Social media debate over Oxford St lockout plans

Social media debate over Oxford St lockout plans

 BARS and clubs in Sydney’s LGBTI-friendly Oxford St precinct will soon have to turn away patrons from 1.30am each night and cease alcohol trading by 3am as part of new measures to curb alcohol-related street violence.

Announced by NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell yesterday, the proposed clampdown is a first since the last of similar lockout restrictions were lifted from Oxford St venues in 2010.

The news has been welcomed by some – including the NSW Police Association, which called it a “common sense approach”.

However, hoteliers – including many LGBTI venues along Oxford St – have criticised the blanket lockouts and 3am “last drinks” rule as potentially causing more trouble with thousands looking for a way to get home at the same time.

The news also sparked debate among Sydney-based LGBTI social media users, with hundreds either in support, against, or in support of parts of the proposed crackdown but against others.

The legislation, which could be operational within weeks and just as the Mardi Gras season would be getting into full swing, comes after months of public debate about alcohol-related violence in entertainment districts around Sydney CBD – especially after the deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie.

Along with the Oxford St area, The Rocks, Kings Cross and the southern half of George St were highlighted as violence hotspots in a revised map of the Sydney CBD entertainment precinct that fell under the proposed legislation.

The revised map also included the popular nightspots of Circular Quay, Haymarket, King Street Wharf and Darling Harbour east but they were not highlighted as violence hotspots. In addition, no new liquor licenses would be approved for the whole zone and periodic risk-based licensing would be introduced for some venues.

Exempt from the proposed laws were small bars, restaurants and selected hotels such as the Hilton. Other nightlife precincts like Newtown, Pyrmont, Darling Harbour west and most of Surry Hills were also exempt.

The proposed legislation would also mean bottle shops across NSW must close at 10pm, plus a minimum eight-year jail sentence for anyone found guilty of committing a fatal one-punch attack while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

art-353-barry-300x0“The new measures are tough and I make no apologies for that,” Premier O’Farrell said yesterday.

“What has been happening on Sydney’s CBD streets and in other parts of the state demands strong action.”

While most social media users were in support of the new jail sentences for fatal one-punch attacks, they also raised questions on whether the crackdown would affect drunken behaviour, as revellers could still pre-drink excessively at home – as well as speculating on a potential surge in recreational drug use.

Questions were also raised about the future of Oxford St’s nightlife, and how venues that were exempt – including those in the LGBTI-friendly Newtown precinct – could cope with a potential surge in patrons after 1.30am.

(Click here to read what social media users have commented. Join the debate by leaving a comment below)

Craig Bell, co-owner of LGBTI venue Stonewall Hotel on Oxford St, told the Star Observer he would have liked to have seen if the new sentencing laws had any effect on behaviour before venues were punished for the violent conduct of a minority.

“A person who has a predisposition towards violence is going to act that way eventually regardless of alcohol,” Bell said.

“My biggest concern is that the police policy in relation to managing intoxicated persons is incorrect. They are still using the move-on laws instead of taking those high-risk, intoxicated people off the street and into custody where they can’t hurt themselves or somebody else. That’s the biggest reason we have so much alcohol-related violence on city streets at the moment.”

Welcoming the proposed legislation was Police Association president Scott Weber.

“Every weekend we are forced to pick up the pieces, phone parents and even deal with becoming the victims of violence and abuse ourselves. Now we see the government taking real action in dealing with alcohol related violence,” he said.

“Assault against police officers while doing their job will now attract a maximum sentence of seven years and a minimum sentence of two years and sends the strongest message to those who think violence towards officers is acceptable.”

Alex GreenwichSydney state independent MP Alex Greenwich said that while he recognised the government was trying to deal with a complex issue, he was concerned the measures were simply reactive and could create bigger problems while also targeting LGBTI venues that traditionally hosted late-night or early-morning parties.

“Many young people in my electorate and in the LGBTI community say they go to well-run venues late at night without causing problems and are being unfairly punished by these changes,” he told the Star Observer.

“They are concerned that the restrictions don’t target problems and penalise those who go out late wanting a safe and fun night out.

“Lockouts and early closures should be considered, but inner-city lockouts and earlier closing may shift problems to the suburbs, the streets and illegal parties. I am alarmed that the casino in Pyrmont will be exempt, which may mean that Pyrmont becomes the new site of alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour.”

The NSW Australian Hotel Association stated it welcomed the recognition of the role drugs played in street violence, but it was “sceptical” of the proposed lockouts and early cessation of alcohol trading.

“We do not believe tens of thousands of people will stay in licensed premises past 3am once alcohol is no longer served but will instead be out on the streets looking for a way home – the government will need to address this new issue,” AHA spokesperson Jason Bartlett said.

