The Prime Minister in a speech in Brisbane at the Lions –Carlton AFL Dinner raised the issue of alcohol related violence and homelessness. He said:

The first is this: 70 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds have bee exposed to alcohol-related violence - that's 70 percent.
The second is this: three out of four assaults in our country are alcohol-related.
The third one is this: three out of four street offences in our country are alcohol-related as well.
This should all give us national pause for thought, and whether you're from Melbourne, whether you're from Sydney, whether you're from Brisbane like I am, or the other metropolitan centres of our country, there is a real problem out there which we've got to deal with, and it's alcohol-fuelled violence.

Is it time we took another approach to alcohol drugs and homelessness in our communities

Here in Australia we have a Paramount National Parliament, and eight lesser Parliaments all churning out legislation. After 109 years of this industrious work on our behalf, we have an estimated 60,000 pieces of legislation, much of which is concerned with liquor. It is a popular belief that the Commonwealth is not concerned with liquor and alcohol, such matters being the responsibility of State Governments, but if this is so, then the system is failing us and we should seek to know why.

The National Parliament has 39 specific powers granted to it, all set out in S 51 and a further few powers scattered through other sections. It has some powers prohibited to it, and for example it may not legislate for a State religion, or require any religious test for public office. One of the powers it does have is the exclusive power over customs, excise and bounties. The excise power over alcohol, is coexistent with State Powers over licencing, and this may cause a problem. Since States cannot directly tax alcohol, are they indirectly taxing it through licence fees to sell it, and by extending trading hours to pubs and clubs, actually encouraging the excessive consumption of alcohol;, and the associated gambling that goes with it.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has the power to take over and maintain the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, granted to it by S 51 Placitum vi, and if one of those forces is a force maintained by the States currently, and used to control alcohol related violence, derived directly from a product taxed exclusively by the Commonwealth, could not the control of those forces be caught also by S 51 Placitum xxxix.

Would not protection of the general public from the effects of a product subject to excise duties, be incidental to the power to levy excise. Since both alcohol related violence and homelessness can to some extent be related back to licenced premises, poker machines , and the sale of alcohol, is it not a Commonwealth responsibility? Was Rudd right to want discussion

G'Day All,
Good article Peter but there is one statistic that goes all the way back to 1987 that is when the NSW Police released the statistic that 87.3% of ALL violent crime is directly or indirectly associated with alcohol.
1987 this was released so it has taken the country 22 years to get to this recognition.
In that time the Governments of this country both State & Federal have ran advertisements left right & centre condemning Cannabis (I am not advocating the use of any drug) with all its demons.
WHEN DO THEY STOP or SLOW THE USE OF ALCOHOL?
Is this like tobacco no matter how bad it is as long as it reaps in taxes then lets leave it alone.
Thanks for your time have a great day from Dave

Before Federation the sale and consumption of alcohol and related products were governed by the common law. The common law allowed anyone to start a shanty, sell alcohol and food to travelers, and generally go about their business subject only to the laws of tort ( common law). We were to some extent in the business of regulation from cradle to grave, having limited self government from about 1852, but the limitation on travel imposed by steamers, and the horse and buggy, meant that the time spent legislating was not enormous, and that was the situation on the 9th July 1900. On that date we got a Commonwealth.

We still had State law societies. Somehow the idea was formed that legislation not the common law, was the way to go, and willy nilly legislation was made controlling liquor, and the punishments to be meted out for breaches of the peace, and it was made by State after State. Today we have conflicting legislation in abundance. To make itself completely immune from the Commonwealth, each State has legislated to make the Crown, they think they have, under legislation immune from a lawsuit.

The common law only allows one Crown. That Crown is the Commonwealth Crown. The case of the King v Kidman (1915) makes that abundantly clear, so it must follow that if a person is injured by a breach of the peace, which abuse of liquor is, and the Crown has a duty to maintain the Queen’s peace, as stated in Kidman, then the creation of an alternative legislative regime by States to abolish the common law, is not valid.

Until 1970 in New South Wales the common law ruled. It was abolished to allow a gangster to thrive. It is much easier to abide legislation than to have to exercise a duty of care. In 1996, the High Court established the “Kable Principle”, but what is it? Justice Gaudron said that it meant, “the States are not free to legislate as they please”. Legislating to replace the common law with Statute Law could just be the problem

Yesterday a new Federal Police Commissioner was sworn in. His name is Tony Negus and he is a professional Policeman, who started his career as an on the beat officer in Canberra. After the Governor General he would have to be the most powerful individual in Australia. If he is aware of his powers and obligations which I am sure he is, in view of the fact that they are set out in black and white in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, then Australia is headed for a period of unbridled prosperity, and a significant shift in the way resources are allocated to control alcohol related violence and homelessness.

S 8 of his Act says his duty is to provide police services in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth. His position is exactly the same as the position of Governor General. Her duty is to exercise the executive power of the Commonwealth as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution and of the laws of the Commonwealth. If he reads the case of the King v Kidman, published on the internet here, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1915/58.html?query=Kidman he will understand that he has a duty to prosecute on indictment all breaches of the Constitution.

This will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, because the homeless problem and abuse of alcohol, are very closely linked, and the Constitution, on authority of Kidman, is the very essence of the common law. Parliament is currently the playground of about forty five lawyers in the lower house. These forty five include some very prominent players, Gillard, Roxon, Wong, Garrett, Turnbull, Abbott, and many more. He will come under enormous pressure from them, not to do his appointed job.

Alcohol abuse is rife because the common law has been replaced by Statute Law, promulgated by lawyers for lawyers. In his welcome speech, Kevin Rudd referred back to Robert Peel, the first to establish Police as such. Before that everyone was a policeman. If Commissioner Negus understands that the common law can supply every solution, we will be blessed

How, you may well ask is Tony Negus going to stop alcohol abuse? He can do it simply by enforcing S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). S 43 says, any person who attempts in any way not specially defined in this Act to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be guilty of an offence.

Anyone who suffers violence because someone had had too much to drink, has, provided he or she can identify the supplier of that drug, a cause of action against that supplier, and should be able to rely upon a member of the Australian Federal Police, to assist them in pursuing that remedy. In the Prime Ministers speech in Brisbane, he refers to some shocking figures.

I spent some time with the Melbourne City Mission, and this is a group which looks after anywhere between 200 and 300 requests every week to find somewhere to stay for Melbourne's young homeless. 200-300 requests a week, trying to find somewhere for people to stay for a whole range of different reasons.

Each one of these individuals has a cause of action, and by the enforcement of s 43, the wrong done to them must have a remedy. Currently all Judges and Magistrates in Australia are into protecting the perpetrators of this social plague. They are getting very nervous, and so they should be. Not one of them is complying with the Constitution, or convening an Australian court.

Tony has all the tools he needs, and the first person called when alcohol related injuries are admitted to hospital should be an Australian Federal Police officer or auxiliary. Negus is entitled to appoint auxiliaries under s 40E of his Act. The auxiliary should help the victim prepare and file a damages claim against the publican who supplied the alcohol. Statute wont stop alcohol abuse but the common law will. If the publican tries to avoid jury trial by members of the general public, he will be offending S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and pay dearly