Chapter 3


Chapter 3

Entertainment precincts: strategies on the frontline

3.1        Reforms in entertainment precincts have been some of the most prominent features of government responses to alcohol-related violence, as well as the most contentious.

3.2        All submitters and witnesses were supportive of reducing alcohol-related violence. Many also argued that the most effective solution will comprise multiple measures, rather than single policies in isolation. For example, Professor Steve Allsop of the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) discussed the strategy implemented in Newcastle, which he regarded as successful:

What happened in Newcastle was a combination of factors where the community came onside, where there were lockouts, but there was also a two-hour reduction in the sale of alcohol. From an evidence base point of view, and based on evidence from overseas, for example in some of the Scandinavian countries, there is sufficient evidence to say that, if you wish to have an immediate impact on reducing alcohol-related violence in those areas where alcohol-related violence is clearly related to the increased availability of alcohol, then this will have an impact. It means that you also need to do other things. You cannot just do that. It is about changing attitudes and values towards bad behaviour, intoxicated or not. You need to have a comprehensive approach to this issue.[1]

3.3        Nonetheless, there was disagreement about how reductions in alcohol-related violence could be best achieved, and to what extent other potentially negative consequences should be tolerated when reducing rates of violence. Submitters noted their preference for responses to be based on sound evidence.

3.4        This chapter discusses a range of strategies that could be applied in entertainment precincts to reduce alcohol-related violence. It briefly outlines recent reforms to liquor trading in Australia, and then considers liquor trading within the context of the night-time economy (NTE). It then examines some key liquor trading policies in turn, namely:

  • lockout laws;
  • early cessation of alcohol service;
  • regulation of alcohol outlets; and
  • staggered closing times.

3.5        Subsequently, this chapter considers other possible reforms in entertainment precincts, particularly with regards to services, namely:

  • identification scanners;
  • staff training;
  • police presence; and
  • public transport.

Recent reforms

3.6        A number of state and territory governments have enacted reforms to address alcohol-related violence. Much of the evidence heard by the committee analysed recent liquor restrictions introduced in Sydney, Newcastle, and Queensland. This section briefly outlines some key recent reforms in states and territories.

New South Wales

3.7        Newcastle, NSW, was one of the first cities in Australia to implement lockout laws and other alcohol service restrictions. The laws were introduced in March 2008 following 'a troubled period concerning alcohol-fuelled violence and related anti-social behaviour' from 2001 to 2008.[2]

3.8        The laws were amended following a legal challenge in July 2008. The laws applied to 14 late night licenced premises in the Newcastle central business district. Under the amended laws:

  • patrons cannot enter venues after 1:30am (the 'lockout');
  • venues must close by 3:30am (rather than 4:30am or 5:00am);
  • licensees are required to adopt plans of management;
  • alcohol "shots" cannot be served after 10:00pm;
  • last drinks are served 30 minutes before closing;
  • licensees are required to have a responsible service of alcohol (RSA) officer on-site from 11:00pm until closing; and
  • licensees are subject to compliance audits.[3]

3.9        While these laws applied in Newcastle, they did not apply in nearby Hamilton, and Hamilton therefore provided a control site to measure the effectiveness of the new laws. The City of Newcastle quoted academic research which showed that:

In the 18 months following introduction of restrictions in the Newcastle CBD, there was a reduction in assaults by one-third, with no indication of temporal or spatial displacement...in the 18 months following the implementation of these laws Newcastle saw a 22% decrease in assaults per hour of restricted trading and an estimated effect of a 21% decrease for the following three and a half years. These findings are very similar to a comprehensive study conducted in Norway, where, when trading hours increased, there was an average of 20% increase in assaults per additional hour of trading, and in cities where trading hours were restricted; there was an average decrease of 20% in alcohol-related assaults. These findings have also been replicated in Western Australian and the Netherlands.[4]

3.10      In relation to the Newcastle reforms, St Vincent's Health Australia (SVHA) informed the committee there had been a 'substantial (37%) reduction in non-domestic assaults requiring attention', 'a significant decrease in injury-related [emergency department] presentations – an estimated 344 ED attendances were prevented each year' and 'five years after the reforms [the] reduction in assaults had been sustained while in a comparator city (Hamilton) the assault rate had not declined over the same period'.[5]

3.11      Similar restrictions were imposed in Hamilton in August 2010, including a 1:00am lockout, closing time of 3:30am, and last drinks 30 minutes before closing.[6]

3.12      The City of Newcastle's examination of the Newcastle and Hamilton cases concluded that 'it is reasonably likely that the reduction in trading hours from 5am to 3:30am had the most impact on reducing alcohol-fuelled violence', not the lockout laws.[7]

3.13      Similar reforms were introduced in Kings Cross, Sydney. Following the fatal assault of Mr Thomas Kelly in 2012, the NSW government introduced the following measures in Kings Cross:

