Palm Island school children march against family violence.

A background and issues paper prepared by the

Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council

about the

Palm Island Alcohol Management Plan

May 2006

“We need real help for our people who are sick or who have suffered and now need support; a high school for our youth to get an education, to year 12; support for local business development; and, urgent support to address overcrowding and homelessness on Palm Island. We do not need, or want the State Government imposing these laws upon us without agreement or proper consultation. We will not accept the poor process and extreme penalties associated with these proposed restrictions and will oppose this Alcohol Management Plan to the highest level.”

Introduction
On the 12th of April 2006, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, John Mickle, announced that, “cabinet had approved alcohol restrictions under the Liquor Act for Palm Island”, (ABC news report, 12.4.06, www.abc.net.au/message). This proposed Alcohol Management Plan (AMP) will ban all alcohol on all the Island’s in the Shire, except mid and light strength beer.

The Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council (PIASC) responded to this information with a position of opposition to the AMP and a statement that legal advice would be obtained as to the best method of opposition to the AMP. This has been reported (in the media in May 2006) as a high Court Injunction.

The Courier Mail reported on the 15th of April 2006, “Ministers Clash on Grog Laws”, that “Palm Island Council Chairwoman Erykah Kyle said the community had proved it was capable of implementing its own alcohol restrictions ‘according to the wishes of the people’. She said the government-imposed plan had generated ‘a lot of resentment’ and would lead to increased sly grogging” (Wenham, Marg, 15.4.06).

This same article also reported that local State MP, Minister Mike Reynolds, said the majority of the Island constituents did not abuse alcohol and the Government’s consultation process was “not good enough”. Ms Wenham reported that, “The policy has generated criticism about punitive restrictions, and penalties not being matched by rehabilitation services and improved community infrastructure”. The community still holds this criticism.

PIASC CEO, Mr Barry Moyle was interviewed on ABC World Today, on Monday the 15th of May 2006, and said in relation to the Council position, “They feel that they haven’t had enough consultation from the State Government, and this is another heavy-handed approach of putting some more regulations on these people”.

On Message Stick, 15th May 2006, Mr Moyle was reported as saying the AMP will encourage sly grogging and discriminates against the Indigenous population, “We believe that this alcohol management policy is a racist policy…and that the fines that are in there are outrageous” (www.abc.net.au/message).

Context of the Palm Island AMP
It would appear that the beach of local alcohol by laws by State Government employees the week before hand, Minister Mickel suddenly made a submission to Cabinet, rushing through the Palm Island AMP, without any public notice, in April 2006. A Child Safety Officer was fined $400 on the day the AMP was announced, for consuming alcohol other than beer, the week before on Palm Island. The submission process was highly questionable given the lack of community and general notification, not to mention the unfinished consultation process that had commenced in February 2006 in the community regarding an AMP.

The issue of regulating alcohol in indigenous communities is not a new one; however it is still highly contentious. This paper seeks to explore the recent context of these issues, particularly as they relates to Palm Island and the (proposed) AMP.

In 2004, Tom Calma, Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, spoke at the Australasian Liquor Licensing Authorities’ Conference in Tasmania presenting a paper on the issue of Indigenous Alcohol Restrictions and the Racial Discrimination Act. He made the following comments in relation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, “Alcohol Report”, 1995, in which the Commission “reasoned that alcohol restrictions could be conceived as conferring some benefits in terms of the ‘collective rights’ it might promote in indigenous communities. Such benefits might be a reduction in the incidents of violent crime, a reduction in the rate of Indigenous incarceration and an increase in money available for food”, he then suggests, “the question for a court might be: where is the proof that alcohol restrictions or supply limits achieve these rights?”

In 2005 the Queensland Government produced a poster for the community and Council of Palm Island, which details an increase in child protection orders from 2003-2004, from 2.5 times higher than the State average, to 3.1 times (2005, Queensland State government, “Palm Island Key Outcome Indicators for Alcohol Management Plan”). This would seem to indicate that things have become worse in some areas under alcohol management on Palm Island, as the Council alcohol management by laws came into affect in 2002.

In relation to Palm Island, it is obvious and undeniable that there will be an increase in the number of people form the community facing court over alcohol restriction related ‘crimes’ with the introduction of the proposed AMP. A full strength beer could cost you $30 000! And with local people unlikely to be able to pay fines, there will be further implications.

The Palm Island Council (PIASC), as stated, believes that the policy of AMP’s is racist.

Under the Racial Discrimination Act, certain things are allowed that are considered ‘Special Measures’, such measures may include ‘positive discrimination’ to increase the number of women in certain areas of the workforce. This is one way the government could possibly be allowed to impose the AMP.

In relation to this, Tom Calma references a case, Gerhardy v Brown (1985), citing the following from Justice Brennan’s decision,

“The wishes of the beneficiaries of the measure are of great importance (perhaps essential) in determining whether a measure is taken for the purpose of securing their advancement. In the Alcohol Report, Commissioner Antonios concluded: alcohol restrictions imposed upon aboriginal groups as a result of government policies which are incompatible with the policy of the community will not be special measures”

(Calma, Tom, 28.10.04, “Implications of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 with Reference to State and Territory Liquor Licensing legislation”, paper presented at the Australasian Liquor Licensing Authorities’ Conference in Hobart Tasmania, 26-29 October 2004)

In relation to the apparent justification of the AMP laws by the Queensland State government, this AMP would not qualify as a ‘Special Measure’. The Palm Island Council, and many community members, most certainly opposes this AMP. Further the Palm Island Council had attempted to remove the local by-law regarding alcohol restrictions, but was refused by the Queensland government.

This paper will examine the academic context of this debate, discussing alcohol restrictions from an indigenous perspective as having been identified in criminology as a situational crime prevention technique, arguing that this is not sustainable on its own, because it is not an underlying crime prevention technique; “Situational methods can have a negative effect of there is not a regime of programs addressing underlying issues” (ibid).

In relation to Palm Island, this again highlights the need for real, professional detoxification, rehabilitation and post rehabilitation support for people needing this help. The position of the community in wanting a review of the community based alcohol restrictions of the past 4 years is further supported, in the need to assess any potential negative effects that this approach has had already.

Palm Island Alcohol Management Plan
The whole process regarding this AMP lacks integrity. It smacks of lip service to the central concept of consultation, which is a primary recommendation of nearly all government policy documents relating to these issues. No government has the right to arbitrarily impose laws upon a group of people without proper and complete consultation.

The AMP for Palm Island has been in the pipelines, so to speak, for some time. The most recent government attempt at gaining support for the issue was in January 2006 when a draft AMP was put on various community notice boards. People responded and there were 22 submissions made to Council on the draft AMP. The Council’s position was one of not accepting the draft AMP as it was too harsh in its proposed penalties and restrictions. However instead of negotiation, the community of Palm Island was then informed some months later in April 2006 that the draft AMP would be imposed without further discussion in June this year. End of story!

In 2002 the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council made historic moves to reduce the antisocial, family, health and violence issues related to alcohol in the indigenous community of Palm Island. By establishing local by-laws restricting the type, amounts and time that alcohol can be sold, the Council actively took a community based stance on these issues.

In 2003 there was a State government attempt to establish the required Statutory Justice Group SJG) on Palm Island. (SJG’s are supposed to be the community groups that write the AMP drafts –discussed further later). This SJG process was not finalised and has not been discussed again until April 2006! Palm Island still does not have a SJG although it is currently being set up.

In 2004 the Federal government made some announcement about indigenous alcohol restrictions and curfews and Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Minister Liddy Clark, commented that, “restrictions must be developed with community input” (SBS News Story, http://news.sbs.com.au, 6.12.06, “Queensland Considers Alcohol Bans”).

In early 2005 the Council began debating the local alcohol by-laws, their effectiveness and the possibility of expanding the restricted conditions. A resolution was then passed to rescind these alcohol by laws and this was sent to the State Government to gazette – this was stopped due to the government’s position that it was ‘not in the State interest’ to remove the by-law.

