L O C KO U T L AW S AN D C I VI L D I SOBED I EN C E
2016 Law in Society Edition One
Law in Society Edition One, 2016
Editors Richard Lyons Brigit Zafirakis Jenna Lim Design Elaine Dong SULS Publications Director Kieran Hoyle Printing Megacolour Typography
N ANNY STATE OR NECESSARY CRACKDOWN? L oc k ou t L a ws a nd C i v i l Di so b e di e nc e
Cardo Playfair Display Roboto
S ydne y Uni v e r si ty L a w S oc i e ty Ma y 2 0 1 6
Š Sydney University Law Society. This publication is copyright. Except where permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced or stored by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the Sydney University Law Society. The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Sydney University Law Society or Sydney Law School. Although the Editors have taken every care in preparing and writing the Handbook, they expressly disclaim and accept no liability for any errors, omissions, misuse or misunderstandings on the part of any person who uses or relies upon it. The Editors and Sydney University Law Society accept no responsibility for any damage, injury or loss occasioned to any person or entity, whether law students or otherwise, as a result of a person relying, wholly or in part, on any material included, omitted or implied in this publication. -3-
W
By Jenny Leong MP
hen I moved to Sydney in the 90s I fell in love with the late night culture immediately. There was always somewhere to go out dancing until dawn, to play bad pool for hours while singing along to old favourites on a jukebox, or to have long schoonersoaked discussions with friends until the sun started sneaking over the horizon.
responding to intense pressure from the media to take action in response to some tragic events. There is no doubt the incidents that occurred were tragic. It is also very clear that we as a society have failed to deal adequately with alcohol-related violence and associated anti-social behaviour. But the measures put in place at the time – including the blanket punishment of everyone in the community who wanted to go out in the city after 1:30pm, were illconceived and heavy handed. There were better mechanisms to address community concerns that wouldn’t see a considerable breach of people’s civil liberties and have such a negative impact on our vibrant city nightlife; it has to be asked whether there was a hesitation to implement reforms that would put more responsibility on the alcohol industry. That there are close ties between the liquor lobby and the NSW Government is not news to anyone.
Now it’s getting harder and harder to find a place to have those late night philosophical chats over a single-malt, or that all-night dance to trashy tunes, thanks to Sydney’s lockout laws. Unless you’re willing to head to the casino. Although I’m very rarely out ’til dawn myself these days, I’m saddened to see that our late night culture is under threat. What we need is more creative, vibrant venues with more bands and DJs and more people out and about enjoying what our city has to offer. Instead, there’s a risk that many of our inner city streets are turning into ghost towns once the sun goes down and the folks that used to enliven our city are fleeing elsewhere. At the time the lockouts were put in place across Sydney’s CBD, Oxford St and Kings Cross, the then O’Farrell government was
While the Coalition scrambled to implement the punitive lockouts within days of the laws passing parliament, there was no rush to better regulate the density or size of licensed venues. We haven’t seen stronger enforcement of RSA
-4-
responsibilities. Increased licence fees for venues that have been found to breach their responsibilities were promised but never appeared. Small and medium-sized venues offering live entertainment were treated just the same as massive beer barns. And public transport options for people trying to leave Kings Cross and Sydney’s entertainment precinct late at night are still extremely limited. Rather than real investment in education around the impacts of alcohol related violence and antisocial behaviour we were subjected to extreme TV adverts and posters that relied on scare tactics.
right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association—in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Baird Government’s attacks on these rights are shameful and truly alarming. This is especially concerning given the absence of any overarching human rights protection in NSW, a state which unlike Victoria does not have a Charter of Rights.
These more targeted and integrated measures would leave our city open and enable a diverse and vibrant night-time economy. Instead, the measures in place have shut Sydney down and punished everybody for the bad behaviour of a very small minority.
The statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of people stopped and searched after a dog identifies them as ‘suspicious’ are not carrying drugs. Based on figures released last year, the failure rate is more than 80%. In 2006 the independent NSW Ombudsman recommended an end to the drug detection dog program as it was found to be an “ineffective tool for detecting drug dealers”. A decade later, despite the issue of inflicting innocent people to intrusive searches and the high false positive rates, the NSW Government still spends millions of dollars on this program each year.
Another area where we have seen successive NSW governments infringe on the civil rights of citizens is the arbitrary use of sniffer dogs in public places.
This isn’t the only space where we’ve seen the NSW Coalition jump in with an oppressive law and order response. From their draconian anti-protest laws to their stubborn commitment to the ineffective NSW Drug Detection Dog program, this is a government addicted to looking ‘tough on crime’. What is frightening is that the ongoing expansion of police powers we’ve seen in NSW allows the Government to plough ahead with their conservative agenda almost unchecked. Don’t want protestors to draw attention to your assaults on civil liberties or your obsession with coal mining? Then why not scare everyday people with threats of arrest and seven years imprisonment so that they question whether they should get out on the streets and make their opinions heard at a rally or blockade.
Unfortunately in the current political environment, those who stand up against unfair and punitive policies, are accused of being anti-police or anti-public safety. We need laws that are evidence-based, balanced and respect basic human rights. We need to be protected, but so do our civil liberties. u
Our right to protest peacefully is enshrined, through three associated freedoms—the
-5-
Contents
4
Foreword by Jenny Leong MP
Public priorities and public epidemics: 11 Lockout laws and the prioritisation of visible victims Olivia Ronan 15
Australians all, let us rejoice, for we are young and free: An analysis of the “necessary state” and Liberal Party hypocrisy
Alan Zheng 24
Violence on our streets: A market failure
Alex Fitton How bars, clubs and live music 30 became casualties of a crusade against violence Ruben Robertson 38
What were we thinking? Knee-jerk reform and why our most necessary bureaucracies deserve celebrating
David Badea 44 48
‘Casino Mike’ and the lockout laws: How social media can define a Premier Connor Sidney Wherret Easy targets and misrepresentations: The superficial success of the lockout laws
Elspeth Crawford 52
Reference List
We need laws that are evidence-based, balanced and respect basic human rights. We need to be protected, but so do our civil liberties.
Jenny Leong MP
O
PUBLIC PRIORITIES AND P R I VAT E E P I D E M I C S Lockout laws and the prioritisation of visible victims
Olivia Ronan LLB V
n 30 January 2014, the New South Wales Government ushered in the hastily-written Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW), which came into force the next day – fulfilling thenPremier Barry O’Farrell’s promise to have new laws “in place and operational by [next] weekend.”1 The Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) followed suit on 5 February 2014. Together, the aptly named ‘lockout laws’, enacted in response to the recent deaths of ‘one-punch’ victims Daniel Christie and Thomas Kelly, were considered crucial to put an end to violence that saw “too many innocent victims either killed or seriously injured.”2
Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey found that roughly one in four Australian women have experienced family or domestic violence since the age of 15,4 while other studies have found that this number is more likely to be one in three.5 These statistics are likely to significantly under-represent reality, as victims’ fear, shame or guilt is statistically liable to cause significant under-reporting.6 Despite this, the NSW Government, by positing the populist issue of one-punch assaults as the lone target of its alcohol intervention policy, has wasted an opportunity to address the role of contributing factors such as alcohol consumption in the incidence of domestic violence.
Since the enactment of the lockout laws, ‘one-punch’ assaults have become synonymous with the popular understanding of alcohol-fuelled violence, and are the crowning jewel of NSW Government media surrounding its drugand alcohol-fuelled violence initiatives.3
The nexus between alcohol and violence The World Health Organisation has found that alcohol consumption increases the risk of domestic violence by 4.6 times, and that men who abuse alcohol are between 1.6 and 4.8 times more likely to commit an act of domestic violence.7 In its submission to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) noted that up to 46% of reported incidents of family violence in Victoria involve alcohol consumption.8
It is the argument presented here that the NSW lockout laws negatively skew public understanding of alcohol-fuelled violence, to the detriment of domestic violence victims. In focusing their energies and the public’s attention on one-punch assaults and public violence as the scourge of Australian drinking culture, the NSW Government has overlooked the victims of alcohol-fuelled violence that occurs not outside pubs and clubs, but behind closed doors.
Alcohol has been found to increase aggression in both men and women, though its effect is notably stronger for men.9 Moreover, alcohol consumption by men has been shown to be a more common factor in domestic violence perpetration than by women.10 From this, it can be taken that any discussion of a nexus
The incidence of domestic violence in Australia is well documented. The 2012
- 10 -
- 11 -
between domestic violence and alcohol is a gendered one. In describing the effects of alcohol – detriment to cognitive executive functioning, loss of problem solving abilities, narrowing the focus of attention, increased willingness to take risks, and increased concern about personal power among male drinkers – it is easy to draw connections between the perpetrators of public assaults and domestic violence who are affected by it. However, the NSW Government’s policy response only targets public violence.
liquor outlet per 1,000 residents was associated with a 28.6% increase in the mean domestic violence rate.”14 Moreover, sales volume from off-premises outlets is significantly connected to increases in domestic violence in private residences.15 However, these types of approaches do not feature in the nature and purpose of the lockout laws.16 This brings the possible effects of the lockout laws on alcoholrelated domestic violence squarely into question.
domestic violence related assaults were flagged by NSW Police as being alcohol related,21 which was down from 33.4% of the 29,070 domestic violence related assaults in 2014 which were similarly flagged.22 However, 30.8% of homicides with histories of domestic violence were alcohol-related in 2015,23 which was up from 29% in 2014;24 moreover, 15.6% of domestic violence abductions and kidnappings were alcohol-related in 2015,25 compared to 8.3% in 2014.26
The lockout laws and violence in New South Wales
At face value, then, the lockouts appear to have gone some way to addressing alcoholfuelled violence in the Sydney CBD and Kings Cross, but has left alcohol-related domestic violence largely untouched.