  • a ban on shots, doubles and use of glassware after midnight on Fridays and Saturdays;
  • the mandatory inclusion of two Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) marshals in all venues;
  • a freeze on new licensed venues in the Kings Cross precinct until at least 2015;
  • ID scanners at licensed venues to ensure that patrons thrown out of one venue would be barred from entering another venue in the Kings Cross area;
  • increased night bus services and a pre-paid taxi trial; and
  • the establishment of a sobering up centre.[8]

3.14      At the time, some criticised these measures for not including lockout laws. The NSW Police Commissioner, Mr Andrew Scipione, and the NSW Police Association President, Mr Scott Weber, both argued in favour of introducing lockout laws.[9]

3.15      Following the fatal assault on Mr Daniel Christie in December 2013, the NSW government introduced lockouts and other new policies in February 2014. These policies included:

  • a state-wide ban on takeaway alcohol sales after 10:00pm; and
  • specific regulations in the designated Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct:
    • patrons cannot enter a venue after 1:30am (colloquially known as the 'lockout law');
    • last drinks are served at 3:00am (venues can stay open after 3:00am without alcohol service);
    • temporary bans of 48 hours for troublemakers; and
    • stricter liquor licence requirements, including higher fines and punishments for venues that breach their obligations, such as responsible service of alcohol requirements.[10]

3.16      Data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has shown that, following the laws introduced into Sydney in February 2014, assaults decreased by 4 per cent in Kings Cross and by 20 per cent in the CBD entertainment district. However, Dr Don Weatherburn, Director of BOCSAR, has stated that '...assaults have been coming down in NSW since 2008, so you had this pre-existing downward trend...What the lockout laws did was accelerate the existing downward trend, so it fell even faster than before'.[11]

3.17      SVHA supported the BOCSAR evidence, noting 'an "immediate and substantial" reduction in assaults' of 32 per cent in Kings Cross following the 2014 NSW liquor law reforms, as well as 'a "substantial and perhaps ongoing" reduction in assaults' by 26 per cent in the Sydney CBD.[12]

3.18      SVHA also emphasised a decrease in alcohol-related injuries. It argued that this change was seen across the week, but was most visible during the 'high alcohol consumption period' (between 6:00pm Friday and 9:00am Sunday) where 'there was a 25% drop in alcohol-related serious and critical injuries'.[13] SVHA added that:

Our neurosurgeons also report a decrease in the number of patients presenting between 8pm and 8am with serious head injuries (which often require immediate surgery) – from 26 patients in the year prior to the lock-outs to 11 patients in the year following.[14]

3.19      SVHA further noted research showing that alcohol-related violence and injuries have not been displaced to neighbouring hospitals or suburbs.

3.20      These arguments were based on SVHA's experience in the Sydney CBD and Kings Cross entertainment precincts, with SVHA noting that because St Vincent's Hospital Sydney serves the Kings Cross and Sydney CBD areas, it has 'close experience of before and after the NSW Government’s liquor law changes', and it's experience has been 'compelling'.[15]

Queensland

3.21      On 17 February 2016, the Tackling Alcohol-fuelled Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 passed the Queensland Parliament. Under these reforms:

  • last drinks are served at 2:00am;
  • approved venues that are located in a declared Safe Night Precinct may sell alcohol until 3:00am;
  • all venues in a precinct that introduces 3:00am trading will be subject to a 1:00am lockout;
  • the sale of high-alcohol content, rapid consumption drinks (shots) after midnight is prohibited; and
  • no new licences will be granted for the sale of takeaway liquor after 10:00pm. Licensees that were granted their licence prior to 10 November 2015 may continue in accordance with their licence.[16]

Victoria

3.22      From June to September 2008, the Victorian government trialled a lockout in designated parts of central Melbourne, known as the '2:00am lockout'. Under this lockout, patrons could not enter venues in the designated areas between 2:00am and 7:00am.

3.23      The then Brumby government commissioned a report into the lockouts, conducted by KPMG. The report found that the policy did not achieve its aim and that violence increased in the hours leading up to 2:00am.[17]

3.24      At the time, Professor Peter Miller, now of the Deakin University Violence Prevention Group (DUVPG), stated that the lockout failed because it was implemented poorly and in isolation, without other policies alongside it.[18]

3.25      The Victorian government has recently rejected the re-introduction of lockout laws, citing other policies to reduce alcohol-related violence. Minister for Liquor Regulation the Hon Jane Garrett MLA said:

We tried lockout laws and it didn't work for Melbourne...Unlike other cities, Melbourne has 24-hour public transport, a liquor freeze on big beer barns and inspectors out on the beat making sure licensees are doing the right thing.[19]

3.26      Similarly, the Victorian Opposition Leader, the Hon Matthew Guy MLA, explained that:

We trust Victorians to choose where and when to have a drink and we believe the solution to violence is to punish the violent and not everyone else. We don't see any sense in creating the ghost town that Sydney has become.[20]

The night-time economy

3.27      The NTE supports and is supported by entertainment precincts. The committee was informed that strategies that aim to reduce alcohol-related violence in entertainment precincts are therefore likely to have an effect on the NTE.

