Intro
The Liquor Control Act 1988 (the Act) provides the legislative framework for the liquor licensing authority to regulate the sale, supply, and consumption of Liquor in Western Australia (WA). The primary objects of the Act are to:
The provisions of the Act therefore play an important role in addressing alcohol issues present in the State including minimising the harm caused by the misuse of alcohol. The Drug and Alcohol Strategic Senior Officers’ Group (DASSOG) provides a whole-of-government approach to addressing these issues and is partially formed from the Western Australian Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (the Department) alongside other government representatives including but not limited to the Department of Communities, Department of Education, Department of Health, and the Department of Justice.
Noting the severe impact of alcohol misuse in WA, the DASSOG, in consultation with key stakeholders and the community, developed the Western Australian Alcohol and Drug Interagency Strategy 2018-2022 (the Strategy)1. This strategy was created to provide a guide for government and non-government organisations, as well as the wider community, to prevent and reduce the adverse impacts of alcohol and other drug use in WA. The Strategy is aligned to the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 and adopts an overarching harm minimisation approach aligned to the three pillars of:
Harm reduction: reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of the use of alcohol and other drugs, for individuals, families and others in the community.
In response to both the objects of the Act, and the harm minimisation pillar of the Strategy, the Department has implemented a series of tools (delivered under the Act) targeted at alcohol harm minimisation across WA, including within banned drinker areas (BDAs). Further detail on these tools is provided below.
The BDR: a registry of individuals prohibited from purchasing packaged liquor
Section 64: regarding the sale of liquor, including purchase limits, volume restrictions, product type limitations, glassware bans, and restricted trading times
Section 109A: carriage limits make it illegal to transport liquor in quantities exceeding prescribed limits within designated areas of the state
Section 114: WAPOL Officers can temporarily close liquor stores to maintain peace and ensure public safety in the presence of civil disorder
Section 115: licensee-initiated refusal of entry and barring notices authorised by the Commissioner of Police
Section 152N-152X: liquor restricted premises allow private property owners to declare their premises as alcohol-free zones
Section 175: dry communities which are designated areas with restrictions on the bringing, possession and consumption of liquor
BDAs are currently in place in the Kimberley, Pilbara, Goldfields, and Carnarvon and Gascoyne Junction, and are defined by the areas where the Banned Drinkers Register (BDR) is utilised. In addition to the BDR, a range of other tools are used within BDAs to mitigate alcohol-related harm on communities and individuals. Tools implemented, and therefore restrictions placed on takeaway alcohol, differ across BDAs. A summary of each tool is provided below.
Source: Deloitte Access Economics (2025)
The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the evaluation framework agreed by the Department in November 2024. The evaluation framework comprised a program logic, key evaluation questions and a data plan.
The evaluation framework set out the key lines of inquiry to pursue as part of the evaluation across the following three domains:
The key evaluation questions (KEQs) answered by this report are detailed in the table below.
Table 1: Abridged evaluation framework for the evaluation of tools in BDAs
Have the tools delivered short (<1 year)* or contributed to long-term (>1 year) outcomes sought for individuals on or previously on the BDR and/or impacted by other tools? Which tools have been more effective in delivering these outcomes?
Have the tools delivered the short (<1 year) or contributed to long-term (>1 year) outcomes sought for society more broadly? Which tools have been more effective in delivering these outcomes?
What are the key barriers and enablers to outcomes being realised? How have challenges been addressed?
Source: Deloitte (2024)
Note: Time horizons refer to any outcomes since the BDR legislative amendments came into effect.
The evaluation adopted a mixed methods approach that relied on both qualitative and quantitative data to answer the KEQs. Overall, the evaluation broadly satisfied set goals relating to breadth of data and perspectives captured. Further detail summarising the data collected, along with any limitations, is provided in the sections which follow.
Data collected included:
The mixed-methods approach facilitated a solid evidence base for this evaluation, with data collected broadly satisfying set goals relating to breadth of data and perspectives captured. However, there are several limitations which are important to consider, as detailed in Table 2.
