober Bob’. As one respondent explained: ‘People there worked it out and rang the club to let them know’.

Rules responding to behaviour in the wider community

All clubs also had rules relating to patrons’ behaviour in the broader community. For example, one young man was banned for being drunk and breaking a bus window. He had been banned until he pays to have the window repaired.

No work, no club

One club has a ‘No work, no club’ rule. If people in this community did not turn up for work, they were kept out of the club for that evening, as this patron described:

I didn't know. A couple of days after I arrived [several months previously from another community] the security asked me if I was working and when I said no she told me to go home. Then I started working [laughs].

Another community used to have the same rule, however it had fallen out of use because of the decline in employment in the community.

No domestic violence

Several clubs also had rules that banned any individual with a charge for domestic violence. It was unclear whether this rule related to all domestic violence, or only to instances that were alcohol related, and the alcohol concerned was drunk at the club. Different clubs had slightly different versions of this rule.

The main mechanisms used to enforce rules were security staff, gates and fences, security cameras, and bans.

All but the smallest club had security guards. In one club, the licence conditions required that some of the security staff had to be non-local, a condition that, according to a police officer interviewed, made them more effective. Several club managers reported difficulties in employing and retaining trained and certified security staff. The study identified six main roles of security guards:

be present at the gate to make sure no banned people came in;
assess patrons’ intoxication on arrival at the club—either by breathalysers, or judgement;
assess patrons’ intoxication as the night goes on;
ask people who’ve had too much to drink to ease up or go home;
break up any loud arguments or fights; and
police the ‘no humbug’ rule (Shaw et al. 2015: 116).

The design of fences and gates was seen as an important factor in enforcing rules—especially those forbidding taking liquor out of the club or arriving intoxicated. Two clubs had security cameras, which also helped to prevent the removal of liquor.

The most important control mechanism used by clubs was banning patrons—described in more detail in Box 7.7.

Box 7.7 Banning Patrons from Licensed Clubs as a Form of Control

Edited extract from Shaw et al. (2015: 118–25).

Banning people is the most powerful sanction available to the club and it makes people take the rules seriously. Probably because of this, it is a contentious issue. The longest banned list had 113 people, and the shortest had three. Most of the communities had around 50 people on their lists.

Survey respondents were asked whether they thought that what people had been banned for was fair. Almost two thirds (64.9%) thought that the ban was fair, with the following comment being typical: ‘I did run amok so I should be banned. I’ve settled down now’. On the other hand, a significant number reported that banning was not fair because the law was there for punishing bad behaviour, and the club shouldn’t be able to do it as well: ‘Not fair for us, we go to court get punishment and get banned as well’.

Who decides on bans?

It was difficult to identify the mechanisms through which people were banned, and the typical length of bans, as feedback on this issue was very diverse. Most clubs reported more than one banning mechanism, and survey respondents identified several pathways to being banned, including bans issued by the club management, club committees, and police. Some survey respondents reported that traditional owners and heads of family groups could also ban people, however this was not corroborated by the police, club managers or members of club committees.

Bans by the club

Club managers and club committees tended to ban people for behaviour that occurred inside the club and violated club rules—such as spitting, humbug or arguing. Offenders tended to get banned for relatively short periods, and the ban was given out the same day. Survey respondents recalled some instances of this sort of banning that certainly did not relate to any broader laws being breached: ‘My brother was banned for screaming for his team, Hawthorn and Sydney game, last month, screamed, talked back then was asked to leave’. On other occasions the ban was not for a set period, but until the offender had made recompense: ‘My cousin smashed the TV at the club. Got banned till he paid it off’.

The manager and committee were sometimes approached by community members who wanted an individual banned. These requests were considered at the monthly club committee meetings. Several committee members from each community were interviewed about this: most commented that it was quite difficult to decide on the length of the ban, but community members generally supported their decisions.

Sometimes the requests for bans come from family ‘If my son run amok I go and see the manager and ask him to ban him’ and ‘I was banned for one month—arguing with my sister about a tape, at home, and my sister rang the club and reported me’. On other occasions other community members requested the ban. Sometimes the motivation may be purely personal: ‘I had a fight after I had been drinking at the club. The person I fought with reported me to the club to get me’. Some can be open to a lack of balance. One police officer corroborated the lack of balance, saying: ‘Bans can be used for family politics—for example if someone didn’t share something they try to get them banned’. There was also feedback that the banning process was open to manipulation, and could be influenced by your place in the community: ‘It depends on who you know, your relations, rules vary for committee members as they have a big say about who gets banned and whether someone gets let back in’.

Bans by police

The police also issued bans without referring to the club. It seemed to be general practice that if police were called to an incident that involved people who had been drinking at the club, those involved were banned.

What behaviour can lead to a ban?

In addition to bans being issued for violating club rules, they are also sometimes imposed for acts not directly related to the club. Club management can be approached by agencies in the community to request that an individual be banned.

...

