Lockout Laws

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2019/mr-Impact-lockouts-on-the-CBD.aspx" target="_blank">recently claimed</a> Sydney’s alcohol licensing regulations, commonly known as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/lockout-laws-26282" target="_blank">lockout laws</a>, reduced non-domestic assaults by 13% in the CBD.
Its calculation relied on a decision to allocate 1,837 of these offences to both Kings Cross and the CBD – that is, double-counting the data.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf" target="_blank">Our analysis</a> found this decision was critical to the conclusion that assaults decreased in the CBD. For every other choice about the areas to which offences data were allocated and type of analysis we found no decrease.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298452/original/file-20191024-119433-7qnb4k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Map of Sydney and the entertainment precincts as used by BOCSAR in its analysis: blue – CBD entertainment precinct; red – Kings Cross entertainment precinct; green – nearby displacement areas; yellow – outer displacement areas.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf%5D" target="_blank">Our findings</a> highlight an important question: how do the choices of data collection, pre-processing and analysis affect policy decisions?
The allocation of crimes to areas is just one of several choices made when using data to assess policy impacts. Other choices include how to measure violent crime, what time period to consider and the geographical extent of the areas to include. The question is: if other choices were made, would the results affect a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/sydney-lockout-laws-rolled-back/11489806" target="_blank">decision to repeal or continue the laws</a>?
Our findings point to the need to follow a couple of principles when using data to inform policymaking. First, the institution that collects data and the institution that analyses the data should be independent of each other. Second, we need as much transparency about the data and its analysis as possible.
<h2>So what exactly did the analyses show?</h2>
BOCSAR chose to use monthly non-domestic assaults from 2009 onwards. There is nothing wrong with these choices, but others could have been made.
For instance, why from 2009 onwards, not from 2005? Why monthly, not daily? Why reported non-domestic assaults, not reported assaults causing grievous bodily harm? Why divide the area into the CBD and Kings Cross only?
One way of assessing the impact of such choices is to use different subsets of data, different types of data pre-processing and different statistical and/or machine-learning techniques. If the conclusion still remains the same, then our decision is robust to this source of variability. If not, we need to understand why.
For the Kings Cross precinct, the analysis by the Centre for Translational Data Science at the University of Sydney showed the conclusion remained unchanged irrespective of the frequency and period over which data were collected and the analysis performed. Non-domestic assaults had declined following the introduction of the lockout laws in 2014.
For the CBD the reverse was true. Only if we make exactly the same choices as BOCSAR, in particular allocating 1,837 crimes to both the CBD and King Cross, could we conclude non-domestic assaults had decreased very slightly.
Under all other variations of the analyses, including data, methodology and spatial allocation of that data, we found no decrease. Non-domestic assaults in the CBD had been decreasing since 2008 and, if anything, more slowly after the lockout laws took effect.
So why was the inclusion of 1,837 crimes so critical to the conclusions about the CBD?
Using data provided by BOCSAR, we plotted the most likely location of those 1,837 crimes. Figure 1 shows these crimes occurred mainly in Kings Cross, an area in which the crime rate had fallen since 2014. We say “most likely location” because we have yet to receive the additional data we requested from BOCSAR to help us locate exactly where these crimes occurred.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Counts of crimes (per SA1 region) that were assigned to both the CBD and Kings Cross. Centre for Translational Data Science, Author provided
With the removal of those 1,837 crimes from the CBD, we detected no decrease in non-domestic assaults. But BOCSAR apparently did. After removing those crimes from the CBD, BOCSAR released an <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/2019-Report-Effect-of-lockout-and-last-drinks-laws-on-assaults-BB142.pdf" target="_blank">updated report</a> to a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=260" target="_blank">parliamentary inquiry into Sydney’s night-time economy</a>. This report claimed assaults in the CBD decreased by 4% (much less than the original 13%).
The committee then asked for our <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/other/12591/Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science.pdf" target="_blank">comments</a>. We found the report did not provide a confidence interval for this decrease. Yet the report made a virtue of reporting uncertainty estimates for other quantities and elsewhere it claimed “statistically significant” results.
We replicated BOCSAR’s analysis and found the change in crime could have been as low as a 12% decrease and as high as a 6% increase. In other words, the result is “statistically insignificant”.
<h2>What are the implications for making policy?</h2>
Why does this matter? There are two reasons.
First, the danger in not explaining, quantifying and reporting uncertainty is that the public loses trust in data-driven policymaking. Only if conclusions acknowledge and explain the uncertainty inherent in inferring complex quantities from data can we make robust and explainable policy decisions that build trust with the public.
