Treatment+Trumps+Punishment-+Addressing+Alcoholism+in+the+Indigenous+Australian+Community

Name: Batool Al Shatti Student No.: N7692862 Tutor: Judith

Treatment Trumps Punishment: Addressing Alcoholism in the Indigenous Australian Community




 * __ Artefact __ : **

The cultural artefact is a sign that states: NO GROG $5000 FINE. This sign, and many signs like it, can be found in predominantly Aboriginal communities across Australia. They are part of a governmental policy to restrict alcoholism amongst indigenous communities. As most signs do, the NO GROG sign threatens a penalty instead of offering a solution to a public issue.


 * __ The Issue: __**

The public health issue in question is alcoholism in Aboriginal communities. The focus will be on the policies enacted to limit alcoholism within these communities and the shortcomings of such policies. Although it is apparent that the Aboriginal community is more adversely affected by alcohol consumption than the non-indigenous inhabitants of Australia, a destructive course has been initiated by policy that has been labelled as racist and that has led to greater imprisonment, serving as a solution for a problem that cannot be solved by punishment. Alcohol prevention is needed for the Aboriginal community to reach better public health outcomes in terms of disease and death. Punishment of alcoholism isn’t helping.


 * __ Research & Literature Review: __**

In the Australia’s Aboriginal community, many health issues, including cases of domestic and child abuse, are alcohol related. According to Fletcher (2013, para. 7), in the “Alice Springs region, [Indigenous Australians] are 31 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes than other Australians,” and the Australian government is accordingly taking measures to reduce those numbers.

The Australian government has introduced widespread bans on alcohol as a means to address the issue of alcoholism within the Aboriginal community. While these bans are enforced by heavy fines and possible imprisonment, they do serve the purpose of punishing offenders. However, this punishment is not a resolution to the problem. In contrast, the National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee (NIDAC) has instituted rehabilitation centres for Aboriginals dealing with the demons of alcoholism. These programs work as a preventative measure as opposed to a method of punishment. Unfortunately, these programs are not readily available to many indigenous Australians in rural communities.

By instituting bans, the government hopes to close the gaps in health disparity between indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, to cut down on alcohol-related crimes, specifically spousal and child abuse, and simply “to combat violence” (UPI News Track,2007). There is a question of whether these bans actually solve any of the problems associated with alcoholism. By imposing fines against and imprisoning those who are caught drinking within their indigenous communities, the government inadvertently adds burden to an already overrepresented Aboriginal prison population, separates families, and worsens the already cavernous gap between indigenous and non-indigenous public health outcomes and expectations (Krieg, 2006, p. 535; NIDAC, 2012). There are even questions as to whether or not the alcohol bans, which are aimed only at Aboriginal drinkers, are racist. In Ngukurr, a community in the Northern Territory, alcohol is banned for all inhabitants except for 17 permit holders, who all happen to be white. Barker (2007) reports that many indigenous locals find the ban to be part of an “unfair and discriminatory system” and want either no bans or blanket bans that apply to the entire community rather than to just its indigenous members. Chris Ronalds, a leading Australian criminal law barrister, says that the bans are “targeted laws that criminalise conduct that wouldn't have otherwise been criminalised in non-Indigenous communities” meaning that they are in fact racist (Watt, 2012). To target a specific ethnic group is unconstitutional, and though the government claims that fines and imprisonment are in the best interest of the Aborigines, they are denying Aboriginal people some of their basic rights.

According to Galloway, a 2012 government report conducted on the use of Alcohol Management Plans (AMPs) says, “Adoption of the principle of equal treatment or formal equality which relies on the notion that all people should be treated the same denies the differences which exist between individuals” (Galloway, 2012, p. 47). According to the report, racism is justified when it’s in the best interest of the people who are targeted, considering that they exhibit “differences” from white Australians. Similarly, the Australian High Court ruled that “alcohol management plans…do not breach racial discrimination laws -- but protect vulnerable people”(//Xinhua News Agency – CEIS//, 2013, para. 2). According to government officials, the bans are not racist.