Several club managers found the banning systems frustrating. They reported that being banned from the club had become the de facto social control system for the whole community—and made their businesses much less profitable. Some survey respondents agreed: ‘It’s too cheeky to do that. Not fair. What has it got to do with the club. Club should only be involved if it’s grog’. Other stakeholders, however, including both service providers and community members, reported that banning was one of the few effective forms of social control, and was a good option to have available. This person summarised this point of view well: ‘Kids stealing out of houses—parents get banned, that's good, no-one steals.’ Another survey respondent characterised it as ‘instant justice’. The banning happened quickly and was an effective punishment. In their opinion this was better than the justice provided by the police because ‘you don’t have to wait’.

Bans were also imposed in some communities for other reasons, including misbehaviour by children, parental neglect of children, domestic violence, and other domestic issues.

How long are people banned for?

Bans varied in length. Most bans appeared to be for less than six months; some were for a matter of days.

All communities had some people who were banned for life. This was generally for repeated and serious offences. In one quite small community there were 43 people on the banned list, and 28 of these (65%) were life bans. Another community had a banned list of 113 people, 19 (17%) of whom were banned for life.

There was some debate about whether life bans were a constructive strategy. Several survey respondents felt that a really long ban simply sent people away from the community to drink elsewhere. As one survey respondent who has been banned for life declared ‘This community is trying to kill me. They want me to drink somewhere else and get myself killed!’.

Does banning improve behaviour?

Most survey respondents felt that banning was a constructive strategy, as long as the ban was not for too long. They felt that being banned teaches people a lesson in respect, and how to drink in moderation: ‘They have to take punishment. Banning teaches them a lesson—teaches them not to run amok, that they should drink like normal people, be sensible and drink in moderation. Some people drink too much’.

It was not only people who observed the impact of banning on other people that were positive about it. Several people also spoke positively about the fact that the threat of being banned kept their own behaviour in check: ‘I don't get banned because I love my beer’. One person also referred to banning as the tool to achieve the original idea behind the clubs—to teach people moderate drinking: ‘The club is made for people to socialise in. It shouldn’t be really intoxicated. It’s like a learning thing, that's why it was opened in the first place.’

...

Does banning result in people leaving their community to drink in more risky environments elsewhere?

A dilemma regarding the impact of banning people is the extent to which banned drinkers then leave the community to drink in other places. One person summarised the issue well: ‘People get banned for life and then go to Darwin to drink. Get in trouble and accident, and coffin coming back’. There was consistent feedback that some people who are banned do go to other places to drink. In one community the son of a local research assistant was banned while the research team was in the community. The mother was very worried and went to the club and police to ask that he not be banned. Meanwhile the son vowed to go to the nearest town to drink and started to walk along the road out of town. The whole family was genuinely concerned that the young man would come to harm.

Further investigation of the impact of being banned was done by accessing the list of people who had been banned in one community. Researchers sat down with local research assistants to ask who had left the community and who had stayed. Of 30 people on the list, 20 (66.7%) were said to have subsequently left the community, although some people who had left were also said to have returned. Young people were particularly likely to have left the community, with 13 of the 20 who had left being aged less than 30 years.

Key points—banning

Banning can become a system of social control for the whole community , and in particular a community -controlled response to bad behaviour.
Most people think the bans are fair.
Banning systems sometimes get used for more petty family politics.
An issue arises concerning the extent to which it is reasonable to use access to the club as a major carrot for a whole range of behaviour.
Banning is seen as a tool to teach more moderate drinking.
Many (particularly the young) that are banned leave the community to drink in other places.

Role of clubs in the community

The final element listed above as key to shaping the impact of licensed clubs in communities was the role of clubs in the wider community. Almost two-thirds of survey respondents (59.9%) reported that their clubs conducted community events, including occasions such as Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, International Women’s Day and NAIDOC. These events appeared to be popular, although communities were divided on whether or not children should be included in community functions, with some believing that their inclusion signalled that the club connoted more than drinking, while others believed that their presence served as an endorsement of alcohol in the community. Club facilities were also sometimes hired out to other community organisations.

Several clubs had contributed financially to their communities by sponsorships—such as a football team—or purchases, with two clubs buying buses for community use. At least two clubs had also used revenue generated from the clubs to build commercial accommodation facilities which they ran as small motels. However, the study also found evidence of a lack of transparency in club operations. Levels of knowledge about such matters as club profitability, what happened to profits, and salaries paid to staff were low, and in some communities the subject of disquiet and suspicion.

On the basis of its findings, the study prepared a checklist for consideration by new licensed club ventures. This is reproduced in Box 7.8.

Box 7.8 A Checklist for New Licensed Clubs in Communities

Extract from Shaw et al. (2015: 7–8).