Since Premier Mike Baird’s notorious Facebook defence17 of the lockout laws, much attention has been paid to analysing whether they have created any positive change in alcohol-related street violence. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), there were 13 fewer assaults per month in 2014 than in 2013 in Kings Cross, and 30 fewer assaults per month in 2014 than in 2013 in the Sydney CBD.18 However, there were roughly two additional assaults per month in 2014 than in 2013 in the area surrounding Star Casino, which is outside the lockout zone,19 and there has been an 18% increase in violent alcohol-related crime in Newtown.20
The efficacy of community-level alcohol interventions on domestic violence rates While it is worth noting that study of the efficacy of societal- and communitylevel alcohol interventions on domestic violence has been scarce to date,11 the existing evidence from community studies “provides weak support for the association between alcohol availability restrictions and [domestic violence].”12 In a Brazilian study of the implementation of a city-wide bar closing time of 11pm, it was found that whilst there was a decrease in alcoholfuelled non-domestic violence homicides over a ten-year period, there was a nonsignificant reduction in assaults against women generally over a five-year period.13
Perhaps unsurprisingly, little research has been done into the rates of domestic violence involving alcohol before and after the lockouts were introduced. However, using state-wide BOCSAR evidence, there appears to have been negligible change. In 2015, approximately 31% of the 29,001
More successful community-level interventions appear to be in the form of decreases in outlet density, rather than sale restrictions; a Melbourne-based study found that “an increase in one packaged
- 12 -
Conclusion Addressing both alcohol-related domestic violence and public assaults are by no means mutually exclusive. However, the NSW Government’s framing of the conversation about alcohol and violence has warped public understanding, skewing it towards the few victims of one-punch assaults – whose deaths were, and continue to be, undeniably tragic – and away from scrutiny of domestic violence as a national epidemic. As the Callinan Review is underway, the NSW Government desperately needs to research the impact of public policy with respect to alcohol trading and licensing on alcohol-related domestic violence. As we shine a light on public violence, we must not forget the violence that is perpetrated in the shadows. u
- 13 -
A U S T R A L I A N S A L L, L E T U S R E J O I C E, FOR WE ARE YOUNG AND FREE An analysis of the “necessary state” and Liberal Party hypocrisy.
Alan Zheng BA / LLB I
“The way things are going, I would not be surprised that in ten years’ time if you wanted to have a nice bottle of 1959 Grange Hermitage with dinner, that you would need to go to the doctor to get a prescription, go on a registered alcohol offender’s list, say three Hail Marys and wear a high visibility vest. It would come delivered between the hours of nine and eleven am and on the Monday before in a plain plastic bottle with a picture of a diseased liver on it.” – Matt Barrie
I
t’s 1:31am. You’re out with mates on Bayswater Road in Kings Cross and the street is quiet. Licensed clubs are closed. The bars are closed. Hotels, restaurants and public entertainment venues, all closed. Some, permanently. If this was a Western film, a tumbleweed would blow past. One taxi trip later, and you’re pouring into The Star with a mass of others. It’s more vibrant here, the lights, and the casino machines playing repetitive tunes, there are many more people, pilgrims from closing pubs across the lockout zone congregating as one mass, in one venue. Security guards watch you at every step, a closed circuit television camera monitors your alcohol consumption. The alcohol flows through small plastic cups and people meander around, picking pointless fights as if the night is already over; as if there is nowhere else to go. There ironically isn’t.
in reality in an age old debate of liberty versus social responsibility. Yet, how and when did things derail from the liberties of individual agency and civil obedience? The story starts, perhaps controversially, with individuals. The death of 18 year old teenager Thomas Kelly in an unprovoked attack in Kings Cross in 2012 and its parallels in Daniel Christie’s death in 2013 set the groundwork for the whiplash that often characterises errors of judgement. The then O’Farrell Liberal Government in New South Wales passed the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) and the Crimes Amendment (Alcohol and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW), directing 8 year minimum mandatory sentences for fatally striking a person with a single punch while under the influence of alcohol. The blanket effect was immediate and the pursuit of some denunciative and general deterrence purpose was unleashed, targeting the end outcomes of the drinking cycle rather than social causes of alcohol fuelled violence. The Liberal Party stands on the footing of being “tough on crime” and the reduction of recidivism, but is this really true? A deeper insight unravels some of the deeper hypocrisies within Liberal Party theory and the law.
You wait two hours in the taxi line to go home. It’s a morbidly melancholic portrait of situational strictness, anti-social norms, and a mutant mix of gambling and alcohol. The Nanny State construct has manifested
- 14 -
- 15 -
The first victim of the Acts was not the The Liberal Party, insofar as its beliefs violent drunk wandering the streets of suggest, simply cannot claim to legislate King’s Cross, looking for trouble, but for the maintenance of public safety on rather, Sydney’s nightlife, ironically a moral high ground while excluding felled by the very one of the most party that preaches dangerous precincts The Liberal Party, “lean government” in Sydney. The insofar as its beliefs and economic loss of transparency suggest, simply cannot liberalism. Rather and confidence than incentivising claim to legislate for the by the electorate individual and is necessarily the maintenance of public private sector result of such policy, safety on a moral high initiative, the Baird particularly when ground while excluding Liberal government the NSW Liberal one of the most dangerous and its predecessor Government is the precincts in Sydney. have thoroughly primary recipient of intervened in hundreds of millions commercial enterprise, propagating rules, of dollars in tax revenue from The Star on regulations and red-tape, effectively an annual basis. If the economic, cultural dismantling a night-time economy most and social damage of the Lockout laws is reliant on commercial and individual an insufficient reason for protest, surely, autonomy in the culture of “bar-hopping” the Liberal Party contradicting its own and “pub crawls,” as well as freedom to foundational principles warrants criticism. pioneer innovation and avant garde in arts, music and culture. The Liberals help business and free enterprise. The Liberals are dedicated The lockout laws embody hardline, heavy to individual freedoms and a small handed instruments which lack nuance and government. The Liberals encourage and a commitment to the need for social and nurture incentive. The Liberals facilitate attitude shifts. Despite The Star’s tighter the highest possible standards of living. regulation under the Casino Control Act The Liberals do not stifle the creators 1992 (NSW) it has always remained, to this of wealth and employment and oppose day, one of the most dangerous spots in Labor’s corporate state. All buzzwords Sydney, with the Bureau of Crime Statistics and entrenched Liberal commitments and Research (BOCSAR) reporting 75 subverted by the Lockout Laws. Kings incidents of alcohol-related non-domestic Cross has one of the highest densities of assault in the Star Casino between April small and medium enterprise in New South 2014 and March 2015. This is more than Wales, yet the atypical small bar, restaurant, three times the number at The Ivy Bar – and hotel has suffered. There are less the “most violent venue” named by the people on the streets, yet there are greater NSW government in the same period. imposed costs, more red tape and stricter
- 16 -
enforcement licensing requirements than ever. In criminal law, the ‘whiplash’ effect resulting from the eight year mandatory sentencing legislation highlights the heavy hand of the state and the hasty dismissal of individual freedoms. Further, the cultural and social identity characterising Sydney’s nightlife has been drowned by decreasing foot traffic to the lockout zone, lowering the standard of living in Sydney, not only for the myriad of jobs lost, but also due to reduced choice and greater corporatisation of the night market. The sixteen venues in the lockout zone exempt from the restrictions share one common feature. They all have poker machines.
smaller bars with spiralling costs of security requirements as part of licensing conditions. Financial revenue from tourism losses total in the tens of millions per capita. Alcohol fuelled violence is at higher levels in certain proximal displacement spots outside of the lockout area such as Pyrmont which saw 115 alcohol-related assaults over 20152016 compared to 69 in 2013-14. The dislocation of revellers to surrounding areas such as Newtown and Surry Hills is not substantively correlative to higher rates of violence and certainly, total assaults have declined. However, amongst the other innocent victims are international tourists and the average citizen who might be misled by the scourge of mistruths pervading this debate. The oft cited statistic is that assaults are down 45% in Kings Cross and 20% in the CBD’s precincts since the lockout laws. Yet, foot traffic and general activity in the period since the Lockout Laws has also substantially declined in both areas, meaning the incidence of assault in Kings Cross might still remain proportionally higher than or equal to that before the introduction of the laws, especially in light of a 90% decrease in pedestrian numbers in Kings Cross by 4am. Polls are rarely independent and the Galaxy Poll reporting that 68% of respondents in NSW support the government’s lockout law policies is an example of this. The results were derived from a sample size of 353 adults commissioned by the pro-lockout Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. There is no stronger force in the debate than moral hyperbole and the image of collective support from one’s peers. But truth is of utmost priority and it must remain the desired outcome of constructive debate.
However, the crux of the issue drawing such extensive debate is not one only about Sydney’s night-time economy. It is a discussion of what constitutes good Liberal policy and proper political process. One should question how all of this aligns with the Liberal Party’s foundational beliefs, and whether Mike Baird’s moral high ground reinforcing the Lockout Laws is warranted outside of evangelical principle or if it is indeed a poisoned chalice of policy. Mike Baird himself asserted “innocent people should be protected from drunken violence” but the lights have turned off for a whole new range of innocent people as a result of the lockout reforms, which continue to power a misdirected and preferential approach to the NSW Liberal Party’s liquor law policy platform. Proprietors in Kings Cross, Darling Harbour and across the lockout zone have closed down or suffered major revenue declines. Job losses have plagued the
- 17 -
the opposing end, the National Alliance for Action on Alcohol labelled the 10pm take-away sales restriction as “modest” and “appropriate.” If one thing is certain in this debate, it is a paradigm of polarity. The only channel to reconcile such polarities is through compromise and a shared search for empirical truth.
One truth is that nightclubs are not the only source of alcohol-fuelled violence and the undercurrent of the debate ultimately links to irresponsible facets of drinking culture as a whole. In one example, the Australian Medical Association of NSW, in its submission to the Callinan Review cited that there were more than 10,000 incidents of alcohol fuelled violence in a domestic setting in 2010-2011 alone, a statistic which dwarfs that in Sydney’s streets yet receives comparably lesser attention in policymaking.
system, improved responsible service of alcohol (RSA) enforcement and venue management, city density planning and a more efficient police presence and response system. Moreover, intellectual capital on tried and tested solutions for relevant guidance can be sourced in considering other major world cities such as London and Amsterdam with the “Night mayor” model. So, whether the solution is about prevention or policy, whether there should be development of a focus on education on responsible alcohol consumption in the long term, or a customised lockout system to apply only to venues which have been the base of repeat instances of noncompliance and violence, the solution and implementation must be measured.