Second, if we don’t accept and report uncertainty we could stop looking for other explanations. We might then fail to achieve an outcome that everyone wants: a reduction in violence and a healthy night-time economy.
How do we proceed from here? We’d make two recommendations:
<ol>
<li>
The institution that collects and curates the data should be distinct, informed but independent from the institution/s that analyse the data.
</li>
<li>
There should be as much data transparency as possible, which would enable different groups to perform different types of analyses, using different sources of data.
</li>
</ol>
We are almost certain these different groups would produce different findings, but the subsequent discussion could provide insights that move us closer to more robust and acceptable policy decisions.
To <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/27/richard-feynman-on-the-role-of-scientific-culture-in-modern-society/" target="_blank">quote</a> Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:
If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives … to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
The <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/inquiries/2519/Report%20-%20Sydneys%20night%20time%20economy.pdf" target="_blank">parliamentary committee’s recommendation</a> that BOCSAR and the Centre for Translational Data Science work together more closely appears to do just that. We look forward to an ongoing collaboration to further our understanding of the drivers of violent crime.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125227/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sally-cripps-857344" target="_blank">Sally Cripps</a>, Professor of Statistics, Director of Centre for Translational Data Science, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roman-marchant-365741" target="_blank">Roman Marchant</a>, Senior research fellow and lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-lockout-laws-review-highlights-vital-role-of-transparent-data-analysis-125227" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Sydney lockout laws review highlights vital role of transparent data analysis

<html><body>
The NSW Government is inviting community feedback on the second stage of its 24-hour economy liquor law reforms.
The draft Liquor Amendment (24-hour Economy) Bill 2020 aims to create risk-based liquor laws that support business.
Minister for Customer Service Victor Dominello said, “the proposals will help boost the state’s night time economy by removing outdated laws, simplifying licensing processes and creating a new incentives and sanctions system that rewards licence holders with a clear record.” 
“We want pubs, bars and hotels to hit the ground running on the other side, but we are mindful of how rules such as social distancing may need to be accommodated.”
Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney Stuart Ayres said the hospitality sector is a significant employer and lifeblood for many communities, but has been dealt a devastating blow and brought to its knees due to COVID-19.
“COVID-19 has hit the hospitality industry hard and fast. We recognise the importance of streamlining the previously complicated legislation to make it easier for industry to get back on their feet as social distancing restrictions ease,” Mr Ayres said.
“There is now clearly a light at the end of the tunnel for our hospitality sector and this will give them hope for the future.”
Key proposals include:
A new incentives and sanctions system with ongoing fee discounts for licensed venues that maintain a clear record; Removal of outdated live music restrictions; Allow small bars to offer more family friendly services to customers, by permitting minors in certain circumstances; Reducing red tape by aligning liquor licensing and planning processes; and Enhancing same day alcohol delivery regulations.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Economic reform supports 24-hour nightlife revival post coronavirus

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) recently claimed Sydney’s alcohol licensing regulations, commonly known as lockout laws, reduced non-domestic assaults by 13% in the CBD.
Its calculation relied on a decision to allocate 1,837 of these offences to both Kings Cross and the CBD – that is, double-counting the data.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf" target="_blank">Our analysis</a> found this decision was critical to the conclusion that assaults decreased in the CBD. For every other choice about the areas to which offences data were allocated and type of analysis we found no decrease.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298452/original/file-20191024-119433-7qnb4k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Map of Sydney and the entertainment precincts as used by BOCSAR in its analysis: blue – CBD entertainment precinct; red – Kings Cross entertainment precinct; green – nearby displacement areas; yellow – outer displacement areas.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf%5D" target="_blank">Our findings</a> highlight an important question: how do the choices of data collection, pre-processing and analysis affect policy decisions?
The allocation of crimes to areas is just one of several choices made when using data to assess policy impacts. Other choices include how to measure violent crime, what time period to consider and the geographical extent of the areas to include. The question is: if other choices were made, would the results affect a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/sydney-lockout-laws-rolled-back/11489806" target="_blank">decision to repeal or continue the laws</a>?
Our findings point to the need to follow a couple of principles when using data to inform policymaking. First, the institution that collects data and the institution that analyses the data should be independent of each other. Second, we need as much transparency about the data and its analysis as possible.
So what exactly did the analyses show?
BOCSAR chose to use monthly non-domestic assaults from 2009 onwards. There is nothing wrong with these choices, but others could have been made.