If a decision to establish a club is made the following checklist should be followed in creating standards for the design, construction and management of it:

1.
Plans for such a licensed facility should include a range of hot meals as well as entertainment and activity—not just the consumption of alcohol.
2.
The design of such a facility should demonstrate it will have a kitchen and dining area, as well as a bar area, and should be spacious and able to accommodate small groups of people who may wish to drink separately.
3.
The design also needs to demonstrate that alcohol will be stored in a highly secure manner that mitigates the risk of being stolen.
4.
The club should be incorporated through a legal vehicle which sets a high standard of governance.
5.
The club committee should have access to professional advice over the recruitment and supervision of a manager and be fully aware of its responsibilities.
6.
Governance training should be provided to club committee members and regularly updated. Training on committee requirements under the NT Liquor Act needs to be included in this training.
7.
As part of capacity building of the club committee, members should learn more about alcohol related matters affecting their community. This could include arranging for the local health service to provide quarterly reports on the level of alcohol related presentations in their community.
8.
The club management should commit to a transparent process for the return and use of profit to their community, with procedures established for the fair and equitable distribution of benefits to appropriate groups in the community.
9.
The club committee should agree that the club venture be evaluated after the first two years and commit funds to undertake the evaluation.

7.6 Liquor Permit Systems

The second strategy for managing alcohol use at a community level under review in this chapter is the use of liquor permits, issued to approved individuals to allow them to purchase, import and/or consume alcohol subject to conditions attached to the permit. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, liquor permit systems formed a central part of alcohol control policies in Canada, some US states and much of Scandinavia (Genosko and Thompson 2009; Room 2012). From the 1950s, these systems were progressively dismantled in most places, having come to be regarded as intrusive, discriminatory and ineffectual (d'Abbs and Crundall 2019), although they survive in some states of India (Varma 1984). Today, they are no longer considered as a serious policy option in most settings—with two exceptions, namely some remote Inuit communities in the territory of Nunavut in northern Canada, and some Australian Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (d'Abbs and Crundall 2019).

7.6.1 Nunavut, Canada

In both regions, liquor permits were introduced in the latter half of the twentieth century as an option for community-based control of alcohol following the dismantling of laws prohibiting First Nations peoples from possessing or consuming alcohol. In Nunavut, a remote, sparsely populated area that makes up one-fifth of Canada’s landmass, most of the population are Inuit, living in 25 communities which, for much of the year, are accessible only by air (Nunavut Bureau of Statistics 2018). Under the Nunavut Liquor Act, these communities may select one of four systems for controlling alcohol:

a.
Open: the community is subject only to the general liquor laws of Nunavut;
b.
Restricted quantities: the quantity of liquor that a person may purchase is limited;
c.
Permits: a locally elected Alcohol Education Committee (AEC) issues permits stipulating who may import, possess, consume and/or purchase liquor in the community, and the conditions under which they may do so. The AEC is also expected to provide education and counselling services;
d.
Prohibition: no alcohol is permitted (Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board 2018).

As of July 2018, 13 communities had permit systems, six had prohibition and the remaining six were unrestricted (Nunavut Liquor Commission 2018).

Most of the limited evidence available about the impact of AEC-based permit systems is anecdotal and inconclusive (d'Abbs and Crundall 2019). Wood examined rates of homicide, serious assaults and sexual assaults in 23 Nunavut communities between 1986 and 2006 (Wood 2011). He categorised communities as ‘dry’ (type ‘d’ in the list above) or ‘wet’, in which he included open and restricted (permit-based) communities. Rates of all the offences under review were significantly lower in dry communities than in wet communities, although even in the former they were above comparable national rates. He also found little difference between permit-based restricted communities and those with no restrictions, with the former recording 64 violent crimes per 1,000 persons, compared with 67 violent crimes per 1,000 persons in open communities.

A task force appointed in 2010 to review the Nunavut Liquor Act was repeatedly told in consultations that current control systems were not working and that AEC members lacked the resources to perform either an educational or control function (Nunavut Liquor Act Review Task Force 2012). One AEC member told the task force: ‘No one has provided us with the proper education on alcohol so how can we make good decisions and be expected to educate others?’ (Nunavut Liquor Act Review Task Force 2012: 28). The permit system was also widely reported as being exploited or circumvented by ‘bootleggers’—the local term for people illegally importing and selling liquor. Despite these criticisms, the task force also found high levels of support in communities for AECs, suggesting that most people wanted an effective, community-based system for managing alcohol. In response to the Task Force’s report, the Nunavut government, in 2016 introduced an action plan in which it promised, among other changes, to improve permit systems and increase resources for AECs (Government of Nunavut 2016).

7.6.2 Northern Territory, Australia

In the Northern Territory, provisions for issuing permits to approved individuals to import and consume liquor were incorporated into the Restricted Area section of the NT Liquor Act in 1979, when communities first gained the authority to determine their own arrangements regarding the availability of alcohol in communities. Although the Liquor Act has undergone major revisions since that time, the liquor permit provisions have been retained with little alteration. (In the NT Liquor Act 2019 they occupy Part 8, Division 6 (Northern Territory of Australia 2020)). Permits are formally issued by the Director of Liquor Licensing, who must consult with community members, police and, if there is one, a local permit committee before reaching a decision.

