Right: Nightrider buses are an important part of the NSW government's plans. The free buses are meant to clear the city streets of crowds as quickly as possible.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
The new suite of laws and regulations introduced by the New South Wales government to reduce alcohol-related violence represents a significant departure for the O'Farrell government which until recently had been reluctant to impose lockouts and fixed closing hours on nightclubs. It had also argued against increasing sale-of-alcohol licence fees for premises deemed a risk. Its new legislative response includes both these measures and many more. Two recent deaths resulting from king-hits appear to have acted as a catalyst for the O'Farrell government's wide-ranging response.
The response is able to be divided into two distinct parts. One is an attempt to regulate when alcohol is consumed in key areas of the Sydney CBD.
Restricting the sale of alcohol in licensed premises to 3.00am and refusing to allow patrons to enter premises after 1.30am is a response to research findings that alcohol-related violence increases as the night wears on. It is an attempt to prevent patrons ejected from one premises for intoxication moving on to another and to limit the opportunity for a patron to drink before leaving a licensed premises. It is also intended to reduce the number of drunken young men and women on the street as a night of drinking continues. The placing of a prohibition on the sale of packaged alcohol after 10pm is an attempt to prevent patrons becoming intoxicated before arriving at a licensed venue, a practice known as 'preloading'. The success of these measures can be gauged by their effectiveness in Newcastle since their imposition in 2008.
Criticisms that the placing of these restrictions at 1.30am and 3.00am would not have saved the lives of either of the young men recently king-hit in the Kings Cross district seem to miss the point. Yes, tragically, each of these deaths would still have occurred under the new laws, but these laws are likely to prevent many future assaults and possibly deaths.
Given the extent of current media, business and community opposition to these new restrictions on alcohol consumption, the O'Farrell government many well have judged that the hours it has fixed were all that would be politically feasible. It may also have been influenced by the fact that these same times have been very effective in reducing alcohol-related assaults in Newcastle.
The second set of measures is additional alcohol-related offences and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. It remains to be seen whether these changes have any impact on alcohol-related violence. The deterrence value of new offences and increased sentences has been questioned. The challenge being posed to judicial discretion is disturbing, as it removes judges' capacity to fix a sentence that they believe is appropriate in a particular set of circumstances. This may result in unduly harsh sentencing.
Mandatory minimum sentences are also likely to result in increased rates of incarceration. As imprisonment has not been shown to promote rehabilitation and is often linked to subsequent re-offending, it may be that these new laws and sentences actually worsen the criminal violence problem in New South Wales.
Politically, restricting drinking hours is likely to be initially unpopular, while imposing harsher sentences on those convicted of drunken violence is likely to be well-received by the electorate. The O'Farrell government may be attempting to balance a politically chancy set of laws and regulations with others that will be far more palatable.