Anti-drunk laws noticeably hypocritical

In May, the New South Wales Labor government introduced a new law lowering the threshold for public intoxication before which a person could be “moved on” and potentially arrested by police. The threshold was changed from “seriously drunk” to merely “noticeably drunk”.

I was surprised by the law change. I wracked my brains for a list of noticeably sober institutions. The NSW Labor Party didn’t make it.

It occurred to me that the NSW government had not thought through the full consequences of a “noticeably drunk” law. Applied consistently, and across the board, parliament would regularly be emptied by the constabulary. Journalists and student backpackers would be rounded up. Footballers would face mass arrest. The majority of people out on any major street in any major city on a Friday night would be legitimate targets for our hard working police force.

For better or worse, Australia is very often noticeably drunk.

A NSW resident, I can personally attest to the fact that, months after its passing, it is not being applied across the board.

Since the passing of these laws, I have, on more than one occasion, ignored the federal government’s warning that four standard drinks or more is dangerous-level binge drinking. If subpeoned to testify in a court of law as to whether I was noticeably drunk, my friends would be forced to admit: “Yes, his ramblings on the Latin American revolution and the political economy of Lily Allen’s new album were noticeably increasing in volume and incoherence.”

On such nights, I made my way through public streets to the train station with a no-doubt noticeable unsteadiness. This is yet to cause me any trouble with the constabulary.

So, if it isn’t being applied consistently, who is the law targeted at?

Thalia Anthony, a law lecturer at Sydney University, wrote in the May 12 Sydney Morning Herald: “New laws giving police the power to move on people who are slurring their words will cement a long tradition of criminalising Aboriginal people for public order offences ...

“History shows indigenous people are most likely to be caught by this type of legislation and incarcerated for the mere appearance of intoxication.”

Anthony said: “The discriminatory policing of drunk Aboriginal people is blatant. Indigenous people are 42 times more likely than other Australians to be in custody for public drunkenness ...

“Through its move-on slurring powers, the NSW Government has provided another back-door means for incarcerating drunk Aboriginal people ... It is another sad attempt to criminalise indigenous behaviour rather than criminal activity.”

The disgraceful fact is that Indigenous Australians are imprisoned at a rate higher than Blacks under apartheid in South Africa, a July 9 National Indigenous Times editorial pointed out.

The law occurs in a broader context. The federal government has embarked on a war on “binge drinking”.

NSW Premier Nathan Rees has jumped on the bandwagon. An October 21, 2008 SMH article said that the night of a by-election thrashing for his government, Rees “could not believe what he saw on Sydney's streets when he headed home late on Saturday night after his Labor Government's thumping at the ballot box”.

Rees said the “exhibitions of public drunkenness that I saw were mind-boggling”.

Noting Rees is “known to enjoy a drink”, the SMH said “not everyone is convinced by his sudden discovery of alcohol-related violence”.

It seems some cynics suggested this was a populist ploy to distract attention from a disastrous electoral result flowing from a decade of Labor government policies that have combined corrupt incompetence with anti-people neoliberalism.

We should be suspicious of any government-initiated moral panic. If the federal and state governments were really concerned with our health, they would fix our public health system. This is about shifting responsibility for social problems with systemic roots onto ordinary people.

The global financial crisis is already impacting on Rudd’s beloved “working families” - with talk of a “jobless recovery”. Corporate profits may bounce back, but the rest of us will suffer rising unemployment - and accompanying pressure to accept worsening wages and conditions. Greater economic hardship will inevitably be accompanied by greater levels of alcohol abuse and associated social problems.

Rather than pushing for policies to resolve such problems at the expense of the big end of town, we can expect Rudd to give us a bout of tut-tutting, head shaking and pious reminders that four or more standard drinks a night is dangerous to our health.

It may even be the occasion for fresh laws giving police more powers to harass the increasing numbers who lose out from a system that bails out corporate criminals, while leaving the rest of us to bear the brunt of a corporate-caused crisis.