Table 2: Evaluation limitations
The evaluation revealed that stakeholders across BDAs and organisations (including licensees, WAPOL, health, community health and/or other support services) agree on the role of alcohol harm minimisation tools such as the BDR, daily takeaway liquor limits, and other tools, and were largely in favour of the BDR’s permanency.
As mentioned, a program logic model (PLM) developed in collaboration with the Department informed the identification of the intended outcomes explored in this evaluation report (considering outcomes both in the short- term and longer term).
Current evidence on the effectiveness of the tools in reducing alcohol-related harm with respect to these outcomes (which include health service utilisation, anti-social behaviours and community safety, alcohol-related police offences, contact with the justice system, support service demand, disruptive housing behaviour and alcohol-attributed child protection cases) indicates mixed effectiveness and there is likely insufficient data and time lapsed to conclude outcome achievement. However, analysis of government agency (including Department of Communities, Department of Justice, St John Ambulance WA, WAPOL) secondary data in combination with stakeholder consultation outputs and evaluation survey results revealed the following overarching outcome trends:
One of the key barriers facing the BDR, reported by stakeholders through both consultations and surveys, is the fear of persistent secondary supply of takeaway alcohol. Stakeholders asserted that individuals find ways to circumvent the measures in place to limit purchasing of takeaway packaged liquor through purchases by friends or family members, or through black market supply (see Section 2.1.1). Stakeholders from WAPOL have reported experiencing barriers in enforcing restrictions and addressing black market supply. These barriers undermine the efficacy of the tools.
The success of the BDR, and alcohol harm minimisation tools generally, is also likely influenced by the availability and perception within communities of accompanying support services which target behaviour remediation through rehabilitation. Many individuals perceive these services as either inaccessible or inadequate, which can deter them from seeking necessary help. Such perceptions are often rooted in barriers like stigma, limited-service provision, and lack of cultural sensitivity, particularly in diverse or remote communities. If treatment services are perceived negatively, or are simply not available at the required scale, the BDR’s potential to facilitate recovery and behavioural change diminishes. Without behaviour change, sustained long term harm reduction is unlikely to be realised.
The BDR and other tools considered in this evaluation report, such as daily takeaway liquor limits monitored by the TAMS in some towns (see Section 1.2.2) are only likely to impact a small portion of the population – as shown by only 1 per cent of the population in BDAs being on the BDR. As such, any changes in outcomes which rely on a behaviour change, such as alcohol-related ambulance callouts, may not be detectable in aggregated data. Additionally, some data currently collected by government agencies has limited ability to specifically attribute alcohol use as the driver of a particular behaviour/issue, significantly impacting the ability to draw definitive conclusions around the tool’s effectiveness. For example, Department of Communities data does not separate alcohol-related disruptive behaviour complaints from non-alcohol-related ones. This would obscure the effect of alcohol restrictions on the frequency of disruptive behaviour complaints because non-alcohol-related complaints would be expected to continue at the same rate.
While the BDR and daily packaged liquor purchase limits have existed in trial form for multiple years, the legislative change in December 2023 has established a more powerful legal framework which may be more likely to drive behaviour change. As such, the impact of these changes may be possible to examine over a longer time period. It would be beneficial to examine longitudinal outcomes for individuals on the BDR to detect more targeted outcomes - for example, linkage between BDR status and health records. As such, a longer-term analysis may be required to more accurately examine the impact of the BDR, and other tools on alcohol harm reduction at the community and system levels.
To strengthen the effectiveness of the tools, the following improvement opportunities can be considered:
An overview of the headline findings under each of the evaluation domains is summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of key evaluation findings by domain
Key Finding 1: The evidence around the impact of the tools on alcohol-related harm is mixed. Overall, there is insufficient data to conclude the level of impact, and more time is required to see the effect.