Public safety in Sydney is and always will be a paramount priority. Violence is unacceptable and we should not fall into the trap of accepting a base, unavoidable level of violence in our major cities. But, the solution should not come at great economic, social and cultural costs and so the current measures should be diluted in lieu of alternative mechanisms, such as a more efficient 24-hour public transport
The scale of actions by a minority set of individuals should not compromise or interfere with the utility, and social identity of law abiding Sydney-siders, much less broadly limit an efficient private sector
- 18 -
At the end of the night, whether that is 10pm, 1:30am or 3am, robust debate and consultation is essential to proper reform and policymaking and only a discourse pursuing truth can construct a reasonable outcome for the Independent Liquor Law Review presided over by retired High Court Justice Ian Callinan AC QC. Callinan’s report is expected for submission to the NSW government in August and carries a unique potential for an independent and transparent assessment of existing statistical evidence provided by BOCSAR and the personal experiences of stakeholders across the city. This will assist in establishing an empirical foundation and legitimacy for the future of the state’s liquor laws.
and existing free enterprise in a global city’s nightlife market. Make no mistake, there are winners from the Lockout laws as well, casino magnates for one. Inner-city property developers are another. Yet, both represent clear private interests, interlocked with the Liberal party room. The Star and James Packer’s forthcoming Crown Casino in Barangaroo are deleteriously exempt from the lockout laws. The Star was never subject to the Statewide Violent Venues List Scheme introduced in 2008 and remains exempt from the Three Strikes Scheme against breaches of licensing laws. The bitter palate of irony and hypocrisy resonates in the Liberal Party’s relationship with these beneficiaries. Of the 2000 submissions made to the Independent Liquor Law Review, two stand as particularly emphatic. The NSW Young Liberals emphasised a need to champion an onus on the responsible individual rather than punish the collective by interfering with its social and cultural existence. On
No process of reform occurs without winners and losers. The role of any government ought to be maximising the winners and minimising the losers. So, assumptions must be challenged with a scalpel, not a hammer and when anyone takes the stance that such laws are “modest” or that Sydney nightlife remains the same as it always was, the answer must be that liberty and civil freedoms underlie our contemporary society, and to remove them comes at great cost. Long live Sydney. u
- 19 -
T VIOLENCE ON OUR STREETS A market failure.
Alex Fitton BEc III
- 24 -
his year, the New South Wales Government commissioned former High Court Justice Ian Callinan AC QC to conduct a legislative review into the Liquor Amendment Act 2014. The findings of the review are unlikely to be released before the start of spring, however, it is opportune at this time to recognise the considerable successes of Sydney’s lockout laws despite opposition from a vocal minority. The New South Wales Government should be commended for acting so swiftly to remedy a problem which had plagued the city’s entertainment districts for a number of years. The introduction of Sydney’s lockout laws represented a clear attempt by the New South Wales Government to address what was, fundamentally, a market failure. This market failure was occurring as a direct consequence of unacceptable levels of alcohol and other drugfuelled violence. This article seeks to confront the three largest criticisms levelled at Sydney’s lockout laws. It will firstly consider the claim that the laws are inherently unnecessary; second, that the laws are fundamentally illiberal; and third, that the laws detract from Sydney’s nightlife and culture.
- 25 -
Necessity
Freedom
In the three years prior to the passing of the lockout laws, there was an average of two hundred and nine public assaults per month across Sydney’s entertainment districts. This equates to an average of forty public assaults per week in a relatively small geographic area. Tragically, it was the deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie, occurring within eighteen months of each other, which gave the Government little option but to act. Sydney’s nightlife could not be permitted to continue down its once bloodied path. The first task for the Government was to immediately remove the perverse incentives which had broken the market in Sydney’s night-time entertainment industry.
acknowledged that the public cost of permitting the status quo far outweighed any private benefit gained. A negative externality had emerged, taking the form of frequent public assaults. Since the introduction of the laws there has been a fall in the number of public assaults in the Kings Cross precinct by 45.1 per cent, and by 20.3 per cent in the Sydney CBD entertainment precinct. The number of public assaults in both the proximal and distal displacement areas have remained stable. These are the statistically significant reductions in assault rates which have earned the support for the laws from the state’s nursing and policing associations. In addition, the Government and the Labor Opposition received an overwhelming bipartisan mandate on the lockout laws when they went to the polls in March 2015. This serves to highlight the broad support for these inherently necessary laws.
When both major parties in the New South Wales Parliament voted in favour of the new lockout laws and regulatory framework for licenced premises in Sydney’s entertainment districts, it
- 26 -
get left behind due to their comparative vulnerabilities. It is clear that public safety fosters inclusion, accessibility, and freedom.
The second weighty charge against Sydney’s lockout laws is that they are fundamentally illiberal insofar as they are restrictive, both in terms of movement, and in patron choice. This line of argument will often be espoused by those who are less likely to become a victim of a public assault on a Sydney street simply because of their attributes and orientations.
It is apparent, in retrospect, that the regulatory framework surrounding Sydney’s nightlife prior to the 2014 amendments, subsidised thuggish and otherwise illegal behaviour, which created a significant distortion to the operating market for patrons in Sydney’s night-time entertainment industry. The distorted market permitted a business model of allowing the entry of heavily intoxicated patrons in the early hours of the morning, providing them with more alcohol, and then finally allow them to spill out on to the street with few transport options.
These fortunate individuals could afford to ignore the significant negative externality of unacceptable levels of violence on Sydney’s streets for the simple reason that it never affected them in the way that it did for more vulnerable sections of the community. Ignoring the realities of those who have been, or who are, statistically more likely to become victims of alcohol or other drug-fuelled assaults, risks the further entrenchment of intergenerational social disadvantage.
The resulting market failure did not encourage other or new licenced premises to offer an alternative because they were too geographically proximate to the negative externality or indeed, they could not afford to turn customers away before the others—such was the perverseness of the previous market signals. This formed a chain of causality which would not be broken until the New South Wales Government intervened in the market to allow for more competition and creative destruction. The Government identified that licenced premises should succeed or fail based on the quality of their service and product—not on whether they are willing to turn a blind eye to the direct causes of excessive drinking and public violence on Sydney’s streets.
For too long, the most consequential decision relating to a night out for vulnerable groups was not which venue to enter and at what time, but whether or not they would be safe in the city at night altogether. As a society, it is both our individual and collective responsibility to liberate those who have been oppressed by the pervasiveness of public assaults. There is also something to say for society’s responsibility to ensure that we maximise the number of law-abiding citizens enjoy the opportunities and freedoms which are available. One of the best ways to achieve this is to ensure the safety of those who do the right thing, but might otherwise
- 27 -
Reputation The final key claim levelled against Sydney’s lockout laws, is that the laws detract from Sydney’s nightlife, culture, and international reputation. To support this argument, the closure of some of the licenced premises in Sydney’s entertainment precincts is portrayed as a great tragedy. If an establishment closed its doors citing the introduction of the new laws as the single and only cause; it can mean only one of two things. First, that their business model relied on operating in the early hours of the morning, and hence they were part of the problem. Otherwise, they were being squeezed out of the market by the influx of new, cosmopolitan, and trendy bars which have been popping up all over the city since the introduction of the laws.
that this progress was hampered by the pervasive violence on Sydney’s streets at night. Sydney is now a far more welcoming place to have a night out for those of ages, genders, and sexual orientations which might otherwise be more vulnerable to an assault. A more inclusive nightlife means a more diverse nightlife, and this is fundamentally a good thing in terms of patron choice and nightlife culture. The New South Wales Auditor-General’s recent report on land values shows that commercial property values in the Kings Cross area have fallen since the lockout laws were introduced. The report also notes that the value of residential properties in the area have increased markedly over the same period. The Auditor-General’s Office forecasts that the increase in value of mixed-use property in the Kings Cross area will mean that commercial values will increase over the medium term due to the ongoing gentrification of the area.
There will be those who argue the violence which used to occur in the city has only moved to Sydney’s inner west, namely King Street, Newtown – outside of the lockout zone. The fact that some of the brainless thugs which once caused trouble around Kings Cross have migrated southwest of the city is living proof that the laws are effective in keeping those more likely to assault, out. Due to this transition; the greater Sydney entertainment precinct is now a comparatively more inclusive place to have a night out than Sydney’s inner west.
The story of modern Sydney has been one of great transformation. Some areas of Sydney, which were home to some of the city’s most dangerous streets have become prime real estate for both residential and commercial uses. Take nearby Darlinghurst or Surry Hills, which have become hotspots for restaurants, bars, and live entertainment—they are at the very heart of Sydney’s culture, and it is one we can all be proud of.
Sydney’s nightlife has in recent years made serious attempts to become a bastion of inclusivity. It was unfortunate however,
- 28 -
Conclusion It is easy for the laws’ detractors to say that the lockout laws enacted by the NSW Government in 2014 are a kneejerk reaction which is fundamentally illiberal and diminishes Sydney’s nightlife. This is a simplistic view which overlooks the complexities of legislating with competing interests and mutually exclusive outcomes. Instead, the New South Wales Government moved swiftly to deliver on their first responsibility as a government: to ensure the safety of the people of New South Wales. The lockout laws are, in fact, well considered, given also that imbedded in the amendments is a review process.
competition. This has made Sydney’s nightlife a more inclusive place—something which we can all benefit from. Regardless of the Callinan Review’s outcome, the New South Wales Government, with the support of the Labor Opposition, made the right decision in 2014 to legislate these amendments. While they acted upon a clear market failure; their swift response can never be quantified in dollar terms because of the potential lives saved as a result of these regulations. Even if some elements of the current regulatory framework are scaled-back as a consequence of the review, the response of the New South Wales Government has left a lasting impact of having cleaned up Sydney’s entertainment precinct and making it a safer, more inclusive, place to enjoy a night out. u
The laws have, as a consequence of eliminating a pervasive negative externality, been able to restore market forces to Sydney’s nightlife. The operating environment is much more equitable, with lower start-up costs and increased
- 29 -
H O W B A R S, C L U B S A N D L I V E M U S I C B E C A M E C A S U A LT I E S O F A C R U S A D E AGAINST VIOLENCE Ruben Robertson BSc / LLB III
O
n the 30th of January 2014, 38 minutes after it was first read by Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly,1 debate began on the Liquor Amendment Act 2014. ThenPremier O’Farrell had recalled Parliament from holiday, succumbing to the mounting public pressure, which included an emotional campaign by this city’s two flagship newspapers.2 Less than three hours later and with bipartisan support, Sydney’s lockouts became law.
breaches in 2001 being committed by either a minor or a patron who refused to leave. Just 3.1% of breaches were committed by the premises itself in conjunction with the supply of alcohol.3 These years were the prologue for the aforementioned shift, as Jenny Fleming notes how increasing rates of alcohol-related crime forced state governments across the nation to take a broader approach to regulating the use of alcohol.4 NSW replaced its old licensing regime in its entirety with the new Liquor Act in 2007, moving some of the onus of preventing violence onto venues. For the first time in 50 years, the place of consumption had landed in the government’s cross hairs.
A change in tactics The lockouts were just the most recent (albeit the most dramatic) of steps taken in the last decade and a half to bring about a complete shift in focus for alcohol-related policy. Historically, since NSW passed a referendum on extending bar opening hours in 1954, licensing laws had moved in the direction of increasing liberalisation to promote competition; as hotels, bars and clubs proved themselves indispensable amongst even the smallest community’s social scene. Enforcement around the turn of the century focused on the individual drinker, with over 42% of all recorded
This shift in focus was sound as there were correlations between particular venues and assaults, with 12% of hotels in inner Sydney being responsible for 60% of the violence.5 This suggested that there may be more than the personal responsibility of patrons at play causing the violence. This trend was repeated in other urban areas across the state where the majority of the violence emanated from a small minority of venues.6 Although influenced by patron
- 30 -
demographics and levels of intoxication, the most significant predictor of assaults at a venue had been found to be the characteristics of the venue itself;7 violence occurring where violence was permitted.
in place at the time of writing for Kings Cross and Oxford Street; although the CBD South was relaxed in 2013, the 2014 amendments made the entire CBD subject to the freeze.12 Under the freeze the Secretary was granted the power to allow new restaurants or vary existing trading hours, only if it wouldn’t increase the number of people entering the above areas “principally to consume alcohol”.13 Until this point, discretionary powers had been framed around minimising the harm from the “misuse and abuse of liquor”14 or “reducing alcohol-related violence”.15 From 2009 however, limiting the number of people going out was reason enough to refuse the growth of the city’s culture.
To address this, the new Liquor Act introduced discretionary powers to declare lockouts and curfews on individual venues or to require conditions relating to the service of alcohol.8 Furthermore, breaches of the Act could result in disciplinary action to cancel or suspend licences. However, rather than being incorporated into the existing judicial framework of the now defunct NSW Licensing Court, these powers were granted to what is now known as the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (‘ILGA’) and the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (‘the Secretary’), flagging concerns amongst the legal profession of a lack of accountability.9 Elsewhere however, the reform was heralded.10 As long as these tough new powers were used only on the venues causing the problem, who could complain?
The many restrictions with which Sydneysiders have become so familiar (after midnight: no more than 4 drinks per person, no shots, no glass, no pre-prepared drinks over 5%)16 were originally introduced in 2008 for only 48 venues with the highest assault rates across NSW (i.e. “high risk” venues).17 However the steps toward the current situation, where they apply to all venues within the lockout area, began after the death of Thomas Kelly in 2012 placed pressure on an increasingly desperate government to do more to combat alcohol-related violence. They responded by redefining “high-risk” venues as those which were merely situated in Kings Cross. Guilty by geography, a cafe, a Mexican grill and a pizza restaurant were all named by the government to be subject to the crackdown. That pizza restaurant, once named home of the world’s best pizza, was prevented from serving a bottle of wine (as it exceeds the 4 drink limit) after midnight
The beginnings of the one size fits all approach In 2009, a “temporary” freeze was introduced, banning the approval of any new licences in the CBD South, Kings Cross or Oxford Street area for a year. The Minister for Gaming and Racing made it clear that the measure was only intended as a stop-gap before longer term strategies could be developed.11 However it has been extended each year, remaining
- 31 -
because of the suburb it decided to operate in.18 For the next three years, this restaurant saw the never-ending imposition of new restrictions, culminating in the 2014 lockouts. It shut after its revenue fell 60%. 70 people were left looking for new employment.
not keeping the adjacent footpath clear of litter, not displaying an hours of operation sign, not maintaining an incident register, not scanning IDs or failing to comply with the lockout times.21 The last of these saw an application by police to record a strike against a hotel in Surry Hills after a woman was let in for 17 seconds post 1:30am, when the bar was closed, for the purpose of retrieving her phone.22 Reassuringly, the application was denied by the Secretary, but only after considering that the entire CCTV system had been replaced and the relevant security guard had been fired.
A weight too great to bear Since 2011, licensees across the state have had to navigate the “three strikes” regime, whereby certain breaches of the Liquor Act are recorded as strikes.19 The first can lead to imposition of conditions on the service of alcohol; the second grants the Secretary discretion over whom to appoint manager and the power to impose lockouts, restrict trading to 11pm or prohibit certain types of liquor and entertainment. The third can lead to suspension or cancellation of the licence or other disciplinary action.20 If a breach has occurred, the first strike is incurred automatically, while the second and third is at the discretion of the Secretary and the ILGA respectively. Significantly for those who own licensed premises, strikes are recorded against the premise itself and endure even if they are sold to someone else, reducing the value of the property.
A licensee is also at risk of a strike if they permit intoxication on the premises, an offence which is now being enforced far more rigorously.23 A person is defined to be intoxicated when their “balance, speech or coordination is noticeably affected” and it is “reasonable to believe” that this is the “result of the consumption of liquor”.24 While this subjective threshold of “noticeably” is at odds with the scientific understanding of the effects of alcohol, it creates an onus on licensees to continually patrol their own venues, evaluating and then ejecting patrons who they think meet this standard. Set within a culture of pre-drinking, this offence makes a licensee responsible for a patron who is able to enter a venue while showing no signs of intoxication (yet), despite rapidly consuming large amounts of alcohol immediately prior. If this patron is discovered by police or licensing inspectors once they begin to be noticeably affected, before one of the licensee’s employees do, a strike will be incurred. The drastic consequences that could accrue to a licensee if this offence occurs creates an incentive to
Originally, strikes could only be incurred for more serious breaches, such as supplying to a minor, permitting indecent or violent conduct, breaching trading hours or otherwise failing to comply with any restriction imposed on the venue. As of 2014, any breach of a condition by a venue inside the lockout zone is a strike offence. This now includes CCTV not covering every publicly accessible area,
- 32 -
be overcautious in serving and admitting patrons, further hurting their bottom line.
and deciding the appropriate restriction to apply to a venue once it has received a strike. It has taken a very restrictive approach to any application to extend trading hours even when there are no objections from the Local Council, Police or members of the public. One such case was a restaurant in Manly seeking to extend its trading from 10pm to midnight on a Sunday. Despite only applying to have liquor served with a meal and having recorded no incidents, the Authority came to the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the extra two hours would cause some patrons to:
Buried within the rafts of changes that accompanied the 2014 lockouts was a measure for a recurrent licence fees to be introduced, venues now having to pay annually (previously the application for a license was a one-off sum), for the right to operate. Little attention was paid at the time, as it was planned to come into force in the future and the legislation detailing only that it be “risk-based”. After the 2015 election, the scheme was announced, with “risk” subject to a broad interpretation, as even the most of innocuous of premises within the Sydney CBD or Kings Cross became subject to a $2000 risk loading by virtue of their location. Despite the nomenclature of the strikes suggesting that venues are given three chances to get their act together before suffering serious consequences, in reality the strike has now become a penalty in and of itself, as each costs the licensee $3000 per year for three years. Furthermore, opening till 1:30am now costs $2500 a year, and any later $5000, while a large patron capacity means a loading of up to $8000. The cumulative effect of this results in a $15,000 plus yearly fee for a large venue (with no strikes) open till late in the city, providing yet another financial headache for even the most scrupulous and law-abiding licensees.
“…consume alcohol to excess, over an extended period. The Authority is satisfied that these patrons will move through the neighbouring streets of Manly after departing the Premises, either migrating to other late trading licensed premises or taking public or private transport away from the area. In the process of doing so, they will be more likely than would otherwise be the case to contribute to incidents of alcohol-related disturbance and offensive conduct occurring later on a Sunday evening in Manly. Alternatively, the conduct of some departing patrons may fall short of criminality yet still cause adverse impact upon residential amenity - for example, patrons talking loudly among themselves, laughing, arguing, yelling and/or making noise when departing by motor vehicles.” 26
The ILGA and the Secretary: Custodians of the public interest
In the same decision, the ILGA recognised that there was a “degree of speculation” involved, before deciding that the benefits to the community of another late trading restaurant in the area were “limited”
The ILGA25 makes quasi-judicial rulings on applications to extend or vary trading hours, hearing submissions on third strikes
- 33 -
compared to the aforementioned negative impacts. The application was denied.
alcohol must have the place of their last drink identified and recorded, no matter how far they have travelled since.29 This program was recommended as a non-punitive means to identify which venues needed information and educational feedback on responsible service.30 However, it is being used to support restrictions on licences and decisions to record strikes, which are essentially punitive in nature, with links even being made with low-level drinkdriving offences.31 This seems to create an onus on licensees not only to prevent serving patrons to the state of intoxication, but to prevent serving them to any point over the legal BAC limit if they plan to drive home. This use of Alcohol Linking statistics is a conflation of fault on behalf of the licensee with mere correlation data, implying that alcohol consumed at that venue caused the offence to occur.
This same expansive speculation is undertaken in decisions made on behalf of the Secretary to record second strikes. For example, a bar in Port Macquarie was found to be, inter alia, permitting intoxication after police reviewed CCTV and identified a group of patrons who were “unsteady on their feet” and dancing “carelessly and sexually suggestively”. Directed to consider the “seriousness of any harm that may have resulted from the offence”27, the Secretary took into account the “potentially fatal consequences associated with alcoholrelated violence” and the increased “likelihood a person will exercise impaired judgement which may lead to a range of personal and health-related consequences.” Examples of this paternalistic view of the public interest are found in a multitude of decisions by both the ILGA and the Secretary, as an undeniably higher rate of assaults committed when people are intoxicated is stretched to support the notion that alcohol, when consumed to intoxication, can cause anybody to become violent.
How politics killed the social experiment The first seven years of the new Liquor Act saw eight major amendments, each adding its own new set of restrictions, evidencing what Jenny Fleming calls “political short termism”32 as each new government looked for interventions that had at least the superficial appearance of addressing the violence. The 2014 lockouts were the newest attempt at a quick-fix for an issue, which politically (if not statistically) had refused to go away. Premier Baird’s recent boast of the clear drop in assault rates failed to recognise the pre-existing downward trend in alcohol-related violence since 2008.33 The problem with introducing a tranche of measures simultaneously is
Section 51 of the Liquor Act allows police to apply to the ILGA to restrict the trading hours of a venue, which worryingly may present a back-door to effectively cancelling a licence, if the hours are restricted to the point of commercial unviability. The evidence supporting such an application often consists of data from its Alcohol Linking Program.28 Whenever an incident is addressed by police, any person involved (victim or offender) who has consumed
- 34 -
that it becomes impossible to disentangle their individual effects. The 2014 blanket lockouts were just one part of what was O’Farrell’s fourth round of restrictions, introduced before the effect of the first three could be assessed and thereby leaving open the possibility that the current drop is at least partly attributable to pre-existing reform. The scant pre-lockout data available seems to show that the attention on the Cross was already reducing onpremise assault.34 Further, although the 2013 legislation requiring ID scanning only took effect after the lockout, police anecdotally attribute it to a reduction in crime.35 While a population of human beings is a far cry from a laboratory setting, in this case, it is particularly difficult to decide which variables, if any—the 10pm closing of bottle shops, the 1:30am lockout or the 3am last drinks—are responsible for the drop we see. Premier Baird’s claim that the lockout laws were “clearly improving this city” failed to mention that the final line concluding the report on which he was relying read: “the extent to which this is due to a change in alcohol consumption or a change in the number of people visiting…remains unknown”.
lockouts, curfews and conditions on the service of alcohol, not dissimilar to the ones on all city venues now, on just 48 of those 100.37 Remarkably, follow-up studies found that violence dropped for both venues with and without restrictions, at the same rate.38 The drop began at the point when the violent venues were named and the media attention on the issue was at its peak, with the actual restrictions having no measurable effect after they were introduced. Given the outpouring of grief and collective soul-searching that took place across this city after the deaths of both Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie, this data suggests that media attention and awareness may have played a greater role in influencing the behaviour of the population than many would expect. As both their deaths were followed with an immediate increase in restrictions, it is all but impossible to decipher what really is reducing the violence. Conclusion While shifting some onus to venues to address issues surrounding alcohol and violence is practical and fair, it is naive to see responsibility for such issues as beginning and ending with the premises. The hostility towards the operation of even the best-run licensed venues, when read in conjunction with the stated aim of decreasing patrons in the city and the tortuous public interest reasoning of the ILGA, collectively betray a pivotal point: this government sees reducing the number of people going out after dark as a legitimate means of reducing violence. Amongst the murky search for causation in discerning the effects of the
Even if the drop in violence represents a fundamental change in the way people have been consuming alcohol rather than just a drop in patronage, attributing this solely to the legislation is probably unwarranted, however tempting such an intellectual shortcut may be. Take, for example, the 2008 restrictions. The Sydney Morning Herald released a list of the 100 most violent venues in Sydney36 and six months later, the government placed
- 35 -
legislation, one thing is clear. Sydney’s live music scene is wounded.39 Sydney’s bars and clubs are closing.40 Sydney at night has become a city of those on their way home instead of using the public space to socialise.41 The present legislation is the result of a government casting a net of restrictions wider and wider in a desperate attempt to stifle violence. To date, it has shown little concern for the non-violent premises and the non-violent patrons that have been inadvertently caught as well. u
Sydney’s live music scene is wounded. Sydney’s bars and clubs are closing. Sydney at night has become a city of those on their way home ...
Ruben Robertson
- 36 -
I
W H AT W E R E W E T H I N K I N G? Knee-jerk reform and why our most necessary bureaucracies deserve celebrating.
David Badea BCom / LLB I
t can be very difficult sometimes, as a young person, to get behind politicians. You are expected to respect the vicarious authority of people who look, dress, live and think nothing like you. All the while, society is ever so adamant that our representative democracy is a beacon of truth and light that ought not be questioned. By the same token, you are also expected to watch politicians enact laws with which you almost always disagree, whilst they are paid disproportionate sums of money to do so. After a term, they are re-elected to their posts for yet another not-so-productive tenure of fruitless debates and sinister bargaining that undercuts all the values they swore by only a few months earlier.
sometimes as a young person, it feels the only way to properly voice your disapproval is to align yourself with dissident political movements. To identify with factions so far removed from the establishment that you’re able to convince yourself you’ll never turn into ‘one of them’. The best way – it seems – to prove this to yourself is to rally behind causes that truly mean something to you. To stand up to politicians and the passive forbearers of our society and demand action. To march your way down Sydney’s main roads. In your thousands. To assert that the status quo is simply not okay. There is perhaps no political structure in the world in which these kinds of movements would lead to more material change than in Australia’s. It would then probably shock you to find that this plot best describes protests against legislation that has saved lives, namely, the Sydney lockout laws.1 It is definitely a tenable argument to suggest that no example of social galvanism lingers in the palate of our state quite as much as these laws.
At least, this is the impression you’ll get if you ever find yourself lured into the rabbithole affectionately called ‘the mainstream media’. It feels then, once you’re immersed in the headlines of all the scathing articles your friends are ‘liking’, that the system works against the idea of progress that seems so uncontroversial to you.
It is important to clarify, before discussing the issues, that this law has prevented serious injury and almost certainly saved lives. Verifiably.2 Positively. There are people today that would not otherwise be living or as able-bodied if it weren’t for these reforms.
Within this ecosystem, it is quite easy to realise why so many young people feel disenchanted with mainstream politics. When we consider the kind of ‘wait your turn’ ethos with which socio-political discussion is framed in the media, it is painfully obvious why a culture of resentment and distrust tends to dominate the political lives of young people. A lot of the time the problem is that this demographic feels it has no place at the table of political discourse at all. In fact,
- 38 -
The legislation must also be recognised for its merit as a tribute to those that have lost their lives to alcohol-fuelled violence on Sydney’s streets in the past, and not just as an afterthought.
- 39 -
The fundamental shortfalls of the laws, on which I trust the reader is well-informed, will not be discussed at length. It will be taken as fact that the laws are authoritarian and contrary to the founding principles of the Party that brought them into existence. Notwithstanding, the commercial and civil liberties that dominate the discussion of lockout laws are the opportunity cost of making Sydney safer. Whether an appropriate equilibrium has been struck will not be considered. Rather, our analysis of these laws deals with matters too important to be reduced to partisan finger-pointing.
that immediately followed these tragedies. We can reasonably conclude that these heartbreaks have had an overwhelming tendency to inspire media and social frenzy, which, despite bringing attention to important issues, runs the risk of being so caught up in making waves that it foregoes the very good for which they strove. Although these laws entered the political arena with a basis in statistics, these numbers are immaterial to your average Sydney Morning Herald reader. What really captures our emotions is anecdote, when
[A]s a society, we must reflect internally on the messages we relayed to our politicians after the deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie. Instead, these laws serve as metaphors for the banes of knee-jerk political reform. They are a paragon of what arises out of media frenzy, and the eventual behemoths we may find ourselves left with once our collective adrenaline begins to run dry.
we as a society are forced to put faces to the names that we would otherwise glaze over (if their stories were covered at all). These laws were not a response to an epidemic. If that were the case, we would have acted long ago.3 What they were representative of was a populace finally given the emotional incentive to act. But here is where things get dangerous.
But, in our frustrations it is important to realise that these are not reforms that a villainous Government or Premier gone astray simply dumped on our laps against our fervent protest. Rather, as a society, we must reflect internally on the messages we relayed to our politicians after the deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie. Upon analysis, it becomes clear that, in the face of some dissenting voices, by and large we brought this on ourselves. Look no further than the dense and superfluous rhetoric
Perhaps most poignant of the cases that brought this to the forefront of our minds was that of Thomas Kelly. Sparing you all the details, which assuredly remain firm in the minds of those who knew him personally, Kelly was killed in an unprovoked alcohol-induced assault in Kings Cross. Followed soon after by the case of Daniel Christie, what ensued was
- 40 -
Lower House at lunchtime. The Upper House voted in favour shortly before dinner.7
typical rhetoric of condemnation on the part of the State Government. Thereafter, it promised not to let these deaths go in vain and passed both the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) and the Crimes Amendment (Alcohol and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW) with bipartisan support. Instituting both harsh penalties for alcohol-fuelled violence, and laws introducing 1.30am lockouts and 3am ‘last drinks’ across the Sydney Entertainment Precinct (amongst other provisions),4 we were told to rest assured that this robust policy was now in place to deter one-punch attacks and ‘keep our streets safe’.
For a law that saves lives, its merits must always undergo a pragmatic process of evaluation. As much as many would like to argue that laws as plainly altruistic as these don’t demand drawn-out discussion, it is precisely this logic that incubates ‘bad’ law. When we decide that some laws should be insulated from a certain level of popular scrutiny, we venture into treacherous territory. When this drafting and reviewing process is as expedited as in the case of the lockout laws, the aforementioned disenfranchising of Sydney’s youthful populace—toward whom this policy was directed—can be nothing short of expected.
So it was this social angst—obviously motivated by the reasonable citizen’s response to those emotional stories, but also by media— that gave these policies the popular footing on which to run their course.5 But it is in the process of these laws being primed for entry into force that their key shortfalls begin to show.
Before a State law can be passed, an often repeated process of drafting and then debate must take place in both houses of Parliament. It is irrational to believe that any policy addressing an issue with ramifications on the local economy, crime, and ultimately the actual lives of real human beings, does not deserve the pensiveness afforded to other such bills.
The typical delay for a law to be passed through State Parliament amounts from days to weeks (and occasionally even months). Oftentimes, the drafting process itself demands far longer.
