.

Right: Protesters against the "lockout" included many in the hospitality industry who claimed that permanent jobs would be lost if the clubs were forced to turn away customers after 2.00 am.


Arguments against a 2.00am lockout for Melbourne's pubs, clubs and bars

1. The trial curfew did not succeed in reducing street violence
Melbourne's 2am lockout appears to have been a failure. Police figures reveal a sharp increase in the number of assaults during its first month.
Liquor Licensing Victoria introduced the three-month trial lockout at the start of June to try to reverse a growing trend of violence around the city's nightlife scene. However, Victoria Police figures show a rise in the number of assaults in June compared with the corresponding period last year. Reported assaults in the City of Melbourne City rose by 18 per cent to 211 for the month while property damage reports jumped 26 per cent to 164.
Police refused to release statistics for this month and last, saying they would not be made public until next year. The increased violence comes despite the Safe Streets Taskforce putting an extra 50 uniformed police on to the city's streets since October last year.
Association of Liquor Licensing Melbourne secretary, Mr Brian Frewin, has claimed the figures were 'damning evidence' that the lockout had failed. 'One of our biggest fears when opposing the lockout was that if you stop people from entering nightclubs or bars, then it's going to engender some violence,' Mr Frewin said.
It has been claimed that increased street traffic was a major outcome of these new laws. The Melbourne Locked Out Official Protest coalition has stated that on the Gold Coast when these laws were introduced people spilled out of the nightclubs and onto the street causing police to be overrun with violence and disorderly behaviour.
Christopher Bantick in an opinion piece published in the Tasmanian Mercury newspaper claimed, 'In Melbourne, the 2am lockout and no re-entry to clubs and pubs after that hour have resulted in a substantial increase in street violence. The punters, who may already be drunk, are angry. The reality is that clubs are increasingly refusing to comply. Chaos is the outcome.'

2. The causes of the city's drinking and violence problems are more deep-seated
It has further been suggested that a curfew is at best a cosmetic solution, aimed at removing short-term trouble spots rather than tackling the fundamental problem. According to this line of argument, what any government should be concerned to do is not so much shift the problem off our streets at particular times of day as to address the fundamental causes of our society's irresponsible drinking behaviours.
Some critics claim that this is an education problem, not a problem to be dealt with via prohibition alone.
Health experts have indicated they want the Victorian Government's ministerial task force to back a broad range of measures to deal with the alcohol problem, covering advertising, mixed alcoholic drinks, higher prices and strategies to confront a culture of binge drinking.
It has been suggested that the problem is at least as much one of poor social education as it is one that can be dealt with via bans. Some claim that all the curfew is likely to do is move the problem off the streets. It will not prevent it occurring.
It has also been suggested that the Victorian Government needs to supply more infrastructure and service support, rather than to simply impose a curfew. Carlo Colosimo, the licensee of Lounge Melbourne has stated,'The infrastructure now required to support [Melbourne's entertainment] culture is not just about regulating venue operators alone it is about providing more police present, dealing with the small percentage of offenders more thoroughly, more transport options, sobering up centres, more public toilet facilities. Marketing campaigns that promote better behavior of those patrons that for what ever reason misbehave.'

3. The curfew is an unwelcome limitation on the freedom of Melbournians
The Melbourne Locked Out Official Protest coalition stated that the curfew was an 'Infringement on people's rights to visit the venues of their choice, at their times of choice. The fact that these places can operate at a profit proves that there is a market for people who like to listen to rare, unique music at all hours of the night. Melbourne is a 24 hours city and not all people work 9-5. Shift workers, hospitality workers and general night owl's are being discriminated against and forced to go to the casino.'
The protest group also stated that the curfew was an infringement of the rights of hospitality workers. 'The government has failed to take into account the ramifications this will have on hospitality workers. Most of these people work hard all night so Melbournians can socialise after a hard weeks work. Are they themselves not entitled to socialise with their co-workers and friends after they finish scrubbing our dishes, cleaning our glasses, serving us drinks and taking our orders?'
Christopher Bantick in an opinion piece published in the Tasmanian Mercury newspaper claimed, 'What lockouts do is penalise those publicans and club proprietors who try to do the right thing and manage their crowds sensibly and, more critically, refuse to serve drunk patrons with further alcohol.'

4. The curfew will have a negative impact on tourism and the hospitality industry
It has been claimed that Melbourne's nightlife is a key element of te city's tourist appeal and a major component of what makes the city viable for the hospitality industry established there.
The Melbourne Locked Out Official Protest coalition has stated, 'Melbourne doesn't have an Opera house, or a Harbour Bridge, or world famous beaches. It does have a world famous cultural nightlife and musical hub that is going to be taken away from us and handed over to other cities eager to emulate us.'
The Official Protest group has also stated, 'Melbourne has a reputation as a cosmopolitan city - most liveable , best Australian tourist destination- we should be preserving this and not letting an unelected premier destroy our city.
Tourism in Melbourne is at an all time high. The two main reasons for this are shopping and nightlife.
Melbourne is a 24-hour city and has spent millions telling the world this.'
I believe that the 2am lockouts are very poor solution in response to the occurrence of violence and disruption caused by a minority of public.
Carlo Colosimo, the licensee of Lounge Melbourne has stated, 'The authorities do not seem to have taken into consideration what work has gone into developing a sophisticated vibrant culture in Melbourne for socialising. Something that on the whole is of great benefit to the community at large and to the economy. And the envy of other cities.
I believe that the 2am lock out will have an extremely negative effect on the Melbourne community and the viability of entertainment venues.'
It has been claimed that the curfew had a negative impact on the city's hospitality industry and all who work within it. The Official Protest group stated , before the curfew was put in place, 'Bartenders, security, venue owners/operators will all lose revenue as working hours decrease and there is less money to go around in a recessive saturated industry. In unsure economic times like today, is it fair to cripple an industry that so many working families and students rely on for their income?'
The Melbourne secretary of the Association of Liquor Licensing Melbourne, Mr Brian Frewin, has stated that the lockout had succeeded in reducing city businesses' profits.
'It's not just licensed venues saying it has damaged business,' Mr Frewin said. 'We've had non-licensed businesses like McDonalds and Hungry Jacks complain that they are losing up to half of their normal night time trade as well.'

5. The curfew will never be properly implemented because of favouritism to the gambling industry
It has been claimed that if a curfew were going to be implemented then it should have included the Crown Casino area as this area has a history of violence.
It has been claimed that the Crown Casino, far from being a relatively violence-free area, has been a major cause of concern. It has been claimed that there have been some 1200 assaults since 2002 in the Southbank district.
In 2003 it was reported that a cleaner working for Crown Casino was stabbed in an incident which served to highlight the long-standing complaints of the cleaners union about the real fears they face.
Mr Terry Breheny, the assistant secretary of the hospitality workers' union, stated, 'Crown Casino might be able to contract out its cleaning services to save money - but they cannot contract out their responsibility to these workers, and the patrons. Our people should be free from fear at work. The violence, abuse and threats are a daily problem faced by Crown Casino cleaners. The scale of this growing problem is something which Casino management must now face.'
Those opposing the curfew have claimed that it has been unfairly and ineffectively implemented because of the Government's dependence on gambling taxation revenue and that it is for this reason that areas such as the Crown Casino district were exempt.
The Melbourne Locked Out Official Protest coalition has asked, 'Where does Mr Brumby's agenda lie with the gaming industry? Why can Crown Casino nightclubs that have a history of violence operate outside these laws simply because they fall under the umbrella of the Crown Casino? The reason nobody goes to Crown Casino nightclubs is because of the people that go there and the violence they bring with them. Now people will be forced to go there and most likely be funnelled into the gambling areas.'