As indicated earlier (see Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3), most Aboriginal communities in the NT have elected to ban alcohol, and most have chosen not to make provision for liquor permits. In 22 communities, however, permit systems are in place (d'Abbs and Crundall 2019). A review commissioned by the NT Government in 2015 found that two types of liquor permit systems had evolved. In the first, which the reviewers labelled exemption schemes, liquor permits in practice served as a means of allowing employees in communities—most of whom were non-Aboriginal—to import and consume liquor in their own homes in what for everyone else was a dry or heavily restricted community (d'Abbs and Crundall 2016, 2019). In principle, any adult resident of these communities was entitled to apply for a permit. In practice, while non-Aboriginal residents were routinely granted permits, Aboriginal applicants could count on little support, either from their own communities or the administrative authorities. Twelve of the 22 communities with liquor permit schemes fell into this category. In these communities, liquor permits were a peripheral rather than a core part of the local provisions for managing alcohol. The review found that community input into making recommendations had declined over time. None of these communities had a functioning permit committee, with a result that effective power to recommend in favour of or against issuing permits had fallen by default to local police, who acted without administrative support or operational guidelines. Both in the past and at the time of the review, permit systems of this kind had generated resentment in some communities over what were perceived to be race-based double standards (d'Abbs and Crundall 2016). At least one community had abolished its liquor permit system for these reasons (ABC News 2005).

The second type of liquor permit system identified in the review, although based on the same enabling legislation as the first, played a very different role in the community. Liquor permits, far from being a peripheral mechanism, served as the main means of managing local alcohol use in what the reviewers labelled permit-based alcohol management systems (d'Abbs and Crundall 2016, 2019). Permit systems of this type emerged initially in the 1980s in the Arnhem Land community of Maningrida and in communities located in the Tiwi Islands, off Darwin. More recently, they have been introduced in the East Arnhem regions of Groote Eylandt and the Gove Peninsula. In the Tiwi Island communities, permits co-exist with licensed clubs and allow holders to import limited amounts of liquor and consume it privately. In Maningrida, the system allows approved persons to import limited amounts of liquor via a barge that visits the community every fortnight from Darwin. All other ways of importing liquor into the community are illegal. The permit system has been modified several times since being introduced in 1983. Today, applicants may select one of three permits, with a fourth category reserved for people who are reapplying for a permit after they have had one revoked, as set out in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Liquor permit categories, Maningrida, Northern Territory

Full size table

At the time of the 2015 review, applications under the Maningrida liquor permit system were submitted through the Maningrida Progress Association, a community organisation responsible for a range of local government and other functions, and vetted by police and the community night patrol before being forwarded, with recommendations, to the Director of Licensing. The application form also set out a number of grounds on which liquor permits could be refused or revoked, including assaults, alcohol-related family violence, supplying drugs, littering or causing substantial annoyance in the community (Northern Territory Government Department of Industry Tourism and Trade 2021).

The review found that the Maningrida permit system was working well, an outcome attributed to a high level of community input and consistent application of rules that were widely understood in the community. It also noted, however, that grog-running continued to occur, especially during the dry season when roads were usable, as did the practice of permit holders supplying liquor to non-permit holders in contravention of their permit conditions (d'Abbs and Crundall 2016).

The liquor permit systems in Groote Eylandt and Gove Peninsula were both established more recently—the latter being modelled in part on the former—and incorporated several innovations, as set out in Box 7.9.

Box 7.9 Origins of the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System

Extract from d’Abbs and Crundall (2016: 78–82).

In July 2005, a permit-based strategy for managing alcohol use, known officially as the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System (GEAMS), commenced operation. Groote Eylandt (Dutch for ‘big island’) lies in the Gulf of Carpentaria, approximately 600 km east of Darwin. It contains three major settlements—the Aboriginal communities of Angurugu and Umbakumba—and the mining town of Alyangula, as well as a number of smaller settlements, including nearby Milyakburra (Bickerton Island). The Estimated Resident Population of the Anindilyakwa Statistical Area—comprising Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island—in 2011 was 2,571 persons, of whom 1,559 (60.6%) were Indigenous (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012).

The GEAMS incorporated two important innovations: firstly, liquor permits were used to regulate purchases of take-away liquor, rather than possession, consumption or importation of liquor; secondly, permits were activated electronically. Groote Eylandt is home to just two take-away liquor outlets: Alyangula Golf Club and Alyangula Recreation Club.^{Footnote 15} Under the GEAMS, each take-away outlet has a computer node linked to a central server in Darwin, where all permit information is stored. Under the system, it became illegal to buy or sell take-away liquor without a permit. On-premises sales were not contingent on having a permit.

Prior to commencement of the GEAMS, Groote Eylandt had a history of alcohol-related problems dating back to the commencement of manganese mining on the island by Groote Eylandt Mining Co (GEMCO) in the 1960s (Conigrave et al. 2007). Over the years a number of measures had been implemented, including GRA declarations under the NT Liquor Act and, in the case of Umbakumba on the north coast of the island, establishment of a licensed club allowing limited purchases of beer to residents of the community. Despite some of these initiatives bringing apparent benefits, the situation by the early twenty-first century was continuing to cause alarm, especially among Aboriginal communities.

