Monthly Archives: January 2026
Bringing back public drunkenness?
Public drunkenness has been decriminalised for a little over a year in Queensland. Queensland was the last state to do so. Late last year, the Queensland Government raised the idea of recriminalising public drunkenness.
Already, this proposal has led to concerns from other interest groups. Here we will focus on one of those groups.
Disabled people, particularly those with mobility and speech-related issues should have some concerns about public drunkenness returning as well.
I think back to a very uncomfortable, anger-inducing and frustrating time at the start of a night out a number of years ago.
I sought to enter one of Brisbane’s most well-known pubs with a small group of friends. They all got in ahead of me. I had been gently holding onto the rope barrier outside of said establishment for balance. When it got to my turn, I gave the security guard my ID as requested. He took a look and then decided to bar my entry on grounds of being drunk.
Initially I calmly stated to the security guard that I had a disability and that I was not drunk. I was then asked if I had a card, as if I should be carrying something to label me, just because I have a disability. I then proceeded to not so calmly explain to him that this was a dehumanising request.
It was at about this time that my friends had realised that I had not joined them inside and they came to get me. We then left.
The problem is some of us with reduced mobility appear drunk. We may sway and stumble. Additionally, some with speech issues, or a combination of both will appear drunk as well.
This is why there should be some safeguards built into any recriminalising of public drunkenness. At the very least, security personnel and the police should receive strong education on the similarities between mobility limitations and being intoxicated.
Under any changes, people should be able to request a breathalyser be used when confronted by police, if they are adamant that they are not drunk or are indeed sober.
Even better still, the threshold for meeting the offence should be no lower than posing a threat to public order.
Since there is no detail, it is hard to know exactly where laws will land. However, safeguards will still be necessary.
Lessons from (nearly) 10 years in DES
After almost 10 years, I have stepped away from Disability Employment Services (DES) – partly by choice, and partly circumstances.
The circumstances mentioned above were the organisation I worked for being unsuccessful in tendering for the new Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA). The choice side of the equation was that I believed I had done all that I was able to do within the parameters of DES and IEA going forward.
I valued my time in DES, starting in administration and ending in case management. I also valued the organisation that gave me the opportunity to contribute to an area of work and life that I am passionate about, disability.
I also learned some valuable lessons, not just about myself, but about what may work and not work in the industry. This is about the latter. I also learned what still needs to evolve.
The first lesson is that attitudes towards people with a disability have shifted in the right direction. Is it that that is a product of the times, with more social awareness? Perhaps.
There were, however, still some infuriating attitudes to deal with. I still recall occasions when speaking with prospective employers about matching people with their organisations, that I would get asked things such as ‘are they special?’.
That ignores the reality that workers in the industry are supposed to match people with the right jobs. There are however well documented and discussed occasions where that has not occurred.
One of the next things that would be asked or enquired about were wage subsidies. It seemed on occasion that employers knew the system and were only willing to give people with a disability a chance with assistance involved. The assistance can be both a good and a bad thing.
Something I have learned, both as a participant in the system, and as an employee, is that bigger does not equal better.
I have been with organisations as a participant that just treated you like a number. Thankfully, the organisation that employed me was not one of them, and that is something that both myself and participants valued.
On the face of it, it appears that bigger has been valued as better in the transition to IEA. Big organisations won contracts, and smaller organisations were awarded more service areas. There were however some notable big scalps as part of the culmination of the tender process.
It will be interesting to see whether the changes that have been implemented as part of the framework for IEA will be enough to offset this.
While not being an employee in the area going forward, I will continue to observe and engage as someone wanting to see improvements and success in this and all areas of disability services.
aussiepollies 