While Woolworths reaps the rewards, the Northern Territory community will be left to clean up the mess

In 2016, Woolworths commenced a five-year legal battle to open a Dan Murphy's store in Darwin, Northern Territory (NT). In 2019, the Northern Territory (NT) Liquor Commission rejected Woolworths’ application for the store on the basis of clear increased risk of alcohol harm in the local area, noting the “most unfortunate” lack of community consultation in the planning process.1 Following further legal proceedings, in November 2020, the NT Government announced a sudden change to legislation to allow the bypassing of the independent Liquor Commission process.2 In response to community outcry over the proximity of the proposed Bagot Road site to dry Aboriginal communities, Woolworths proposed an alternative location3 – approximately 1 km away. Woolworths already profit greatly from their existing 16 BWS outlets in the NT, and do not need to chase further profit at the expense of some of the most disadvantaged communities in Darwin. Now, it is up to Woolworths to decide whether they will act as good corporate citizens and put the health and wellbeing of the community ahead of even greater profits. Here, we outline four major reasons why Woolworths should not proceed with the Dan Murphy's store. The NT has the highest per capita rates of alcohol use in Australia4 and accordingly, the highest rates of deaths and hospitalisations attributable to alcohol. Twenty-four per cent of drinkers in the NT use alcohol at a level that puts them at risk of long-term harm.4 Alcohol attributable deaths occur in the NT at 3.5 times the national rate5; for non-Indigenous people, the alcohol-attributable death rate is twice that of the national rate and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people it is 9-10 times higher.5 The most recent and highest quality available evidence on the economic and social cost of alcohol in the NT showed that in 2015/16, the total social cost was $1.386 billion, including health costs of $100 million; alcohol-related road crash costs of $58 million; quantifiable costs of crime of $273 million; child protection costs of $171 million; costs of premature death of $653 million; cost of permanent impairment from road crash injuries of $17 million and intangible costs of crime (pain and suffering, reduced perceived safety) of $16 million.6 In 2017, an independent review of alcohol policies and legislation in the NT was released, which included 220 recommendations. In response, the NT Government re-introduced the Banned Drinker Register, established the Minimum Unit Price (MUP) and a suite of other policies and programs in the Alcohol Harm Minimisation Action Plan 2018-2019.7 The effects of these policy reforms are under evaluation at present. The 12-month evaluation of the MUP found significant declines across the NT in alcohol-related assaults, ambulance attendances, emergency department attendances, alcohol-related road traffic crashes, sobering up shelter admissions and child protection notifications protection orders and out-of-home care cases.8 Preliminary analyses of intensive care admissions showing promising findings in Central Australia.9 However, alcohol-related harms are still high and as stated by Chikritzhs et al “commercial pressures are already undermining progress, reducing transparency and pushing back the pendulum in favour of greater [alcohol] access”; they further note that this plays out in measurable terms of health and lives lost.10 The proposed Dan Murphy's store has the potential to increase alcohol harm in the broader Darwin and Palmerston areas, given that many people commute between the two areas for work and study. This means that a large population will be exposed to increased alcohol availability and potentially sold at a cheaper price. There is high-quality evidence showing increases in alcohol outlet density lead to increases in alcohol harms.11, 12 Studies from interstate have shown that a 10% increase in off-license liquor outlets was associated with a 3.3% increase in family violence.13 There is also evidence that shows that higher alcohol sales volume in takeaway outlets are associated with increases in violent assaults in both homes and on-premise venues.14 This evidence suggests that the NT needs greater investment in alcohol harm minimisation to protect the health and wellbeing of families and communities. Increased alcohol availability directly conflicts with this need and is likely to exacerbate the already high rates of harms. While the effects of increased alcohol availability may be seen across the Darwin region, the harms are likely to be especially concentrated in the immediate area surrounding the store. Local-level data provided by NT Police show that the 5km radius surrounding the original proposed site (Bagot Road) already has up to double the rates of alcohol related crime compared to other parts of Darwin. The alternative proposed site (Sabine Road) is only one kilometre from this original site and is still within closer walking distance of two dry Aboriginal communities than existing alcohol outlets. These communities already experience significant alcohol problems, in the context of high levels of trauma and social disadvantage related to longstanding effects of colonisation and discrimination. More broadly, the two residential suburbs closest to the proposed Sabine Road site (given that