Supporters opposed to the State's unfair bar laws
Total number of petitioners and photographed supporters
2271
Join

DontPunishUs.com

The government is taking away your basic right to have a good time by targeting your favourite bars, pubs and clubs. Protest against these ill-conceived and draconian measures now!

Add your voice to the debate. Register or Login to submit a new blog entry.

Lockouts increasing risk of violence: publicans- SMH January 13 2009

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

WADE GIBLETT lines up outside the Empire Hotel. He is sober but is refused entry. So is his friend. It is three minutes past 2am and the new lockout laws are being enforced.

The bouncer tells him to go up Darlinghurst Road to the Bourbon and Beefsteak, where there is no restriction on trade. Business there is up 20 per cent since the state's tough new liquor rules took hold last month.

"I f---ing hate these laws," Mr Giblett said. "Now I have to go up to the Bourbon or back to Show Girls."

Three Kings Cross bars have had their licences restricted in the crackdown aimed at reducing violence at 48 NSW venues. As well as the 2am lockout, after midnight bars must stop serving for 10 minutes every hour and use only plastic glasses.

"The new act is not really working," said Jason Gavin, the chief executive of the Landmark Leisure Group, which owns two of the affected pubs.

"All it has done is force people from a controlled environment, being the hotel, into an uncontrolled environment that is the street."

At the Vegas Hotel, one of the Kings Cross venues affected by the laws, there is less security and fewer staff.

Five bar workers have been laid off since the lockouts started hurting business. Two more have resigned after being abused during the 10-minute alcohol-free periods. Security shifts have been cut by 40 hours.

According to the police reports that led to the Vegas becoming a "declared premises" - obtained by theHerald under freedom of information laws - only seven of the 23 assaults attributed to the venue took place on the premises. They included a woman who was assaulted in Kellett Street and had hotel staff call police.

Across town, at the "declared" Oxford Hotel on Taylor Square, only five of the 27 reported assaults happened on the premises. The figure includes a fight that began across the road and the robbery of a homeless man in a nearby toilet block.

"The figures are so flawed and I don't think they could use these figures again," Mr Gavin said.

"It's simply not working. The thought process wasn't there; the discussion with the industry wasn't there. It was a political decision made to show they were doing something about binge drinking."

The Australian Hotels Association calls the isolated lockouts a "competitive disadvantage". But it will not endorse a blanket system.

"We don't need short-term fixes for the summer," said the association's national chief executive, Bill Healey. "This solution hasn't been evidence-based, and unfortunately it might have undermined relationships in the future."

The State Government was quick to modify the Liquor Act last year, hoping to have the new laws in place before the summer drinking season. The Government could not supply evidence the laws were working, but said analysis of the scheme would include monitoring of "spillover" venues.

"I'm sure some venues are finding our new laws tough," said the acting Minister for Gaming and Racing, Paul Lynch. "But it's nowhere near as tough as life becomes for victims of glassings or violence that occurs all too often when people drink to excess."

Victoria tried a similar lockout scheme last June but discontinued it after three months. The research into its effectiveness was inconclusive.

Even the Australian National Council on Drugs, established by the Howard government as an advisory panel, says isolated lockouts would have a "minimal effect" but that they were a step in the right direction.

"Where it has worked well has been in regional towns where all the licensed venues participated," said the council's executive director, Gino Vumbaca. "You just can't go out and get drunker and drunker."

The northern end of Oxford Street is marked out by Schedule 4 of the NSW Liquor Act as the most violent drinking strip in the state.

"They're twice as likely to get in a fight," a security guard at the ARQ nightclub said of the people locked out on the street. "And it's made our job twice as hard, too."

The Exchange Hotel reported 24 assaults in the past financial year. Since December 1, business has fallen at least 30 per cent. Security has been cut by 40 per cent to compensate. Laws that were intended to reduce violence mean staff cannot leave the front door to break up a fight on the second floor.

"I don't think we can sustain it much longer," said the licensee, Darren Hickey.

"And it's not fair; it's not ethical. We have to lock people out and they're just walking up to another venue."

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (23 posted):

James on 13/01/2009 14:13:30
avatar
Of cause the publicans would come out with this crap....
Where are the stats to prove it??
The only side with any evidence to support their case is that of the people/government.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
-1
Jimmy on 13/01/2009 15:02:35
avatar
You don't need stats to prove what's plain for anyone to see at any of these venues every night of the week! It's just common sense mate.

These laws take away civil liberties and will not solve violence in the community.

Not sure how "people/gov" get lumped together - seems to me that there are a lot of people protesting against these laws on this website.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
Sebastian on 13/01/2009 17:04:37
avatar
It's definitely not crap guys. I know you'll label me a hotelier or something as that's the main response to arguments on this website but I'm not, I work in a shoe shop and my only connection to any pub is that I like to go out for a drink with my friends on Saturday night. I was at a pub in the city on the weekend (not sure if I can say which one?) and these 10 minute bar breaks were a nightmare. They are supposed to stop violence but everyone gets so angry about it, I felt sorry for the poor staff. People were leaving because of it and a nightclub across the road was closing around the same time and there were fights on the street and honestly, I have NEVER seen that before these lockouts came in.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
matt on 13/01/2009 17:17:55
avatar
Absolutely ridiculous - venues locked out are now forced to lay off security!!

Rees is an idiot. I see they are already taking bets at Centrebet etc on him not making the next election.

I would have thought a more practical approach might be to require an increase in security per headcount of patrons.......
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
matt on 13/01/2009 17:18:38
avatar
I should add, finally a decent piece of reporting from fairfax
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
Jack on 14/01/2009 08:44:57
avatar
Firstly...
If hotels didn't get their patrons so drunk to start with, there would be no violence when they where refused entry during the lock out period!!!
How many fights do you see at Cafe's when the owner tells a potential coffee lover that they aren't letting any more customers in???

Secondly- violence have shown to spike during the intial period of a lock out (as drunks aren't too sure how it is operating at first), but after a while they know not to even bother trying to gain entry to certain venues, and the violence drops..
At the end of the day these pubs are reaping what they sow, the sooner they realise that, the safter life will be for both patrons and the community at large.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
-1
Jimmy on 14/01/2009 11:13:24
avatar
Well firstly, the hotel isn't getting them drunk as they haven't even been there yet, they're locked out. People are drinking before they leave home, in restaurants and local bars/pubs before they go to the late night pub. Some of them then cause problems when they arrive. Hardly all the pub's fault.

I don't know what you're like in the morning before a coffee but if you want to tell people they can't have theirs good luck to you!

It's easy to quote other writers, the second point is a direct lift from a SMH op ed, but harder to formulate your own.

Evidence from initial stages of lockouts that have been tried around the world is almost all anecdotal and says as much.

There are typically more police around to ensure compliance so possibly more arrests? Or should there be less because of the police presence?

All this says is that it's a complex issue which requires a long-term strategy, not easy fixes which provide good gov headlines.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
matt on 14/01/2009 12:10:44
avatar
There was a stabbing this week in a karaoke club.. why no lockouts there?

There are plenty of bad drivers on the road, why not ban driving?

A couple of the posts on here seems suspiciously like they are shills.. if you went out on any given night and asked the tens of thousands of people out and about what they thought, 99.9% I'm sure would be vehemently against these ridiculous laws
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
Steve H on 14/01/2009 14:53:54
avatar
Seriously, I have to wonder if some of the people who are making comments on these blogs have actually been out to a pub or club since the early 90's when RSA wasn't around. Maybe back when you could go to KICKS at Parramatta it was the norm to buy four $1 bourbons and stand around trying to drink one without spilling the other 3 but those days are long gone in NSW. Anyone who seriously believes you can go into a pub or club these days and still drink like that is probably almost 40, like me, and remembers those pre-RSA days and the fights that used to go with it. I was there, and I was in the industry then, and I remember all too well and can understand what some people are basing their opinions on. Yes, it could get scary back then. BUT, times have changed, hotels and their employees can be fined massive amounts of money for serving a person to intoxication (more than you get fined for almost any other breach of law in this state), and it is simply not economically viable for an operator who has spent a lot of money to set up a business and risk it all by pretending otherwise. No one in the industry wants their customers to get drunk and throw punches at each other - the idea is actually to make sure people have a great time so they want to come back again and again.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
matt on 15/01/2009 01:01:44
avatar
they are already planning to get rid of Rees..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/della-denies-rees-plot/2009/01/15/1231608803472.html
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Chrissy on 15/01/2009 08:42:18
avatar
Steve H are you serious??? Walk into almost any pub in Sydney on a Saturday night and you will find people who are drunk being served... The publicans are happy to get serve you up until the point you are intoxicated (and then a threat to other paying customers), and then and only then do they start to talk about their RSA responsibilities and kick you out on the street for the community to deal with.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
-1
Benny on 15/01/2009 08:55:33
avatar
Chrissy, what you've just described is the law. Pubs are obliged to serve people until they are intoxicated and then they must ask them to leave.

RSA is like a rock climber's safety rope. It's there to protect you if you fall but that doesn't mean to can take unreasonable risks because it's there. Just like a rope can break, any procedure, such as RSA legislation, is only as strong as it's weakest link and things don't always work how they're meant to.

People should drink more responsibly rather than drinking at high risk levels and then blaming the pub when things go wrong.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Steve H on 15/01/2009 11:38:36
avatar
Chrissy, that's another example of the type of uninformed view I wrote about. Do you really believe a licensed venue can get away with serving people until they are seriously intoxicated and then kick them out on the street, shut the door, and forget about them? That's a ridiculous notion. What are you basing your observations on? Suspicion? TV?
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
Chrissy on 16/01/2009 09:31:52
avatar
Steve my view is based on REALITY!! (Has the AHA ever experienced such a state of mind??).
I have completed the RSA training and have worked/patronised many Sydney bars, including the ones subject to the lock out. If the RSA was properly adhered, which in my observation rarely happens, then so much unnecessary trauma in our community would be so easily avoided.. Unfortunately obeying the law and being a responsible provider of a drug such as alcohol would require many publicans to lose some of their drug money (and let’s not forget that’s exactly what alcohol sales are )...and these publicans don’t care about anything but the money!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Jimmy on 19/01/2009 12:31:45
avatar
Chrissy if you've worked in bars then you've seen how people go out to get blind. Are bartenders, door staff etc meant to be school masters?

Should we start using plastic knives and forks in restaurants? Plastic cups in all licensed premises? Strictly meter out drinks to each person?

Of course not, that's ridiculous!

We need to start applying a bit of common sense to the problem and to start realising that one solution won't fit all. Each case needs to be dealt with on it's merits.

I don't want to live in a Nanny State - but it seems that's where we're heading.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
James Fry on 21/01/2009 09:56:27
avatar
Jimmy, if you are the one who has been given a special license to deal in a drug (which is what licensed establishments have been given) then you have extra responsibilities over say that of someone is isn't required to have a license to sell a certain product, say a tea seller...
When a establishment applies for a liquor license they make a promise that they will serve what has the potential to be a very dangerous and addictive drug, in a responsible and regulated manner.. (That is why it is called a REGULATED INDUSTRY!!)
So of cause they have to act in more regulated and responsible ways then say someone who is simply selling food!!
The fact that you, as someone who is obviously working in the industry is not aware of this very basic fundamental foundation of the liquor industry goes to show just how out of control and irresponsible the liquor industry has become.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Jimmy on 21/01/2009 12:27:18
avatar
James,

Thank you for your response. You are absolutely correct, I do work in the hospitality industry. Have done so for many years.

You are correct in stating that pubs/bars etc have an obligation to serve alcohol in a responsible manner. They are also bound by a duty of care for the patrons in their premises, especially if the patron has consumed too much alcohol.

However you've missed the point entirely I'm afraid, this argument is about establishing balance, about trying to get the individual to take some responsibility for their actions.

RSA legislation is aimed at harm minimisation, it is not designed to stop people intent on writing themselves off. If that's what their aim is they'll succeed one way or another.

Pubs and bars have the unfortunate job of getting abused when they tell people they've had a bit too much and cleaning up the mess when they've have more than enough. But that's part of the job and they need to accept it.

What sounds a bit two faced is when someone goes out with the intention of binge drinking, abuses or even assaults the staff for stopping their drinks and then people like you, James Fry, blame pubs for the whole mess.

All I'm suggesting is that both sides need to use common sense and take responsibility for their actions.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
James Fry on 21/01/2009 15:20:47
avatar
Jimmy I couldn't agree more.. it should always be about balance! As the saying goes 'it takes two to tango'...
With prosecutions against individuals making up the overwhelming majority of cases when it comes to enforcing the liquor act, it is clear that the focus needs to now be on the publicans if we have any hope of seeing a shared responsibility for this huge problem...
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Nicole on 27/01/2009 15:24:04
avatar
To all those who like Mr Rees,I dont not at all,he is a shit Premier who takes everything good out of NSW and wont do anything to help us.for eg our health system is in bad debt, they can't afford to pay their bills but the premier doesnt do anything about it. The school bus ticket that mr rees was going to take that away from struggling familes! He should be taken out of politics all together, he is not captable of running our state.This new law has to be stopped and we have to do something about it,because in the end were going to lose everthing. I think morris iemma is better than nathan rees,morris just sat back and did jack shit,unlike destroying our state like nathan rees is doing
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Kenny K on 27/01/2009 22:01:30
avatar
The problem with this whole debate is that the individual patron is absolved of their responsibility as a citizen of society.

Nobody knows how intoxicated YOU are but yourself.
Nobody forces you to buy that extra drink that tips YOU over the edge.
Nobody forces YOU to binge drink.

All these actions are in complete control of the individual. Just as well as whether or not you chose to get violent.

I agree that the majority of patrons should not be punished for the actions of the minority. The laws that have been introduced have been proven as ineffective elsewhere and the same will occur in this state. People will find loopholes, as is already occurring, because these laws are not well thought through.

The laws also do not target the problem. Do people really think that the trouble causers are cocktail and champagne drinkers? I could go on...

The solution is a cultural change through public education. I think half of our problem originated from the old english tradition of closing pubs at 11pm and people drinking as much and as quickly as they could before the place closed. What is happening now is just a revival of this.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
A Xilla on 06/02/2009 09:44:36
avatar
Something needs to happen because the "international world city" that is Sydney is fast becoming a laughing stock around the world as travellers who generate valuable revenue shy away from the city, as they see it as having less and less to offer them, due to archaic OTT rules. No Fun Sydney seems to be the latest name for the place.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
James on 27/02/2009 08:16:21
avatar
Well, despite the best efforts of the DontPunishUs subversive PR campaign, today we see the truth come out:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/assaults-in-problem-pubs-down-20090226-8j9j.html

These laws have seen a dramatic drop in violent assaults and have well and truly proven their worth

Sure, the AHA and the other industry goons will go on and on about questioning the quality of the statistics (and any other last ditch attempt that they can come up with to try and protect their greedy profits), but the reality on the street is that these laws have worked!!!

It is a shame to think that we needed government intervention, when the reality is, that had the publicans decided to put their patrons first and profits second, these laws would have never been needed in the first place!!!!

I, along with many other Sydney and visiting international patrons look forward to enjoying a better quality of Sydney night life!!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Ed on 27/02/2009 22:06:45
avatar
James, if you had of read the entire article in the SMH you'd have discovered a paragraph which admitted that this data was unconfirmed and could not be relyed on.
One third of the statistics are attributed to drunk drivers who had been drinking in a pub before they drove! Are you suggesting that it's the pub's fault that someone chose to risk innocent's lives by getting behind the wheel whilst drunk!?
How about you discuss personal responsibilty for once and try to shrug off the chip on your shoulder.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Member Login

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Recommend

0 times