Alcohol policy and harm reduction in Australia

Loxley, Wendy; Gray, Dennis; Wilkinson, Celia; Chikritzhs, Tanya; Midford, Richard; Moore, David

doi:10.1080/09595230500404137

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This situation is not unique to New Zealand. The National Competition Policy introduced by the federal government in Australia has similarly hamstrung communities' attempts to restrict the availability of alcohol 28,29. If alcohol availability and promotion are to be addressed effectively by local government, it is critical that central government devolves the powers along with the responsibility for addressing alcohol-related harm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local government alcohol policy development: case studies in three New Zealand communities

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsLocal alcohol policies can be effective in reducing alcohol-related harm. The aim of this study was to examine local government responses to alcohol-related problems and identify factors influencing their development and adoption of alcohol policy.Designsettings and participantsCase studies were used to examine local government responses to alcohol problems in three New Zealand communities: a rural town, a provincial city and a metropolitan city. Newspaper reports, local government documents and key informant interviews were used to collect data which were analysed using two conceptual frameworks: Kingdon's Streams model and the Stakeholder model of policy development.MeasurementsKey informant narratives were categorized according to the concepts of the Streams and Stakeholder models.FindingsKingdon's theoretical concepts associated with increased likelihood of policy change seemed to apply in the rural and metropolitan communities. The political environment in the provincial city, however, was not favourable to the adoption of alcohol restrictions. The Stakeholder model highlighted differences between the communities in terms of power over agenda-setting and conflict between politicians and bureaucrats over policy solutions to alcohol-related harm. These differences were reflected in the ratio of policies considered versus adopted in each location. Decisions on local alcohol policies lie ultimately with local politicians, although the policies that can be adopted by local government are restricted by central government legislation.ConclusionsThe adoption of policies and strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm may be better facilitated by an agenda-setting process where no ‘gate-keepers’ determine what is included into the agenda, and community mobilization efforts to create competitive local government elections around alcohol issues. Policy adoption would also be facilitated by more enabling central government legislation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local government alcohol policy development: case studies in three New Zealand communities

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Undoubtedly this will fall to individual passionate coordinators trying to convince senior colleagues and local councillors that alcohol is an important issue that needs urgent action. In Australia in the lead up to the previous national alcohol strategy in 2005, it was recognized that in the field of alcohol policy what is not needed is more understanding of what works but the ability to make it work (emphasis added) (Loxley et al, 2005). Unfortunately this Strategy does not outline the 'how' and local areas will need a lot of support to achieve the mammoth task before them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The Government's Alcohol Strategy: A view from the both ends of the world

Ward

2012

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is considerable evidence that the effectiveness of strategies that aim to restrict the sale and supply of alcohol, such as responsible beverage service programs, liquor accords, restrictions on the access to alcohol by young people, and community prevention initiatives, are contingent upon the presence of a strong and reliable enforcement component (Loxley et al, 2005;National Drug Research Institute, 2007). Enforcement is also often, but not always, informed by liquor licensing requirements that make it mandatory for events and venues to report incidents of violence to police.…”

Section: Regulatory Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Alcohol and Drugs in Event and Venue Settings: The Australian Case

Harris¹,

Edwards²,

Homel³

2014

Event Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

has resulted from the rising number of incidents of individual harm, violence, and community disruption that have occurred in and around these settings. This situation, in turn, has created a need to identify and better understand those factors with the potential to produce such negative outcomes, along with the practices that can be employed to minimize them. This study has been conducted in response to this need. This article begins by providing an overview of literature germane to: alcohol and drug use in public IntroductionPressure from the broader community on key stakeholders (i.e., events and licensed venues, government at all levels, police, alcohol licensing bodies, crowd controller/security firms, and industry associations aligned to the area) involved in responding to the challenge of managing alcohol and drug use in event and venue settings has increased markedly in Australia in recent years. This increased pressure One of the major challenges of operating events and venues is that of managing attendee/patron alcohol and drug use. In the Australian context, a rising number of alcohol and drug-related incidents in and around these settings have resulted in a renewed focus on how these negative outcomes can be more effectively controlled. In order to aid those charged with the task of addressing this matterevent and venue managers, police, security firms, alcohol and drug regulatory bodies, and governments at all levels-this article seeks to identify those variables with the potential to impact this management issue. Further, it aims to provide the previously identified stakeholders with a deeper appreciation of the raft of practices that are currently in use, and potentially available to them, as they build responses to this challenge at the individual state, precinct, venue, or event level. The research approach used involved an extensive literature review and a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders across three states-New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia.

show abstract

Alcohol policy and harm reduction in Australia

Cited by 26 publications

References 43 publications

Local government alcohol policy development: case studies in three New Zealand communities

Local government alcohol policy development: case studies in three New Zealand communities

The Government's Alcohol Strategy: A view from the both ends of the world

Managing Alcohol and Drugs in Event and Venue Settings: The Australian Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About