For instance, why from 2009 onwards, not from 2005? Why monthly, not daily? Why reported non-domestic assaults, not reported assaults causing grievous bodily harm? Why divide the area into the CBD and Kings Cross only?
One way of assessing the impact of such choices is to use different subsets of data, different types of data pre-processing and different statistical and/or machine-learning techniques. If the conclusion still remains the same, then our decision is robust to this source of variability. If not, we need to understand why.
For the Kings Cross precinct, the analysis by the Centre for Translational Data Science at the University of Sydney showed the conclusion remained unchanged irrespective of the frequency and period over which data were collected and the analysis performed. Non-domestic assaults had declined following the introduction of the lockout laws in 2014.
For the CBD the reverse was true. Only if we make exactly the same choices as BOCSAR, in particular allocating 1,837 crimes to both the CBD and King Cross, could we conclude non-domestic assaults had decreased very slightly.
Under all other variations of the analyses, including data, methodology and spatial allocation of that data, we found no decrease. Non-domestic assaults in the CBD had been decreasing since 2008 and, if anything, more slowly after the lockout laws took effect.
So why was the inclusion of 1,837 crimes so critical to the conclusions about the CBD?
Using data provided by BOCSAR, we plotted the most likely location of those 1,837 crimes. Figure 1 shows these crimes occurred mainly in Kings Cross, an area in which the crime rate had fallen since 2014. We say “most likely location” because we have yet to receive the additional data we requested from BOCSAR to help us locate exactly where these crimes occurred.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Counts of crimes (per SA1 region) that were assigned to both the CBD and Kings Cross. Centre for Translational Data Science, Author provided
With the removal of those 1,837 crimes from the CBD, we detected no decrease in non-domestic assaults. But BOCSAR apparently did. After removing those crimes from the CBD, BOCSAR released an <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/2019-Report-Effect-of-lockout-and-last-drinks-laws-on-assaults-BB142.pdf" target="_blank">updated report</a> to a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=260" target="_blank">parliamentary inquiry into Sydney’s night-time economy</a>. This report claimed assaults in the CBD decreased by 4% (much less than the original 13%).
The committee then asked for our <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/other/12591/Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science.pdf" target="_blank">comments</a>. We found the report did not provide a confidence interval for this decrease. Yet the report made a virtue of reporting uncertainty estimates for other quantities and elsewhere it claimed “statistically significant” results.
We replicated BOCSAR’s analysis and found the change in crime could have been as low as a 12% decrease and as high as a 6% increase. In other words, the result is “statistically insignificant”.
What are the implications for making policy?
Why does this matter? There are two reasons.
First, the danger in not explaining, quantifying and reporting uncertainty is that the public loses trust in data-driven policymaking. Only if conclusions acknowledge and explain the uncertainty inherent in inferring complex quantities from data can we make robust and explainable policy decisions that build trust with the public.
Second, if we don’t accept and report uncertainty we could stop looking for other explanations. We might then fail to achieve an outcome that everyone wants: a reduction in violence and a healthy night-time economy.
How do we proceed from here? We’d make two recommendations:
<ol>
<li>
The institution that collects and curates the data should be distinct, informed but independent from the institution/s that analyse the data.
</li>
<li>
There should be as much data transparency as possible, which would enable different groups to perform different types of analyses, using different sources of data.
</li>
</ol>
We are almost certain these different groups would produce different findings, but the subsequent discussion could provide insights that move us closer to more robust and acceptable policy decisions.
To <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/27/richard-feynman-on-the-role-of-scientific-culture-in-modern-society/" target="_blank">quote</a> Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman: "If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives … to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar."
The <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/inquiries/2519/Report%20-%20Sydneys%20night%20time%20economy.pdf" target="_blank">parliamentary committee’s recommendation</a> that BOCSAR and the Centre for Translational Data Science work together more closely appears to do just that. We look forward to an ongoing collaboration to further our understanding of the drivers of violent crime.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125227/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Sally Cripps, Professor of Statistics, Director of Centre for Translational Data Science, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>.
Roman Marchant, Senior research fellow and lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-lockout-laws-review-highlights-vital-role-of-transparent-data-analysis-125227" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/83443/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Sydney “lockout laws” have created significant debate about whether crime is being reduced, if it is being pushed into surrounding areas, and what the impacts are on local residents.
My research with Georgia Perks found that, despite reports of increased violence in these areas surrounding the lockout zone, the benefit outweighs the costs for local residents.