In July 2005, following extensive engagement and consultation involving the Anindilyakwa Land Council, GEMCO, Angurugu Community Council, local NT Police officers and the NT Licensing Commission, as well as a series of community meetings, the GEAMS came into effect. Under it, any person—Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal—wishing to purchase take-away alcohol required a permit, which also stipulated where the alcohol could be consumed, and the amounts and types of liquor that could be purchased. Applications for a permit are considered by a local Permit Committee, which makes recommendations to the Director of Liquor Licencing (DLL), who in turn is required to take account of the Committee’s recommendation before deciding on whether or not to issue a permit. The Permit Committee was initially composed of representatives of:

Police;
Anindilyakwa Land Council;
GEMCO;
each of the three Community Councils;
each of the two licensed clubs in Alyangula;
health services, and
a community or consumer representative (2007).

Under the GEAMS, the DLL can also suspend all permits for 24 hours on recommendation of the Permit Committee or Police for reasons of community safety or events of cultural significance. Permits can also be revoked for breaches of permit conditions.

An independent evaluation of the GEAMS, conducted in 2007, described the origins and implementation of the system, and its impact over the first 12 months of operation (Conigrave et al. 2007). It reported that, at the time of commencement in July 2005, a total of 1,020 annual permits were issued. Over the following year, permits continued to be issued at an average of 46 permits per month. The steps involved in applying for a permit, as the system had evolved at the time of the evaluation, were as follows:

1.
The applicant would collect an application form from Alyangula Police, fill it in, and submit it to the Permit Committee;
2.
If the applicant was resident in one of the Aboriginal communities, a letter from the Community Council was required to support the application.
3.
Police would perform a criminal record check on all new permit applicants.
4.
Any applicants with a criminal record or police record of concern (particularly if it involved alcohol-related offences, or violence) would be discussed at the Permit Committee meeting with a view to determining the applicant’s suitability.
5.
Other applications were checked by at least two Committee members for any concerns; if there were concerns the application would be referred to the Permit Committee.
6.
A recommendation would be sent by the Permit Committee to the Licensing Commission in Darwin, recommending granting or refusal of permits
7.
The Licensing Commission generally agreed with the Permit Committee’s recommendation and sent back to the Police a letter granting or refusing the permit. As of 2007, there had been no cases where the Commission failed to endorse the Committee’s recommendation on individuals, but one case where it had overruled a Permit Committee decision to license an outdoor event (Conigrave et al. 2007).

The evaluation found strong evidence of beneficial outcomes. For example, all of the women interviewed at Angurugu community indicated that their community was now safer for women and children, while some drew attention to the positive impact on role models for children:

Before, there was violence. Women scared, children scared. Children growing up seeing violence. Then when they grow up, they think ‘If it is alright for my father, why shouldn’t I do that? [ID 37, Indigenous woman, Angurugu]

Before kids suffering, teenagers suffering, wives suffering, partners suffering... teaching younger men into alcohol. [ID 45, Indigenous woman, Angurugu] (Conigrave et al. 2007, p. 31)

In 2005–06, the year following introduction of the system, recorded assaults and aggravated assaults fell by 73% and 67% respectively in comparison with the preceding year, and the number of persons placed in ‘protective custody’ for being publicly intoxicated fell from 90 to 11 over the same period. The number of reported domestic disturbances did not decline over the same period, in fact increased by 17% over 2004–05, to a point still below the level of 2003–04. Police suggested that these figures may have been due to the introduction of a more pro-active policing role with respect to domestic violence, together with greater willingness of people to report incidents, rather than an increase in the number of incidents themselves. The evaluators also found that the permit system was widely supported among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents alike. However, they also found evidence of problems. The most prominent was the considerable administrative burden that the permit system generated for the Permit Committee, and the inadequacy of financial or administrative support provided by the Licensing Commission or other NT Government agencies. As a result, much of the work involved in setting up the Permit Committee, developing operating procedures, creating signage and educating the community about the system had been performed by local police. According to some of those interviewed for the evaluation, this had in turn contributed to a perception that the permit system was a police rather than a community initiative.

An associated complaint aired by some interviewees was the need for the Permit Committee to develop clear operating guidelines to assist it in making consistent and defensible decisions, and to ensure that community members were aware of these guidelines. The evaluators also heard reports of high and increasing levels of cannabis use, which sometimes generated violence, especially when individuals ran out of supplies.

Do liquor permit systems in Aboriginal communities work? If we put aside what d’Abbs and Crundall categorised as ‘exemption’ permit systems—which arguably are community-based in name only—and focus on permit-based alcohol management systems as described above, it is apparent that they have three main objectives:

1.
To enhance community management of alcohol use in the community;
2.
To discourage harmful drinking patterns by community members and thereby
3.
To reduce alcohol-related harm in the community.