In September 2005 the Palm Island community and Council, together with the State and Federal governments, commenced the Negotiation Table process. The initial meeting had locals present, which numbered approximately 60 people (a significant number for Palm Island meetings), to identify the main priority areas for the community. The AMP and alcohol support services were identified at this meeting as a key Negotiation Table Meeting agenda item.

Negotiation Tables
The Negotiation Table process is a government process by which community input is gained for the purpose of identifying local issues and priorities for addressing by the government Champions (Directors General appointed by the Premier to assist specific indigenous communities), and others; as well as negotiating methods of resolving issues.

The Negotiation Table process has been described as the “key community engagement mechanisms in Queensland” (2005, “Agreement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service Delivery between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Queensland 2005-2010”).

The Negotiation Tables for Palm Island, and the Future Direction Group (a further development to the PI Negotiations Table), commenced in late 2005. This was successful in terms of people attending and discussions did commence regarding the AMP and Alcohol Management for Palm Island. However this was never finalised at subsequent meetings. There was no notice given of any proposal to table in Cabinet the [proposed Draft] AMP from January/February 2006.

This then poses the question, why didn’t the government utilise its own mechanism for community engagement on this most significant issue, especially where it had been identified as an issue that the community would ‘negotiate’ on?

Significant Reports - including the Cape York Justice Study
It has long been discussed that there is an unacceptably high level of domestic and other violence in indigenous communities. There has also been much discussion about alcohol in relation to this, and numerous. There have been 3 major studies into issues relating to indigenous violence, disadvantage and over representation in the judicial system, that are relevant to this debate regarding Palm Island’s alcohol management.

The first of these reports was the historic Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC), in 1991. In his report Justice Tony Fitzgerald found that there was a massive over representation of indigenous people within all aspects of the justice and law system, particularly in relation to young males. This report made numerous recommendations, and was acted upon with various Federal and State policies, documents, and other initiatives. In Queensland this included the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, discussed in more detail later.

In 1999, Professor Boni Robertson led the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence, with the State of Queensland publishing the Report. The report made many findings, including that the levels of violence were extreme; that alcohol is used as a self medicating response to trauma, and that sly grog and the effects of this are devastating for communities (Robertson, B, 1999, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence, State of Queensland).

In 2001, Justice Tony Fitzgerald undertook the Cape York Justice Study, for the Queensland State government, which made numerous findings in relation to violence, and alcohol in indigenous communities. It is often remarked that this report is the basis for the AMP’s being implemented across indigenous communities. The Queensland Government’s Response to this report, released in April 2002, was Meeting Challenges Making Choices (MCMC), identifying 8 priority areas, the first of which was Alcohol, Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation.

The Fitzgerald, Cape York Justice Study (CYJS) Report, 2001, found in its Recommendations under Alcohol and Violence, “an urgent need for a simple community action plan on alcohol management” and that it is “preferable for the government to work with the communities to achieve local solutions”; it found “the need for culturally sensitive and appropriate preventative intervention strategies”; the support of for the leadership of women; and “provision of facilities and services (residential, non-residential and relapse support) that address the treatment, rehabilitation and support of individuals and the family unit…” (pp60). Further it found that “the provision of safe areas, accommodation and protection strategies to immediately address the issues of safety, violence, harm and threats to the family are important” (pp62).

The CYJS Report recommended in, Recommendations, Volume 1, CYJS 2. Alcohol and Violence, pp62, that by-laws be used by Councils to deter sly grog and excessive alcohol consumption issues. The PIASC (or then PIAC) did this, but instead of being recognised for this initiative, are now being punished by the imposition of such heavy handed and restrictive laws.

Under section 7. Law and Justice, in the Recommendations, volume 1, the report found,
“There needs to be an impartial and just judicial system, which supports, as a first preference, the diversion of offenders to community-based alternatives to imprisonment and…..where possible, to keep children and adolescents away from the mainstream criminal justice system” (pp68, ibid).
It is such an obvious and inevitable consequence of the AMP now that the exact opposite of this will occur.

