Right: Young people affected by alcohol are not just harming themselves, but, in many cases, inflicting violence on others, according to proponents of the "lockout".
Arguments in favour of a 2.00am lockout for Melbourne's clubs, pubs and bars
1. The trial was inconclusive because it was improperly conductedSome supporters of the curfew have stated that it is not possible to say how effective the curfew was as the trial was not properly conducted.
Some supporters of the curfew have claimed that the large number of exceptions meant that the trial was effectively sabotaged from the start as key areas which should have been included, such as the Crown casino district, were not. Almost a quarter of Melbourne's licensed venues were given exemptions from the curfew. More than a hundred clubs and bars were granted a temporary exemption after a hearing in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) the day before the ban was put in place. Others were granted exemptions after this.
The Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has claimed, 'John Brumby's lockout was a shambles. The implementation was a total failure, with so many exemptions that any lessons we might have learnt to help fight against record street violence were undermined.'
2. A curfew would not unduly restrict Melbournians' entertainment opportunities
It has been stressed that the curfew did not effect opening hours or people who were already within clubs, bars or hotels. Once people had arrived at an entertainment venue their opportunity to enjoy themselves was in no way limited. Clubs were not being required to close or to cease to serve alcohol at 2.00am. All that was required of clubs and other venues was that they do not accept new patrons after 2.00am.
The Victorian premier, Mr Brumby, stated, when the trial of the curfew was begun, 'It will not affect people already in venues or change opening hours, but it will reduce what we call "venue hopping" by large groups of young and often drunken people, which police tell us is the major cause of violent behaviour on Melbourne's streets.'
The government repeatedly stated that the intention of the ban was not to curb Melbournians recreational opportunities; it was intended simply to make them safer.
3. Youths moving from one venue to another have been identified as a major cause of violence
A Government taskforce is believed to have responded to calls by police to clamp down on gangs of drunken youths on pub crawls in inner Melbourne. It has been claimed that these groups of intoxicated youths move from one club to another and often cause violence on the streets as they do so.
Another cause of concern is reported to have been the large number of drunk smokers congregating outside pubs and clubs.
The lock-out will last for five hours. It has been claimed this will give police time to clear the streets and will allow time for the drunken youths to sober up
Police have noted a dramatic increase in CBD assaults, with a 17.5 per cent increase over the 2006-07 financial year. Crime experts have calculated that 47 per cent of all people accused of assault are affected by alcohol and 43 per cent of victims are also under the influence.
Recent photographs of violence occurring outside Melbourne clubs also lent support to Victorian Government claims that a curfew was necessary. A photograph of a bouncer aiming a kick at a man outside the Bar 20 strip club in King Street printed in Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper strengthened calls for a curfew. The premier, Mr Brumby, said he was appalled by the photograph and that it added to his determination to press ahead with the government's late night lockout policy.
The premier stated, 'I think anybody who saw the photo ... would be appalled at what's occurring in the early hours of the morning in Melbourne. These graphic photographs, appalling photographs, just confirm that there is an issue.'
Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson has stated that the entire community was responsible for keeping the streets safe. 'There are a small number of licensed pub and club operators who are putting around this line that there's not a violence problem,' he said. 'It's real blood, real violence, and it's a real problem. Anyone who thinks this is a question of finding some scapegoat rather than accepting all of us have some responsibility is kidding themselves.'
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Steve Fontana said curbing night-time alcohol-related street violence was one of the biggest challenges facing police. Police have said that alcohol had been a factor in up to 80 per cent of the 2133 assaults reported in the City of Melbourne alone in 2007-08.
4. Many Melbournians want limitations imposed on access to alcohol in the city
It has been claimed that the voices raised in opposition to the 2.00am curfew are not representative of how a majority of Victorians feel.
The Victorian premier, Mr Brumby, has said he was recently approached by a prominent County Court judge who strongly backed the Government's move to impose a 2am lockout.
'He said (he supported it) because every week in his work he sees young people who have destroyed their lives; young people who've been so drunk they've committed a terrible crime that they would otherwise not commit.
They've assaulted someone or permanently injured someone, and they're up before the courts, and the rest of their life is ruined.'
It has been suggested that the most vigorous opposition to the curfew came from within the hospitality industry and that a majority of people do not share this view. Herald Sun commentator, Robyn Riley, has stated, 'It's hardly surprising that there would be opposition to the proposed 2am nightclub lock-out in Melbourne and that it's being led by the nightclub industry. After all, it has the most to lose and will fight anything that threatens to take money out of its pockets.
But most people want to see the Government doing something about the appalling amount of late-night street crime in the city; they want regulators to exercise some form of control.'
Mr Brian Kearney, the chief executive of the Australian Hotels Association, has stated, 'Many in the community are concerned about the levels of anti-social behaviour and most agree that it's about time something serious happened.'
Mr Kearney has stated that he believes that the community would support a ban on further liquor licences being granted to venues in the CBD. Mr Kearney has stated, 'It will create the opportunity for the initiatives of the State Government and the City of Melbourne to have effect without continually chasing their tail. As they do something, new bars open and the whole issue just becomes more problematic.'
5. The city's reputation could be damaged by frequent alcohol-related violent incidents
Supporters of the curfew have argued that if the problem of violence in Melbourne's entertainment precincts cannot be adequately addressed then the city's reputation as a desirable place to come will be damaged both within Australia and overseas.
The Victorian premier, Mr Brumby warned all venue owners they needed to take a share of the responsibility for the problem.
'They all say it's someone else's fault, they all say it's the bouncers' fault, they all say it's young kids abusing alcohol, Mr Brumby said. 'The fact is, everybody has a responsibility here to work together to solve, I believe, what is a solveable problem, but a problem which is damaging Melbourne's reputation and most importantly is damaging the lives of young Victorians.'
Herald Sun commentator Robyn Riley has stated that Melbourne's reputation is far more at risk from drunken violence on the streets than it is from a 2.00am curfew aiming to prevent patrons moving from one hotel, bar or club and going to another after that time in the morning. Ms Riley has stated, 'Please spare us the rhetoric of nightclub industry spokesman David Butten, who claims the lock-out will "damage the industry and Melbourne's reputation". What? More than vicious, unprovoked attacks by drunken louts?'
At a 'Working Together for Melbourne Forum' held in August 2007, it was stated, '
There is no doubt violence, vandalism and other disturbance associated with excess alcohol consumption is increasing in the city - as is Council''s approval of late night liquor permit applications. The drinking is not just at licensed premises, but drinking on the street also appears to be increasing ... more and larger groups of males [are] roaming the streets drinking.
Council says Melbourne is an "international city and aims to operate 24 hours a day" - but the current strategy appears to be just promoting the city as an all night binge drinking venue, which could not be attractive to most visitors to the city.'