The swinging pendulum of alcohol policy in the Northern Territory

Chikritzhs, Tanya; Weeramanthri, Tarun

doi:10.1177/0310057x20986309

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Drink driving countermeasures, Police Auxiliary Liquor Inspectors (PALIs) Aug 2018 – present Originally: Liquor Amendment (Point of Sale Intervention) Act 2018 (NT) Present: Liquor Act 2019 (NT) Section 249 Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs Discussed in: Clifford et al [ 10 ]; Coomber et al [ 85 ]; Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education & People’s Alcohol Action Coalition [ 82 ]; Secombe et al [ 83 ]; Taylor et al [ 86 ]; Wright, McAnulty & Secombe [ 84 ]; No 2. Regulating physical availability Minimum Unit Price 1 Oct 2018 – present Originally: Liquor Amendment (Minimum Pricing) Act 2018 (NT) Present: Liquor Act 2019 (NT) Section 121 NT wide Evaluation: Coomber et al [ 85 ] + related academic publication: Taylor et al [ 86 ] Report: Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education & People’s Alcohol Action Coalition [ 82 ] Academic publications: Secombe et al [ 87 ] (response: Clifford, Griffiths & Smith [ 10 ] Discussed in: Chikritzhs & Weeramanthri [ 88 ]; Secombe et al [ 83 ]; Smith et al [ 12 ]; Wright, McAnulty & Secombe [ 84 ] Yes 1. Pricing and taxation …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A historical overview of legislated alcohol policy in the Northern Territory of Australia: 1979–2021

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Northern Territory (NT) has the highest levels of alcohol consumption and harms in Australia. Since the creation of the NT Liquor Act 1978, which came into effect in 1979, numerous legislated alcohol policies have been introduced to attempt to address these harms. We present a narrative historical overview of alcohol policies implemented in the NT from 1979 to 2021. Methods Using scoping review methodology, databases were searched from 1979 to 2021. Of 506 articles screened, 34 met inclusion criteria. Reference lists of all included articles were searched, resulting in the inclusion of another 41 articles and reports, totalling 75 final documents. Policies were organised using Babor and colleagues (2010) established framework: 1. pricing/ taxation; 2. regulating physical availability; 3. modifying drinking environments; 4. drink-driving countermeasures; 5. restrictions on marketing; 6. education/persuasion; 7. treatment/early intervention. Results Two pricing/taxation policies have been implemented, Living With Alcohol (LWA) and Minimum Unit Price, both demonstrating evidence of positive effects on health and consumption outcomes. Eight policies approaches have focused on regulating physical availability, implemented at both individual and local area levels. Several of these policies have varied by location and been amended over time. There is some evidence demonstrating reduction in harms attributable to Liquor Supply Plans, localised restrictions, and General Restricted Areas, although these have been site specific. Of the three policies which targeted modifying the drinking environment; one was evaluated, finding a relocation of social harms, rather than a reduction. The literature outlines a range of controversies, particularly regarding policies in domain 2–3, including racial discrimination and a lack of policy stability. No policies relating to restricting marketing or education/persuasion programs were found. The only drink-driving legislated policy was considered to have contributed to the success of the LWA program. Three policies relating to treatment were described; two were not evaluated and evidence showed no ongoing benefits of Alcohol Mandatory Treatment. Discussion The NT has implemented a large number of alcohol policies, several of which have evidence of positive effects. However, these policies have often existed in a context of clear politicisation of alcohol policy, frequently with an implicit focus on Aboriginal people’s consumption.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Discussed in: Chikritzhs & Weeramanthri [ 88 ]; Secombe et al [ 83 ]; Smith et al [ 12 ]; Wright, McAnulty & Secombe [ 84 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A historical overview of legislated alcohol policy in the Northern Territory of Australia: 1979–2021

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preliminary analyses of intensive care admissions showing promising findings in Central Australia 9 . However, alcohol‐related harms are still high and as stated by Chikritzhs et al “commercial pressures are already undermining progress, reducing transparency and pushing back the pendulum in favour of greater [alcohol] access”; they further note that this plays out in measurable terms of health and lives lost 10 …”

Section: People In the Northern Territory Are Already Experiencing An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 However, alcohol-related harms are still high and as stated by Chikritzhs et al "commercial pressures are already undermining progress, reducing transparency and pushing back the pendulum in favour of greater [alcohol] access"; they further note that this plays out in measurable terms of health and lives lost. 10 The proposed Dan Murphy's store has the potential to increase alcohol harm in the broader Darwin and Palmerston areas, given that many people commute between the two areas for work and study. This means that a large population will be exposed to increased alcohol availability and potentially sold at a cheaper price.…”

Section: People In the Northern Territory Are Alre Ady E Xperien Cing...mentioning

confidence: 99%

While Woolworths reaps the rewards, the Northern Territory community will be left to clean up the mess

Wright

Clifford

Miller

et al. 2021

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perspectives on the ongoing impact of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory

Roche,

Taylor‐Zach,

Taylor

et al. 2024

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2007, income support recipients in the Northern Territory (NT) have been subjected to compulsory income management (CIM), a form of welfare conditionality which continues, despite the withdrawal of CIM from other locations in Australia and research that identifies negligible benefits. Implemented with the goal of improving social well‐being and health outcomes, CIM quarantines a proportion of income support payments which cannot be used to purchase alcohol, gambling, pornography and in some cases tobacco, to direct payments to priority needs of recipients and encourage socially responsible behaviour. This article presents the perspectives of welfare sector stakeholders in the NT on the ongoing impact of CIM on income support recipients and their communities. It draws on semi‐structured interviews with 26 participants with expertise across non‐government service delivery, government, legal and advocacy sectors. The findings detail that CIM is considered ineffective in reducing social harms such as substance misuse, can contribute to situations of family violence, and exacerbates challenges for recipients living in regional and remote areas. It also highlights the poor compatibility of community income management in regional and remote contexts, its top‐down design, and views that CIM is a form of social control and disempowerment.

show abstract

The swinging pendulum of alcohol policy in the Northern Territory

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

A historical overview of legislated alcohol policy in the Northern Territory of Australia: 1979–2021

A historical overview of legislated alcohol policy in the Northern Territory of Australia: 1979–2021

While Woolworths reaps the rewards, the Northern Territory community will be left to clean up the mess

Perspectives on the ongoing impact of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About