Justice Fitzgerald wrote, “There are few services in the communities for alcohol and substance addiction, family violence, trauma and grief counselling and this lack of assistance compounds stress and exacerbates the likelihood of violence”. This reiterates the need to provide real support, counselling and rehabilitation. He went on to say, “the nexus between alcohol consumption and violence should not be oversimplified, not all intoxicated people are violent, and some violent people are not drinkers” (Fitzgerald, T, 2001, 3.1.1 Alcohol and Violence, Summary of Brief in Volume 2, Cape York Justice Study, “Volume 1 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations”, Qld Government).

Despite these facts, the Queensland government is determined to bring in an AMP for Palm Island, without the support services; without the consultation; without the negotiation; and despite the fact this is not necessarily going to stop the violence issues in the community.

No review of local by laws has occurred despite 4 years of alcohol restrictions. In regards to review of the current alcohol by laws, it may be seen that there has not been a significant decrease in violence since the introduction of the beer only conditions; perhaps this is why the government is rushing this process without any review of the current alcohol restrictions? Their own information poster seems to support the position that there have been adverse affects under alcohol restrictions, such as the increase in child protection orders mentioned earlier (Queensland State government, 2005 “Palm Island Key Outcome Indicators for Alcohol Management Plan”, State of Queensland).

Palm Island Select Committee
In 2005, as part of Premier Beattie’s 5-point plan for Palm Island in response to the riot in December 2004, a bi-partisan State Government Parliamentary Select Committee was established to investigate the situation on Palm Island in relation to numerous issues.

The Select Committee published a 100+ page report, and made 65 recommendations to the Queensland Parliament. The Queensland Government accepted 60 of these, partially supporting 4 and not supporting 1 – relating to the need for a Cultural Centre on the Island (which may be the one that is actually needed to give some people a focus beyond the daily self medication with alcohol!).

In the Queensland Government Response to Recommendations of the Palm Island Select Committee, the Queensland Government supported recommendations 61, 62 and 63, pertaining to Alcohol and Drug Use, found on page 100 of the initial 102 page report.

The first, Recommendation 61, relates to introducing an AMP, which “should be finalised with the Palm Island Community Justice Group and community”

This obviously did not occur.

Recommendation 62 refers to the Minister for State Development expediting the current feasibility study regarding a family friendly social venue for the community, this was done, by means of rushed and incomplete scoping of the project, and thus found the facility to ‘Not be viable’! This is not what the community wanted. Figures on types of alcohol to be sold were not even considered, or hours of operation etc. It was simply found that the current canteen would be too much competition! What about redeveloping this current facility then?

Recommendation 63 states,
“The Ministers for Communities and Health, in conjunction with relevant federal counterparts, should:
• Ensure a coordinated approach is taken to alcohol and drug support services on Palm Island including education, detoxification, rehabilitation and counselling; and
• In this regard, review the current provision of such services on the Island”

(Palm Island Select Committee ‘Report’, August 2005, Legislative Assembly of Queensland)

In relation to this recommendation there has been no real progress, aside form the addition of 2 more part time fly in fly out, employees to ATODS (Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Support), who were sent here following the riot in December 2004.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Minister John Mickel, commented on the 12th of April 2006, that, “Importantly, individuals will also have assistance to fight off alcohol dependence through counselling and other community initiatives”, being the new ATODS staff; and, “Ferdy’s haven, which has been operating on the island for some years, also offers rehabilitation and counselling” (ABC News Report, 12.4.06, www.abc.net.au/message).

His ignorance to the real situation and needs of the community, and even regrading the content of these government reports and recommendations, is shocking.

The contribution of Ferdy’s Haven is definitely positive in the community, providing time out for people and the ability to dry out in a supported and safe environment, however it is not a professional, clinical, psychological and spiritual centre needed to get people healthy and free of their alcohol and other habits permanently. In their Report, the Select Committee found in relation to Ferdy’s Haven, “the success rate of the centre is low and the CJG is currently not referring people to the centre. Consequently, Community Corrections and the courts do not refer clients to this service” (pp99, Palm Island Select Committee, Report, August 2005, Qld Legislative Assembly).

In relation to Alcohol and an AMP, the Select Committee further reported that it, ‘does not believe a prohibition of alcohol would be effective or desirable. There is a significant risk that prohibition would lead to an increase in sly grogging, people leaving the island to drink elsewhere, and other substance abuse” (ibid).

The Select Committee also reported the following issues having been raised during their community consultation:
• Concerns about sly grog increasing and adverse effects of this
• Beer restrictions discriminating against women
• Mixed drinks being allowed as they are the same alcohol content as beer
• Need for a social club, that is family friendly
• Need for effective detoxification, rehabilitation and counselling services

(pp98, PI Select Committee, Report, August 2005, Qld Legislative Assembly)

Statutory Community Justice Groups
The ability to create AMP’s for discrete indigenous communities is delegated in some respects to Statutory Community Justice Groups (SCJG). These groups were legislated under the Community Services Act, and now, the Aboriginal Communities (Justice and Land Matter) Regulation, 1998, to which Palm Island was endorsed by the Executive Council in April 2006!

Other indigenous communities where AMP’s have been proposed, have all had Statutory Community Justice Groups established. On Palm Island the government made announcements about creating a SCJG in 2003, according to an information session last week on Palm Island, 20 people nominated, and 16 were chosen to be on this group by the government. Then nothing happened and, “due to exceptional circumstances stayed there until now” (DATSIP community information session, Thursday 1st June, 2006, Palm Island TAFE). Apparently these people, who were not formalised in any way, drafted the current AMP that is to be imposed.

To make matters more confusing, some communities, like Palm Island, already had a Community Justice group, in the case of Palm, this is an incorporated association. On all the other indigenous communities with AMP’s, SCJG’s were established, and these groups drafted the AMP’s for their community. On Palm Island we had an unofficial group of 16 people, make laws for the 3500 people who live here. The current community group, Justice Group, has also been involved, as a community group in the past discussions on alcohol management, however this group is seen to be a conservative and church based, group of older women in particular, and as such is not representative of the greater community views.

So now, commencing two weeks ago, and continuing for another 2 weeks, DATSIP and the State Government is establishing a Statutory Justice Group for Palm Island! This group will have up to 40 or so members, and still poses the problem of being a default decision making group, without elected members. And even despite this obvious issue, the question can still be raised: how is it that we already have this proposed AMP, when the group that was supposed to draft it, does not exist yet?

Reviewing the Current Alcohol Restrictions
It is central to the AMP and Alcohol Management policies of the Queensland government, that any AMP should be reviewed to identify any positive or negative social, health and other impacts. The effects of the 2002 by-law restricting alcohol to beer only, and including trading limits on Palm Island, have never been assessed. The Palm Island restrictions may have been community based, but surely would have generated some valuable comparative data to assess the impacts of the changes, after 4 years!

Why was Palm Island not included in the reviews that have been occurring on the indigenous AMP communities since 2004? The effects of the by-law should be measurable. There have definitely been some improvements; however there has also been an increase in sly grogging. The introduction of this new AMP will only see this increase again. Palm Island has had the equivalent of an AMP for nearly 4 years. In the least this should be properly reviewed with public input and findings made about what has occurred as a result of these local laws, before more restrictions are forcibly applied.

On the MCMC web site (www.mcmc.qld.gov.au.community/alcohol.php), the Review process is outlined in detail, including that a report will be written with the finding of the review and presented to the Council and Community Justice Group, “who then have the opportunity to recommend whether the government should keep current restrictions in place, or change alcohol restrictions for the community”. These reviews, conducted by DATSIP Staff, have been occurring since 2004.

