Lot's Wife Edition 2 2016

SOCIETY
How to
break a
city’s heart
by Ovindu Rajasinghe
Illustration by Elizabeth Bridges
Step 1: Use the tragic deaths of young men
to create a public panic about young people
going out and drinking
Step 2: Introduce draconian lockout laws
that restrict access to alcohol after certain
times of the night
Step 3: Watch as your city’s once-vibrant
nightlife and live music scene is destroyed
Does this formula sound familiar to you? It might well
be, because it almost happened to Melbourne. In June
2008, the Brumby government introduced lockout laws in
inner-city Melbourne. Three months later, amidst massive
public uproar, the reforms were abandoned.
The NSW government introduced lockout laws of their
own in November 2014, following a series of high profile
one-punch deaths. A scathing piece by entrepreneur Matt
Barrie criticising the lockouts, and Premier Mike Baird’s
subsequent response, has recently led to an explosion in
public debate about the lockouts.
But what are the lockout laws? They refer to a suite of
measures designed to restrict access to alcohol at licensed
venues, so as to reduce violence on the streets. There have
been various versions of lockout laws previously or currently
in force across different Australian jurisdictions. The NSW
lockouts prevent people within the CBD and King’s Cross
precincts from entering licensed venues after 1:30am, and
enforce last drinks at 3am. They also enforce a state-wide
ban on takeaway alcohol sales after 10pm, crack down on
licensees breaching conditions, and increase punishments
for individuals causing trouble. However, the controversial
part of the laws are the lockouts and last drinks.
Opponents of the laws love to call them an example
of Australia becoming a ‘nanny state’. I hate that phrase,
because it suggests that the government has no role to play
in regulating our private life to ensure equity and safety. The
government is absolutely obliged to tax the rich to support
the poor, or to force people to wear bike helmets to prevent
head trauma. The question we must ask is this: can the restriction
of our freedom be justified by the net benefit that
we receive?
Once you look past the spin and hysteria, it is clear
that lockout laws, in Sydney and elsewhere, are an enormous
public policy failure that have a limited effect in
stopping violence, and immeasurably change large cities for
the worse.
The main benefit claimed by Baird and his counterparts
is a drastic reduction in violence. It is correct that
since the introduction of the lockouts in Sydney, assaults in
the Kings Cross and CBD entertainment precincts have declined
by 40%. However, foot traffic in these areas have also
declined by 58-80% between 11pm and 4am. While violence
has been reduced, this has been an obvious consequence of
reducing the number of people in the area.
Dr Jeff Rich, a senior public servant in the Victorian
Department of Health, who advised the Brumby
Government on alcohol policy, is unsure that, “alcohol related
violence is a huge problem: it’s hard to work out what
constitutes alcohol related violence.” Public alcohol related
violence is, by nature, extremely visible. This violence
generally involves young people. Therefore, it presents an
easy target for populist governments who want to be seen
as tough on law and order. It is simple for governments and
police forces to restrict the liberties of young people, so as
to win the votes of Herald Sun readers.
Young people are an easy scapegoat for governments
everywhere. With an aging population resulting in ever
older, conservative and cautious voter bases, it is easy to
portray young people as out of control and reckless, and use
this image to justify crackdowns on their freedom. Let’s be
real: the key stakeholder affected by the lockouts is young
people. Young people make up the majority of people who
are out on the weekend. Young people dominate crowds in
live music venues. Our voices of protest against the lockouts
are not being heard because of a power imbalance between
generations. Younger generations do not have the same
access to money and power as older people, and so our views
and concerns are not as easily heard.
The problem with only targeting violence in the
streets is that it ignores other, more pernicious, forms of
violence in our society. While statistical analysis by the
NSW government shows that violence has not moved to
entertainment precincts outside the CBD, the lockouts do
nothing to stop people from punching on at house parties
instead. As usual, women are also sidelined. Domestic
violence, as well as sexual violence against women, occurs
primarily in the home. Since it’s not as prominent as street
brawling, and doesn’t win as many votes, governments have
not responded to this problem nearly as drastically. Because
law and order does not extend to invisible women being
assaulted in the privacy of their own homes, does it?
Lot’s Wife | 19