David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

As chair of the nanny state inquiry in the previous parliament, and somebody who despises government restrictions on individual liberties, I note the recommendations by Justice Callinan to relax some of the draconian lockout laws in Sydney. I say I 'note' the recommendations because 'welcome' would be too strong a word. Even if the Callinan recommendations are adopted in full, Kings Cross will never be the same.

Easing last-drinks restrictions by half an hour will not return Kings Cross to its former glory. Talking about late night entertainment at the Cross without alcohol will not make much difference either. It is already allowed. Inviting international visitors to choose between Fanta and Passiona while watching bands in our premier red-light district will make us a laughing stock. And Callinan's recommendations will not return the hundreds of jobs to young people who lost them in the hospitality, entertainment and tourism industries either.

It is pathetic to see people who have forgotten the last time they ever had a good time endorsing lockout laws—as if there is an exact time in the evening when revelry must cease before everyone turns into a pumpkin. It makes no sense. Why is it that Sydneysiders cannot be trusted to go out after 1.30 am? Is there something in the water that means Melburnians can choose when and where to go late at night, but not Sydney people? And why can Sydney people be trusted to visit Melbourne and stay out late, but not vice versa? Are Sydney lockout laws a reflection of Sydney police not doing their job properly, and Sydney doctors forgetting they chose a vocation involving surgery in a hospital rather than preaching in a pulpit?

Or does all of this have more to do with that creeping madness where governments believe that they must act as our de facto parents?

Sydney used to be—and should still be—Australia's most vibrant city. It has a glorious history of naughtiness that dates back to when the convicts were first unloaded onto the shores of Port Jackson in 1788. These events were first frowned upon in the journal of the First Fleet surgeon, Arthur Bowes Smyth, who said it was beyond his 'abilities to give a just description of the scene of debauchery and riot that ensued'. He appears to be a worthy predecessor of the doctors' associations. What's the difference between a doctor and God? God doesn't think he's a doctor.

Recently one of these doctors' unions successfully convinced the Northern Territory government to reimpose speed limits on remote roads. This is despite the fact that there is no case to impose limits in the Territory, where road fatalities have been falling for years. Chalk that up as another victory for the modern equivalents of Dr Bowes Smyth—those people who constantly worry about the fact that everybody but them is having a good time. As for the Darlinghurst Resident Action Group, who have been prominent in the media today, I have one thing to say: put a sock in it, or go and live somewhere else. Moving to Kings Cross and complaining about the night-life is like coming to Parliament House and complaining about boring speeches, or to Port Kembla and complaining about smokestacks, or to Mount Panorama and complaining about car races.

To the doctors' unions, I say: I won't pretend to be an expert about treating bunions or indigestion if you stop pretending to be experts about nights out in Kings Cross or speed limits in the Northern Territory. The doctors' and residents' associations have a right to their opinions on these matters, similar to the rights of anyone else . But there must be a place in Sydney where people can have a long night out, and as long as they are not impinging on anyone else we should leave them alone. I welcome any moves to relax current restrictions in Kings Cross, but I caution anyone against thinking that the Callinan recommendations will revive the night-life of Sydney. The control freaks are still very much in charge of New South Wales. They shut down the greyhound industry. They are telling us when we can have a drink in Kings Cross and when we can go home.

Finally, let me reiterate some comments from the interim report on this matter from the Senate Economics References Committee. The Sydney lockout laws did lead to a net reduction in reports of alcohol fuelled violence, with reductions in the lockout areas exceeding increases in violence elsewhere. However, the reductions in reported violence were outstripped by the reduction in foot traffic. Reduced reports of violence are to be expected when you convert an entertainment district to a ghost town. Businesses have closed down, jobs have gone and the cultural heritage and bustle of the district has been lost. Some local residents have cheered this change, and perhaps there are more of them than the hospitality workers and musicians who have lost their jobs. But the day we justify laws because of a crude 'greatest good for the greatest number' is the day we lose our moral compass. The idea that we deal with the problem behaviour of individuals by imposing collective punishment is beneath us. The earlier we return to a focus on individuals the better we will be as a society.