In 2014, the NSW government proposed closing bars at 1:30AM to new patrons and serving the last drink at 3AM. The proposal was meant to curb late night alcohol fueled violence outside of bars and restaurants. Proponents argue that similar laws enacted in Newcastle in 2008 resulted in a 36% decline of assaults. Opponents, including the bar and restaurant industries, argue that the laws will hurt their businesses and cause them to fire employees.
Yes but businesses should be subsidized from lost income, there should be other services/non alcoholic options to support wellbeing after lockdown, and there shouldn't be exemptions for spaces like casinos
People should be able to make their own decisions, and not be punished if they haven't done anything wrong. However, if this is some sort of uncontrollable by other methods outbreak of violence in one particular concentrated area, and everything done previously has failed, and only as a last resort, then I guess (if it's the absolute last thing left to do that would potentially work), you could introduce lockout laws. But it wouldn't be right to have them permanently, unless the issue is neverending.
However, this question is no longer relevant and should be removed, as no lock out laws are currently in effect in Australia.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion