There are at least two ways of interpreting the Barr government's decision to rule out reforming ACT liquor laws to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour. It's accepted as fact the industry's claim that implementing lockout laws and earlier closing times would dull Canberra's night life and imperil the commercial viability of pubs and clubs without actually making the streets or clubs safer for late-night revellers. Or it's allowed Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury (Labor's coalition partner and a long-time opponent of lockout laws) to talk it out of implementing reforms because of the likelihood the industry might threaten the party's re-election prospects on October 15.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
At best, Labor has been left looking effete and reactionary. At worst, its decision to shelve reforms which would have enhanced community safety and amenity without detracting noticeably from the "vibrancy" of Civic's entertainment precinct (or indeed have affected the bottom line of pubs or clubs to any appreciable degree) make it looks slippery and irresolute.
Andrew Barr has sought to justify Labor's retreat by suggesting the "the issue here is what extent does the poor behaviour of a very small number of people dictate a response than impacts very negatively on a much large number of people".
Leaving aside Mr Barr's characterisation of deadly one-punch attacks as "poor behaviour", his rationalisation run counter to John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which states an individual can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others – at which point society, which includes government, can exercise power over that individual, even against his will. And "Building on Liquor Reform" was a reform package that prioritised community safety, or so Attorney-General Simon Corbell told Canberrans when he released the white paper in April.
The government claimed the proposed reforms would not only make Canberra's nightlife precincts more vibrant but would promote a "vibrant liquor and hospitality sector" as well. This was inadvisable, especially given one key proposal of the White Paper was for clubs choosing to stay open beyond 3am to be hit with massive hikes in license fees. The industry hardly needed an excuse to oppose the reforms, but its claims that clubs would go broke and Civic would become a dead zone were lent credence by chatter of licence fee hikes of up to 300 per cent.
If Labor stands accused of shirking its duty of care to late-night revellers, Mr Rattenbury's role in the backdown is equally contentious. In 2009, he claimed evidence for the efficacy of lockouts in reducing violence was underwhelming and that they were also associated with violent queues outside of venues and taxi ranks. With lockouts having substantially reduced late-night violence in Newcastle and Sydney Mr Rattenbury's continued scepticism is puzzling.
Just why Labor has jettisoned lockouts or other limits will remain a matter of conjecture. It still, however, has a duty to explain to Canberrans what methods it believes will reduced the threat of alcohol-fuelled violence.
