Problem drinkers to be banned again, bottlo cops to stay

p2160-Natasha-Fyles

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Sir – From September 1 more than 1000 problem drinkers will be automatically included on the Banned Drinker Register and banned from buying takeaway alcohol.

 

That figure is expected to grow by 500 a month, tapering off as the bulk of problem drinkers are identified.

 

We know that 2500 problem drinkers were given access to alcohol when the former CLP government scrapped the BDR in 2012.

 

What resulted was an increase in alcohol related crime, violence and anti-social behaviour.

 

It was a Territory Labor Government that first introduced the BDR in 2011 and we have been working efficiently across agencies to bring it back and improve the model.

 

Problem drinkers will be banned if they:–

 

• Have any combination of three protective custodies or alcohol infringement notices in 2 years.

 

• Have two low range drink driving offences or a single mid-range or high-range drink driving offence.

 

• Are the defendant on an alcohol-related domestic violence order.

 

• Have an alcohol prohibition condition on a court order (including child protection orders), bail or parole order.

 

• Are placed on the BDR by a decision of the BDR Registrar after being referred by an authorised person such as a doctor, nurse or child protection worker, or a family member or carer.

 

• Self-refer for any reason.

 

An initial BDR ban is three months long. Breaches will see the ban increase to six months and then a year.

 

For people with bans of six months or more, an assessment will be offered and recommendations made by a specialist clinician about suitable therapeutic supports. Completing the recommended rehabilitation could see the ban reduced.

 

“Where someone believes they have been placed on the BDR in error, decisions made by police and by the BDR Registrar will be reviewable by the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

 

The $17.2m for the BDR has been announced as part of Budget 2017 – with funding for the Department of Health and Department of Attorney-General and Justice.

 

Alcohol Mandatory Treatment will cease as the new BDR comes into full operation.

 

Temporary Beat Locations, also known as TBLs and POSIs will continue as a resource for police even after the BDR has been reinstated.

 

Natasha Fyles (pictured)

Health Minister

 

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Ted Egan
    Posted April 11, 2017 at 10:28 am

    I am informed that one of the major benefits accruing from the BDR is the opportunity for non-drinkers and others subject to “humbugging” to have their names placed voluntarily on the register.
    They cannot then be pressured by the real problem drinkers.
    I suggest the government mount a campaign to encourage such processes.
    The reason why alcohol is such a problem for First Australians is that they are subject to age-old traditions of kinship.
    This was an admirable system in olden times, but needs modification to cater for the introduced complexities of western society.

    View Comment
  2. Greg Latency
    Posted April 11, 2017 at 9:25 am

    “Problem drinkers” have always had access to alcohol via their proxies – nothing changed with the CLP and nothing will change on September 1, except the route the alcohol takes and the way the stats will be reported to show success.
    Underhandedly, they are trying to tell us they are reintroducing scanning of our licences, and only selectively in problem areas because Darwin or more specifically above the Berrimah line, does not have a drinking problem. They tell us of course that the information isn’t stored, but nobody with any sense would believe that 🙂
    Thank you Gunner and the Labor Politburo – you’ve just nanny-stated us back 10 years.

    View Comment
  3. Richard Davies
    Posted April 11, 2017 at 5:41 am

    Great News. I could never understand why the Mills Government cut it out.
    It must have been a huge waste of taxpayers dollars, to say nothing of the social costs caused by excessive drinking, health and well being of those involved.

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*