The community, and Council of Palm Island, were the first community to respond and implement recommendations of the Cape York Justice Study in relation to Alcohol Management (even though Palm Island is not in the CY area as such). This community and Council initiative should be rewarded, not disregarded.

In a paper entitled, “Crime Justice and Human Rights in North Queensland; Some issues Relating to Indigenous Policy Development”, presented by Professor Chris Cunneen from Sydney University, at James Cook University, in August 2005, Professor Cunneen details a case from Napranum that occurred as a result of the AMP there. On the 16th of December 2004 Mr Callope pleaded guilty to two offences against the Liquor Act, s 173H referring to the restricted are of Napranum DOGIT lands. For the first offence (his 3rd breach of the AMP), he received one months imprisonment followed by 40 weeks probation, for the possession of one beer; for the second offence of possession of one cask of wine, he received 6 weeks imprisonment followed by 42 weeks probation, to be served concurrently.

This decision was appealed, and overturned. The District Court Judge White ordered Mr Callope’s immediate release. In his paper, Professor Cunneen quotes the following from Judge White’s consideration of the purpose of the legislation:
‘Firstly, it was not and could not have been the purpose of this Act to single out the residents of Queensland Aboriginal communities for arbitrary restriction on their freedoms….Alcohol abuse and resulting domestic violence and public disorder are not confined to Aboriginal communities….”

Professor Cunneen writes,
“In this case His Honour was told that the appellant was an alcoholic and has been so for many years. That is undoubtedly true. However it was not the purpose of this legislation to single out alcoholics who live in Aboriginal communities to be punished and branded criminals simply for being so”.

This all means that it is not fair to just ‘pick on’ Murri’s for dinking problems and not other people in other areas in Australia, who have the same problems. It also means that it is not right to make people criminals for needing to drink if they are sick, ie alcoholics.

In the case of Mr Callope, he may be an alcoholic, but he had not been in trouble with the law for 15 years, prior to the AMP. This all changed as soon as the AMP came in and now he has been before the courts a number of times (Cunneen, Professor Chris, August 2005, James Cook University, Townsville, “Crime Justice and Human Rights in North Queensland; Some issues Relating to Indigenous Policy Development”, presented at the JCU Criminology Program Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre launch, 25th August 2005).

Agreement on ATSI Service Delivery
The current “Agreement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service Delivery between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Queensland 2005-2010”, provides for directives and policy in relation to indigenous service delivery by both the Federal and State Government’s. On page 3, under Principles for Service Delivery, Section 9, the agreement lists “recognising the need for services to take account of local circumstances and be informed by appropriate consultations and negotiations with local representatives”, as one of the key points.

The local circumstances here are extremely complex, with the number of traditional groups represented here totalling 72 in times as a mission, according to DATSIP records. Add to this the fact there have been a number of other government attempts to regulate alcohol on Palm Island, including the sale of jugs of beer, which meant people drank jugs not glasses of beer, and rules about buying 6 packs but not drinking on the road, so people would sit down and drink all 6 beers! So there is a bad track record, and now blatant disregard for community consultation and NEGOTIATION.

Under Engagement with Communities, Sections 16 and 17 relate to community consultation and involvement, and Sections 18 and 19, to the Negotiation Table process, all reiterating the value and need for community input and involvement, and indeed ownership of issues (2005, “Agreement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service Delivery between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Queensland 2005-2010”). Maybe this does not apply to Palm Island?

Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, signed on the 19th of December 2000
Further evidence of the inconsistency of the Queensland Government’s policy position, and the forced introduction of the AMP for Palm Island, is seen in the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, 19 December 2000, (2001). This document was created in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which found a disproportionate number of indigenous people represented in the justice system. In the Foreword, the Queensland Justice Agreement, states:

“The Justice Agreement recognises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples need to be involved at all stages in the development and delivery of justice related programs and services in order to achieve a sustainable long term reduction in the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples coming into contact with the Queensland criminal justice system”.

The government’s current actions are completely in opposition to this agreement, as the Palm Island community was not involved in all stages of the development of this AMP.

