4. Impact of the NTER
4.1. Less money for alcohol purchases
Alcohol is available on- and off-premises on the Stuart Highway north and south of Elliott. It was reported that drinkers are now going more often to either Dunmarra (96 km north) or to Renner Springs (76 km south) to purchase alcohol. Prior to the NTER people were drinking at home, and some informants reported that this stopped people from going to Dunmarra and Renner Springs. There is no formal restriction on the type of alcohol they can buy from these outlets. The Police have an ‘unwritten agreement’ with the Dunmarra and Renner Springs publicans to sell only ‘one slab per person per day’ to Elliott people. However Income Management as part of the NTER is beginning to have an impact; some interviewees observed that once they have paid for fuel, there is little money left for alcohol at these roadhouses. This is a positive outcome.
4.2. Lack of a safe and comfortable venue for consuming alcohol
Once drinking was prohibited in North and South Camp, meaning that residents could no longer consume in their private yards over a camp fire or with a barbecue, there was little option but to drink out in the open, in the scrub.
When the legislation came into force on 15 September 2007, the Elliott Police assisted community members in establishing two informal drinking areas – one north and one south of Elliott but on the western, town side of the Stuart Highway – about two kilometres from the licensed premises, so that alcohol could be consumed legally. These drinking spots happen to be just over the cattle grids at each end of town. However people have since also created several more places on the eastern side of the highway, making it necessary to cross the highway. Other known drinking locations are behind the Jim Rennie Memorial Reserve ‘in the scrub’. One community member explained:
The Intervention kicked us out of our own homes. That was the rule, but now where can you go? Across the paddock here it’s the station; across the fence, it’s Newcastle Waters. We cleaned up our rubbish, others don’t, but bloke Ken Warner from Newcastle Waters complained about drinking camp, he was shocked to see it.
Our interpretation of the proliferation of drinking spots in the scrub, is that Aboriginal people have, in effect, tried to re-create the small drinking groupings that had previously existed in their own yards. Their yards are all fenced, and allowed people to have some control over who joined the drinking group, which is a sensible way of pre-empting arguments, trouble and violence. People wish to differentiate themselves into small groups to drink, as these are said to be more manageable and serve to reduce conflict: “We keep to ourself. If we mix in, there’s trouble there already”. “Just the family from this [place] drink there”.
As with many other Aboriginal communities, ‘humbugging’ for grog was identified as a problem. However, humbugging was minimised when people were drinking in their homes and yards because, residents said, they ‘invited’ who they wanted to join in. When alcohol is consumed quickly and the person’s own supply runs out, it was reported that they go looking for more and humbug others for grog and food.
They finish their [own] six pack and look for more. In the yard, people would keep under control, own yards. Only trouble [now] is when people come loafing for grog.
Now that drinking must take place in the open, groups are more vulnerable to humbugging and the discord that this often brings, because there is no way to control the ‘boundaries’ of who drinks with whom.
There is now a widely held view among both community members and service providers that drinking ‘over the grid’, across the highway, or in the scrub, is dangerous for drinkers and for drinkers’ children. Typical comments were: “It is too dangerous to drink across the road. Kids will get hurt crossing the road. People get bashed in the scrub.” “Best to drink this side of the road, not the other. They [kids] look for their mothers other side.” Several of the town’s service providers expressed grave concerns that a child or adult could be run over on the Highway, as several of the drinking camps are on the eastern side of the road [ie the other side from the town itself].
Drinking at home was better. We’ll always have someone who isn’t really drunk [at home] to help, call the kids, help you out – cos in the scrub, they’re all drunk.
Drinking in the scrub raises an additional harm issue. The community’s draft Alcohol Management Plan (late 2007)9, notes that drinking away from peoples’ homes, in the scrub, means that they do not have access to drinking water. They risk dehydration as a result. The Elliott Recovery Plan also notes that the poor water quality (bad taste and high levels of dissolved solids) in Elliott means that people generally do not drink enough of it. As the consumption of water in between drinks of alcohol is a recommended harm reduction strategy, this problem needs attention.
