
On the Failure of the Two Kilometre Law
An undergrad sociology essay on ‘statutory’ policy and Indigenous drinking in the NT
Since the prohibition of alcohol consumption for indigenous communities ended in the mid 1960s, the effects of liquor have been highly corrosive for the First Nations people of Australia. Accordingly, a surfeit of regulatory policy attempting to reign in these effects has arisen in response. This legislation has been unavoidably impacted by a range of historical and social baggage, and has, as will be shown below, resulted in consequences — invariably mixed and, too frequently, detrimental — for those it has been attempting to assist. This essay will specifically investigate the impact of policy introduced in the Northern Territory striving to control the consequences of a land overwhelmed by “rivers of grog” (d’Abbs 2010); for this purpose, the policy commonly deemed as the “Two Kilometre Law” will be scrutinized. It will be concluded that alcohol abuse, as a complicated social issue in Aboriginal populations, does require an element of social control. However, it will be suggested that the Two Kilometre Law fails principally to elevate the shocking consequences of alcoholism; this being as the Two Kilometre Law, moulded around a ‘top-down’ statutory model (d’Abbs 1990), is drafted innately on ideologies ill-equipped to place indigenous struggles (and indigenous solutions) within a self-determining framework. Instead, a ‘complementary control’ model (d’Abbs 1990) such as the Northern Territory Liquor Act of 1979 will be proposed, which combines overarching structure with indigenous-based sovereignty. Though arguably flawed and currently operating to mixed results, the latter policy contains through the implementation of its various amendments (such as community chosen dry area restrictions), promising elements that may be expanded to positive effect in the future.
In order to delve into an assessment of the efficacy of the Two Kilometre Law, it is first necessary to summarize the historical conditions into which the policy was introduced. Policy regarding Aboriginal communities can be understood as holding a special realm; that which concerns itself with assisting ‘Fourth World’ people: those “that experience socio-economic marginalization originating in the alienation of their [own] land and economic resource base” (Brady 2000, pg 436). For this reason the Two Kilometre Law must be contextualized within a history of previous discriminatory legislation wherein alcohol has been held aloft as containing “symbolic values denoting equality and citizenship” (Brady 2000, pg 441). It must also be understood that Australia operates as a culture steeped in normative racism; racism whose roots can be gleaned, in the opinion of Cowlishaw & Morris (1995) not only in areas entangled in realms directly related to hierarchy, but within the cultural machinations of democracy itself; in this way, it can be understood that we live within a society wherein racism is deemed “normative, reasonable and pervasive” (Cowlishaw & Morris 1995, pg 53). Thus, policy that arises within this climate is invariably influenced by the conception of Aboriginal attributes as embodying a ‘lazy’, gambling, and inebriated nature (Ibid 1995). The cultural evaluation of the indigenous community as occupying a deviant position within society can not be understated in regards to the development of the Two Kilometre Law; nor, either, can the ameliorating social disadvantage of a Fourth World society be underestimated in the alcohol dependency of remote indigenous Australians (d’Abbs 2010). The Two Kilometre Law, which bases its success on removing disorderly drinking from the public domain, functions in an effort to assimilate indigenous behaviours regarded as ‘devious’ into a more ‘cohesive’ and Westernized culture: and thus to transmute First Nation peoples into a more capitalist and normative work-ethic (Cowlishaw & Morris 1995). The Two Kilometre law can also be seen as clearing the way for functional tourism, which will be explored later (Cunneen 1999).
In this way ‘the great Australian silence’ and the ‘cult of disremembering’ the Aboriginal narrative within Australian dialectics can be seen as occupying a significant place within the spectrum of self-harmful and violent behaviour that has emerged (Hunter 1991). The effectiveness of top-down statutory models can not be viewed in a vacuum, for statutory regulations on their own fail to accommodate the inherent challenges of navigating a neo-colonial society within which alcohol has historically been brandished as a symbol of egalitarianism and freedom for the indigenous community (Brady 1992). Additionally, the responsiveness to police enforcement of these policies, particularly the zero tolerance policing implemented in the Northern Territory, can and must be interpreted as holding a certain ingratiating and inflammatory aspect within the magnitude of social inequity faced by the indigenous community. D’Abbs and Burlayn (2019) implicate actions taken to implement the policies as having a detrimental effect on their success. A report by Cunneen (1999) tellingly reveals statistics reflective of this: 86 per cent of those sentenced to imprisonment are Indigenous; the reason for being placed in police custody for 31 percent of Indigenous people was intoxication in public. Crucially, many Indigenous deaths in police custody occur after the person has been detained as a result of public disorder. With these surrounding factors taken in stride, it is now possible to commence into an investigation of the policy itself.