the suburb of Eaton is mostly nonresidential land) are Coconut Grove and Millner, which both have substantially lower median weekly household incomes ($1,638 and $1,763, respectively15, 16) than the Greater Darwin average ($218317). Coconut Grove is in the 28th percentile for disadvantage according to the SEIFA index for relative socio-economic disadvantage; this is far more disadvantaged than Stuart Park (from where the liquor license is being transferred – discussed further below), which is in the 88th percentile.18 There is high-quality longitudinal evidence that shows given equal levels of alcohol use, people living in less advantaged social areas have higher alcohol-attributable harms compared with advantaged areas, even after accounting for confounding variables.19 The relationship between alcohol use and harm strengthens at higher levels of deprivation. The harm that alcohol causes as a product means that it cannot be considered an ordinary commodity.20 While there has been speculation by Woolworths about the economic benefits Dan Murphy's will bring to Darwin – such as employment – this does not balance against the estimated economic and social costs and harms, described above, based on the best available evidence. The NT Liquor Commission found that Woolworths had overstated the economic benefits (paragraphs 312, 313 and 316) and also that the economic benefits were greatly outweighed by the health and social costs (paragraph 355).1 Indeed, the economic benefit of the store is likely to benefit the Woolworths corporation and its shareholders the most, who primarily live outside of the NT. The Liquor Commission noted that much of the construction cost would be spent on sourcing material from outside the NT.1 Yet, people living in the NT, and the Darwin community more specifically, will be impacted by increased alcohol harm including acute and chronic health conditions caused by alcohol, accidents and injuries, crime and productivity. The people least likely to benefit from the store are also those who are most likely to experience harms, that is, people who experience disadvantage. The Dan Murphy's store will increase the amount of alcohol available in Darwin. The proposed licence substitutes one that was operated by a small corner store in Stuart Park, however, according to the NT Liquor Commission, which conducted a thorough review of the likely impact of the new outlet before declining to approve it, the proposed Dan Murphy's will have a capacity to sell 48 times more liquor than the outlet it replaces.1 As a major corporation, Woolworths and its subsidiary Endeavour Group are unlike any other alcohol retailers that may close. Their financial power, influence over policymakers and capacity to litigate when restrictions threaten their profit (or possible profit) far outweighs any other retailers. As shown by d’Abbs21 in a submission to the Independent Panel Review established by Woolworths in the wake of the NT Government's decision, Woolworths has a history of resisting local community-based attempts to reduce alcohol problems. The primary goal of Dan Murphy's is to sell alcohol for profit and this conflicts with the public health goals of protecting populations from alcohol harms. When Woolworths states that the Dan Murphy's will self-impose conditions such as selling products above the MUP, these measures recognise that their store will increase alcohol harm. However, they do not address the core problem of increased alcohol availability and these self-imposed restrictions can easily be reversed or retracted. Additionally, the MUP at which Woolworths plans to sell alcohol (beer/spirits at $1.35 per standard drink; wine at $1.40) is still lower than the MUP originally recommended in the Riley review ($1.50 per standard drink22). Woolworths and Endeavour Drinks Group have a track record of poor engagement with communities around alcohol and of not using evidence where there are opportunities for them to reduce alcohol harms.21 In the case of the Dan Murphy's store, there has been a lack of genuine community consultation since Woolworths applied to substitute a license for the Dan Murphy's store in 2016.23, 24 This was acknowledged by the NT Liquor Commission's findings,1 which were ignored by Woolworths and Endeavour Drinks Group at the time. As one of the largest liquor retailers in Australia, the proposed Dan Murphy's would also have a marketing and promotion capability vastly in excess of that of the Stuart Park corner store licence it replaces. This is problematic as there is strong evidence that increased exposure to alcohol advertising increases alcohol use.25 Dan Murphy's is known for its heavy advertising and for its use of digital marketing.26, 27 Indeed, they have already started advertising on Woolworths receipts in Darwin. Social media and advertising algorithms mean that alcohol advertising is highly targeted and is direct to consumers, decreasing its visibility and regulatability.28 A systematic review identified 13 longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between young people's exposure to alcohol advertising and alcohol use, of which 12 studies found evidence that alcohol advertising exposure predicts initiation of drinking among people who do not drink alcohol and increased use among people who do drink alcohol.25 Studies show that early initiation of alcohol use is directly related to increased alcohol use and