Temperance
The strength and influence of the temperance movement was greatest in the years prior to World War Two, but their legacy impacted well after this. The temperance movement continued in the 20th century to be made up of members of the non-Anglican Protestant churches (Lewis 1992, 13-4 and 49-59; Room 2010, 153). Temperance groups and societies structured themselves along state lines because their policy aims were to influence state based availability legislation. The aims of the movement by 1900 had largely moved away from local option. This had been implemented in nearly all States and had not proven to be the success that temperance advocates had hoped as very few towns or suburbs were dry and the greatest successes had been in stopping new hotels (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 171-2). Attention shifted towards the ultimate aim of achieving total prohibition in each State. The temperance movement was at its peak in the 1910s and 1920s and it was during this period that their focus was on six o’clock closing (implemented in four States) and state-wide prohibition (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 174; Lewis 1992, 61-5). The movement’s strength waned after the 1920s, and their capacity to influence alcohol control policy and policy debates steadily declined (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 178; Lewis 1992, 72-3). With their strength waning and the lack of success in achieving state-wide prohibition (not to mention the lack of success of Prohibition in the United States), the temperance movement began focusing on the enforcement and maintenance of existing laws (Lewis 1992, 73). The era when temperance actors were at their strongest delivered a number of stringent availability controls (six o’clock closing, licensing acts) and institutions (local option and prohibition referenda), and these were hard to dislodge despite changing attitudes towards alcohol (Room 2010, 156). Even with their reduced influence after World War Two, the temperance
movement were able to organise themselves to oppose deregulation of controls into the 1960s. For example, their campaigns at the 1947 referendum in NSW and 1956 referendum
in Victoria were influential in defeating proposals to remove six o’clock closing (Dillon 1985, 147-8). The structure, aims and strategies of the temperance movement were all shaped by the institutional environment in Australia. This confirmed the findings of historical institutionalists about how actors define their interests and then organise and develop strategies (Hall 1997, Immergut 1998, March and Olsen 1989).
Industry
The alcoholic beverages industry was active, but a long way from united. By the late 20th century, each beverage category had a national industry body and these producer groups all had a particular interest in the excise and taxation system. Their focus was at the national level where policy responsibility for excise rested. At the retail level, the industry was represented from 1839 by the LVA (from 1959 it was known as the Australian Hotels Association or AHA) (AHA 2012). The association was structured along federal lines, with branches in each State, as the major policy issues were state based liquor licensing acts and availability controls. Although in some states, the LVA was structured along local or regional lines prior to the mid-20th century (AHA 2012). Like temperance and consistent with the findings of historical institutionalists regarding the formation of actors and interest groups, the various parts of the industry also structured around the level of government that provided the greatest potential benefit or threat to their business interests.
The Australian Association of Brewers (AAB) was established in 1967 and, in 2007, also became the representative body for the brewers of New Zealand under the title of the Brewers Association of Australia and New Zealand. AAB was involved in debates around alcohol taxation and alcohol advertising, issues with national level policy responsibility. The organisation therefore had a secretariat based in Canberra (Brewers Association of Australia and New Zealand 2012). Calls for a representative body for brewers began soon after Federation, in particular to protect the interests of the industry from attack by temperance campaigners (Lewis 1992, 32). Their interests were represented by the LVA/AHA prior to the establishment of the AAB, but the division in interests between publicans and producers stimulated the establishment of a specific representative body. From its establishment, the most active involvement by the AAB was in relation to excise and the debate about potential changes to alcohol taxation. Along with the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, the AAB supported, in 1986, a shift to a volumetric based system of excise for all beverages
(Lewis 1992, 39). This became more urgent as wine began to gain significant market share from the 1970s and the tax treatment gave them significant advantages compared to beer and spirits. This demonstrated the divisions between different sectors of the alcoholic beverage industry.
The spirits sector was almost entirely focused on taxation, largely because spirits attracted the highest rates of excise. The sector was represented by a national body, the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia (DSICA). The members of DSICA were a small number of global brands that exported their products to Australia and some local distillers (Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia 2012). The sprits sector often held different views and positions on public policies, especially in the area of taxation, because they had always been subjected to the highest rate of excise per standard drink and been heavily linked to
intoxication. DSICA spent the latter part of the 20th century lobbying for reform of the excise arrangements towards a volumetric system. This proposal set the spirits sector against the domestic wine industry. However, in the early 21st century the sector found itself under pressure from the Rudd Government’s alcopops tax, which significantly increased the excise paid on ready to drink spirits. The sector strongly opposed the reforms and DSICA was a major voice in this debate, engaging with parliamentarians as the reform was initially defeated in the Senate. However, The Government was able to introduce the legislation a second time and it eventually passed and became law – despite the protests of the sector (Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia 2012).
The wine sector was represented by a range of associations, usually organised at the state level but increasingly concerned with national issues. In states like South Australia the wine industry received significant levels of state government support (Lewis 1992, 41 and 46). The wine sector took a different path and identified their product as part of agriculture, an industry strongly supported by governments (Room 2010, 161). In addition, wine portrayed itself as a drink of moderation and distanced from beer or spirits which were portrayed as drinks of intoxication (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 268). The wine industry was represented by the Winemakers Federation of Australia (WFA) from 1989; a body that brought together the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, the Australian Winemakers Forum, and the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia (Winemakers’ Federation of Australia 2012). Each State also had a wine industry body to represent the sector on state based issues. Later in the 20th century the wine sector began to more
aggressively differentiate itself from other parts of the industry. From the 1960s, they began to push at State level for single bottle take-away sales of wine in a range of outlets. This put the sector in direct conflict with the AHA who opposed this move as it would make inroads into hotel bottle shop sales (Lewis 1992, 80). Through the WFA, the sector strongly opposed volumetric taxation on wine and came into conflict with both the spirits and beer sectors (Lewis 1992, 87-8). This issue also caused a split in the wine industry as some smaller and premium producers supported taxing volume and not value. The WFA rejected this position and instead supported the status quo and the interests of their larger volume based members (Smith 2004, 142). The excise system established in 1901 set the wine sector apart by not taxing wine on volume (unlike spirits and beer). As a result, the wine sector took a different position to ensure their continued preferential position. This encouraged wine to be portrayed as a different type of alcoholic beverage, one based on agricultural production and
moderation. Wine was also initially (in the 19th century) an export product and not consumed domestically, resulting in less domestic taxation and temperance concern about the product, whereas beer and spirits were both consumed domestically (beer was produced domestically and the subject of excise and spirits were imported and subjected to customs duties).
The retail sector was arguably the strongest industry voice through much of the 20th century. Their representative association was the LVA/AHA, which represented the interests of licensed pubs and taverns and was organised along local and state lines – only later did it have any national presence (AHA 2012). Another sector with strength at State level was licensed clubs. Clubs NSW was established in 1926 and was soon followed by the other strong jurisdiction for the clubs sector, Queensland. They subsequently developed a national body to represent their interest, Clubs Australia (Clubs Australia 2012). A more recent representative association was the Australian Liquor Stores Association (ALSA). ALSA represented the interests of the packaged liquor sector not attached to hotels or taverns, including the two major supermarket chains (Australian Liquor Stores Association 2012). ALSA was established following changes to State liquor licensing laws that allowed a greater range of retailers to sell packaged liquor. All of these associations were actors in alcohol control policy debates, although the LVA/AHA had the longest history and greatest presence. The LVA was heavily involved in the fight against local option (through trade defence unions in many States), and each State helped out others during local option polls and prohibition referenda (Lewis 1992, 59-67 and 68). After being critics of strict control policies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the LVA/AHA became one of the greatest advocates for their
continuation. Lewis argued that this role as protectors of availability controls started from the 1960s and was led by the AHA (Lewis 1992, 80-94). This was because the barriers to entry (a legacy of local option) gave existing licensees a monopoly rent and therefore protected viability for existing licence holders (Lewis 1992, 73; Room 2010, 156 and 161). The AHA became a champion against deregulation of the sector and argued for controls to protect the public interest (Stockwell 1994, 186 and 299). Producers and non-hotel retail interests (such as supermarkets) had an interest in opening the market up through increased availability, thereby setting up conflict in the late 20th century (Room 2010, 160-2).