As the above discussion makes clear, there is very little evidence available from either Nunavut or the Northern Territory to assess the extent to which permit systems achieve any of these objectives. The most that can probably be said from existing evidence is that liquor permit systems can contribute to these objectives under three conditions:

1.
Provision of adequate administrative support: liquor permit systems generate heavy administrative demands both in communities and government agencies, and these need to be recognised by all parties and adequately resourced. To date, this appears not to have happened in either Nunavut or the Northern Territory.
2.
Effective controls over illegal purchasing and supplying of liquor (including ‘grog-running’). Realistically, in remote communities in sparsely populated regions, illegal supply of liquor will probably never be eliminated while demand exists, but in the absence of some sort of effective policing, regulation of access via permits becomes meaningless.
3.
Legitimacy in the eyes of the community: community support for a permit system, and willingness to abide by it, depend on the system being seen as embodying the wishes of the community, and as being administered transparently and equitably.

7.7 Conclusions

In this chapter, we have examined evidence relating to two strategies for managing alcohol at a community level: controlled liquor outlets and liquor permit systems that allow approved individuals to import and consume liquor in a community subject to conditions.

Licensed clubs in Aboriginal communities, as the evidence presented above attests, have generally—although not universally—failed to achieve the three primary objectives for which they are usually intended: to foster a culture of moderate drinking in communities, to reduce the unregulated importation of liquor into communities (‘sly grogging’) and to reduce the exodus of would-be drinkers from communities to towns (Brady 2014, 2017). Some have had almost the opposite outcomes, becoming sites for heavy, chronic drinking and all the harmful consequences that flow from it, while having little impact on either illicit grog-running or periodical movement of drinkers away from the community.

Why is this so? In each community, drinking patterns and their consequences are shaped by distinctive combinations of causal factors, but four factors appear to be especially salient. The first is a naïve belief held by some, particularly non-Aboriginal promoters of licensed outlets in communities, that by creating the right setting you can bring about a cultural shift from binge drinking to moderation. As Brady observes, the reality is usually the other way around: drinkers adapt the setting to their preferred drinking culture (Brady 2017: 92). The second factor consists of unrealistic expectations placed on the capacity—and often, willingness—of Aboriginal authority figures—whether councillors or traditional Elders—to control the behaviour of drinkers. This does not mean that respected Aboriginal leaders cannot prevent and resolve conflicts arising from excessive drinking; as we show in Chap. 9 on community patrols, they can and do. But at a community level, and in a context where licensed clubs generate their own economic interests, the exercise of effective social controls on harmful drinking is often compromised. Thirdly, governance of licensed outlets in Aboriginal communities presents formidable challenges, and those who undertake it require both external administrative support and monitoring to assist them in meeting these challenges. To date, this support has been conspicuously absent. Finally, the goals of pursuing economic viability while avoiding social, health-related and other harms from alcohol misuse are often inherently contradictory.

However, as the above analysis also suggests, licensed outlets in communities need not fail or have harmful outcomes. In recent years in both Queensland and the NT, the imposition of restrictions on trading conditions by governments, combined with the presence in communities of people and organisations willing and able to operate within those restrictions, have led to instances of community-owned outlets operating venues for sociable drinking without exacting unacceptable harms and costs.

Liquor permit systems authorising approved individuals to consume liquor in otherwise restricted communities are not widely used today in either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal settings. However, in some communities in the NT in Australia, and in the territory of Nunavut in northern Canada, they continue to form an important part of community liquor management strategies. Evidence about the impact of permit systems is sparse and inconclusive. It does appear, however, that permit systems can enhance community control over alcohol use, and thereby possibly reduce levels of harmful consumption, if three conditions are met: permit committees and others responsible for administering permit systems are adequately supported and resourced; effective controls are in place to deal with illegal supply of alcohol and the rules and procedures that constitute the permit system enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the community.

Notes

1.
About Us —Renmark Hotel (retrieved 7 June 2021).
2.
The complete text of the monograph from which this extract is taken can be downloaded from Open Research: Alcohol in the Outback: Two studies of drinking (anu.edu.au).
3.
‘Diamond Well’ was the fictitious name given to the community at the time of publication.
4.
Profits from the canteen, although under the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Amendment. Act 1978 required to be used for the “welfare of residents of the Shire”, were the largest source of untied moneys which the Council received.
5.
The Discussion Paper from which this extract it taken can be downloaded in full at openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/145592?mode = full.
6.
By ‘structural’, Martin refers to agencies and processes external to the community that nonetheless impact on the community, such as government departments, laws, and economic factors; ‘internal’ refers to the intra-community domain.
7.
Alcohol restrictions in Queensland communities Community | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples | Queensland Government (www.qld.gov.au) (retrieved 15 June 2021).
8.
Alcohol restrictions in Queensland communities | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples | Queensland Government (www.qld.gov.au) (retrieved 15 June 2021).
9.
The graph shown in Box 7.4 is derived from the data reported in the table reproduced from Watson, Fleming and Alexander; it is not in the monograph itself.
10.
The main sources of data used in creating the chart were the Apparent Consumption of Selected Foodstuffs Australia 1995–96, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997) and alcohol purchase into store data collected by the NT Liquor Commission. The procedures used to derive the per capita estimates are described in d’Abbs (1998: 682).
11.
GGT stands for gamma-glutamyltransferase. An elevated GGT score is indicative of liver disease and alcoholic cirrhosis.
12.
One of the eight venues in the study did not trade during the period under review.
13.
Analysis of these trends is based on data made available by the NT Liquor Commission for the 2012 licensed clubs study (Shaw et al. 2015).
14.
These figures are derived from further analysis of data presented in the report.
15.
The Alyangula Recreation Club, now known as The ARC Alyangula, no longer has a licence to sell take-away liquor.