increased alcohol problems in both adolescence and adulthood.29-32 Woolworths must therefore consider the proposed new site's location in relation to its proximity to pre-schools, primary schools, and Darwin's largest family entertainment precinct. People with lower literacy and educational attainment have also been identified as being particularly vulnerable to advertising.33, 34 Woolworths has specifically stated that the ‘lowest price guarantee’ advertising will not be used in the Darwin region. However, this ‘guarantee’ is synonymous with the Dan Murphy's brand. As a self-imposed measure, it could be reversed and would be impossible to enforce. In addition, Woolworths will likely use other price-focused advertising given that this is a core focus of the Dan Murphy's brand,35 a concern, given that people from low socio-economic households and young people, in particular, are more sensitive to price.36 As indicated above, in September 2019 Woolworths’ application to establish a Dan Murphy megastore in Darwin was rejected by the NT Liquor Commission after a thorough consideration of its merits and likely impact.1 The NT Liquor Commission had been established just one year earlier by the government as an independent statutory authority following a comprehensive review of alcohol policy commissioned in 2017.22, 37 In effect, the government's decision to establish the NT Liquor Commission restored a regulatory structure that had served previous NT governments from the commencement of self-government in 1978 up until January 2015, when a previous NT Government abolished what was then called the NT Licensing Commission and transferred all of its powers to a Director of Licensing, who was answerable to the Minister.38 That decision was justified at the time as ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘simplifying’ procedures – which it certainly did, by the simple expedience of eliminating any provision for community input or independent assessment. Both the former NT Licensing Commission and NT Liquor Commission were and are required, in considering any licensing application, to satisfy themselves that the application was in the public interest. Under the NT Liquor Act 2019, the Commission must assess the community impact of the application according to community impact assessment guidelines issued under the Act,37 which were the procedures followed in the Commission's rejection of Woolworths’ application. Woolworths subsequently lodged an appeal against the NT Liquor Commission decision with the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, but this too failed – a decision that NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner reportedly condemned as “a massive kick in the guts to all Territorians”.39 The NT Government then set about to circumvent its own regulatory legislation. On 11 November 2020 it rushed through parliament - in just one day -an extraordinary amendment to the Liquor Act that removed the Woolworth's application (and a small number of other unapproved applications) from the jurisdiction of the Commission and transferred it to the Director of Licensing – a government public servant.2 Under the amendment, the Director of Licensing is required to make a decision within 30 days of the transfer, but is not required to consider either the public interest or community impact2 (section 334(7)). Further, under the amendment, the rules of natural justice do not apply to any decision reached by the Director, and decisions are not open to appeal to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Once again, eliminating any consideration of community impact was justified as ‘cutting red tape’, with the added rationale of helping a post-COVID economic recovery.40 In effect, the primary purpose of the Liquor Act – namely, ‘to minimise the harm associated with the consumption of liquor in a way that recognises the public's interest in the sale, supply, service, promotion and consumption of liquor’,37 together with any respect for evidence-based policy-making, have been jettisoned in favour of compliance with the wishes of the of the political leaders of the day and the interests to whom they answer. Unsurprisingly, on 17 December 2020 the Director of Liquor Licensing approved the Woolworths application.41 The NT experiences high rates of alcohol use and commensurately high alcohol harms. This has quantifiable health and social impacts on both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people. High quality evidence shows a relationship between increased alcohol availability and harm. Woolworths has failed to provide evidence that the store will not result in a net increase in alcohol availability, and the size of the store suggests that the increase in alcohol availability will be substantial. The proposed Dan Murphy's would also have substantially higher marketing and promotion capabilities than the corner store licence it replaces. Taken together and combined with Woolworth's historical record of placing its commercial interests ahead of community concerns about alcohol harm, it is clear that the proposed new outlet represents a substantial increase in the supply of alcohol into an environment already carrying an excessive burden of alcohol harm. The Directors and Management of Woolworths and Endeavour Group should abandon the Dan Murphy's store in a decision that would put the interests of people's lives over profit.