Redfern Legal Centre submission on AFZ's
Ms Clover Moore
MP
Lord Mayor,
City of Sydney
GPO Box 1591
Sydney 2001 26
April 2006
Dear Ms
Moore,
Re: Proposal to establish alcohol
free zones
Thank you
for giving us the opportunity to comment on the alcohol free zone proposal.
Local residents are understandably and genuinely concerned about the anti
social behaviour that accompanies street drinking. However, we do not believe
that this proposal will adequately address this problem. We make the following
observations:
1. The proposal does not address
fears arising from illegal drug use and supply. The recent increase in the use of
certain kinds of illegal substance which cause highly aggressive and irrational
behaviour is more likely to lead to the kind of dangerously anti-social
behaviour local residents understandably wish to be protected from.
Alcohol-free zones will remove the least
dangerous but most visible source of fear and harm but unnecessarily divert
resources and attention from more
serious problems.
2. It would not deter alcohol users from drinking in the area.
Street
drinkers are not going to cease consumption of alcohol as a result of the
establishment of alcohol-free zones. If the aim is to achieve this outcome then
properly resourced and culturally appropriate detoxification and rehabilitation
facilities should be provided. The overt
prohibition approach is likely only to have the effect of causing drinkers to hide in less conspicuous
spaces such as stairwells, lift wells, car parks or alleys. This can in fact be
more intimidating to passers-by as they cannot anticipate where drinkers are
hidden and thus are unable to avoid them.
It may also serve merely to relocate the problem to nearby streets. Unless all public places are dealt with in the same way this strategy would appear to be discriminatory. Some local residents receive the ‘benefit’ of an alcohol free zone on their street while others do not.
3. It would impede access to support services
Street
drinkers are often in poor health and need access to emergency and community
services. If they are less visible as a result of being prohibited from using public places
there is a risk that ambulances, transport services such as Missionbeat,
temporary shelter and food services will
not be able to contact them. The result will be more ill, more neglected and
more dependent people to care for, as well as the public health risks caused by
the spread of untreated diseases.
4. It criminalizes a passive state rather than an active behaviour
The problem
is not alcohol itself but anti-social behaviour. Some people will be drinking
within the prohibition zone but not displaying anti-social behaviour, for
example having a beer at a barbecue in an open area. It is likely that police
attention will not be drawn to such an activity though it is technically
identical to the actions of a habitual drinker clutching a bottle in a brown
paper bag.
It is
likely therefore that the rule will be applied selectively based on
unacknowledged and untestable criterion about the level of harm or threat to
the amenity of the area. The history of policing using ill-defined discretions
tends to show that even with no overt hostile intent the risk of discriminatory
application is high. There is especially
high risk in relation to Aboriginal people and for people with mental
illness or intellectual disability.
5. It distracts the community from finding a real solution
Residents
are justifiably concerned about the amenity of their neighbourhood and have the
right to live in safe and friendly environments. However the establishment of
alcohol-free zones is likely to have the sole effect of increasing the rate of
negative interactions between street drinkers and police with no appreciable
increase in the pleasantness of the surrounding area.
Instead of
a law and order focus, a genuine effort to address the issues would start with
a commitment to provide appropriate services to assist street drinkers to
improve their lifestyles. Secure housing, medical care, detoxification and
rehabilitation services are sadly lacking. Services addressing the needs of
those who are also mentally ill and/or have an illicit drug addiction are also
neglected.
That is not
to suggest that police should avoid intervention in response to anti-social
behaviour. Properly resourced policing is essential to the amenity of the
neighbourhood and is a service to which local residents should expect to be
entitled. However in this instance a law and order response is unlikely to be
effective.
Yours sincerely,
REDFERN
LEGAL CENTRE
Helen Campbell,
Executive
Officer