‘Two Kilometre Law’, introduced in 1982 in response to the Martin Report, bans consumption of liquor in a public place or on unoccupied private land within 2 km of licensed premises throughout the Northern Territory (D’abbs & Burlayn 2019). The law, which operates as a statutory legislation, arose primarily as a response to the relative failure of purely community-led policy and is polar opposite to this liberal approach; it is a shift from self-determination towards rigid control (d’Abbs 1990). The ‘rivers of grog’ that have flooded indigenous Australia since the doors opened to legalised alcohol in the 1960s can indeed be understood as an exceptionally dire situation. According to one parliamentarian: 'Alcohol is the greatest present threat to the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory and unless strong immediate action is taken they could destroy themselves' (Commonwealth of Australia 1977a, d’Abbs 1990). Despite this, since its origination, the Two Kilometre Law has been amended several times to augment police enforcement powers, and is a spatially-based regulation conceived not for those who directly experience the traumatic effects of alcohol abuse, but “for and by non-Aboriginal people according to their perceptions and priorities”, priorities that “coalesce around public drunkenness and perceived threats to urban amenity”: in this sense the Two Kilometre Law represents the decision of the Government to predominantly define public order as the critical issue (d’Abbs 2012, pgs 371-392).
A community survey by Hauritz (2000) of the views of Alice Springs residents on a range of alcohol-related issues found that 85 percent of those surveyed rated the ‘Two Kilometre Law’ as ineffective or very ineffective (Hauritz 2000 quoted Chikritzhs, Gray, Lyons & Saggers 2007). The law has been criticized for including no provisions for access to treatment (Chikritzhs, Gray, Lyons & Saggers 2007). A revision of the effectiveness of the Two Kilometre Law found that although it has been marginally successful in removing bouts of public disorderliness, it has also had the consequence of driving drinkers (approximately 75 percent of whom were visitors to town) into the town camps to drink, resulting in an upsurge of alcohol-related violence which in turn produced a plethora of negative social effects (O’Connor 1984, quoted Chikritzhs, Gray, Lyons & Saggers 2007). The Two Kilometre Law has directly resulted in loss of life. In a case study of local community impact near the Tennant Creek region of the Northern Territory, d’Abbs & Burlayn (2019) found that in alcohol consumption away from towns, those intent on drinking instead began to congregate beside stretches of ‘Queen’s land’ highway exempt from the regulation: thus, swathes of inebriated individuals were forced to drink beside speeding highways amid scathing heat and a total absence of drinking water (d’Abbs & Burlayn 2019).
It is therefore apparent that the intention of the Two Kilometre Law, from its infancy, has never been a reduction in harm for those most impacted by alcohol abuse. Instead, it is lucidly evident that the most basic aim of the Two Kilometre Law has always been, at its most benign, a policy introduced with the intention of preserving a thriving tourism industry within the heart of outback Australia (explored below). At its most dangerous, it is an effort at assimilation of Indigenous behaviour to Western standards of public display, away from what has been perceived as “aberrant and antisocial behaviour” (Cunneen 1999).