Whether or not the AMPs are effectively solving the alcohol problem or creating larger problems for both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as a whole is a question worthy of being answered. According to the National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee (NIDAC), “Indigenous Australians make up 26 per cent of the adult prison population [but only] 2.5 per cent of the general population, [and they are] nearly 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than the rest of the population,” which is made only more appalling when we consider that “more than 80 per cent of indigenous prisoners in Australia are there for non-violent crimes” (Fowlie, 2013).Rather then than incarceration as a means of punishing offenders, a method that promotes better outcomes should be introduced. Moreover, when considering that “the average cost of imprisoning a non-violent indigenous offender was nearly $115,000 annually compared with a cost of about $18,000 for residential drug treatment,” it appears that government policy in combatting alcoholism among indigenous Australians isn’t cost effective (Fowlie, 2013).

NIDAC is the government supported and self-labelled “leading voice in indigenous alcohol and drug policy.” The organisation provides government agencies with advice, doing so based on collective expertise and knowledge from those working in the field, such as “health professionals and other relevant experts” (National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee, 2013), and its success in providing support will continue with the ongoing support it in turn receives from government entities. NIDAC focuses on prevention rather than punishment. Aboriginals who are subject to fines and imprisonment yet who are troubled by alcoholic tendencies can instead be sent to a centre for rehabilitation. Such centres see lower rates of recidivism and better health outcomes than do those who face imprisonment (Stokes, 2012). This is the first step in addressing the health disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Imprisonment does not solve the problem of alcoholism. According to NICAD, “While in prison, (Aborigines) are at increased risk of blood borne virus transmission, physical violence, sexual assault and isolation” and the “strong links between alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and Indigenous incarceration highlight an urgent need for action**” (**NIDAC, 2012).

The current laws to battle alcoholism are only exacerbating the already burdensome issue. With the help of organisations like NIDAC, the Australian Government will likely continue to reconsider its approach on treating this epidemic and support funding for a wider availability of rehabilitation.


 * __ Cultural & Social Analysis: __**

It is important to consider the cultural and societal history of Australia when discussing alcoholism in the Indigenous population. According to Rob Moodie, Professor of Global Health at University of Melbourne, Europeans brought the established habits of heavy drinking with them during colonisation, and with their arrival, access to alcohol dramatically increased (Moodie, 2013, para 4). The pains of colonisation and the alcohol-related means to quieten those pains created alcohol dependence within much of the Aboriginal community //(Wilson, Stearne, Gray & Saggers, 2010 //). Eventually, laws were developed to prevent the indigenous population from drinking, and by 1929, all states had prohibited the sale of alcohol to or purchase of alcohol by aboriginals. Exceptions were made for those who were able to demonstrate “assimilation” into white society, often at the cost of denying their own indigenous culture (Wilson, et al, 2010). //The Australian government has attempted to “assimilate” indigenous children into white society. This rueful policy led to what is commonly termed the Stolen Generation, and it was a policy that consequently tore apart the fabric of Indigenous society and identity by separating family members. The // “removal, transfer and detention [of Indigenous children] without hearing or right of review was … against the law” (Rayner, 2003, p.22),and while enacted under the premise of protection and benefit to the Aboriginal community, it was, just as the AMPs are: a veiled disregard for indigenous health.Due partly to the suffering of the Stolen Generation, indigenous Australians are understandably leery of any government programs designed to encourage their wellbeing.

Of course, the effects of alcohol range from person to person, and Aborigines remain at greater risk than other groups. Indigenous Australians are nearly twice as likely as other Australians to suffer from alcohol-related disease(Australian Indigenous Health Info Net, 2013). The government aims to reconcile the public health outcome disparity between indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; therefore, confronting alcoholism amongst Aborigines is a priority. The history of AMPs and related laws dating back to the 1800s however shows that they have served an unsuccessful purpose.

Historically, the enactment of laws such as AMPs has only exacerbated issues amongst Aborigines by forcing alcoholism out of the public sphere and into their homes. This is where new issues of violence arise. It is important to focus on preventative measures instead of punishment by fines and imprisonment. By routing offenders away from prison and into rehabilitation centres, the rates of repeat offence decline, Aboriginals are reinserted into society with means to engage productively therein, and the economic burden on Australian prisons is lessened.