All service providers were agreed that the present situation in which people are drinking in the scrub is problematic and presents more risks to both adults and children than before the NTER. Several pointed out that previously, drinking in peoples own homes was not entirely trouble-free (this would be too much to expect), but that the present situation was unacceptably risky.
4.3. Evidence of harm
The Elliott Health Centre Manager stated that since the enactment of the NTER Prescribed Areas legislation in September 2007, there has been an increase in the number of trauma presentations and the number of after hours call outs related to alcohol compared with the previous year, when people were allowed to drink in their homes. It should be remembered that the police campaign to eliminate public drinking and to encourage drinking at home, began around August/September 2006 and ended in September 2007. The Health Centre provided the following data covering the last three years. Comparable eleven month totals are given to allow comparisons across the years.
| Year | Month Total of Trauma Presentations Related to Alcohol | Month Total of Afterhours Call Outs Related to Alcohol |
|---|---|---|
| July 2005-May 2006 | 109 | 82 |
| July 2006-May 2007 | 34 | 74 |
| July 2007-May 2008 | 86 | 120 |
There has been a 60 per cent increase in trauma presentations and a 38 per cent increase in after hours call outs in the eleven month period of July 2007 to May 2008 compared with July 2006 to May 2007. The Health Centre Manager noted that “a year’s work was undone overnight” as a result of the Prescribed Area legislation, when people stopped drinking in their own homes and began drinking in groups beyond the grid and in the scrub.
It is worth comparing these data with those for the same period in 1992-1993 when, according to the Health Centre Manager, “there was a 24 hour swill and the town was awash with alcohol. In a period of 8 months there were 9 violent deaths.” These data were used to illustrate the impact that alcohol was having in Elliott in the submission to the Liquor Commissioner in 1993 to restrict takeaway alcohol. There was a dramatic fall in trauma presentations and call outs related to alcohol immediately following the 1993 restrictions.10
| Year | Month Total of Trauma Presentations Related to Alcohol | Month Total of Afterhours Call Outs Related to Alcohol |
|---|---|---|
| July 1992-May1993 | 300 | 161 |
4.4. Discrimination between Aboriginal town-dwellers and Aboriginal camp-dwellers
While it is legal for people to drink within their homes and yards if people are resident within the town boundaries of Elliott itself, both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal residents commented on how unfair it was that friends and colleagues living in North or South Camp could not. Some Camp residents reported (and researchers observed them drinking) in town at friends’ and relatives’ homes rather than drinking in the camps thereby breaking the law, or drinking outside the two kilometre boundary or in the hotel.
4.5. On-premises consumption
It could be argued that Aboriginal residents of Elliott town camps have the option of consuming their alcohol on-premises, in the Elliott Hotel, thus avoiding the harmful outcomes and risks identified above. Unfortunately, Aboriginal people unanimously expressed discomfort about drinking on-premises at the Hotel. In previous years the Hotel had a more congenial atmosphere in which Aboriginal people felt welcome. Clearly, the more suited a hotel is to its surrounding community, the more usage it will have, and the greater the income generated. There is considerable research evidence that amenity and atmosphere in drinking venues can influence drinking behaviour.11 The Hotel charges high prices for drinks over the counter ($5.30 for a can of full strength beer), so it is cheaper for people to purchase their 6-packs for off-premises consumption.
9. Photocopied document ‘Alcohol Management Plan’ supplied by Community Services Manager
10. Memmott & Associates, Yapakurlangu Family & Community Violence Report, August 2007, p 70.
11. Arnold, M.J. & T.J. Laidler, see Bibliography. In National Symposium on Alcohol Misuse and Violence, 1994, report 7; Doherty and Roche, Alcohol and Licensed Premises, 2003.