Our analysis of rental prices shows a small decline immediately after the lockout laws came into effect in February 2014. Since then, rents in these areas have outstripped other comparable areas in Sydney. 
This shows that residents of areas affected by the lockout are benefiting from new entertainment hubs and a nightlife economy that have sprung up since the lockout laws took effect.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/12/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-12%20at%208.52.38%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/12/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-12%20at%208.52.38%20AM.png" alt="">
<h2>The impact of the lockout laws on crime</h2>
The lockout law prohibits people entering hotels, registered clubs, nightclubs and karaoke bars after 1.30am in several areas of Sydney’s CBD (also called the Sydney Entertainment Precinct). These venues also have to stop serving alcohol after 3am. 
This law is a type of “geographically targeted crime control”. This means it targets “hot spots”, rather than the root cause of the crime.
If we are simply concerned about crime reduction, there are now several studies that show the lockout laws have substantially reduced the amount of alcohol-related violence and injuries in the targeted areas.
Restrictions on alcohol access have also been shown to work elsewhere, notably in Western Australia, Newcastle, and Queensland. Outside of Australia, this has been shown to work in the United States, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
So there is sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of restrictions like the lockout laws in reducing crime in the targeted areas. But the research also shows increased violence in neighbouring areas, suggesting crime has moved. 
An important question is whether increased nightlife in these surrounding areas outweighs the cost of increased crime, and what is more important to local residents. 
<h2>Weighing up the lockout laws</h2>
A standard way to quantify the pros and cons of a policy like the lockout laws to local residents, and to weigh up factors such as crime and added entertainment venues, is to look at housing market data. 
When they make their decisions, potential buyers and sellers take into account information such as local crime and amenities (schools, entertainment venues, etc). Market prices then reflect this information and decision-making. If the average price in an area increases that means the value of living in that area has increased, taking all factors into consideration.
Using this logic, we studied rental prices in areas surrounding the target areas for the lockout laws. More data is available on rental prices in the short run than house prices, so it is useful to study the immediate market response to new policies. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/12/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-12%20at%208.55.04%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/12/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-12%20at%208.55.04%20AM.png" alt="">
We collected prices both before and after the lockout law took effect, and compared areas in Sydney that have entertainment venues such as Newtown and Pyrmont (the “displacement area”) with areas that don’t, such as Alexandria, Chippendale, and Rozelle (the “control area”).
Our results show that there was a relatively small drop in rental prices of smaller dwellings (most likely to be on the main roads surrounding entertainment venues) in areas neighbouring the lockout, but this effect was weak and short-lived. This indicates that the market responded negatively to the increased crime being displaced from lockout areas, but this sentiment dissipated quickly.
On the other hand, we observe a greater, positive effect for larger dwellings. These are most likely to be off the main roads, having some separation from the noise and lights of the entertainment hubs but still near the nightlife. This phenomenon persisted throughout our study period, as shown in the following chart. 
The trend in the displacement area outweighed the trend in the control area. This difference after the implementation of the laws is statistically significant.
Overall our research strengthens the idea that the lockout laws are effective in controlling alcohol-fuelled crime and violence. Data show that crime and violence in displacement areas increased by a much smaller amount than the reduction in the lockout areas. This means residents in the displacement areas are actually better off due to new access to entertainment venues and the nightlife economy. 
However, this is not a full endorsement of the lockout laws. Neither our research nor earlier studies have investigated the business side of the lockout laws and the impact on the nightlife economy. There are likely to be forgone profits and lost jobs in targeted areas, as well as extra profits and new job opportunities in the displacement areas.
Similarly, we should study the gains and losses of non-resident late-night partygoers. The loss of nightlife and live entertainment culture in the target area was continuously highlighted in the debate. 
These concern have influenced a recent relaxation in the lockout laws for establishments that provide “genuine live entertainment”. Is this the right decision? We have a strong evidence of the effectiveness of the Sydney lockout laws in crime prevention. What we need is further evidence of the effects on these other groups.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shiko-maruyama-405538" target="_blank">Shiko Maruyama</a> is Associate Professor of Economics, University of Technology Sydney and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Are residents better off under the Sydney ‘lockout laws’?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Sydney’s lockout laws, as well as current and proposed restrictions in other Australian cities including Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Newcastle, are perhaps more about regulating people’s behaviours in cities than about liquor licensing.
Such knee-jerk responses to tidy up the mess of complex issues belie society’s need for diversity. They also neglect culture’s debt to the manifold possibilities of social behaviour in urban space.
