southernbelle

Diving is awesome. I never knew that we had coral in Sydney! But apparently it is just a matter of going deep enough to find it.

Lucy- they took us to Bare Island, and there were about 10,000,000 other divers there, so I'm guessing it is a pretty popular spot with the dive schools.

I just got sent a 177 pg report commissioned by the dept of justice evaluating the effectiveness of the Melbourne lockouts. I randomly opened it to the results of a survey of 2,400 ppl.

Q: Was the temporary lockout effective in reducing alcohol-related violence?

A: NO (76.9%) YES (2.1%)

Q: Was the temporary lockout effective in reducing anti-social behaviour?

A: NO (81.6%) YES (2.4%)

Man, politicians are stupid.

I did my grocery shopping there last weekend. It was like food heaven! After putting up with shitty city supermarkets for the past 2 years, it was so amazing to find such large and well stocked supermarkets

Ha. It's not a legal brief, it's an update sent out to hotelier clients. They'd glaze over if it was in lawyer-speak.

in my defence, i rarely use it! But it is so appropriate!

Re Cargo- so why are they being penalised by these new restrictions?!! It's very unfair

Here's my client update, which is long and a little bit legal, sorry. Hopefully the formatting won't screw up...

New Draconian restrictions will be placed on 48 hotels and clubs throughout NSW from December 1 as anti-licensed premises hysteria reaches new peaks in NSW. A full list of the affected premises is extracted below. The list could conceivably be extended to other venues shortly.

On October 30, Premier Nathan Rees announced “a comprehensive set of new initiatives” to deal with the problem of “alcohol fuelled violence”.

His “bold first step” in this regard is to impose restrictive conditions on the licences of 48 premises across the State that have been identified by the Commissioner of Police and the Director of the Office of Liquor and Gaming as “likely to be alcohol violence hot spots over the summer”.

It is unclear how this opinion was reached, and it is significant to note that the list of 48 premises identified as likely “alcohol violence hot spots” does not match up to the list of top 100 premises in NSW for alcohol related violence that was compiled by the Sydney Morning Herald from ABS data in March this year. For example, 4 of the 13 “hot spot” premises in Central Sydney do not even appear on the statistics for the top 100 premises for assault- being Cargo Bar, Home Nightclub, ARQ Sydney and Piccadilly Hotel. Another 4 of those premises are well outside of the top 50, earning a ranking of equal 78th only – being the Exchange Hotel, the Oxford Hotel, Pontoon Bar and Stonewall Hotel.

The new restrictive conditions will include: • mandatory 2.00 a.m. lock-outs; • cessation of alcohol service 30 minutes before closing time; • plastic or polycarbonate glasses after midnight; • no shots and drink purchase limits after midnight; and • 10-minute alcohol sale time-outs every hour after midnight.

It is interesting to note that a 2am lock-out is being introduced shortly after the 3 month trial of a similar 2am lock-out in Melbourne has been declared a failure, with the Victorians now looking for better and more well-considered solutions to the alleged “binge drinking epidemic”.

While most of these measures are clearly aimed at the responsible service of alcohol, the lock-out is arguably unrelated, and could well result in more violence, as angry patrons find themselves locked out on the streets.

Where Melbourne imposed a 3 month trial only, there does not appear to be any end in sight for the NSW restrictions, with the Premier merely stating that “we will refine and tweak the policy settings and implementation as required. If the team identifies new problems over the summer, we can add to or improve these conditions. Similarly, if licensed premises clean up their act over the summer and succeed in reducing incidents of alcohol-related violence, then we will consider amending these conditions.”

The Premier has said that he will also review the security arrangements in place for each of these pubs and clubs. Venues may be required to provide extra security and drink marshals to monitor alcohol consumption levels, or fund security at nearby taxis ranks or bus services.

Such conditions have traditionally only been imposed upon licences as a largely penal measure by the former Licensing Court and Liquor Administration Board in response to complaints made against a specific premises, or a number of premises.

However, it appears that this new spate of widespread restrictions is not in response to any individual complaints made against the specific premises, which makes this action unprecedented.

The Liquor Act 2007 provides both the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority and the Director of Liquor, Gaming & Racing with the power to vary the conditions of existing liquor licences. Where this is proposed however, the licensee must be given notice of the proposed variation and must be provided with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to that variation. Any other person may also make submissions. Submissions must be taken into consideration before making a decision to vary licence conditions. Where the decision to vary licence conditions is made by the Director, this decision may be appealed to the Authority. Where the decision is made by the Authority, there is no right of appeal. However, we believe there would be some limited scope to appeal to the Supreme Court on procedural fairness grounds – for example if the Authority fails to allow the licensee an opportunity to make submissions, or if the decision is manifestly unreasonable.

Operators of the named premises should be vigilant and should demand to be provided with adequate notice of all proposed conditions, and allowed a reasonable time in which to make submissions. It is important to ensure that submissions are made in relation to any proposed variation.

Operators of other venues should be warned that these restrictions could be extended to their premises also, particularly if they are located in the vicinity of any of the named premises, as it is apparent that the police will be looking to extend the 2am lock-out if a “local spill-over effect” can be identified.

Clubs and Hotels should also be aware that this is said to be merely the “first step to address a drinking culture that, in some cases, has been out of control”.

The Premier has indicated that he is aiming to introduce longer term initiatives, including a graduated statewide sanctions scheme. Somewhat alarmingly, he has suggested that the sanctions could start with what appears to be disproportionately heavy penalties such as mandatory conditions like lock-outs for first-time incidents, going right up to removal of licences for repeat offenders.

It is also proposed to introduce new laws to: • impose a freeze on any new 24-hour licence; • limit new licences to 18-hour trading; and • review conditions of all existing licences.

These measures, particularly any lock-out or reduction in trading hours, have the potential to impact the economic viability of affected premises. There may also be implications for the value of the club/hotel property or businesses, which may reduce the value of any security held by mortgagees.

The lock-out may have a devastating impact on venues that are unable to provide outdoor smoking areas, as patrons will not be able to re-enter the premises after 2am, even if they had merely exited briefly to smoke.

Consultation with the industry has been promised in the development of these measures. Operators should keep an eye out for any developments and should ensure that they are heard as part of this process.

some of the restrictions make sense from an RSA perspective. But lockouts are just stupid.

Also, I hate to add further to the bad news, but it is not just a trial for a limited period of time. These places are having their licence conditions varied, which could easily become permanent.

ALL venues are potentially affected. Especially those near the named 48 venues. If the dickheads can't get in to one place, they're just going to go next door. And then next door is going to be identified as a ''hot spot'' and is going to get targeted.

I've seen police incident data for ALL of the Oxford St premises. I can't believe the Courthouse is not on the list. I can't believe the Exchange is.

I'll post something comprehensive about this tomorrow once I've had a chance to talk to my boss about it...

Oh. It's not coming to Sydney?