In a speech to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Chief Minister Stone iterated his concern with tourism: “This type of behaviour [public drunkenness, harassment and verbal abuse] also seriously impacts on [tourism]… as a community we have become desensitised until it impacts directly upon us. Unfortunately, our visitors and tourists are not so forgiving” (Stone quoted Cunneen 1999, pg 8). In this way, the very aims of the Two Kilometre Law are averse to Aboriginal health: Billings (2009) points out that access by tourists to outback Australia has increased dramatically since the 1980s, and that thus, alcoholic beverages may be purchased from a range of outlets for the comfort of tourists passing by. Objections to these facilities by the indigenous community are met with rebuttal. A Pitjantjatjara Council member has said in response: "We live here. We're not going away. It's the tourists who are passing through. Why are their needs and wishes greater than ours?" (Billings, 2009). The intentions of the Two Kilometre Law in preserving urban stability and tourist influx can be summarised succinctly in the contents of a pamphlet distributed by then-Chief Minister Paul Everingham: “The Territory, with its weather, its wide open spaces, is a great place to be... Our relaxed way of life is the envy of most Australians. Excessive drinking, littering, objectionable behaviour in public are very real social problems. Our Territory way of life could be spoiled by the actions of a troublesome minority” (d’Abbs 2012, pg 384).
For these reasons, the Two Kilometre Law can be seen as a deeply ethnocentric policy that has enforced upon a troubled Fourth Nation minority group the cultural expectations of a society that, at the time of implementation, held little intention to address the issue with the dynamic and upward-driven approach necessary for true change. It can be postulated that the indigenous community would be instead empowered by confronting the issue in a relationship of mutual respect and support with the government; with policy that adheres to the international standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The UNDRIP, concerned chiefly with empowerment, should translate to policy that “enhances freedom to participate in decision-making. UNDRIP emphasizes the need for political participation, and the importance of indigenous peoples' freedom to choose what form their political participation will take” (Cowan 2013). Aboriginal identity must be at the core of change: an identity that is not shaped by drastic, top-town moderation. In support of this sentiment comes a qualitative case study on substance intervention programs that found that participants’ responses implied the need for a priority expansion of intervention focus onto the teaching and strengthening of skills required for self-determination (Nichols 2010). As stated by one sociologist, “A community problem requires a community answer: not an answer at the level of individual pathology. The treatment must be carried to the locus of the problems” (O’Connor 1984, pg 182). If this is indeed taken to be true, it is also logical to assume that the solution must carry imbedded within it an acceptance and flexibility towards the cultural standards and normative behaviours of the society that it is attempting to assist. Instead of policy built on scorn for the issue of government ‘hand-outs’ wasted on booze (Cowlishaw & Morris 1995) with the tourism sector and urban conformity in mind (like the Two Kilometre Law), policy should look instead towards d’Abbs’ complementary control model.
Sections of the Northern Territory Liquor Act tailored towards community-led programs and restrictions, contained in Part VIII of the Act (d’Abbs 1990), embody this model. In the words of d’Abbs: “success in overcoming Aboriginal alcohol abuse problems will be a function of the capacity of Aboriginal people, individually and collectively to exercise control over their social environment in general and the use of alcohol in particular” (d’Abbs, 1990, pg 14). D’abbs (1990) advocates for a temperate mixture of social control and agency. Social control, in the context of the Two Kilometre Law, can perhaps be seen as “consisting of mechanisms through which the more powerful social agents maintain their dominance over the less powerful” (d’Abbs 2010). With regards to the complementary control model, the power exercised over those in the indigienous community can be interpreted instead as contrived by Foucault: as having a capacity to enable as well as constrain (Lacombe quoted d’Abbs 2010). When acknowledging the impacts of the tourism industry on keeping open a flow of alcohol to problem areas, a shift to complementary control policy “embodies an acknowledgement, articulated by Aboriginal residents of communities... that most communities simply cannot muster the powers to overcome successfully the combination of many people's wishes to drink and the powerful vested interests that exist to fulfil those wishes” (d’Abbs, 1990, pg 14).