“The lockouts and closures in the Sydney CBD will also have an undeniable impact on the night-time economy – penalising businesses that are well-run and have had nothing to do with the recent violence.”

NSW Parliament is expected to debate the new legislation next Wednesday.

What do you think of the proposed crackdown? Join the debate by leaving a comment below.

You May Also Like

6 responses to “Social media debate over Oxford St lockout plans”

  1. Oxford Street is pretty awful but think about it for a second. If you exclude Oxford Street from the rules everyone else is going to have to follow, you’ll end up with everyone coming to Oxford Street. Then you’ll complain that Oxford St is turning straight.

    “Sydney state independent MP Alex Greenwich said that while he recognised the government was trying to deal with a complex issue, he was concerned the measures were simply reactive and could create bigger problems while also targeting LGBTI venues that traditionally hosted late-night or early-morning parties.”

    More crap from Alex demanding special treatment for “LGBTI” people who seem to want to be more equal than everyone else.

  2. Why don’t they start targeting the few problem people before they commit these crimes. So many of these recent offenders have been proven to be re-offenders who weren’t sentenced properly in the first place and have been let off to be repeat offenders again and again. Instead of punishing all the rest of the majority of the public who behave appropriately start looking at the system which just slaps these people over the wrist and lets them get off to commit further escalating violence. This isn’t an alcohol problem its a systemic problem which is the result of a soft judicial system!

  3. Alcohol-related street violence is all I seem to hear of these days. While working in security, the stupidity of blaming alcohol and the venue, instead of the individual doing the damage, is getting me down. How about making someone accountable for every assault? Make them accountable for every punch thrown, not just the one in 100,000 that does permanent damage, and not just the ones that make the front page of the daily rag.

    Put the blame where it is due – on the idiot that thinks its all right to pick a fight just for the hell of it, the fuckwit who thinks all the girls will love him because he just beat up a guy who bumped him and split his drink, the guy who likes to punish, who likes to be the one who is big and strong, and feels it is his job teach people a lesson they wont forget. They should be held accountable in some way.

    as Security are told to separate them and send them in different directions. By doing so, we fulfilled our job requirement of stopping trouble and RSA requirements by not serving them any more drinks. Then off they go, to repeat the cycle, all the way down the street, often another 2 or 3 times, with the only penalty being having to move on to find somewhere else to cause trouble.

    Why doesn’t the Head of each door have a radio, or even a direct number to the local patrol, and be asked, or even strictly told, that every act of violence is to be reported to them? The police could then speak to the parties and judge if it should lead to charges or they are safe to continue their night. The police are already walking the street in packs of 10, looking for drugs and searching clubs for drunks. They might have to speed things up a bit, instead of 10 of them standing around on one search, only to send the person off 2 hours later with a court summons in their pocket.

    As venue security, my job is to smile, being nice, and say anything that the aggressor wants to hear, so I can get them safely out the front door, without any more violence, and off down the street away from my club and my scope of responsibility. What I would love to do, instead, is to be able to call the police, get them to attend, and, if not to charge them, at least give a warning. Instead, every time the police get called to a venue, it’s a black mark against their name. These black marks come back to haunt them at license renewal time.

    The cause is the individual aggressor. Make them responsible for their actions instead of blaming every one around them and giving them a chance of 1 out of 100,000 that they will ever have to take the responsibility of their actions and 99,999 chances to tell their mates how hard they are

  4. The only violent altercations I have ever seen or heard of on Oxford St involved police or homophobes. It is one of the safest places I go. I have only ever had two problems and both of them were being harassed by groups of loitering heterosexual males while walking with my girlfriend.
    Surely sanctions such as probation involving an automatic ban from certain types of licensed premises for involvement in alcohol related violence would work better. Start at 2 months and increase the length for each incident. Directly target the undesirable behaviour with an appropriate, relevant and immediate consequence. All these id scanners going into venues, it wouldn’t be hard to enforce. This would be a much stronger motivator and would only inconvenience perpetrators.

  5. I think this is only going to encourage more violence, as you are now going to have lits of angry morons on the street at the same time. With no increse in public transport or police to contain the violence. This is a recipe for disaster.

  6. First, I’m in favor of Alcohol Violence being targeted.
    However I believe closer Community Consultation should occur.
    As the Manager of 3 Licensed Venues in the late 90’s early 2000’s, I always kept a tight control on misbehavior. All staff were encouraged to monitor individual patrons.
    All staff & security were trained on how to handle aggressive behavior.
    No Patron was embarrassed or spoken to in a negative manor eg: A patron leaves then remembers they left a Phone behind, because of laws dis-allowing re-entry, we would happily go get it for them etc….
    It’s not hard to ‘control’ patrons when a level of ‘decency’ & mutual respect are adhered to.
    Empathy goes a long way!… Both toward Patrons & Staff alike.