No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist.
For instance, ACT police are known for not drug testing for cocaine, whereas meth and speed are. (At traffic stops).
This causes the rich, who can afford to take coke, to continue with their lifestyle, and punishes the poor. Using the justification of moral corruption.
For what it's worth, I am Australian, am ashamed of the countries history of treating the rightful owners of the land, but do agree that the alcohol issue is something that has more nuance than appears to outsiders.
Other things that are supposed to address the same issue, such as demonizing social benefits spending with budget control debit cards are outrageous. They are just weapons of the election cycle, and a way to recover campaign funds at the expense to the countries public.
I think you'll find there are quite a few folks that disagree with you on this point, some feel that laws can be considered racist exclusively because of disproportionate impact on specific communities.
Personally I think it just boils down to how people define the term 'racist'. When I was growing up (many moons ago), the term was used primarily to describe intent, but now it has expanded to include outcomes.
I agree that it's important to examine outcomes. It's actually the fundamental measurement of a decision and if we recast 'intent' as 'desired outcome' then its clear why paying attention to it is important.
My problem is that I was taught that 'racist' describes an ugly mindset that would confer malice. That may be true in some cases where outcomes disproportionately affect certain folks, but it's clearly not always the case and implying otherwise just distracts the conversation.