Key Finding 2: Overall, the implementation of the BDR and daily takeaway liquor limits monitored by TAMS has not significantly influenced the trend of alcohol-related ambulance callouts in BDAs. This holds true even after the introduction of the BDR legislation in December 2023, while accounting for factors such as population, seasonality, and the effects of COVID-19.
Key Finding 3: Stakeholders consulted from community health organisations across all BDAs reported that demand for these services has not risen since the introduction of the BDR. The utilisation of this pathway of support may be limited by a few factors – largely, there is a perceived shortage/absence of treatment and support centres, limiting opportunities for engagement. Further, engagement with these services tends to be self-motivated, meaning that while mandating support service attendance alongside a BDO would increase demand, it may not be effective in creating meaningful engagement on its own.
Key Finding 4: Overall, the BDR trial and daily takeaway liquor limits have not demonstrated a statistically significant impact on the trend of alcohol-related police offences. Although there was a negative trend in offences across BDAs following commencement of the BDR legislation, it was not statistically significant. Following the legislative change, there were some statistically significant effects, but these tended to mirror broader trends in non-alcohol-related activity. Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that the BDR legislation has reduced offence rates and further time is required to establish the evidence base before additional analysis is conducted.
Key Finding 5: While there appears to be a statistically significant effect of the tools on the number of child safety investigations substantiated where alcohol was a contributing factor. Further time is required to establish the evidence base before additional analysis examining the tools’ impact on the number of alcohol-attributed child protection cases is conducted.
Key Finding 7: Almost 80 per cent of the 30 stakeholders consulted on this topic expressed some level of support for the BDR to become a permanent fixture in WA. Of those who expressed support, the majority indicated that their support was contingent on some reforms to the BDR legislation as well as technological improvements to the BDR system. Such updates and improvements, including enhancing software functionality and strengthening of legislation requirements to issue a BDO, are perceived to be necessary for ongoing long-term effectiveness.
Key Finding 8: Increasing the availability of wraparound supports will likely improve the effectiveness of alcohol harm minimisation tools, including the BDR and daily takeaway liquor limits. Such efforts require a whole-of-government approach and should be led by appropriate agencies such as the Department of Health and the Mental Health Commission.
Key Finding 9: While unintended, alcohol harm minimisation tools are perceived as discriminatory by some state government and community stakeholders.
The BDR demonstrates promise as a means for alcohol harm reduction. However, to fully realise its impact, addressing ongoing challenges such as secondary supply and the adequacy of enforcement power and support services remains crucial. Additionally, the importance of further data collection and ongoing analysis cannot be overstated. Continuous monitoring will be essential to continue to evaluate the BDR's effectiveness over time and adapt strategies in response to evolving community needs. By addressing identified limitations, it is possible for the BDR to evolve into a holistic strategy that not only limits access to takeaway alcohol but also promotes recovery and societal well-being. This multifaceted approach is vital for achieving sustainable reductions in alcohol-related harm and fostering healthier, safer communities.
AIHW — Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
BDA — Banned Drinker Area
BDO — Banned Drinker Order
BDR — Banned Drinkers Register
CAD — Computer Aided Dispatch
CSIs — Child Safety Investigations
Deloitte — Deloitte Access Economics
DASSOG — Drug and Alcohol Strategic Senior Officers’ Group
DB — Disruptive Behaviour
DFSV — Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence
DLL — Director of Liquor Licensing
ED — Emergency Department
FASD — Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
FIFO — Fly In, Fly Out
FVRO — Family Violence Restraining Order
ID — Identification
KEQ — Key Evaluation Question
LGA — Local Government Area
LRPs — Liquor Restricted Premises
NT — Northern Territory
PLM — Program Logic Model
RSA — Responsible Service of Alcohol
TAMS — Takeaway Alcohol Management System
The Act — The Liquor Control Act 1988
The Department — Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries
WA — Western Australia
WAPOL — Western Australia Police Force
1. Mental Health Commission (WA), The Western Australian Alcohol and Drug Interagency Strategy 2018-2022 (2018)