Criminalisation
Criminalisation of possession of alcohol has lead to a number of issues, outlined by Professor Cunneen, as previously touched on. These problems include:
• Prohibition not addressing the criminal behaviour and other anti social behaviour that the AMP is supposed to stop, which are also crimes in their own right often anyhow, such as child neglect (Cunneen, Professor Chris, August 2005, James Cook University, Townsville, “Crime Justice and Human Rights in North Queensland; Some issues Relating to Indigenous Policy Development”, presented at the JCU Criminology Program Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre launch, 25th August 2005)
• ‘prohibition’ or extreme restrictions, creating a system where people would have no contact with the legal system, become criminals, for doing something most people believe is very normal, ie having a beer or glass of wine, or even a few drinks at a party!
• There have been reports of community disharmony resulting from the AMP’s (ibid)
• Displacement has been reported where people have moved to areas where they can drink (ibid). It was recently raised in a Palm Island meeting that the number of people at Woorabinda has decreased significantly under their AMP
• The penalties attached to breaches of the AMP are unnecessarily punitive and are inappropriate given the supposed purpose of the legislation.

It is also, as has been discussed, a significant issue that the whole AMP process may be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. As a ‘special measure’, which it must be to be legal, the AMP’s require community support. This is most certainly not forthcoming in the case of Palm Island.

Conclusion
The community of Palm Island is presently opposed to the introduction of an AMP by the Queensland Government. There are multiple concerns with the (proposed) AMP for Palm Island, including:
• The poor process of consultation
• The poor process, and forced and rushed, (proposed) implementation
• The extreme nature of penalties for breaches of the new AMP
• The likelihood of increased sly grogging
• The likelihood of increased time drinking due to having to consume more actual cans of beer to get as inebriated as people are used to being
• The then increased cost of even legal alcohol consumption as people will need to drink more beer; the fact this will take greater money from food and other needs of women and children
• The likelihood of increased chroming and other substance abuse such as cannabis and amphetamine use, as a substitute for alcohol, and with lesser legal implications for use!
• The fact the local by laws have not been properly assessed and reviewed in terms of impacts and response form the community, after 4 years of community based alcohol restrictions

The community has voiced this position, and is still doing so. Support for this opposition was seen in the following comments by Minister for Child Safety, Mike Reynolds:

“I fully understand why many Palm Islanders oppose components of the AMP given that the vast majority of islanders do not abuse alcohol.

“Equally I acknowledge the anger of those islanders who feel they haven’t been consulted or engaged in this process…..people feel they haven’t been consulted and I have raised that issue with the Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy on behalf of the community.”
(Reynolds, Hon. M, 13.4.06, media release, Alcohol Management Plan)

Consultation is touted as the basis to all successful initiatives on indigenous communities and it is unclear, then, and confusing, that this has not occurred. The lack of respect and acknowledgement of the content and intentions within the multiple Reports and Recommendations, reiterates the government’s lacks of genuine commitment to improving issues in relation to Palm Island.

It is also perplexing to consider why the restrictions are so harsh for Palm Island? In some other indigenous communities which have had AMP’s negotiated, there have been much more lenient restrictions, still however regulating amounts or types of alcohol, such as Yarrabah. Many of these communities have a nearby area where they can drive to pick up grog or go for a drink, like Cairns, Cooktown or Weipa.

The extreme isolation of Palm Island, and the fact there will be no ability to bring in alcohol after the AMP, means that the sly grog situation is inevitable, and that the impact of the AMP will be much more restrictive on people. For many people in Restricted Area, AMP communities, there is the ability to drive to a pub or resort if you want a drink, or dinner and a wine, etc, however as an island, this option is not available to Palm Islanders.

Yarrabah, with a similar population to Palm Island, and where there is access to Cairns by road within an hour, has an AMP allowing moderate amounts of vintage wine and pre mixed drinks. This is much more reasonable and less controlling, while still imposing restrictions on possession types and amounts, targeting excessive consumption, rather than all consumption.