3.28      Numerous submitters considered the negative impact that strategies to reduce alcohol-related violence may have on the NTE. For example, Mr Bill Hormann AM APM asked 'how is success of the lockout project to be assessed?'.[21] He proposed a need to balance reductions in crime with any negative effects on the NTE and employment.

3.29      The Australian Medical Association (AMA) argued:

The AMA recognises that there is opposition among business owners and certain vested interests who think they may lose revenue as a result of alcohol management measures. There are claims that music and cultural aspects of the community will be ruined from these measures, and some argue that these measures impact on everyone, when only a small few are responsible for the problem.

The AMA refutes these claims. The truth is that most Australians drink at levels that puts themselves and others at risk of harm...Regardless of which data is analysed, clearly too many Australians drink over the recommended safe levels; binge and excessive drinking is rife, and alcohol-related violence is not a small or isolated problem but exists in every city, town, suburb and community.[22]

3.30      This view was echoed by the Queensland Nurses' Union (QNU), which contended that:

If this inquiry's recommendations can prevent just one injury or save one life, if they can prevent one family from the trauma of dealing with the loss of a son or daughter, if they can alleviate the emotional and physical stress that is placed on paramedics, nurses and doctors, then it will be worth the discontent of an earlier night for patrons and owners of licensed premises.[23]

3.31      The DUVPG opined that the data on rates of alcohol-related violence in Australia 'absolutely' supported stronger laws:

The evidence is very clear in terms of the demand. I also think there has been a strong shift in public opinion over the last decade around the acceptability of violence. I think in the past, both within the home and on the streets, and certainly when I worked in nightclubs a long time ago, there was a different level of acceptance of violence. I think that has been a major change in terms of community attitudes. That is really what is driving a lot of the push to say, 'this is not good enough'.[24]

3.32      However, the DUVPG also recognised that:

Fortunately, many consumers visiting nightlife districts consume alcohol in moderation and do not experience alcohol related violence. However, risky alcohol consumption and high levels of intoxication are strong predictors of involvement in alcohol related violence in licensed venues and on the street. As such, measures that seek to reduce high intoxication and risky drinking behavior will have the strongest impact upon violence levels.[25]

3.33      In contrast, Music Australia acknowledged 'that violence is being committed is clearly of high importance. However, we submit that remedial action should not be at the expense of, or failure of, legitimate businesses'.[26] Similarly, the Australian Music Industry Network (AMIN) argued that, while alcohol-related violence must be tackled, great care should be taken to minimise negative consequences:

AMIN submits that the delicate balancing act of ensuring the safety of citizens while protecting the United Nations-sanctioned rights for individuals to enjoy cultural diversity can't be solved with a one size fits all approach. Sensible, targeted approaches to the root causes of this violence are needed. After all, governments don't ban cars to reduce road fatalities; they implement targeted strategies.[27]

3.34      The bulk of concerns raised during the course of the inquiry were that liquor trading reforms may have negative consequences for the economy and the live music industry. These concerns are outlined below.

Economic implications

3.35      The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and the National Alliance for Action on Alcohol (NAAA) jointly argued that liquor trading restrictions could diversify the NTE. They cited a study of Newcastle's NTE, commissioned by the Australian National Local Government Drug and Alcohol Advisory Committee, which found that 'between 2009 and 2011 there was a 9.6 per cent decline in "drink" sales revenue in Newcastle which was offset by a 10.3 per cent increase in "food" sales revenue'.[28]

3.36      In contrast, the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) expressed concern that many night-time venues in Sydney have struggled following the recent introduction of new liquor restrictions in NSW, and named several longstanding venues that have now closed.[29] AMIN also claimed that 16 live music venues have closed in the Kings Cross area since the new liquor restrictions were introduced.[30]

3.37      The AHA added weight to these concerns, claiming that the Australian NTE in 2013 was measured at $102 billion, and implying that it should therefore be considered 'a key economic dynamic'.[31]

3.38      Additionally, other submissions highlighted the economic contribution of the music industry, which they alleged is diminishing due to recent liquor trading reforms. APRA AMCOS referred to a commissioned study which found that 'the venue-based live music sector contributed $1.2 billion to the national economy, and provided over 15,000 full-time jobs'.[32] Similarly, the City of Sydney claimed that:

the economic value of live music in Australia is approximately 2.1 billion, while the civic (jobs created and government taxation produced) and individual benefits (such as social capital and improved health-and-wellbeing) can be valued at 13.6 billion.[33]

The live music industry

3.39      AMIN explained that, 'because of the impact of the digital economy', live music is critical to the broader music industry:

A recent study by the Australian Association of Artist Managers showed that, on average, between 60 and 70 per cent of artists' incomes are derived from live music, and all the other circulation of income within the music industry is based on artists' income.[34]

3.40      Music Australia emphasised that live music 'plays a key role in developing artists' careers and is a pathway to success'.[35] AMIN also argued that:

But this debate shouldn't be limited to statistics, as it is impossible to quantify the redemptive power of music. The warmth and community it engenders. The way it gives meaning and comfort to what might look, sometimes, like a vicious and meaningless world.[36]

3.41      MusicNSW acknowledged that 'lockout laws may reduce violence', but recommended increased government consultation with the music industry, noting 'the unintentional consequences of those [lockout] laws on the live music industry'.[37]

3.42      These unintended consequences were discussed by Music Australia, which referenced industry data showing 'a 40 per cent drop in live music revenue in the Sydney CBD lockout zone since the laws were introduced in 2014', as well as 'a 19 per cent decrease in attendances at night clubs and dance venues in the affected zone'.[38] The Live Music Office argued that 'the future looks bleak unless the 1:30am lockout can be lifted for live music venues to restore confidence and reputation'.[39]

3.43      Music Australia sought to explain how the recent liquor trading reforms were linked to losses in the music industry:

We have an issue with the 1.30 lockout laws, because the dynamics of a typical live music venue mean that you need to do two shows to be viable. Typically, for example, you might do your first show at 8 pm and you do your second show at midnight. If patrons cannot move between or into and out of venues after 1.30, then that kills the viability of the second show, which does affect the overall viability of a music venue. The result is that patrons are less likely to attend and the venues are less likely to continue.[40]

3.44      MusicNSW also argued that the liquor reforms are damaging confidence, leading to the 'perception that the industry is weak and under threat'.[41]

3.45      The City of Sydney highlighted the heavy reliance of the live music industry on alcohol sales, citing research showing that 'around 83% of venue income comes from food and beverage, while only 16% is derived from ticket sales'.[42] The City of Sydney continued:

...government regulation of liquor that reduces access to income for the live music industry and increases costs of compliance for live music venues can have a significant impact on the viability of the businesses that sustain it, especially in light of the predominance of small businesses within the industry...[43]

3.46      Some submitters argued that the live music industry could actually help to reduce alcohol-related violence. The City of Sydney referred to research undertaken during the development of its Live Music and Performance Action Plan, which found 82 per cent of respondents agreed that 'venues that offer live music and performance have a more welcoming and safer environment'.[44]

3.47      Moreover, AMIN referred to 'anecdotal evidence that live music audiences don't "face off" when they’re facing the stage'.[45] Music Australia quoted researchers as follows:

...bands, even loud ones, do not cause aggression and violence...Quality bands that entertain an audience generate a positive social atmosphere, that has been observed to counteract other negative variables.[46]

3.48      MusicNSW suggested that live music may even reduce alcohol consumption, remarking that 'anecdotally...music venues, have informed us that people absolutely drink less when there's a live music offering'.[47]

Lockout laws

3.49      As stated earlier, a number of states and territories have sought to reduce alcohol-related violence by implementing lockout laws.

3.50      In the Northern Territory, a 3:00am lockout applies to venues with a 4:00am closing time, and venues are also required to engage an appropriate number of security staff. The Northern Territory government indicated its support for these laws, submitting that:

The lockouts have been effective in reducing alcohol related violence, as it removes the majority of people from the streets into controlled licensed environments which should be much safer and less potential for violence.[48]

3.51      Other submitters supported lockouts as one component of a broader approach. The AMA argued that:

Reducing the availability of alcohol via lockouts and designated last drink times, as well as restrictions on the availability of take-away alcohol, should noticeably reduce the incidence of alcohol-related violence.[49]

3.52      However, many other submitters were less convinced that lockouts are effective. Professor Allsop referred to the successful reduction in assaults in Newcastle that followed a package of reforms, and explained that:

[T]here is no evidence that simply having lockouts makes a difference. That does not mean that it does not work, it just means that there is no evidence that it makes a difference. There is not a good evidence base around lockouts on their own.[50]

3.53      The QNU considered one of the few cases in which lockouts were implemented in isolation:

At the last inquiry we had with the state government a question was put to us around: why did the Victorian lockout laws fail? Well, all that was was a lockout. From my understanding, there were no restrictions on the sale in terms of hours. You have to compare apples to apples, and we can only go with what we have. We are hoping that the changes that Queensland has introduced will have results for the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital similar to the results they had in St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney.[51]

3.54      The DUVGP argued that access to alcohol, not lockouts, was key:

The effects of other measures, such as lockouts are not as simple to interpret and are entangled in the effects of earlier trading hours. Our research suggests that lockouts, drink restrictions, education campaigns and other interventions have had no significant effect upon assaults up to five years later, despite positive feedback from key informants.[52]

3.55      Professor Kypros Kypri argued that 'the evidence does NOT support the use of lockouts'.[53] The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) echoed this view, submitting that 'there is no evidence of [lockout laws'] effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related harms when their impacts are considered separately from those of earlier closing times'.[54] The Small Bar Association of Western Australia (SBAWA) opposed lockout laws, referring to a trial of the policy in Western Australia from 2009 to 2010 in which the Western Australia Liquor Commission found lockouts were ineffective.[55]

An arbitrary and blanket approach?

3.56      Many submitters claimed that lockout laws and related trading restrictions fail to acknowledge differences between venues, locations, and patron demographics. Such arguments implied that restrictions on liquor trading have unfairly restricted well-behaved patrons and venues, which constitute the majority of those affected.

3.57      Mr Andrew Zheng-Macdonald, security manager at Chasers Nightclub, concisely argued that 'lockout laws don't work as they punish the majority, not stopping the minority of idiots'.[56] Ms Martha Tsamis, the licensee of Chasers and Inflation Nightclubs, added that '...violence in entertainment precincts will not be solved by simplistic and arbitrary measures such as lockouts'.[57] SBAWA held a similar view, contending that:

Blanket restrictions such as lockouts are a blunt instrument that will not address the issues in any meaningful way and, we believe, will only force the problems to occur in other, less well-regulated, places. They will punish the largest number of well-behaved consumers for the offences of a minority.[58]

3.58      The unfairness alleged by these submitters was articulated by Alcohol Beverages Australia (ABA) which opined that, by virtue of reducing choice, lockout laws diminish the ability for patrons to enjoy a night out. It reasoned that:

By forcing patrons to make a choice between competing venues as to which venue they will be in for the rest of their evening, customers cannot move to another venue that better suits their mood or their intentions. Lockouts remove customers’ flexibility to decide where they drink, eat and dance.[59]

3.59      This aversion to uniform approaches has resulted in support for more discerning policies. The AHA argued that:

...targeted measures are more effective than blunt whole of population measures. Lockouts are a blunt policy instrument; they prevent entry to anyone that was not inside licensed premises at the time the lockout is imposed, regardless of their sobriety or demeanour.[60]

3.60      This idea was implicit in Music Australia's claim that the liquor restrictions in NSW are both 'over inclusive' and 'under inclusive'.[61] Music Australia argued that the laws unfairly harmed musicians, venues, tourism, and other stakeholders, while failing to prevent harmful behaviours such as violence within venues and preloading of alcohol.[62]

3.61      Some submitters reasoned that uniform restrictions would penalise some venues and prioritise others, without good reason. ABA claimed that lockouts advantage large venues that can offer the most options to patrons after the lockout comes into effect. It held that:

The perverse effect out of lockouts may be to encourage venues to stay open longer or until the legislated close of service in order to attract patrons before the lockout start time.[63]

3.62      Extending this idea, Keep Sydney Open (KSO) proposed targeted measures that differentiated between venues:

It is the style of venue, not its closing time which has a greater impact on violent behaviour. Identifying well-run venues and encouraging similar businesses while inversely penalising venues with poor atmosphere (potentially by restricting their hours of trade) will improve the drinking culture of our cities.[64]

Early cessation of alcohol service

3.63      As implied in the evidence above, many submitters argued that restricting access to alcohol, often through early cessation of alcohol service, is one of the most effective ways to reduce alcohol-related violence. As expressed by FARE, 'cessation of the service of alcohol...is what the evidence shows has the biggest bang for your buck'.[65]

3.64      The joint submission from FARE, PHAA and NAAA furthered this point, positing that:

The extent to which trading hours are restricted determines the extent to which alcohol-related harm occurs within that jurisdiction since the availability of alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm in Australia.[66]

3.65      RACP and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) argued that there is strong evidence demonstrating that restricting the availability of alcohol can lead to significant reductions in levels of alcohol consumption and associated harms. According to the RACP and RANZCP's Alcohol Policy of March 2016:

Australian and international studies indicate that increased trading hours for licensed outlets are accompanied by substantially higher levels of alcohol consumption and associated harms such as drink-driver road crashes, serious violent offences committed in the early hours of the morning, and assaults per 100,000 inhabitants. Further studies provide indirect evidence of this relationship, showing that over per cent of assaults at licensed premises occur after midnight. Regular heavy drinkers are especially likely to take advantage of longer trading hours.

A Norwegian study has found that every additional hour of trading in on-licence premises is associated with a 16 per cent increase in assaults. The relationship also holds for off-licence outlets. For example, a study in New Zealand found that people purchasing alcohol in off-licences at later hours are more likely to drink in a hazardous fashion, both in quantity and frequency.[67]

3.66      The QNU cited research from the Australian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM), which examined the suite of laws introduced in NSW in February 2014, and 'categorically concluded' that the policies, 'particularly early closure, have demonstrated beyond doubt that when you reduce availability you reduce harm'.[68]

3.67      Professor Kypri emphasised that 'the key to effectiveness is earlier cessation of alcohol consumption'. He claimed that 'the research evidence supports a nationwide limit of no later than 2am for "last drinks" in licensed premises, and 10pm closure of off-license outlets', and added that 'there is no evidence that requiring premises to close is necessary to achieve reduction in violence'.[69]

3.68      Professor Miller took a broader view but supported the effectiveness of early cessation of alcohol service:

The evidence is overwhelming with regard to the effectiveness of limiting the availability of alcohol, primarily in this case through the limits on trading hours, pricing measures and caps on the number of licences per head of population. Cessation of alcohol service, last drinks or reduced trading hours has a very strong research backing for achieving the reduction in violent events.[70]

3.69      The Law Council of Australia (LCA) referred to the 2014 NSW liquor law reforms, which included 'a two year freeze on approvals for new and existing liquor licenses'.[71]

Alcohol outlets

3.70      Some academics argued that areas with a high density of alcohol outlets can facilitate alcohol-related violence. Professor Allsop explained that:

What tends to happen is that large concentrations and dense concentrations of liquor outlets can increase risk because of what happens when people start engaging in unsafe practices, from a public health perspective, in order to compete with their colleagues. Also, these areas can become attraction points for people who are interested in drinking large amounts of alcohol.[72]

3.71      Professor Tanya Chikritzhs, Professor Allsop, Mr William Gilmore and Mr Vic Rechichi (Professor Chikritzhs et al.) noted that 'higher liquor outlet density is associated with heavier drinking among young people'.[73] They also stated that:

Typically, as it becomes 'easier' to access alcohol within a community, overall alcohol consumption, at least among some, and related problems also increase. Australian and overseas evidence clearly identifies late night/early morning trading for hotels and nightclubs as being closely linked to alcohol-related violence and road trauma.[74]

3.72      The NAAA highlighted that the root of the issue is the availability of alcohol, which is provided by outlets. Professor Najman stated:

...the issues of lockout are a distraction. The evidence shows that they are not, of themselves, material. It is the number of outlets, it is the number of hours the outlets are open and it is the cost of the alcohol. Anything which makes alcohol more easily purchased seems to increase the level of use and then harm. Anything which restricts access—fewer outlets, shorter hours of opening or higher price—all of those things reduce consumption and reduce harm.[75]

3.73      RANZCP told the committee that restrictions on outlet density are believed to reduce high risk drinking and that the 'evidence is strongest for off-licences such as bottle shops, which is especially relevant given that 78% of all alcohol bought in Australia is packaged liquor for off-premises consumption'.[76]

3.74      Dr Kate Fitz-Gibbon highlighted that the regulation of alcohol outlets should be considered in the context of broader alcohol policy, including any lockouts or last drinks laws. She argued that:

I think what is important to be done in conjunction is to ensure that we are not just driving the alcohol and the excessive alcohol consumption into the home, as we see in preloading but also in sending people home at 2 am to continue their drinking there.[77]

3.75      With regard to policy recommendations, Professor Miller suggested that 'I think we could be looking at a maximum density of alcohol outlets in terms of both late night outlets and packaged liquor'.[78] Professor Allsop suggested that not all liquor outlets should be treated the same:

There are clearly differences in the evidence between very large bottle shops versus small wine shops versus restaurants versus nightclubs. We need to have strategies that inform liquor licensing decision makers about what is going on in a particular area so they can make more informed decisions about risk and also equip communities so that they can have a stronger voice in what happens.[79]

3.76      Mr Terry Mott of the Australian Liquor Stores Association (ALSA) supported a more targeted approach to both venues and outlets. He proffered that:

...I do not think it only comes down to risk profile; I think it comes down to behaviours and to the record of compliance of the individual outlet. So if an individual outlet has been doing something stupid then that needs to be addressed, but it is not a one size fits all.[80]

3.77      However, the NAAA supported the NSW state-wide ban on takeaway alcohol after 10pm. Dr John Crozier argued that 'that single whole-of-state measure resulted in a dramatic nine per cent reduction of nondomestic assault requiring police call-out'.[81]

Staggered closing times

3.78      Some submitters considered staggered licencing schemes, in which different types of venues are licensed for different closing times, as a way to reduce alcohol‑related violence.

3.79      The WA Nightclubs Association (WANA) strongly supported such a scheme, as it is currently applied in Western Australia, as the 'premier system in Australia'.[82] WANA highlighted that staggered licensing can treat hotels and nightclubs differently in recognition that, as WANA argued, 'the main point of difference between hotels and nightclubs is that a nightclub's primary purpose is the provision of entertainment; service of alcohol is ancillary to entertainment'.[83]

3.80      SBAWA also supported staggered closing times, contending that:

Western Australia, unlike many of its eastern state counterparts, still maintains discrete categories of licence with different conditions being placed upon each category. We would argue that this is a more sensible regime than a blanket, deregulated one.[84]

3.81      WANA also argued that staggered closing times minimise pressure on the public transport system by spreading demand.[85] This argument was also articulated by the AHA:

Staggered closing times and people moving away as they finish their night is the far more agreeable solution. When people all move onto the streets at the same time, again you have different groups clashing and overlapping. You have transport being overloaded, particularly in regional towns. The taxi services cannot match demand and the infrastructure and policing do not match. They are put under significant strain.[86]

3.82      ABA added that such strain can increase the chances of alcohol-related violence. On that basis, ABA supported staggered closing times:

...that would have the effect of reducing the peak number of people leaving venues at a single closing time and then seeking food or transport out of the precinct. Conflicts over taxis and in food venues are recognised flashpoints for violence.[87]

3.83      Professor Chikritzhs et al. offered some academic support for staggered trading hours:

...the outpouring of patrons onto the streets after venues close has been associated with violence and disorder in surrounding areas. Studies on staggered venue closing times suggest the success of such measures is related to transport availability rather than extending trading hours...[88]

Other strategies in entertainment precincts

3.84      The committee heard evidence regarding other measures that may also help to address violence in entertainment precincts. These included scanning people to help identify them as they enter venues, responsible service of alcohol (RSA), maintaining a strong police presence in precincts, and having adequate public transport so as to move people out of precincts.

Identification scanners

3.85      The committee heard mixed evidence with regards to the usefulness of identification scanners at the doors of clubs and pubs. Mr Zheng-Macdonald submitted that the mandatory use of networked computer identification scanners is the best approach to addressing alcohol-related violence.[89] He stated that at Chasers Nightclub these scanners had reduced violence by 95 per cent.[90] The AHA submitted that scanning should be 'considered as simply one more tool in a range of tools and practices which, when combined, provide a layered system of safety, deterrent, preventative and interventionist measures which increase venue and patron safety'.[91] The AHA further argued that venues should be allowed to voluntarily use scanners at times where there is a high risk, or only during times of high trade.[92] The AHA stated:

What is common in many precincts now is what is called 'barred from one, barred from all'. It is not that you are moving from venue to venue. If you are misbehaving that then leads to you, and probably your friends, not being allowed into any venues in that precinct...So their friends will start to pull them aside and say, 'You behave, otherwise we are all out of the place and the other places in that area'.[93]

3.86      The DUVPG, in contrast, submitted that measures such as scanners have only a small benefit, are comparatively expensive, and do nothing to help prevent harm from actual assaults.[94]

Responsible service of alcohol

3.87      Shopkeepers, security staff, bar and floor staff, and venue managers work at the front line in terms of regulating alcohol consumption, enforcing liquor laws, and thereby seeking to prevent intoxication and associated violence.

3.88      Such staff is often placed in a difficult position in terms of actually enforcing RSA. As the Australian Drug Foundation (ADF) argued, '[a] desire among licensees, managers and staff to retain custom and therefore maintain revenue, a social acceptance of intoxication, and a belief that intoxication is harmful only if a person is driving may contribute to the failure of RSA training'.[95] The FARE, PHAA, and NAAA likewise noted that staff are often working in busy, noisy venues, with a high volume of customers, under pressure to serve people quickly, and may be serving people within their own peer group.[96]

3.89      The DUVPG highlighted that in the Dealing with alcohol-related harm and the night-time economy (DANTE) study '80% of people who were observed as being too intoxicated were subsequently served another drink'. In the Patron Offending and Intoxication in Night-Time Entertainment Districts (POINTED) study, the figure was even higher at 84.6%.[97]

3.90      The DUVPG also discussed 'pre-drinking' and the challenges it poses for enforcement of RSA:

Pre-drinking has been identified as a major impediment to responsible service of alcohol, and is a major driver of intoxication and an increased likelihood of experiencing violence.

Importantly, intoxication from pre- and side-loading is extremely difficult for licensed venues to police, substantially harms the business of licensed venues, and makes intoxication and violence more likely. It is one of the major barriers to effectively reducing harm in the NTE.

In our DANTE study, around two-thirds of the patrons (65%) reported consuming alcohol before attending licensed venues/'going out'. In addition to simply being more highly intoxicated, people who were pre-drinkers were also more likely to be in a fight; twice as likely if they'd had five or more drinks and up to four and a half times as likely for 25+ drinks before heading out.

...

The DANTE and POINTED studies identified pre-drinking as a significant predictor of alcohol-related harm and a major impediment to responsible service of alcohol. This behaviour reflects a culture of people seeking heavy intoxication and requires serious, substantial, evidence-based interventions across a range of variables (for example, price, availability and advertising).[98]

3.91      Submitters who addressed the issue of staff training expressed support for maintaining RSA training, but argued that it is critically important for liquor laws to be enforced, to ensure that RSA laws are being implemented at the coal face. The ADF highlighted a NSW study which indicated that only four per cent of police actions regarding liquor law breaches had been directed towards licensees and managers.[99] The FARE, PHAA and NAAA likewise quoted a 2011 Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research survey of young adults which found that only 7.1 per cent of those who had at least one sign of being intoxicated were refused service, and only 4.2 per cent were asked to leave the premises.[100]

3.92      The LCA noted that the 2014 NSW liquor law reforms increased punishments for licensees that failed to comply with liquor laws, as follows:

the revoking of competency cards and disqualifications for bar staff breaching responsible service of alcohol requirements; and licensee fines of up to $11,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months, as well as strikes under the Government's ‘Three Strikes’ disciplinary scheme...[101]

3.93      Professor Kypri argued that RSA training must be accompanied by enforcement in order to be effective:

[T]here is not good evidence that training of bar staff in the 'responsible service of alcohol' is effective in preventing service of intoxicated patrons. This is not because service staff fail to learn from the training but because the conditions in which they are expected to make judgements about patrons, the pressure from patrons, and financial imperatives, make it unlikely that even well trained servers will consistently comply with the desired practices. What evidence does exist on service practices shows that regular, intense police enforcement is necessary to maintain compliance with liquor laws, i.e., that RSA alone is ineffective.[102]

3.94      Professor Chikritzhs et al. echoed this sentiment, citing Professor Kypri's findings, and positing that:

the conditions [in which staff] are expected to make judgements about patrons, the pressure from patrons, and financial imperatives make it unlikely that even well trained servers will consistently comply with the desired [RSA] practices'.[103]

3.95      Professor Chikritzhs et al. also highlighted that academic research has 'demonstrated the significance and value of well-trained and professional security personnel on licensed premises'.[104] Although the presence of security door staff 'has been positively correlated with the frequency and severity of violent incidents', the authors argue that 'it is not the presence of security personnel that increases violence, but rather a lack of quality training'.[105] It is important that security staff 'display firm, rather than aggressive, demeanour', are well trained, present in appropriate numbers, and work professionally with venue management and other staff.[106]

Police presence

3.96      Submitters who discussed the visible present of police in entertainment precincts and in enforcing liquor laws, generally spoke in favour of the police's work, and highlighted the importance of maintaining high levels of policing during peak drinking times.

3.97      The WANA highlighted the work of WA police in combatting alcohol-related violence, including 'a concerted effort to use their powers to arrest and move on offenders on the streets where the majority of offences were occurring'.[107] Ms Tsamis, the licensee at two Melbourne nightclubs, also advocated adequate policing, and SBAWA argued that nightlife districts must be 'well policed with a high police presence'.[108] Ms Tsamis also noted the written mutual agreement between Victoria Police, the City of Greater Geelong, and local licensees, whereby Victoria Police agreed to 'maintain a visible police [presence] on the streets at weekends and key times', and argued that the result has been a significant reduction in street crime without negative consequences associated with lockouts elsewhere.[109]

3.98      A number of submitters also highlighted the role of police in enforcing liquor laws. Professor Chikritzhs et al. stated that evidence indicates that 'regular, intense police enforcement is necessary to maintain compliance with liquor laws'.[110] Mr Simon Barwood stated that:

In WA a dedicated branch of the police force, the Liquor Enforcement Unit (LEU), is responsible for policing licensed premises and licensees. There are wide ranging powers under sections 64 and 95 of the Liquor Control Act 1988 (WA) that police can use to place restrictive conditions on licences to bring ‘rogue’ operators to heel, or in extreme circumstances to close offending premises.[111]

Public transport

3.99      As Professor Allsop stated, a lack of readily available public transport in some entertainment precincts can lead to people remaining in outdoor public places where they might otherwise choose to be inside a venue or indoors elsewhere:

Significant increased alcohol in the early hours to the late hours of the morning has impact partly because people might have more time to drink and partly because people, when they come out of a venue at three in the morning, do not come out into a diverse community; they come out into an environment where there are other intoxicated people and where public transport to get them home is not as available as it might be at other hours of the day.[112]

3.100         Submitters were generally in favour of ensuring public transport is readily available when people typically exit entertainment precincts and are not able to drive themselves home. FARE flagged the increased public transport services available in Sydney to 'try to get people out of these entertainment precincts'.[113] The Burnet Institute also quoted a study in which extension of public transport hours was compared with venue lockouts in terms of the number of incidents of verbal aggression, numbers of people being ejected for intoxication and the percentage of consumption and transport related harms.[114] It found that '[a]ll-night public transport reduced verbal aggression in the model by 21 [per cent] but displaced some incidents among outer urban residents from private to public settings' and '[e]xtending public transport by two hours had similar outcomes to 24-hour public transport except with fewer incidents of verbal aggression displaced'.[115]

3.101         The WANA noted a recommendation that public transport options and the availability of taxis on weekends be improved in order to address alcohol-related problems in the Northbridge area.[116] The DUVPG likewise stated that according to its research across a number of large Australian cities:

In all the cities where data collection was conducted, major public transport infrastructure is closed during the hours when intoxication/risk of harm is at its peak. Increasing the availability and security supervision of large-scale public transport in NTEs would help remove intoxicated patrons from unsupervised streets where most assaults occurred, and would ease the strain on struggling taxi services and ranks. The best option from the available research is to align venue trading hours with public transport availability and allow patrons up to 30 minutes after venues close to use public transport. Such services would be well served by employing additional security personnel.[117]

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page