When thus analysed, it is apparent that the Two Kilometre Law fails not only in its primary task of concealing indigenous drinking, but is also fundamentally at odds with the framework required to overcome the disastrous effects of alcohol in the communities for whom it impacts most. In shifting the focus of concern towards assimilating ‘deviant’ behaviour into a more Westernized culture of work-readiness and comportment, the Two Kilometre Law limits the agency of those in indigenous communities to self-determine of their own volition. The impacts on individuals are clear: the law has functioned only to siphon drinking habits out of the public eye, and, in doing so, increase problem drinking in affected communities. This in turn has led to a cycle of self-perpetuating social problems, which, although not touched on in this paper, include unemployment, isolation and endemic poor hygiene (Baile, Brewster, Grace & McDonald 2009). In order to navigate the complex discriminatory and racial dimension of alcohol abuse in Aboriginal communities, policy with genuine potential for change must come at least in part from self-determination and self-governance; and in doing so, incorporate a lense beyond the ethnocentric mindset of the Western neo-liberal system. The Australian Government as it currently stands has managed to produce policy such as the restricted areas provisions forming Part VIII of the Northern Territory Liquor Act which function as a symbiotic blend of community-led and top-down enforcement. This mode of policy has proven, through its increasing tolerance and encouragement of the Aboriginal voice to guide itself, an adequate platform from which to commence forth towards international standards.
Crucially however, policy must be enforced not through zero police tolerance, and must be in conjunction with other community-led movements that work to give the power back to those for whom the problem of alcohol has come about. Policy must make space for the primary context of past deprivation in our neo-colonial times, and the history of brutally enforced colonial voicelessness that has sparked the cycles of alcohol abuse. In other words, policy must derive from and for those which it impacts most.
References
Baile. R, Brewster. D, Grace. J, McDonald. E, 2009, A case study of physical and social barriers to hygiene and child growth in remote Australian Aboriginal communities, BMC Public Health, Vol. 9., BioMed Central Ltd
Billings. P, 2009, Still paying the price for benign intentions? Contextualising contemporary interventions in the lives of aboriginal peoples, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 33, Issue 1., Melbourne University Law Review
Brady. M, 2000, Alcohol policy issues for indigenous people in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Contemporary Drug Problems, Vol. 27, Issue 3. Sage Publications
Brady. M, 1992, Ethnography and Understanding of Aboriginal Drinking, Thousand Oaks, Vol. 22, Iss. 3
Cowan. A, 2013, UNDRIP and the intervention: indigenous self-determination, participation, and racial discrimination in the Northern Territory of Australia, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 22, Issue 2., Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal
Cowlishaw. G, Morris. B,1995, Race Matters : Indigenous Australians and 'Our' Society, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra
Cunneen. C, 1999, Zero Tolerance Policing: How will it Affect Indigenous Communities, Indigenous Law Bulletin, Accessed 1/11/2019, http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/1999/22.html
D’abbs. P & Burlayn. J, 2019, Aboriginal alcohol policy and practice in Australia: A case study of unintended consequences, International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol.66, pp.9-14
D’Abbs. P, 2010, Controlling "rivers of grog": The challenge of alcohol problems in Australian Indigenous communities, Contemporary Drug Problems, Vol. 37, Iss. 3, London
D’Abbs. P, 2012, Problematizing Alcohol through the Eyes of the Other: Alcohol Policy and Aboriginal Drinking in the Northern Territory, Australia, Contemporary Drug Problems, Vol.39(3), pp.371-396
D’Abbs. P, 1990, Restricted Areas and Aboriginal Drinking, Alcohol and Crime, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra
French. R, 2011, Aboriginal identity - the legal dimension, Australian Indigenous Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2011: 18-24
Hunter. E, 1991, Out of Sight, Out of Mind — Emergent Patterns of Self-Harm Among Aborigines of Remote Australia, Society, Science & Medicine, Vol. 33, No. 6, Printed in Great Britain
Nichols. F, 2010, Aboriginal Recommendations for Substance Use Intervention Programs, Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, Accessed <https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=999535144542116;res=IELAPA> ISSN: 1037-3403. [cited 30 Oct 19].
O’Connor. R, 1984, Alcohol and Contingent Drunkenness in Central Australia, Aust. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 19 No. 3
Spence. J, 2003, Liquor restrictions in Queensland Indigenous communities, Indigenous Law Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 25
Chikritzhs. T, Gray. D, Lyons. Z, & Saggers. S, 2007 Restrictions on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol: Evidence and Outcomes, National Drug Research Institute Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA
