Tue 7 Aug 2007
“Grog on the river” – Quote of the (indefinite period of time)
Posted by jangari under Culture, Indigenous, The Intervention
[12] Comments
I have been successful thus far in refraining from entering into ‘quotes of the week’, but after reading this one on Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett’s blog, I couldn’t resist. However, as I’m not likely to post another quote of the week next week, nor the week after, it’ll simply remain the ‘Quote of the indefinite period of time’.
Some Background
The ‘intervention’, which I have been writing about here quite regularly over the past six weeks, involves many legislative changes; CDEP is going to be scaled-down and eventually replaced altogether by a Commonwealth work-for-the-dole scheme (so it can be quarantined), the permit system will be scrapped, the reason being that it hasn’t prevented grog/porn runners or child abusers entering communities (and scrapping it would fix that?), among other changes that are too numerous and complex to do justice to here.
One of the more contentious legislative changes though, is that alcohol will be banned in communities and town camps throughout the Territory, in an effort to stop the ‘rivers of grog’. However, fisheries and tourism groups were a bit annoyed at this, as plenty of people enjoy going out on the tinny, catching a barramundi and knocking back a brew. So:
There is an exemption to the alcohol restrictions for recreational fishers in their boats – trying to stop the rivers of grog, while still allowing grog on the river.
Clearly the policies aren’t very highly considered. The Northern Territory and alcohol consumption go together like, well, almost like the Northern Territory and iced-coffee consumption (anyone who’s spent any period in the NT will know what I’m talking about), so they had to expect some mainstream opposition to widespread alcohol bans.
I think it’s ludicrous to write legislation that allows one law for recreational fisherman and another for everyone else. How would the law be policed? Are you able to drink if you are simply in a boat on a river or must you have a line in the water? Even then, is one line per boat sufficient, or must every drinker have a line cast?
12 Responses to “ “Grog on the river” – Quote of the (indefinite period of time) ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from More white exceptions to grog bans « matjjin-nehen
October 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am[...] result back then was the concession that recreation fishermen-or-women would be allowed to drink alcohol on a boat on a river within the confines of aboriginal land (roughly speaking), [...]

August 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I share Andrew Barlett’s concern about the scrapping of the permit system. I didn’t know about this clause for fishers though.
How on Earth indeed do they intend to police it? What constitutes as fisher?
I can see a tinny full of cartons on the back of a 4WD (or analogue dependant on criteria for policing), making trips between communities and selling at inflated prices when they think they can get away with it.
If the Federal Government was serious about their no-grog policy, they wouldn’t be so careless with the exemptions. This is looking more and more like a political stunt and less and less like a sincere (if misguided) effort.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
BTW. I think you may have helped me find my quote of the week
August 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Yes the whole thing is silly. The govt is banning grog from those who already impose on themselves the toughest alcohol restrictions in the country. But there’s no addressing of the river of grog that flows from the NTs small towns and regional centres because the government wouldn’t dare take grog out of the white man’s hand or take profits out of the white man’s hand.
The flaws and prejudices in the govts actions are so deep I don’t even know where to start.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Expect to see more boating accidents as people take to their tinnies so can have their green can tinnies.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
You’re welcome Bruce. And yes, the fact that they’re willing to pander to a relatively small but vocal group in NT recreational fishermen, indicates that much of the policies are about popularity. I honestly think Howard knows he’s on the way out and wants to be able to say ‘Well, at least I had a crack at something really worthwhile.’
Right Wamut, and the self-imposed restrictions work moderately well. Why wouldn’t the government actually talk to community organisations to learn what they’re doing that’s working, instead of insisting on trumping them the whole time? Oh wait, I understand. An election is due in (probably) November, and community consultation takes too long.
By the way, does anyone know if it’s as illegal to drink while operating a boat as it is while driving a car in the Territory?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I beleive that it is not.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
another crazy thing… does john howard think that no Aboriginal people in communities own boats?
isn’t this exemption then making it possible to anyone, black or white, to get in their boat and sink piss? which, here in Ngukurr, would actually give Aboriginal ppl more opportunity to drink than they have now!
August 9th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
maybe boat ownership and boat travel will now be tied to centrelink payments!
August 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I really did burst out laughing on reading that last bit, Gagu!
Exactly right though, there’s no way to make the laws differentiate those whom they want to restrict from drinking and the rest, that is, no way that is ethical or legal. We all know prohibition doesn’t work (in most cases; self-imposed alcohol restrictions appear to be working to a degree), so surely ethnically selective prohibition is destined to be a dismal failure, especially when there isn’t a neat one-to-one correlation between alcohol and ethnicity, far from it.
The only sure-fire way to combat alcohol abuse in my opinion, is to reduce the demand. By restricting supply (by prohibition), blackmarkets (grog-runners) take over, and they will always find ways around any prohibitive measures, such is their industry. The question then becomes how to reduce demand and why such large demand exists in the first place. Well, that’s a massive social issue, one that is easily thrown into the too-hard basket.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Addiction treatment services in communities might be helpful.
Of the $500 mill the Fed Govt is spending, there is a couple of million for outreach services.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Totally irrelevant to your post (sorry) but just spoke to Glen, and he says he might drop in on you on Friday. Just thought I’d let you know.