Experts need to focus on funding for rehabilitation centres and cooperation between facilities and law enforcement. The Minister for Indigenous Health, Warren Snowden, vows support for the National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee (NIDAC) as an entity that will undoubtedly assist “to ‘close the gap’ on the health disparity between Indigenous an non-Indigenous Australians” (Snowden, 2009 ).

Bans and punishment simply do not benefit Indigenous Australians as much as rehabilitation and community involved treatment would. If the health gap is to be closed, Australia must take the prerogative to treat alcoholism, not simply punish it.


 * __ Analysis of Artefact & Own Learning Reflections: __**

The NO GROG sign is an artefact that represents the mentality of Australian legislators towards issues faced by Indigenous Australians. The sign is a threat against indigenous drinkers rather than a cure for the prevalence of alcoholism. It summons memories of the Stolen Generation, of legislation aimed toward fixing Aboriginal problems through means of discrimination in the name of consideration. The NO GROG sign is a lack of understanding between two fundamentally differing cultures that share the same land. When treatment is needed, punishment is enacted instead.

My research has led me to wonder how exactly Australia reached the conclusion that imprisonment cures alcoholism among Indigenous communities when it obviously addresses nothing more than the symptoms of alcohol-related health issues and in turn creates a bevy of side effects, including overrepresentation of Aborigines in prison and a growing health gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It is a problem that began long ago, following the first fleet, when large quantities of alcohol were introduced to the Aboriginal community, and it is overwhelmingly apparent that legislation couldn’t evolve fast enough to temper the growing problem. There is now research available into the issue, and groups like NIDAC are offering opportunities to narrow the health gap. There is no longer an excuse for the issue of alcoholism in Aboriginal communities to continue to worsen. Instead, from here on out, it should by rights only get better.


 * __ Reference __**

Australian Indigenous Health Info Net.(2013). Health Risk Factors: Factors contributing to Indigenous health. Retrieved from []

Barker, A. (2005, July 25). Ngukkur debates alcohol laws. //Australian Broadcasting Corporation//. Retrieved from []

Fowlie, C. (2013). Jail costly way to tackle scourge. Retrieved from []

Fletcher, J. (2013). Forced rehab: A solution for Australia’s grog addicts? Retrieved from [|http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24465989?ico=mailonsunday^editors_choice]

Galloway, K. (2013). Indigenous Issues: Grog or no grog? //Alternative Law Journal, 38//(1), 47-48. Retrieved from []

Krieg, A. S., (2006). Aboriginal incarceration: health and social impacts. //The Medical Journal of Australia//, //184//(10), 534-536. Retrieved from []

National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee. (2013). //About NIDAC//. Retrieved from []

National Indigenous Alcohol and Drug Committee (2012). //NIDAC Strategic Plan 2012-2014: Background and Further// //Information// Retrieved from []

Moodie, R. (2013, February 25). A brief history or alcohol consumption in Australia. //The Conversation//. Retrieved from []

Snowden, W. (2009) Open letter to NIDAC. Retrieved from []

Stokes, J. (Ed). (2012) //An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: prison vs residential treatment//. Paper presented at Information Online. Retrieved from []

//Rayner, M. (2003) Who cares about the facts? More evidence emerges for the stolen generation, ////Eureka Street, 13 ////(8), 20-22. Retrieved from // []

UPI News Track. (2007). //Australian town goes dry, bans grog.// Retrieved from []

Watt, E. (2012, December 18). Is it racist to ban alcohol from some Aboriginal communities? //Australian Broadcasting Corporation.// Retrieved from []

Wilson, M., Stearne, A., Gray, D., Saggers, S. (2010) //Review of the harmful use of alcohol amongst Indigenous Australians ////.// Retrieved from []

//Xinhua News Agency - CEIS//. (2013, Jun 19). //Aboriginal alcohol bans ruled "not discriminatory" by Australian High Court//. Retrieved from []


 * __ Reflection: __**

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64671814

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64671892