Impacts of new grog & porn policies on indigenous Australians

As I noted in an earlier post the Federal Government will ban alcohol and pornography in aboriginal towns and communities in the Northern Territory and deliver half of government welfare payments to Aboriginal parents in the form of vouchers to make sure the money is spent on food and essential items. Government payments will be made contingent on children attending school. Children under the age of 16 will have compulsory medical examinations and extra police, and perhaps even the military, will be seconded to enforce these regulations. The government will also compulsorily acquire – with fair compensation - land granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act for a period of 5 years, while these problems are dealt with. A proposal to introduce similar quarantining regulations on welfare payments to non-indigenous families with children considered at risk will be put to cabinet shortly.

The primary intent of these measures is to address the problem of child sex abuse.

I support these policies though I caution they will not work perfectly. A major issue is the extent of financial support given to them. In my view there are three primary objectives of such policies.

(i) By banning alcohol and pornography on aboriginal land a geographical distance is established between aboriginals who consume these products and those who don’t. Aboriginals can continue to consume grog and porn but they will need to do so at a distance from non-users. Aboriginals have high levels of alcohol abstinence – those who do drink often do so to considerable excess. My guess is this move will prove popular within most aboriginal communities. Those who criticize the policy on the grounds that aboriginals will continue to consume grog in non-aboriginal towns miss this point.
(ii) The bans on alcohol and pornography increase the user costs of such goods by making them less convenient to consume. This should reduce demand for them. There will also be less casual buying of alcohol based on ‘availability’. In urban centers it is known that levels of drinking and problem drinking are related to outlet numbers.
(iii) The decision to provide half of the value of social security payments as vouchers that cannot be used to purchase grog reduces the income available for purchasing alcohol or porn. Straightforward economic theory suggests that because alcohol is a ‘normal good’ – its demand depends positively on income – that this should substantially cut alcohol consumption.

Part of the hysteria of the ‘left’ blogs on these measures is based on the idea that alcohol consumption and child sexual abuse reflects social disadvantage. That is true but a socially disadvantaged aboriginal who does not have easy access to alcohol is better-off than one who does. Alcohol is an independent cause of aboriginal (and non-aboriginal) problems associated with social disadvantage.

Measures (i)-(iii) will have significant effects in reducing levels of drinking and the consumption of pornography. This is an important end in itself. But doing this will improve aboriginal health as well as reducing violence towards women and children.

My research into addiction suggests than to advantages (i)-(iii) one might add.

(iv) The policies cited will improve the welfare of heavy drinking aboriginals. People who drink vast amounts of alcohol until they are absolutely drunk on a regular basis are not rational consumers whose preferences need to be respected for reasons of ‘non-paternalism’. Those with an alcohol dependency and those who drink for ‘cue-related’ reasons may be better-off with policies that restrict their freedom.

The libertarian ideologues will froth at the mouth with this type of suggestion but in the drug and alcohol field this view is unexceptional. It makes very little sense to be obsessed with the issue of ‘free will’ in relation to people with a chemical dependency to ethyl alcohol or any other drug.

The image of young kids cowering in fear from adult sexual predators is one that, as a father, worries me. The thought too of women being bashed by drunken male partners is also one that makes me want to tell the devout libertarian paternalists to take their obsession with ‘freedom of choice’ and shove it.

Finally, giving kids medical examinations to test for sexual molestation in an environment where it is not uncommon is simple sense. It increases the chance that those carrying out these unspeakable acts will be detected and reduces their incentives to commit these acts.

Little Children are Sacred. This is true. Black and white kids are the hope of the world. Young kids are not racist, they have no cultural hang-ups and they offer the prospects for a better future. Aboriginal Australians have often received shocking, murderous treatment from the time of white settlement. They have lived in Australia for over 40,000 years and are one of the oldest cultures on earth. But that they have suffered horribly is no reason not to take action to deal with the grog and child-abuse problems that now beset them. We should not allow our own guilt to stand in the way of addressing this terrible problem that wrecks lives and destroys an ancient culture. Current policies (free money, access to booze) have failed miserably.

As Noel Pearson said:

‘We are dealing with children of the tenderest age who have been exposed to the
most terrible abuse…what matters more the constitutional niceties, or the care
and protection of young children.’

These policies are not going to work neatly. Improvements should be suggested and should be listened to. But the general thrust of the policies should be given bipartisan support. They should be given a chance. More than that, state governments should be encouraged to join in.