From the end of World War Two the industry was increasingly divided. Taxation divided the industry as each beverage sector developed its own specific agenda on this issue (Vandenberg et al 2008, 579-80). Lewis argued that the wine sector in particular differentiated itself from beer and especially spirits to oppose changes to the excise regime (Lewis 1992, 39-47). The wine sector also came into conflict with the AHA by pushing for greater availability (Lewis 1992, 80). The industry developed ways of uniting. For example, it came together to
establish Drinkwise in 2005, to conduct research and education activities. Although its critics argued that the board was dominated by industry and it only funded research into ineffective measures, instead of contentious areas like taxation (Miller and Kypri 2009, 324-5). In the late 20th century, major industry groups (AHA, ALSA, Brewers, Clubs Australia, DSICA, and WFA) also formed a body to represent their interests where common ground existed, known as the National Alcoholic Beverages Industries Council (NABIC). It was a forum for discussion and advocacy on a range of issues (Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia 2012). The industry was regarded by its opponents as all powerful and capable of capturing governments (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009). The industry was strong, both economically and politically, in certain parts of the country (Lewis 1992, 161). But it was difficult to identify clear examples of this strength equating to driving policy change, although they had success in retaining availability controls in conjunction with the temperance movement. Their real strength was when they collaborated in the “Presbyterian and Publican” coalition to maintain the status quo. The coalition was formed and shaped by Australian institutions, specifically by policy legacies that made it very difficult from the late 19th century to be granted a new liquor licence.
A new constituency of doctors, treatment specialists, counsellors and non-government organisations became actors after the growth in treatment facilities and the establishment of alcohol treatment as a profession (Lewis 1992, 144 and 182). The field of psychiatry became active with regard to alcohol issues from the 1960s (Lewis 1992, 137). Treatment and the establishment of facilities for identification and assistance for alcoholics were paramount for psychiatrists. Lewis argued that some doctors from the 1960s began to agitate for alcohol control policy to become a political issue (Lewis 1992, 182-3). In the 1980s, the Australian Medical Society on Alcohol and Drugs (AMSAD) was established. Addiction medicine was also formally recognised as a specialty in 2002 (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 12). The major professional organisations within the medical sector became alcohol policy reform advocates, including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal Australian College of Physicians (RACP). In the late 20th century, these organisations became active supporters of alcohol taxation reform to achieve public health outcomes. The RACP supported: a minimum price per standard drink, a volumetric system, and hypothecation of tax revenue for harm prevention and treatment (Skov 2009). The AMA also supported volumetric taxation as a good public health policy (VAADA 2010, 2). The rise of the disease model and public health movement increased the role of the medical profession as a policy actor.
Non-government organisations increasingly became alcohol control policy actors. The first alcoholism foundations were State based, starting in NSW in 1957, Victoria in 1959, and South Australia in 1963. By 1977, all States had foundations that provided treatment,
education and advocacy services (Lewis 1992, 134; Room 2010, 157). A national foundation started in 1967, the Australian Foundation for Alcohol and Drug Dependence (AFADD) (Lewis 1992, 134; Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 5). AFADD evolved into the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia with affiliate members at State level (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 5). Other related policy advocate organisations including the Australian Drug Foundation and the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association also established (Australian Drug Foundation 2012, VAADA 2012). Their development as policy actors reflected the focus on linking alcohol and other drugs in terms of treatment, advocacy and education. These actors tended to shift their focus over time away from direct treatment towards advocacy, education, research, and information provision. The national alcohol policy also helped to enshrine the role of these non-government organisations as policy actors (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 5-6). Another organisation specific to Western
Australia was the Alcohol Advisory Council of WA, which acted as a watchdog on the industry and lobbied for changes to State laws (Stockwell 1994, 165).