Viewed as part of a broader historical pattern, such episodes of regulatory crackdown remind us that a seemingly purified city is not necessarily a healthy or diverse one.
<h2>Early steps</h2>
Australian cities have always been extraordinarily diverse places. Amid broader sociocultural and regulatory shifts, this diversity has produced instability as people from different backgrounds, ages, means, religions, sexualities and abilities have come together.
Some of the places where these instabilities play out are on the streets and in drinking establishments such as the café, bar and pub. People watch each other, ascribing meanings onto each other based on visual cues. Public drunkenness is one such cue.
An especially notorious instance was in London in the early 1700s during the gin craze. William Hogarth, the pictorial satirist of urban life, captured “Gin Lane” in 1751. On the streets of London, Hogarth moralised the issue, representing men wasting away rather than working, and a mother neglecting her children, allowing them to fall headfirst down the stairs. 
The issue was not alcohol itself (Hogarth thought beer okay), but rather the relationship between gin, nationalism and the lower classes, which apparently produced vice and neglect. The London authorities’ response was to regulate by introducing the Gin Acts, which raised prices and cut consumption.
In Australia, liquor licensing has also never operated in a historical or urban vacuum. English writer Richard Horne observed in Melbourne in the 1850s:
"The scenes that are witnessed, half-way up Bourke Street, in the direct line of both our Houses of Parliament [Spring Street], actually surpass anything in St Gile’s or Covent Garden [London] after dusk. It may seem strange that city authorities do not abate these disgraceful nuisances.
The “nuisances” he saw were young women. A typical mid-19th-century moralist, Horne believed – based on visual cues – that these women were “depraved”. Being an unaccompanied woman on the street was apparently linked to the dual vices of drinking and prostitution.
The solution Horne proposed was intervention by the urban authorities, to clear the streets for people that he perceived as more respectable.
<h2>The 20th century to today</h2>
Over the next century, the temperance movement sought to eliminate all alcohol consumption. So came about the pubs with no beer: the coffee palaces.
Across the Australian city, immaculate buildings were designed by leading architects to house these late-night venues, including the Federal Coffee Palace in Melbourne, the Sydney Coffee Palace in Woolloomooloo and the People’s Palace in Brisbane.
Urban improvement extended from buildings to the streets where freshwater fountains were constructed to quench the thirst of urban dwellers “in the interests of humanity and temperance”. Improving streets and cities for the greater good, such measures were typical of turn-of-the-20th-century social advocacy.
Young people were known to congregate around the fountains. Even during periods of restrictive liquor licensing, urban diversity has taken many forms, so long as alternative public places have been provided.
The next challenge for inner-city urban life related to liquor regulation was the early closing movement, coupled with rapid mid-20th-century suburbanisation that emptied out the Australian CBD outside the working week. The early closure of pubs led to the infamous six o’clock swil<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.publishing.monash.edu.au/ojs/index.php/ha/article/view/347">l</a>.
Although temperance campaigners denied the existence of a “Pig Swill” during the NSW Royal Commission on Liquor in 1952, had the campaigners visited a pub or the street in the late afternoon their minds might have been changed. The refusal to visit the streets, to seek out visual cues, represented a form of wilful blindness typical across urban history.
At that time, hordes of pub patrons, predominantly men, entered the street on their way home to the suburbs. Outside Melbourne’s Young and Jackson pub on Swanston Street, opposite Flinders Street Station, men lined up to publicly urinate against the tiles. Walking past this prominent spot, opposite St Paul’s Cathedral, was no doubt an undesirable street experience.
Over the coming years every Australian city liberalised its licensing hours. Adelaide was the last to do so in 1967. These changes paved the way for the night culture familiar to us today.
Whenever authorities have regulated the city there have been unintended consequences. Heightening liquor regulation has for centuries been the immediate response of urban policymakers when confronted with people and behaviours deemed socially undesirable.
The overarching goal has been to impose a sense of order on the city and its spaces. But that happens at the expense of street life, public safety and social diversity. Shutting the pub early impacts urban life as a holistic ecosystem and, without viable public alternatives as in the past, this serves to eliminate difference on the street.
Cities thrive as messy places. No matter the underlying justification, to “lock out” the city is to diminish it.
Andrew J. May is professor of history, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-j-may-96245" target="_blank">here</a>.
James Lesh is research assistant and PhD candidate, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-lesh-257650" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Lockout Laws

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Lockout Laws

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News