References

ABC News. 2005. Alcohol permit system abolished in remote community. Australian Broadcasting Commission, 12 August.
Google Scholar
Abram, Mitchell, and Stewart Brash. 2020. Police Commissioner says NT needs to rethink Indigenous communities alcohol ban. ABC News, 17 August.
Google Scholar
Adams, J., J. Castelain, and D.F. Martin. 1994. Aurukun Community Plan: Report 2. Dealing with Grog.Cairns, Qld.: Yalga-binbi Institute for Community Development.
Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1997. Apparent consumption of selected foodstuffs, Australia. 1995–96, preliminary. Cat. 43 15.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2012. 2011 Census of Population and Housing, Basic Community Profile (Catalogue number 2001.0), Anindilyakwa (702041062). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Google Scholar
Barber, James G., Jeanine Punt, and Jules Albers. 1986. Alcohol and power on Palm Island. Australian Journal of Social Issues 23: 87–101.
Article Google Scholar
Brady, M. 2017. Teaching Proper Drinking? Clubs and Pubs in Indigenous Australia. ANU Press: Canberra.
Book Google Scholar
Brady, M, and K Palmer. 1984. Alcohol in the Outback (North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University: Darwin).
Google Scholar
Brady, M. 2014. Lessons from a history of beer canteens and licensed clubs in Indigenous Australian communities. Discussion Paper 290/2014. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/DP/DP290_Brady_alcohol_management.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015.
Brady, Maggie, Joe Byrne, and Graham Henderson. 2003. Which bloke would stand up for Yalata? The struggle of an Aboriginal community to control the availability of alcohol. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2003: 62–71.
Google Scholar
Butterworth, Kelly. 2021. Dry Indigenous community ‘months’ from opening tavern to combat home-brew. ABC News, 23 April.
Google Scholar
Clough, A.R., and Katrina Bird. 2015. The implementation and development of complex alcohol control policies in indigenous communities in Queensland (Australia). International Journal of Drug Policy 26: 345–351.
Article Google Scholar
Conigrave, K. M., Elizabeth Proude, and Peter d'Abbs. 2007. Evaluation of the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Alcohol Management System. A report produced for the Department of Justice, Northern Territory Government. Sydney: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
Google Scholar
d'Abbs, P. 1990. Dry Areas, Alcohol and Aboriginal Communities: A Review of the Northern Territory Restricted Areas Legislation. Darwin: Drug and Alcohol Bureau, Department of Health and Community Services and the Racing, Gaming and Liquor Commission.
Google Scholar
d'Abbs, P. 1998. Out of sight, out of mind? Licensed clubs in remote Aboriginal communities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 22: 679–84.
Google Scholar
d'Abbs, P, and I Crundall. 2016. Review of Liquor Permit schemes under the NT Liquor Act: Final Report. A report prepared for the NT Department of Health.Darwin: Menzies School of Health Research. https://www.menzies.edu.au/icms_docs/272714_Review_of_Liquor_Permit_schemes_under_the_NT_Liquor_Act_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2019.
d’Abbs, P., and I. Crundall. 2019. Do individual liquor permit systems help Indigenous communities to manage alcohol? Drug and Alcohol Review 38: 766–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12994.
Article Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Tony. 2001. Cape York Justice Study – Digest. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 104, 6: unpaginated.
Google Scholar
Genosko, Gary, and Scott Thompson. 2009. Punched Drunk: Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927–1975 (Fernwood Publishing).
Google Scholar
Gladman, Douglas J, Ernest M.M. Hunter, Robyn A McDermott, Tony D Merritt, and Fiona J Tulip. 1997. Study of Injury in Five Cape York Communities (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Queensland Health).
Google Scholar
Government of Nunavut. 2016. Taking Steps to Reduce Alcohol-Related Harm in Nunavut. Government of Nunavut: Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Google Scholar
Hartshorn, Michael. 1995. Urgent action over town drunks. Centralian Advocate, 25 November, pp. 1.
Google Scholar
Hoy, Wendy E., Robert J. Norman, Beverly G. Hayhurst, and David J. Pugsley. 1997. A health profile of adults in a Northern Territory Aboriginal community, with an emphasis on preventable morbidities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21: 121–126.
Article Google Scholar
Martin, D.F. 1993. Autonomy and Relatedness: an ethnography of Wik people of Aurukun, western Cape York peninsula, PhD thesis. Ph.D., Australian National University.
Google Scholar
Martin, David. 1998. The supply of alcohol in remote Aboriginal communities: potential policy directions from Cape York. CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 248.Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University.openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/145592?mode=full. Accessed 3 June 2021.
Google Scholar
McCorquodale, John. 1987. Aborigines and the Law: A Digest. Aboriginal Studies Press: Canberra.
Google Scholar
