This blog is in reference to an article posted on 9 September online titled “Operation Unite to tackle Alcohol-related violence” (ABC News, 2010). The article referred to a nationwide initiative by Police across Australia to crackdown on drunken violence and anti-social behaviour during the weekend. The initiative was said to be targeting alcohol-related violence with a high profile of police expected to be out in full force to carry out measures which would include conducting random breath tests, dog squads and targeting binge drinking in public places. The aim of Operation Unite was to send a strong message to the community and to people that are offending in relation to alcohol-related crime, that this type of behaviour would not be tolerated.
While I dare say this action was moderately successful in assisting to contain alcohol-related crime in the areas targeted, I question the logic to stretch all ready overstretched Police resources in an attempt to quench the flow of alcohol-related crime within a specific time frame of “over the weekend”. The issue of alcohol-related crime is not a quick fix issue that is easily dealt with over a weekend and while I agree it was great to see some action being taken, the action taken was not of a proactive nature, but more of a reactionary stance. The Police within the context of this initiative were reacting to the growing and ever present problem of alcohol fuelled and related crimes as opposed to taking proactive action and setting up and supporting initiatives which could target the supply rather than the consumption of alcohol, that when consumed enables consumers to get to the stage where they participate in alcohol-related crimes.
Random breath tests, targeting binge drinking in public places and the presence of dog squads are all containment measures. These measures were judged to have been successful by the Police and those responsible in the implementation of this initiative (7 News, 12/09/10), but I would be interested to know just how many of the Offenders that were breath tested, arrested or warned as part of Operation Unite are now able to honestly say that they have learnt their lesson and will not drink and offend in the same way again … that is assuming of course that they have some recollection of the events that led to their arrest, warning or containment. It is with this thought in mind that I suggest the aim should be initiatives that attempt to change the behaviours of drinkers before alcohol induced behaviours result in alcohol related crimes, rather than the containment of such behaviours.
Some could say it has been tried and failed; the Alcopops tax reform introduced during the tenure of the Rudd Government is an example of one such initiative. The aim of this reform was to increase the price of alcopops to make them less attractive to the consumer by hitting the consumers of these drinks where it hurts … in the purse. While the aim of this initiative was proactive, the introduction of this tax resulted in a move away from the purchasing of alcopops by the consumer but only to be replaced by an increase in sales of cheaper alcohol being beer and wine and spirits. While not quite the desired result that the tax was introduced for, it is interesting to note that the increase in price of the alcopops and the subsequent decline in sales, indicates a willingness of consumers to change their drinking preferences in relation to the prices of alcohol.
If an increase in the price of alcohol can result in a change of drinking preferences, imagine what the adoption of alcohol reforms, such as a volumetric tax as suggested in the Henry tax review earlier this year, could achieve. A volumetric tax is based on the idea of taxing alcohol in relation to the alcohol content with prices reflecting the volume of alcohol in the drink This is best described as higher volume alcohol being higher in price than lower volume alcohol. If this tax was to have the same effect as the alcopops tax, could this lead to yet another change in drinking preferences of the consumer; this time away from pricier higher volume alcohol and towards cheaper lower volume alcohol? Could this tax in conjunction with initiatives such as Operation Unite encourage a change in behaviour and steer us in the right direction for future alcohol tax reforms and fewer numbers of alcohol related incidences of crime?
I now refer back to the original article from the ABC website within which the following was said: ‘It is very important that we send a strong message to the community and to people that are offending in relation to alcohol-related crime that we just won't tolerate this type of behaviour.’ I find it frustrating (to say the least) to note that although the Government has already implemented recommendations from the same Henry tax review in regards to Tobacco products they are yet to implement any of the alcohol tax reforms suggested in the same review. Do they truly believe that short-term periodic initiatives such as Operation Unite are the solution to curbing the ever-growing problem of alcohol related crime? I leave you to decide what kind of strong message the Government is sending with its apparent lack of willingness to introduce the suggested volumetric tax and also ask the question, can we as a society continue to tolerate this type of inactivity?
References