By and large, the most successful government reform is brewed not out of self-propagating social angst, as in the case of the lockout laws, but out of a calculated, poised and oftentimes empirically tested policy which has demanded intense public and private scrutiny before ever passing into law. Take almost all other major positive advancements in Australian politics at large — from Medicare to superannuation — this holds. On a state level, the same logic, that
In the case of the lockout laws, it took little over two months from the original protests over the death of Thomas Kelly for Premier Barry O’Farrell to both announce and pass the reforms. Some experts prefer to consider their metric from the death of Daniel Christie (amounting to an approximate delay of only one month).6 Once tabled, the bill was approved in the
- 41 -
‘good law’ takes time, holds. Parliamentary scrutiny can never be undervalued. When we do something, albeit uncontroversial, we have to do it right. The protections that these lengthy procedures offer to society, by ensuring that the statutes that govern it uphold the basic tenets of equity, probity and efficacy, are always necessary. But the key obstacle for any government seeking to appease an enraged people is to satisfy their immediate demands as generously as possible. The one trouble in catering to these accelerated concerns is that the above processes can never be expedited fast enough without sacrificing procedural integrity. Consider it the equivalent of a judge skipping over evidence in a criminal matter. Imagine them ruling on assumptions and wishful thinking in a case, purely because the public will challenge the judge’s position should he fail to rule as they please. You do not have to be a legal professional to understand just how dangerous this predicament is.
These are the misconceptions from which knee-jerk reforms arise. Unfortunately, forgoing the accountable system of review and hefty long-term debate—as in the case of lockout laws—is precisely the emotional response that panders to short-term political gain, but defies the level of scrutiny we expect from our leaders. The jury, for now, is still out on the merits of lockout laws, but — be they the best reforms in the state’s history, or otherwise—they are the derivative of a tainted marriage between a disgruntled populace and a government seeking to sure-up power.
our counterparts, it is clear that this is not always the best way to tackle crime. Droves of presidential hopefuls have run on the popular platforms of stopping drug crimes that weren’t happening quite in the ways they were sold.8
understood. When politics are reactionary, policy should become the domain of intellectuals and experts, not purely that of the politicians that guide it. As a society, we must eventually realise that we can’t be right all of the time.
The second major concern is that this case is merely a fleeting example of standard political rhetoric, the kind of discourse that is so consumed in short term disgust that pragmatism quickly becomes secondary. This idea poses procedural problems that are only elucidated in hindsight.
It is after all of this consideration that we come to a point when we realise that this red tape we love to hate is not actually red tape at all, but is in fact the political framework which protects society from its whims.
We can see real parallels with the butchering of New South Wales’ bail laws in the wake of the Sydney Siege. The State Government was equally responsive to widespread social frustrations at the news that the Sydney Siege was perpetrated by a man out on bail for a serious crime. Although his did not derive from any terrorism or radically-affiliated crimes, the sheer prospect that such abhorrent people could ‘slip through cracks’ of our legal system was enough to cause outrage.9 In this instance, we wilfully watched the State Government—for the sake of public opinion—perpetuate the ‘presumption against bail’ (s. 16A of the Bail Act 2013), which has weathered criticism for standing contrary to the doctrines of the burden of proof and innocence until guilt is proven.10 These stand without even mentioning that such laws engineer an imbalance between the rights of the accused and those of victims and society.
In these instances, the laws can arguably demonstrate a disregard for commercial and civil liberties. Although it would be unreasonable for us to ask politicians to let us ‘cool down’ before they hear us next, it would be less controversial to suggest to our leaders that perhaps what we as a society love to hate in government – bureaucracy – is actually a necessary cog in the political machine. Perhaps the political process starts and ends with an appreciation that good policy takes time. Perhaps this bureaucracy is not bureaucracy at all. Perhaps the lockout laws are our best reminder that good government isn’t always about appeasing the masses when they gather, but hearing the masses and then acting.
This red tape we love to hate is not actually red tape at all...
As a matter of fact, this is precisely what occurred. An underlying distrust in the political system as ‘bureaucratic’ is precisely what turns away voters. We, as a society, love to place ‘the powers that be’ at the centre of our frustrations, specifically the fact that they consistently seem to ‘get nothing done’. The key issue here is that, when the media sustains this sentiment in the minds of the everyday voter and then proceeds to impel and inspire action, a mercurial outcome is guaranteed.
Two key criticisms can be identified on the face of this narrative: First, the type of harsh political rhetoric that emerged from the State Government when instituting these one-punch laws can be highly counterproductive. We can learn from US lawmakers how easy it is to run on the tagline of being ‘tough on crime’. It is something that appeals to the inner human being in a way that no other State policy platform can. But looking to
- 42 -
The jury is still out on lockout laws, but perhaps we should have consulted them in the first place, instead of the gallery. u
It is in this similarity with the conditions of the bail laws that the problem is truly
- 43 -
‘C A S I N O M I K E’ A N D T H E LO C KO U T L AW S How social media can define a Premier.
Connor Sidney Wherret BEc / LLB I
The bulk of the attention offered towards the implications of the legislation has occurred in 2016, with the phrase ‘lockout laws’ reaching peak in February 2016. This should come as no surprise, as this was the month in which Sydney executive Matt Barrie released a lengthy criticism of the laws on his LinkedIn account. This – as well as growing public criticism – prompted Baird himself to defend the laws with a detailed, statistical Facebook post. Most of the readers did not share his viewpoint. 300 ‘Angry’ reactions appeared, 10,000 mostly negative comments were added, and, a little over two weeks later, over fifteen thousand people gathered in Sydney to protest the laws in the “Keep Sydney Open” rally. As a result of such widespread interest, the Premier was asked to defend the casino exemptions that exist under the laws, and whether or not they are justifiable. The following exchange took place on Sam and Rove’s radio show on 15 March this year:
P
erhaps the most interesting development to result from the recent debate surrounding the ‘lockout laws,’ has been a dramatic change in the perception of young people towards the Premier, Mike Baird. The transition from his status as The Bachelor-loving “cool dad” to “Casino Mike” is the product of an increasingly prevalent viewpoint being framed: that the casino-exemptions of the laws are the result of more sinister business operations. While each citizen is free to determine the possibility of such cynical allegations, what cannot be debated is that young people have made up their mind about Mr Baird, aka the Premier who took away their right to party. The legislation provided a map for the ‘Sydney Entertainment Precinct.’ Immediately upon viewing the map, it is easy to notice the first out-of-place exemption, Barangaroo. The map also does not extend to the suburb of Pyrmont, home of The Star Casino. Surprisingly in 2014, the public response to the casino exemptions was minimal. The word ‘casino’ is in fact rarely mentioned in either the newspaper articles detailing the law or the parliamentary Hansard in which the laws were debated. It should be noted however, that the construction at the site of Barangaroo was minimal and recent developments have renewed interest. In addition, opposition to the laws was at a lower level due to the then-limited understanding by the community of their effects.
- 44 -
Rove: “Why are places like Barangaroo and The Star allowed to be open 24/7?” Sam: “Cos they got the dollars!” Mike Baird: “No, they, I mean there’s, there, there, there are different issues there, I mean they’re, they’re given licences across a range of parameters, but there’s a number of controls that come with those specific licences, but...” Rove: “Such as?” Baird: “Um, well I mean, security requirements, I mean, there is all types of things that come into a casino licence...”
Unsurprisingly, he has failed to convince young people that lockout laws are not needed in such places. This creates an issue for the perception of Mike Baird among young people. Interestingly, this recently incubated negative perception is not determined by questions of appropriate regulation, statistics or research. It is caused by an inability to explain and properly defend the extent of a map to the demographic most affected. It is for the cynical readers to judge whether or not this is due to Mike Baird being aware of BOCSAR statistics that indicate The Star Casino is perhaps the most violent venue in Sydney. Mike Baird’s resulting fall in popularity with younger New South Welshmen can be examined as part of a broader international phenomenon concerning young voters. The relative successes of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in
- 45 -
the US and UK respectively indicate that young people, especially young people on the internet, have strong concern for proper explanation and reasonable justification. They are critical, they are concerned, and they have an aptitude for reading through political fictions. While politicians engaging in popular culture can provide a boost in popularity, such as when Mike was crowned the winner of The Bachelor by Buzzfeed, the determining factor in securing the support of younger voters is an ability to reach beyond the wall of political disingenuity.
high. However, the effect of trends, memes and online movements on social media cannot be understated; they are in many ways the future of communication. From Mike, there are really two lessons to be learned. Firstly, if you have a controversial policy, it is most unwise to include such an easily targetable feature, especially when the data appears to be against you. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, communication with young people is simultaneously complex and simple. While young people can be hard to reach and hard to connect with, the Sanders phenomenon informs us that if you explain what you believe in, and what you believe in resonates, then you can allow yourself to be a 21st century Che Guevara (in matters inspirational, not necessarily political). If not, all that will result is that you will turn from relatable dad, to draconian dad, to Casino Mike. u
Unfortunately for Mike, his negative perception among young people has stuck. A browse through the hashtag ‘#CasinoMike’ reveals hundreds of crasslyphotoshopped images and Sydney graffiti of a wine-drinking Mike gambling away. For those involved in the Sydney nightlife, it is not surprising that an entire venue in the CBD might start chanting “Casino Mike! Casino Mike!” with worrying aggression. Even worse for Mike, it has appeared to have had an effect on his political edge in the State. While comfortably ahead if an election were to be held, Mr Baird’s lead as preferred Premier has dropped 15 points in one month. The growing interest in social media and how it affects politics have allowed media monitoring services such as iSentia Media to grow, who have reported that both Mr Baird’s online mentions and negative perception have increased. Now it is possible that the drop in popularity can be explained by other current issues in state politics, such as the council amalgamations, especially as support for the laws remains
- 46 -
E A S Y TA R G E T S A N D M I S R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S The superficial success of the lockout laws. Elspeth Crawford JD I
I
n February 2014, the NSW Government introduced a series of measures in the Liquor Amendment Act 2014, now dubbed the ‘lockout laws’. They were brought in as a response to increasing public pressure regarding the issue of alcohol-fuelled violence. The argument was that safety would be improved by implementing lockouts in the more violent Kings Cross and the CBD areas of Sydney. The measures introduced by the 2014 Act include a 10pm curfew on take-away alcohol purchases and a prohibition on entry into venues after 1.30am, with last drinks at 3.30am. These measures have, on paper, succeeded in lowering incidents of alcohol related assaults. Following the laws, the NSW Government declared success: assaults had dropped by 60% in Kings Cross and 42.2% in the CBD.1
But these statistics failed to take into account the fact that the decrease in violence came hand in hand with a dramatic reduction in foot traffic in the Kings Cross and CBD areas. At play here, then, is a dramatic statistical misrepresentation to the public regarding the effectiveness of these amendments. The laws were introduced without community consultation, a fact acknowledged only retrospectively. If this were not enough to set democracy alarm bells ringing, the crowning glory is the exemption of The Star Casino, leaving an area free from lockout laws that looks ‘as natural a geographic border as the Gaza Strip.’2
- 48 -
Recent BOSCAR research reports that in 2015, 49% of the incidents of ‘non-domestic violence’ in the Pyrmont area occurred in the premises of The Star Casino, with a further 71% of people involved in assaults being patrons of it.3 The NSW Government gleefully broadcasted statistics confirming the safety of ‘post-lockout’ Sydney, yet the research demonstrates a strong correlation between the lockout in the Kings Cross and CBD areas, and the increase in violence surrounding the Casino. The BOSCAR research analysis narrative states that the ‘number of assaults in The Star casino precinct was significantly higher in the post-lockout period.’4 With plans for another casino to be built in the exemption zone, the question arises: on what grounds are these laws being declared successful, and who is buying it?
RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN GROUNDED BY THE NSW GOVERNMENT; LOCKED OUT OF THEIR OWN CITY Critics of lockout laws voice concerns that the onerous restrictions are symptomatic of a nanny-state. Residents have been grounded by the NSW Government; locked out of their own city, told when to buy alcohol and when to go home. From full-time students to life-long local business people, those whose ability to support themselves depends on a night-time economy have been seriously affected. Interests in live music contributing to a vibrant night-time culture have been abandoned. A recent offline petition attracted the 10,000 signatures required to trigger debate in the Legislative Assembly. The debate acknowledged that ‘if artists and bands can’t get gigs [in Sydney] they will simply move elsewhere’ and that there had been a 40% reduction in revenue from live music in the area. Jenny Leong’s address also attracted a full gallery of support in the otherwise vacant chamber of the NSW Parliament, with the audience applauding before being reminded by the chair, in good humor, that it was not common practice to applaud Parliamentary sittings. Whilst the catalyst for these laws were tragic events that should by no means be ignored, it is for these events alone that an entire city is being punished. The Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets protest
- 49 -
movements that have emerged as a result of community outrage at the new set of laws were quickly dismissed as a vocal minority. Part of that ‘vocal minority’ was Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who believes the night-time economy has been damaged by the laws, alongside the thousands who have taken to Sydney’s streets in protest.5 It’s easy to dismiss protesters of these laws as party-people, objecting to not being able to ‘drink ‘till dawn any more’ and who ‘can’t impulse-buy a bottle of white after 10pm.’6 This ignores the fact that many of the protesters’ livelihoods depend on a thriving nighttime economy. It’s easy to close down an entire area of a city and to declare it safe because no one goes there. It’s not easy to target entrenched cultural issues and acknowledge that Australia has huge problems with alcohol-related violence. Nor is it easy to justify why laws brought about to target violence exempts one of the most violent venues in the area.
Sydney is an amazing city. Those fortunate enough to reside here are dubbed ‘the lucky people’, and lucky we are; world famous beaches surround a city filled with gorgeous, friendly, people with big hearts. We reside in a thriving multicultural city, of which we should be proud. Its dark side is merely down to the ill-advised actions of a violent few. It must be acknowledged that violence is a problem and one that must be tackled. But so too must we question a Government that refuses to tackle these fundamental issues with the sophistication that Sydney deserves, such as reviews into punitive remedies for those responsible and informed debate as to why the link between alcohol and violence is so strong.
The NSW Government have chosen the easy target. Suspicion should be raised against a Government that punishes its thriving, diverse city with hasty laws passed with flagrant disregard for community consultation processes while inexplicably protecting the interests of gambling hubs.
These lockout laws have encroached on the freedom of the peaceful majority. The pejorative dismissal of their voices is symptomatic of a concerning style of state control. It is one that takes Sydney-siders for fools, diverting real questions with abstracted and misrepresentative data. It is one that should not be ignored nor dismissed under the guise of a safe but empty city. Instead, the lockout laws demand close attention, alongside the governmental processes by which they were enacted. A Review into the laws, which the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC was appointed to oversee, is due in August. Hopefully, the Government will use this opportunity to save face and address the need to get the balance right. u
- 50 -
- 51 -
Public priorities and private epidemics: Lockout laws and the prioritisation of visible victims
Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, FARE submission to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, May 2015, 5.
Olivia Ronan
9. PR Giancola, CA Levinson, MD Croman, AJ Godlaski, DH Morris, JP Phillips and JC Holt, ‘Men and women, alcohol and aggression’ (2009) 17 Experimental and Clinical Psychoparmacology 154.
1. ‘One-punch alcohol laws passed by NSW Parliament’, ABC News (online), 31 January 2014 <http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2014-01-30/one-punch-alcohollaws-pass-in-nsw-lower-house/5227078>. 2. Ibid.
10. Helen White and PH Chen, ‘Problem drinking and intimate partner violence’ (2002) 63 Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 205.
3. New South Wales Government, Alcohol and Drug fueled violence initiatives (2016) <http://www.nsw.gov.au/alcoholand-drug-fuelled-violence-initiatives>.
11. Ibid 883.
4. See, eg, ANROWS, Violence against women in Australia: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey 2012 (22 October 2015) <http://anrows.org.au/publications/ horizons/PSS>.
12. Ibid 886. 13. Ibid 885. 14. Michael Livingston, ‘A longitudinal analysis of alcohol outlet density and domestic violence’ (2011) 106 Addiction 919, cited in Wilson, Graham and Taft, above n 11, 885.
5. Jenny Mouzos and Toni Makkai, ‘Women’s experiences of male violence: findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS)’ (Research and Public Policy Series No 56, Australian Institute of Criminology, January 2004).
15. Wenbin Liang and Tanya Chikritzhs, ‘Revealing the link between licensed outlets and violence: counting venues versus measuring alcohol availability’ (2011) 30 Drug and Alcohol Review 524, cited in Wilson, Graham and Taft, above n 11, 886.
6. See, eg, NSW Health, Focus Topic: Under-Reporting of Domestic Violence Assaults (2016) New South Wales Government <https://www.women.nsw. gov.au/women_in_nsw/current_report/ safety_and_access_to_justice/focus_topic_ under-reporting_of_domestic_violence_ assaults>.
16. See, eg, New South Wales Government, Lockouts and mandatory minimums to be introduced to tackle violence (21 January 2014) <http://www.nsw. gov.au/news/lockouts‐and‐mandatory‐ minimums‐be‐introduced‐tackle‐ violence>. 17. James Robertson, ‘Sydney lockout laws: Premier Mike Baird defends laws as independent review approaches’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 9 February 2016 <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydneylockout-laws-premier-mike-bairddefends-laws-as-independent-reviewapproaches-20160209-gmp6dw.html>.
7. World Health Organization, Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence (2010) <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstre am/10665/44350/1/9789241564007_eng. pdf?ua=1> 23. 8. Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Submission No 647 to
- 53 -
18. Don Weatherburn, Did the ‘lockout law’ reforms increase assaults at The Star Casino, Pyrmont (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016).
4. “Our Beliefs”. The Liberal Party of Australia. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 5. “Submissions To The Independent Liquor Law Review”. NSW Justice: Independent Liquor Law Review. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
19. Ibid. 20. Francesca Wallace and Michael Koziol, ‘The new Kings Cross: lockout laws send revelers to Newtown’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 21 June 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/newtowngets-busy-as-kings-cross-empties20150619-ghseco.html>.
6. ABC,. “#Keepsydneyopen: Thousands Of Protesters Call For Sydney’s Lockout Laws To Be Revoked”. 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 7. Barrie, Matt. “Would The Last Person In Sydney Please Turn The Lights Out?”. Matt Barrie Linkedin. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
21. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (‘BOCSAR’), Domestic violence statistics for NSW (2015).
8. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2015, ‘Lockouts and last drinks: The impact of the January 2014 licence reforms on assaults in NSW Australia’, Crime and Justice Bulletin, No 183, available at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov. au/Documents/CJB/CJB183.pdf
22. BOCSAR, Domestic violence statistics for NSW (2014). 23. BOCSAR, 2015, above n 22. 24. BOCSAR, 2014, above n 23. 25. BOCSAR, 2015, above n 22.
9. Clennell, Andrew. “Violence Down As Lockout Law Bites”. Daily Telegraph 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
26. BOCSAR, 2014, above n 23.
10. Dumas, Daisy. “Sydney Lockout Laws A Dismal Failure, Matt Barrie Writes In 70-Page Submission”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
Australians all, let us rejoice, for we are young and free: An analysis of the “necessary state” and Liberal Party hypocrisy.
11. Evershed, Nick. “Sydney’s Lockout Laws: Five Key Facts About The City’s Alcohol Debate”. The Guardian 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
Alan Zheng 1. “Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW)”. Australian Legal Information Institute (AUSTLII). N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
12. Koziol, Michael. “Explainer: The Sydney Lockout Laws Debate”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 13. McNally, April. “Sydney Lockout Laws: Lord Mayor Clover Moore Calls For Exemptions For Compliant Venues”. ABC 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
2. “Liquour Amendment Bill 2014”. Australian Legal Information Institute (AUSTLII). N.p., 2014. Web. 7 May 2016.
14. Needham, Kirsty. “Lockouts: Poll Shows Two-Thirds Of NSW Residents Want Laws To Stay”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
3. “New Alcohol Laws Now In Place: Sydney’s Alcohol Laws”. NSW Government. N.p., 2014. Web. 7 May 2016.
- 54 -
15. News.com.au,. “Mike Baird Smashed Over Lockout Laws Rant”. 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
How bars, clubs and live music became casualties of a crusade against violence.
16. Nicholls, Sean. “Five Reasons Matt Barrie Is Wrong On Sydney’s Lockout Laws”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
Ruben Robertson 1. New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 30 January 2014, (Paul Lynch).
17. Palmer, Adam. “The Premier, The Lockout And The Review That Can’t Come Soon Enough”. Broadsheet 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
2. Editorial, ‘Time to curb the alcohol culture’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 January 2014; Janet Fife-Yeomans and Alicia Wood, ‘Daily Telegraph launches campaign to end alcohol-fuelled carnage’ The Daily Telegraph, 4 January 2014.
18. Raper, Ashleigh. “Hundreds Make Submissions To NSW Government Review Of Sydney Lockout Laws”. ABC 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
3. Suzanne Briscoe and Neil Donnelly, ‘Liquor Licensing Enforcement Activity in New South Wales’ (2003) Alcohol Studies Bulletin, no. 4, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.