Alcohol Researchers
Prior to the 1980s there was limited Australian research into alcohol or alcohol control measures, and researchers were not active in alcohol debates. While alcoholism foundations and tertiary institutions were involved in research, it was argued that there was little funding provided through research agencies (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 8). However in 1987 the Research into Drug Abuse Advisory Committee and two new national research centres were established as a result of the NCADA (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 8). These research centres were the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at the University of New South Wales and the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University (NDS 2001, 44). Both centres were still in operation at the end of the period (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre 2012, National Drug Research Institute 2012). While alcohol was a focus for the research centres, they operated within the wider drug research sector. Public health and harm minimisation advocates viewed comprehensive research through independent and national research centres as important when advocating for changes to alcohol control consistent with their aims (Hawks 1999). One important piece of funded research was the NDRI’s National Alcohol Indicators Project which tracked the incidence of alcohol related harm and measured key indicators over time (NDS 2001, 48). Since the 1980s, a significant alcohol research program developed in Australia (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 8). The Drug and Alcohol Review journal was introduced as a forum for research into alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (Lewis 1992). Drug and Alcohol Review was the official journal of the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, an association for professionals and researchers in the area (Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs 2012). The alcohol and other drug research sector were generally based on medical, scientific and public health disciplines.
The Commonwealth Government oversaw the creation of a number of alcohol related research and advisory bodies. One early organisation funded by the Commonwealth to provide advice on public health issues, which would eventually include alcohol, was the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The NHMRC was established in 1926 following the recommendations of a Royal Commission (National Health and Medical
Research Council 2012). The NHMRC became responsible for production of a guide which included safe daily and weekly consumption levels that alerted drinkers about levels of consumption that minimised the risk of harm (NDS 2001, 19; Hawks 1999, 802; Stewart 1997, 397). In 1998, the Commonwealth established the Australian National Council on Drugs as the key advisory body on drugs and alcohol; and the National Expert Advisory Committee on Alcohol to provide advice on alcohol related strategies (Australian National Council on Drugs 2012, NDS 2001, 19). In 2001, the Commonwealth Government provided a $115 million grant and established the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (Webster et al in Moore and Dietze 2008, 5). By the end of the period there were numerous Commonwealth funded organisations to provide advice and coordinate research.
Other Bodies
The labour and union movement in Australia formed a significant actor group with a strong association with the Australian Labor Party. The ALP was formed during the economic malaise of the 1890s as the political wing of the union movement (Woodward in Woodward et al 1985, 158-9). Some in the labour movement in the early 20th century were supportive of temperance and keeping liquor from the working classes. However, others had little affinity with the temperance cause and disagreed both that liquor was the main source of poverty and that the working classes were particularly intemperate (Phillips 1980, 254). The labour movement did express support for Prohibition; the NSW Labor Council supported it prior to 1920, when moves by the Liquor Trades Union to remove their affiliation prompted a shift away from this position (Lewis 1992, 65). The labour movement (Trades Hall Council) also supported the Gothenburg system of state management of the liquor trade in Victoria during the first decade of the 20th century (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 159). However, the
influence of the labour movement on alcohol control policy in Australia is best viewed through an assessment of their political wing, the ALP. In this respect their influence was relatively muted, with non-Labor parties more likely to introduce temperance inspired legislation.
In 1900 the major actors and ideas in Australian alcohol control had been in place for around half a century. The discourse was influenced by temperance thinking of the Protestant non- conformist churches. Alcohol was considered a wicked and sinful product sold by an immoral industry. In 1900 temperance groups had significant memberships and capacity to involve themselves in debates. They worked tirelessly with a moral fervour and the industry had also developed strong groups to defend itself. One year later, there was a major shift in