McKnight, David. 2002. From Hunting to Drinking: The devastating effects of alcohol on an Australian Aboriginal community. Routledge: London.
Google Scholar
Mellor, Leonie. 2021. Mornington Island’s push to lift alcohol ban to reduce reliance on deadly home brew. ABC News, 7 July.
Google Scholar
Moore, Elizabeth A. 1994. Trial Of An Early Detection Instrument for Hazardous Alcohol Consumption in a Rural Aboriginal Community of the Northern Territory. University of Sydney: Master of Public Health.
Google Scholar
Moran, Mark. 2016. Serious Whitefella Stuff: When Solutions Became the Problem in Indigenous Affairs. Melbourne University Press: Carlton, Victoria.
Google Scholar
Northern Territory Government (Department of Industry Tourism and Trade). 2021. Application for a Liquor Permit in Maningrida. Darwin: Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade, NT Government.
Google Scholar
Northern Territory News. 1997. Race row: Stone blasts Aborigines. Northern Territory News, 12 April 1997, pp. 1.
Google Scholar
Northern Territory of Australia. 2020. Liquor Act 2019 as in force at 20 November 2020.Darwin: Northern Territory Government.legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/LIQUOR-ACT-2019. Accessed 22 March 2021.
Google Scholar
Nunavut Bureau of Statistics. 2018. Nunavut Quick Facts.Iqaluit, Nunavut: Government of Nunavut.
Google Scholar
Nunavut Liquor Act Review Task Force. 2012. What We Heard: A Public Consultation Report.Iqaluit, Nunavut: North Sky Consulting Group Ltd.
Google Scholar
Nunavut Liquor Commission. 2018. Liquor enforcement and inspections: Enforcement and Inspection Activity Report. Government of Nunavut. www.gov.nu.ca/finance/information/liquor-enforcement-and-inspections. Accessed 5 July 2018.
Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board. 2018. Consolidated Liquor Act.Iqaluit, Nunavut: Government of Nunavut.nllb.ca/governing-documents/liquor-act. Accessed 10 July 2018.
Google Scholar
Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. 2001. Cape York Justice Study Report (3 Vols.).Brisbane: Department of Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Government. http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/community/publications/capeyork.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2010.
Queensland Government. 2002. Meeting Challenges, Making Choices: The Queensland Government’s Response to the Cape York Justice Study . Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Google Scholar
Queensland Government. 2008. Media release: tougher alcohol restrictions and more help: The way forward for Queensland’s Indigenous communities . Brisbane.
Google Scholar
Reilly, Marion. 1982. Report on Restricted Areas. Darwin: Northern Territory Liquor Commission.
Google Scholar
Room, R. 2012. Individualised control of drinkers: Back to the future? Contemporary Drug Problems 39: 311–343.
Article Google Scholar
Shaw, G., M. Brady, and P. d'Abbs. 2015. Managing Alcohol Consumption: a Review of Licensed Clubs in Remote Communities in the Northern Territory. A Report for the NT Department of Business. Canberra: Bowchung Pty Ltd. https://justice.nt.gov.au/attorney-general-and-justice/law/managing-alcohol-consumption. Accessed 20 July 2017.
Smail, Stephanie, and Yasmin Jeffery. 2019. NT given federal support for social clubs in Indigenous communities, as Michael Gunner calls for equality. ABC News, 29 August.
Google Scholar
Smith, Kristen, M. Langton, Richard Chenhall, Penelope Smith, and Shane Bawden. 2019. The Alcohol Management Plan at Pormpuraaw, Queensland, Australia: an ethnographic community-based study.Melbourne: University of Melbourne and Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.
Google Scholar
Thaiday, Willie. 1981. Under The Act (N.Q. Black Publishing Co. Ltd.: Townsville, Qld.).
Google Scholar
Varma, Vijoy K. 1984. Alcohol Control Policy in India. In Prevention of Alcohol Abuse, ed. by Peter M. Miller and Ted D. Nirenberg (Plenum Press: New York).
Google Scholar
Watson, C., J. Fleming, and K. Alexander. 1988. A Survey of Drug Use Patterns in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities: 1986–1987 (Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services, Drug and Alcohol Bureau: Darwin).
Google Scholar
Wood, Darryl S. 2011. Alcohol controls and violence in Nunavut: A comparison of wet and dry communities. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 70: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v70i1.17801.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, and School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Peter d’Abbs
School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Nicole Hewlett

Authors

Peter d’Abbs
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Nicole Hewlett
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter d’Abbs .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

d’Abbs, P., Hewlett, N. (2023). Community-Controlled Liquor Outlets and Permit Systems. In: Learning from 50 Years of Aboriginal Alcohol Programs. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0401-3_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0401-3_7
Published: 01 September 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-0400-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-0401-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics