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.
The 'Don’t Punish Us' campaign by the Responsible Nightlife Alliance
The Responsible Nightlife Alliance (RNA) represents everyday Aussie bar-goers who are standing up for their basic right go out and have a good time with their friends.
The Responsible Nightlife Alliance has been established to unify and support the grass-roots opposition from responsible adults against the NSW State Government’s unfair new laws.
Hospitality workers are also being targeted by the unfair new legislation and also support the people’s ‘Don’t Punish Us’ campaign.
Key industry bodies including the Australian Hotels Association, venue operators and alcohol manufacturers have also aligned with the RNA. They believe that responsible bar-goers are being unfairly punished under the restrictive new laws and support their right to be heard in the debate.
The Responsible Nightlife Alliance is a not-for-profit and receives no money from any political party or the government. We rely solely on funds and in-kind donations from organisations that support freedom of choice and social liberty.
For more information, please email info@dontpunishus.com.au.
Member Login
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain text
For example, go to Rio de Janeiro. You can buy beer on the beach (or rum for that matter), or on the street as you line up to enter a night club!!! At 6am when the night clubs close, I didn't see anywhere near the number of intoxed patrons you see here in Oz!
Yet, go to the UK. Pubs close by 11pm, so what does that mean? You drink as much as possible up until that time because once 11pm comes, that's it!!!!
Can someone please point this out to Mr Rees, and more importantly, Mr "Knee-Jerk" Rudd!
As price has decreased and availability has increased, there has a been a steady increase in alcohol-related harm. It is time to reverse this trend for the health of the public. Any effort to do so will be opposed by the alcohol industry who clearly fund your website and campaign. Their bottom line, like any business, is their profit margin and they will use all means into scaring politicians to preserve it.
I dare you to add this post.
For starters i don't see why i have to be punished for the minority. I also don't see why the government should have any say in this what so ever. What happened to the right to be stupid? Prevention of crime is an admirable goal, but prevention of crime by limiting freedoms should never, ever ever be an option. RSA laws and forced closing of pubs is not and will never be the answer to alcohol related violence, basically because alcohol related violence has been aroudn since man was man. You don't want to see a bar fight then it is your right to stay in doors. It is not your right to stop everyone else from having fun just in case something happens.
http://www.unitedmotorcyclecouncil.com
typical of this state gov the only way they are going to pay attention to us there boss (they are working for us apparently being paid by us) is dont vote them in again i will not vote them i dont care how pettie that sounds join in and sack them for being a bad at there job and addressing the real problem
In many countries alcohol can be bought 24 hours a day from your local convenience store, super market, pub, you name it and therefore by the logic that it is a problem of availability these countries should have far more severe cases of alcohol related crime, and yet most don't.
Why? Mentality, not availability.
I don't know what the right solutions are, but I think we need to dig deeper and get to the findamental issues.
1. Commercial. Anyone who thinks that pubs and clubs are not driven by the profit motive is thoroughly deluded. In today's SMH an article appeared quoting Sally Fielke arguing that the 10 minute ban should be overturned. Instead, she offered, pubs were angling for more water stations and staff to patrol and suggest patrons 'slow down'. What the? why arent these things already in place? No, only 'suggested' when the profit was threatened by being reduced for 1/6th of an hour. Hence, we must understand policy as attempts to push the buttons that make pub owers et al take the issue seriously.
2. Political. As many have pointed out throughout the debates, the NSW government (and others) frequently uses alcohol-related violence as an opportunity to appear to be 'doing something'. This does not mean the ARV is not an issue (although it is frequently the basis for media-generated moral panics), but simply that the timing of certain policy interventions needs to be understood in relation to both the political cycle and the popularity of the government at any given time.
3. And this is the biggie. Culture. The solutions to irresponsible use of alcohol lie in a shift in the culture of consumption. This happens over medium term periods - the analogy that is useful is convincing Australians of the dangers of smoking or the merits of wearing sunscreen. These are 25 years tasks, and policy initiatives must be calibrated (and funded) accordingly. At the local level, culture is about YOU. So, how do you drink? what do you think is acceptable? How often have you laughed at your mate for being pissed - because that is tacit approval of drinking patterns that in another person sees violence erupt. Unless you personally take repsonsibility the culture won't change.
So, a complicated issue, no doubt. Made more so by the fact that from one perspective a night out is a revenue stream, and from another a political football. One thing is certain, as punters, all we have control over is our capacity to regulate our own consumption and rethink what we think of as socially acceptable behaviour.
It is great that many people want to speak out about what they believe in but any group that is supported by some of Sydney's most dangerous pub operators needs to be well avoided.
I have tried extremely hard to find points to agree upon within your emotional ramble, yet am unable to find any. I feel this is largely because I am a utilitarian, believing in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. As such, your inconvenience at living near a pub doesn't really touch my heart strings - the issues you raise are personal to you (one person) when we can be certain that a few hundred people would be most displeased and socially inconvenienced with closing the venue near you; as you appear to desire. My suggestion would be that if you don't like a grotty smell on a Sunday morning, that you don't choose to live near a pub.
Equally how many hundreds of thousands of individuals enjoy a drink responsibly every weekend for the few that cause issues... Why punish the masses for the few intolerable nuisances. Why not find more inventive ways to socially exclude those that commit offenses, rather than crude blanket solutions that illustrate a complete disassociation between the government and the culture of their electorate.
Equally, I question whether Australia has a particular issue... Are the governments plans based upon comparative analysis of alcohol related crime statistics versus other Western nations? Has the government looked at solutions used by European nations with particularly admirable records???
My guess would be 'no,' on the basis that European nations take a considerably more liberal approach to EVERYTHING! Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
It seems to me (as an outsider looking in) that these laws present a wonderful opportunity to be 'seen to be doing something' and provide justification to the excessive tiers of government that NSW has.
I am not debating that there is an issue. I am not debating that alcohol related violence is abhorrent. However, the problem is not legislative. The majority of Western countries function with less issues per capita than Australia with considerably more 'laissez faire' licensing laws.
This issue is attitudinal and I advocate finding more intelligent ways of increasing individual responsibility.
You've chosen not to accept my comment of 8th Jan which was neither offensive nor off-topic.
As a night cabbie I am well experienced with the problems with this site is devoted and I'm surprised that my carefully considered reasonings were rejected.
If you're confident that your case is strong then why reject positive suggestions that ultimately benefit your case?
<i>Despite the so-called Responsible Service of Alcohol policy, cabbies like myself witness on a nightly basis heavily drunken patrons emerging from some of our biggest hotels.
Needless to say it is these individuals who cause the most trouble.
As a first step, the Responsible Nightlife Alliance should campaign against the blatant disregarding of hotels' RSA obligations.
Further, a winning public relations campaign would force the AHA to adopt a proactive stance regarding the glaring loopholes in the RSA policy and, themselves, initiate effective measures to eliminate reckless consumption.
For example, breath-testing, drink cards, etc...
Otherwise, until the hotel industry demonstrates real responsibility in supplying a debilitating product, the wider community views their whinging as rank hypocrisy.</i>
I agree that some pubs need to be better at administering the RSA Code however if someone is intent on writing themselves off, they'll get there one way or another.
Australians used to take responsibility for their actions, now we're looking for people to blame.
The question is: at what point does a hotel’s responsibility start and finish ?
Think of it this way: if a hotel supplies and facilitates a place for the serving of a debilitating product they are legally obliged to conduct a risk assessment of the environment they have created.
Thus under NSW OH&S law hotels have a duty of care regarding how they supply alcohol and, clearly, within the confines of the premises they are fully responsible for that service and the subsequent consequences. Otherwise they would be no need for the RSA law.
Therefore if a hotel serves a patron too much grog; who then wanders down the middle of the road and get killed by a taxi; ruining his own family and that of the drivers; the hotel, under RSA provisions, is equally as culpable as the drunk.
My suggestion then is that hotels need to revisit their RSA obligations and stiffen them right up. If not, the Government will continue bowing to community and media pressure by introducing more namby pamby laws, whilst ever the AHA fails to fully employ their RSA obligations.
Whilst you are absolutely correct that a hotel has a duty of care for patrons on their premises and that they must dispense alcohol responsibly and in accordance with the RSA legislation, you have to draw a line somewhere.
If an individual chooses to take 2 or 3 pills at once or have 5 shots in a row or something similar, how do you stop that? People will go to the bar to purchase 5 shots for one person to drink to complete a dare for example. I've seen it happen.
Similarly, people know about the RSA policy and make sure they, "act sober", when approaching door or the bar.
At some point however they are all of a sudden so drunk they can't stand and the pub has to deal with the consequences. Hopefully they're a good operator and do deal with them rather than just turf them out on the street for something horrible to happen like you've described.
It is a very complicated issue and there are problems on both sides however the answer isn't to impose restrictions on everyone. The government needs to be tough on people who get drunk and act up and make them take responsibility for their actions.
What I would like to see is the government asking themselves about the Australian drinking culture - why do people here want to 'get blind?'
Could it be because Australians are drowning in debt, striving to purchase a house with unattainable house prices, living in apartments with escalating rents, facing massive tax bills, facing a bevvy of stealth taxes, subjected to an ailing public transport system, a mediocre health system and an average education system?
Surely the government that asks this question is a government that deals with the cause, not the effect. Surely this is the type of pro-active government that we want representing us... Rather than snap implementation of alcohol related constraints that do nothing to address the real issue, which is really one of individual responsibility.
Damn right we're lucky to live here!
Do you know why we're lucky to live here? It's because people care to actively participate in discussions like this.
Why don't you come back with a reasoned argument as to why you don't like these laws.
At what point do people get upset about the government infringing on our rights? Does it have to be something that personally affects or harms you?
Yes we are lucky to live here. Do you know why?
Because Australia is a democracy. And if you don't question the rules, laws and actions of the people in power how long do u think we will remain a democracy for?
Regardless of whether or not these new laws affect you, you should question them (and more importantly the governments reasons for them).
I was sitting with friends at a table in a back room and asked to leave as I was intoxicated. Now, whilst this may have been the case - I was in a pub late at night, however, I was behaving and with the group I brought to the venue (who dropped a far amount of $$$ of drinks, I might add).
I agree with some of the previous comments. Becoming a 'policed' state will not help anyone. All it does is fuel the drunken fire at the worst time.
Perhaps some of the bigger issues in the world of entertainment and socialising should be addressed before this idiotic rule is enforced.
Leave us alone.
I occasionally like to have a liqueur, say a baileys or a cointreau after having a meal. I no longer can have that straight and have been told I can only now have it if it has ice in the glass. Well this would be okay...EXCEPT...It dilutes the liqueur and spoils the drink (In my opinion).
Last night I went to a new Hotel that opened a few weeks ago. They now, as their house policy, demand that you have a mixer of at least 50ml with your liquor, they don't serve it straight. Okay, so I can have milk with the Baileys (YUCK!). What on earth do I have with my Cointreau?? Orange Juice??
Being a quick thinker, I asked for 50ml of water as my mixer....FROZEN!! But that request was denied.
I posed the question to the bar manager... "When was the last time you saw someone drink a baileys and then start smashing up a pub??"
What made it worse, was the fact that the idiot behind the bar tried telling me that "It's the law" and that they had all done their RSA recently and it was definately law. Are they already teaching that at the RSA courses??
Oh, by the way, the Baileys wasn't even for me, it was for my wife (She doesn't like milk). I was quite content with the schooner of beer I had been sipping on for the last half hour or so. I was being a responsible drinker!!
These rules are doing what this site is about... YOU ARE PUNISHING THE WRONG PEOPLE!!!
Oh, just a side from that, I have been pubing it for 23 years now, and agree that the violence is getting out of hand. But, in my opinion it is not how much people are drinking at the venue, it is how much they drinking before they go out (Making their money go further) and what DRUGS they have consumed. I believe DRUGS are the biggest issue in most of what is being called alcohol related assaults. Maybe the govt could try a little harder to get the drugs off the street.
Research here http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/subs/2008/nightclub-patrons-suffering-abuse-of-pri says this:
"The NightKey machine makes a digital image of a person’s fingerprints, face and driver’s licence, and then transmits this information to be permanently stored on an electronic database administered by EntryData Pty Ltd (ACN 098 160 144). Software associated with NightKey allows patrons to be put on a “banned persons database”, whereby patrons may be indefinitely denied entry into nightclubs based on the arbitrary assessments of door staff."
Post your comment