Today the High Court ruled unanimously in Joan Monica Maloney v The Queen [2013] HCA 28 that liquor laws designed to protect the residents of Palm Island in Queensland (who are almost entirely Indigenous), from the effects of prevalent alcohol abuse and associated violence, were not invalid, even though they were inconsistent with section 10 of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
On 27 October 2010 Ms Maloney was convicted in the Magistrates Court in Townsville of the offence of being in possession of more than a prescribed quantity of liquor in a restricted area on Palm Island contrary to the Queensland liquor legislation. Ms Maloney had been found in possession of a 1125ml bottle of Jim Beam bourbon and a 1125ml bottle of Bundaberg rum, more than allowed.
Although this case deals with Queensland liquor laws, the fact that the decision was made by Australia’s High Court clearly means that this decision has implications for any State. It is potentially possible that this case could have an analogous effect in respect to the Western Australian Director of Liquor Licensing’s “liquor restrictions” in some WA regional locations.
In Western Australia there are several examples of liquor restrictions operating in locations where there are Indigenous communities. The licensing authority has published a list of 53 “restricted areas” where there are restrictions on purchasing, consuming or possessing liquor.
This decision confirms that while the drafting of race specific legislation is discriminatory, the licensing authority may have the power to enforce restrictions, provided they are found to have been designed to protect an Indigenous community.