19. Renner, Christina and Ashleigh Cowper. “Is This The Death Of Late Night Sydney? Liquor Amendment Bill Passed By NSW Parliament”. Gadens. N.p., 2014. Web. 7 May 2016.
4. Jenny Fleming, ‘Rules of Engagement: Policing anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises’ (2008) NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.
20. Reynolds, Emma and Andrew Koubaridis. “Lockout Laws’ Star Attraction: Inside Sydney’s Biggest AfterHours Venue”. News.com.au 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
5. Suzanne Briscoe and Neil Donnelly, ‘Assaults on Licensed Premises in InnerUrban Areas’ (2001) Alcohol Studies Bulletin, no. 2, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney. (The most violent venue in the state was The Star Casino.)
21. Rooke, Drew. “Sydney’s Casinos Escape Lockout Laws, Smoking Bans And More”. The Saturday Paper 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 22. Seidler, Jonathan. “What Does Sydney Really Think About The Lockout Laws?”. Broadsheet 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
6. Significantly, over three quarters of licensed premises in state recorded zero incidents over the two year study period. 7. Lance Smith, Anthony Morgan and Amanda McAtamney, ‘Policing licensed premises in the Australian Capital Territory’ (2011) Technical Background Paper, no 48, Australian Institute of Criminology.
Photographs by Jonathan Gu (All Rights Reserved) © https://www.flickr.com/photos/ Jonoawesomeguy Permission granted for editorial use.
8. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) s 88. 9. Carlo Soliman, ‘Judge, Jury and Executioner: Powers and appeal processes
- 55 -
under the new liquor regime’ (2009) November, Law Society Journal of NSW, 56.
ILGA is ornamental, as it is staffed entirely from government departments. 26. Application for Extended Trading Authorisation under Section 49(2) Liquor Act 2007 - Belgrave Cartel (20 February 2013) ILGA. See Tony Hatzis, ‘Case Law and Legislative Update’ (Paper presented at Liquor and Gaming 2014 CLE Seminar, UNSW, February 2014) 18 for analysis. Verbatim reasoning can be found in many other similar ILGA decisions, see, eg Application under Section 51(9)(b) Liquor Act 2007 to vary an extended trading authorisation – Marrickville Tavern (31 October 2014) ILGA 7.
10. Elizabeth Farelly, ‘New ways to whet the appetite’ The Sydney Morning Herald, November 10, 2007. 11. New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 3 September (Kevin Greene). 12. Made by the regulatory power granted to Liquor & Gaming under Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) s 116C as inserted by Liquor Amendment Act 2014 No 3 (NSW). 13. Ibid s 47E.
27. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) s 144D(2)(c).
14. Ibid s 52.
28. Tony Hatzis, ‘Case Law and Legislative Update’ 20.
15. Ibid s 131. 16. Ibid sch 4.
29 Wiggers J, Radvan D, Dalton A, Valentine M, Nicholas C (2009). The Alcohol Linking Program: Adoption by New South Wales Police. Newcastle: Hunter New England Health.
17. Despite hosting the most assaults in the state, The Star Casino was not made subject to these restrictions. 18. David Spicer, ‘Hugo’s Lounge in Sydney’s Kings Cross forced to close after revenue drop, owner blames lockout laws’ ABC News (Online) 30 July 2015.
30. NSW Audit Office 2008, Working with hotels and clubs to reduce alcoholrelated crime, Auditor-General’s Report Performance Audit, Audit Office, New South Wales.
19. With the exception of The Star Casino.
31. Application to Vary an Extended Trading Authorisation under Section 51(9)(b) of the Liquor Act 2007 - Hillside Hotel, Castle Hill (6 February 2013) ILGA, 6.
20. Tony Hatzis, ‘Current traps and complexities in NSW liquor licensing’ (2012) May, Law Society Journal of NSW, 55.
32. Fleming, above n 4, 31.
21. Tony Hatzis, ‘High risk: New liquor licensing laws’ (2014) April, Law Society Journal of NSW, 62.
33. James Robertson, ‘Sydney lockout laws: Premier Mike Baird defends laws as independent review approaches’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 February 2016.
22. Notice of Decision under S.144D(2) of the Liquor Act 2007 in relation to a Second Strike – Hollywood Hotel, Surry Hills (25 November 2015) OLGR.
34. Don Weatherburn, ‘Trends in assault in Kings Cross’ (BOCSAR Media Release, 15 January 2014).
23. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) s71.
35. Ashlee Mullany ‘ID scans hit crime in Kings Cross party precinct’ The Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2014.
24. Ibid s 5. 25. Note the “Independent” prefix of the
- 56 -
36. Acquired via a freedom of information request. See Matthew Moore ‘Revealed: the most violent pubs and clubs’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 March 2008.
gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2015/ mr_cjb183.aspx> 3. Mower, Jane. “One in eight deaths of young Australians attributable to alcohol: National Council on Drugs report”. ABC 2013. Web. 16 May 2016.
37. Liquor Amendment (Special Licence Conditions) Act 2008 (NSW).
4. NSW Government, “New alcohol laws now in place: Sydney’s alcohol laws”, available at: <http://www.nsw.gov.au/ newlaws>
38. Steve Moffat et al, ‘Liquor licensing enforcement and assaults on licensed premises’ (Issue Paper No 40, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, October 2009).
5. AAP. “Thomas Kelly: hundreds protest against alcohol-related violence”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 16 May 2016.
39. Music Australia, Submission to Hon. Ian Callinan AC, Independent review of the impact of liquor law reforms, 31 March 2016, 4. 40. Keep Sydney Open, Submission to Hon. Ian Callinan AC, Independent review of the impact of liquor law reforms, 31 March 2016, 10.
6. Weatherburn, Don. The effect of liquor licensing restrictions on assault in the Kings Cross and Sydney CBD Entertainment Precincts. Presented at The University of Sydney, 14 March 2016. Web. Viewed 22 May 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=siSsd2-UcB8>
41. City of Sydney, Urbis and Austraffic Late Night Management Areas Research: Phase 4 Report (September 2015).
7. ABC. “One-punch alcohol laws passed by NSW Parliament’. 2014. Web. 16 May 2016.
What were we thinking? Knee-jerk reform and why our most necessary bureaucracies deserve celebrating.
8. John, Arit. “A timeline of the rise and fall of ‘tough on crime’ drug sentencing”. Wire 2014. Web. 22 May 2016; Badger, Emily. “Is this the end of ‘tough on crime’?”. Washington Post 2014. Web. 22 May 2016. 9. Hasham, Nicole and Hall, Louise. “Man Monis granted bail six days after controversial bail laws brought in”. Sydney Morning Herald 2014. Web. 21 May 2016.
David Badea 1. Daily Telegraph. “Premier Mike Baird defends lockout laws after claims they’re killing Sydney’s nightlife”. 2016. Web. 16 May 2016; ABC. “#Keepsydneyopen: thousands of protesters call for Sydney’s lockout laws to be revoked”. 2016. Web. 7 May 2016.
10. AAP. “NSW set for strict new bail laws today”. Daily Telegraph 2015. Web. 22 May 2016.
2. Nicholls, Sean. “Five reasons Matt Barrie is wrong on Sydney’s lockout laws”. 2016. Web. 22 May 2016; “‘Lockout’ Law Evaluation”. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2016. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.bocsar.nsw.
‘Casino Mike’ and the lockout laws: How social media can define a Premier. Connor Sidney Wherrett
- 57 -
1. Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) sch 2.
Easy targets and misrepresentations: The superficial success of the lockout laws.
2. New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 30 January 2014, 26622-91.
Elspeth Crawford
3. ABC News, ‘Lockout laws begin aimed at reducing alcohol-related violence in Sydney’s CBD and Kings Cross’, ABC 2014. Web. 15 May 2016.
1. Mike Baird, (9th Febuary 2016) RE: the Lockout Laws, retrieved from <https:// www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP/>.
4. Google Trends – Web Search for “Lockout Laws” (22 May 2016) Google Trends <https://www.google.com.au/trends/ explore#q=lockout%20laws>.
2. M Bradley, ‘Casinos, Lock out laws, and the unravelling of Mike Baird’, ABC News 17th March 2016, <http://www.abc. net.au/news/2016-03-17/bradley-bairdand-the-lock-out-laws/7251396>.
5. Matt Barrie, Would the last person in Sydney please turn the lights out? (3 February 2016) LinkedIn Pulse <https:// www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-lastperson-sydney-please-turn-lights-outmatt-barrie>.
3. NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research, Did the ‘lockout law’ reforms increase assaults at The Star Casino, Pyrmont? <http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/ Documents/BB/Report-Did-the-lockoutlaw-reforms-increase-assaults-at-TheStar-casino-Pyrmont-bb114.pdf>.
6. ABC, “#Keepsydneyopen: Thousands Of Protesters Call For Sydney’s Lockout Laws To Be Revoked”. 2016. Web. 15 May 2016.
4. Ibid. 5. Lucy McNally, ‘Sydney lockout laws: Lord Mayor Clover Moore calls for exemptions for compliant venues’, ABC News, 4th April 2016, <http://www.abc. net.au/news/2016-04-04/clover-mooresays-lockout-laws-need-relaxing-forsome-venues/7296178>.
7. News.com.au, “Mike Baird Smashed Over Lockout Laws Rant”. 2016. Web. 15 May 2016. 8. 2DayFM, ‘Sam Frost Grills Premier Mike Baird’, Rove & Sam, 15 March 2016 <http://www.2dayfm.com.au/shows/roveand-sam/other-bits/sam-grills-premiermike-baird/>.
6. Mike Baird, (9th February 2016) RE: the Lockout Laws, retrieved from <https:// www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP/>.
9. Nicholls, Sean. “Star casino may be the most violent venue but exempt from restrictions”. Sydney Morning Herald 2015. Web. 15 May 2016.
Photography also thanks to:
10. Robertson, James. “One year since NSW election, Mike Baird’s sheen starts to wear off”. Sydney Morning Herald 2016. Web. 15 May 2016.
Deb Etheredge (Some Rights Reserved) © https://www.flickr.com/photos/taroonga
Photograph credits: Hpeterswald, Wikimedia Commons
- 58 -
- 59 -