It is Council’s position that the regulation can come from a community level. The by laws option of regulating alcohol is the preferred option.

It is also Council position, and must be reiterated, that the penalties for breaches of the AMP are likely to result in an increase in the number of people adversely involved with the judicial system. In effect, some people have commented, that this AMP will make many of the adults in the community criminals overnight! Where at the moment having a drink is the equivalent of breaking a parking restriction, it will become an indictable offence, with up to $75 000 fines and 18months in prison! This is totally unacceptable, for doing what most adults in Australia take a right in this country.

Making criminals out of people who have a dinking problem, or don’t, but simply enjoy a drink, is unfair; it is discriminatory. Palm Island needs to provide Diversion, Detoxification, Rehabilitation and post Rehabilitation support services, including the physical buildings, for people with alcohol and other substance abuse problems; and to help families and supporting each other, not more people in gaol!

Both the extremely poor consultation process, and the lack of negotiation, together with the obvious outcome of making criminals out of people for having a drink, place the Queensland government in a questionable position in relation to justifying this AMP for Palm Island.

We do not need more government regulation and control, we need dollars for the construction of the new facilities required to help our problem drinkers and violent offender to recover from their current problems; to employ qualified staff to support and counsel these people; to provide the trauma and victims of crime support to those adversely affected by alcohol related, and other violence. There is nothing good that can come of giving out fines that can never be paid, committing families to a life time of debt, or putting people in gaol for not paying their fines, all for simply having a drink.

The Queensland Government funding to support these AMP initiatives, over the 19 indigenous communities affected, is some 12 million dollars, over 4 years! That’s ,maybe a $150 000-200 000 a year for each community, which often translates to 3 or 4 bureaucratic jobs and travel allowances, no money for actual infrastructure or projects as such. This is a seemingly standard government response and the community of Palm Island is now committed to exposing this government paying government mentality that is taking so much away from actual real community outputs in relation to improving social, health, environmental and economic conditions in indigenous communities.

We need real help for our people who are sick or who have suffered and now need support; a high school for our youth to get an education, to year 12; support for local business development; and, urgent support to address overcrowding and homelessness on Palm Island. We do not need, or want the State Government imposing these laws upon us without agreement or proper consultation. We will not accept the poor process and extreme penalties associated with these proposed restrictions and will oppose this Alcohol Management Plan to the highest level.

References

2005, “Agreement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service Delivery between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Queensland 2005-2010”).

ABC news report, 12.4.06, www.abc.net.au/message

ABC news report, 15.4.06, www.abc.net.au/message

Calma, Tom, 28.10.04, “Implications of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 with Reference to State and Territory Liquor Licensing legislation”, paper presented at the Australasian Liquor Licensing Authorities’ Conference in Hobart Tasmania, 26-29 October 2004

Cunneen, Professor Chris, August 2005, James Cook University, Townsville, “Crime Justice and Human Rights in North Queensland; Some issues Relating to Indigenous Policy Development”, presented at the JCU Criminology Program Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre launch, 25th August 2005

DATSIP community information session, Thursday 1st June, 2006, Palm Island TAFE

Fitzgerald, T, Justice, 2001, Cape York Justice Study, Queensland State Government, vol 1,2,3

MCMC web site www.mcmc.qld.gov.au.community/alcohol.php

Palm Island Select Committee ‘Report’, August 2005, Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, 19 December 2000, (2001), Queensland State Government

Queensland State government, 2005 “Palm Island Key Outcome Indicators for Alcohol Management Plan”, State of Queensland

Reynolds, Hon. M, 13.4.06, media release, Alcohol Management Plan

Robertson, B, 1999, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence”, State of Queensland

SBS News Story, http://news.sbs.com.au, 6.12.06, “Queensland Considers Alcohol Bans”

Wenham, Marg, 15.4.06, the Courier Mail, “Ministers Clash on Grog Laws”

Posted by kurityityin in HOME - current news, Aborigininity