Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 this morning the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, and Senator Leyonhjelm each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Leyonhjelm:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Restrictions on the sale and the service of alcohol at licensed venues and their impact on crime, health and enjoyment.

Is the proposal supported? We will give latitude; there are enough senators supporting.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to speakers in today's debate and with the concurrence of the Senate I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to 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.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by thanking Senator Leyonhjelm for putting this important issue—restrictions on the sale and service of alcohol at licensed venues—on the Senate's agenda today. It is one that I welcome the opportunity to discuss, and it is one on which I recognise the senator's very principled advocacy for many years—in particular, in the most recent parliament, the excellent initiative of a Senate inquiry into personal choice and the way in which modern governments tend to favour paternalism as a way of limiting it. So, I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for putting this on the record and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate today.

Although I am a Liberal, I have to say that I have great concerns about the New South Wales government's lockout policies. Of course, the federal government does not have the capacity to regulate trading hours or liquor licensing, and nor should we. But that does not stop us from having a healthy interest in the night-time economy of Australia and the freedoms of our constituents to enjoy that night-time economy. I am proud to be speaking on this topic as a Victorian Liberal, as we opposed and successfully defeated the then Victorian Labor government's disastrous 2008 trial of a 2 am lockout in the Melbourne CBD. One notable campaigner against the lockout was our new colleague in the lower house, the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, from his position then at the Institute of Public Affairs. That campaign culminated in a public protest attended by 10,000 Victorians in May 2008. That was the first and will probably be the last time the member for Goldstein will be spotted at the head of a protest rally with a megaphone.

The Melbourne 2 am lockout was rightly abandoned after it spectacularly failed during a three-month trial. It did nothing to prevent late-night violence in the Melbourne CBD and it hurt many innocent law-abiding Victorians. Opponents of lockouts have made very good points about why that lockout would not succeed, and they were proven right. Firstly, they argued that it was wrong to punish all citizens for the crimes of a few. The vast majority of young or even old people who like to go out in the city late at night do so completely lawfully and without harming anyone else. A small percentage of offenders do cause problems, and they deserve to be firmly dealt with for doing so. But collective punishment of all people is not right.

Secondly, law-abiding businesses were and will be hurt by these types of laws. Some licensed venues may not have complied with the conditions of their licence. They may have even served intoxicated patrons more drinks. But that is a problem of enforcement of an existing law. Failure to enforce a law does not justify shutting down all legitimate businesses, most of which do comply with the law. Thirdly, geographic lockout zones typically just push the activity—and often also the violence—elsewhere. Fourthly, exemptions were, and typically are, unfairly granted to some areas and some businesses over others. I do not blame these businesses for seeking an exemption; any business in its right mind would not want to be bound by these laws. But it is not right for some to suffer while others prosper under these laws.

Finally, the international reputation of our cities suffers when we fail to provide a decent, safe late-night entertainment offering to tourists and international visitors. The great cities of the world are, in part, defined by their round-the-clock entertainment and service. Unless we actually want Australia to be a sleepy backwater, we cannot keep these sorts of absurd restrictions.

I am sorry that the New South Wales government evidently has not learned from the failure of the Victorian government in this area. They have persisted with their own lockouts, and we are now very clearly seeing again the flaws of this approach.

One person who deserves a great deal of credit for powerfully demonstrating the failings of this policy is a Sydney businessman, Matt Barrie.    He wrote a searing critique of the policy, and it is well worth reading for all policymakers. Published on LinkedIn in February 2016, Mr Barrie wrote:

A special little person has decided that there is a certain time at night when we are all allowed to go out, and there is a certain time that we are allowed into an establishment and a certain time that we are all supposed to be tucked into bed. There is a certain time we are allowed to buy some drinks, and over the course of the night the amount of drinks we are allowed to buy will change. The drinks we buy must be in a special cup made of a special material, and that special material will change over the course of the night at certain times. The cup has to be a certain size. It cannot be too big, because someone might die. Over the course of the night, this special little person will tell you what you can and cannot put into your cup because someone might die.

He goes on to point out:

It is now illegal to buy a bottle of wine after 10pm in the City of Sydney because not a single one of us is to be trusted with any level of personal responsibility. Apparently there is an epidemic of people being bashed to death over dinner with a bottle of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc that we have all been blissfully unaware of.

Mr Barrie is absolutely right.

The City of Sydney itself found, in a report in September 2015, that foot traffic and, therefore, also patronage in the Kings Cross area had been smashed by the introduction of these laws. Measured at 11 pm, between 2012 and 2015, it fell by 58 per cent. Measured at l am, it fell by 84 per cent. This has had the entirely predictable result on the businesses in the area.

I will return to Mr Barrie and his very vivid description of the effect it has had on some businesses. I do not know the venues which he talks about, but I trust his judgement on what is a good and a bad late-night venue in Sydney. He writes:

Hugo's Lounge closing, which was the swankiest bar in Sydney for fifteen years and voted Australia's best nightclub five years running, was the last nail in the coffin for the area.

The venue also housed the 130-seat Hugo's Pizza, which had not just won Best Pizza Restaurant in Australia at the Australian Restaurant & Catering Awards, but was also named the World's Best Pizza in the American Pizza Challenge in New York.

…   …   …

Down the road, Jimmy Liks, an upmarket and seductively lit Southeast Asian eatery, wine bar and cocktail bar is likewise bust. A sign hangs out the front "Thank you Sydney for an amazing 14 year journey. NSW Lockout Laws cost good people their jobs and decimated a once great and vibrant suburb!"

Hours have been cut. Staff have been let go. Businesses have closed their doors. People's livelihoods have been destroyed. According to the Kings Cross Liquor Accord, 16 licensed venues have closed since 2014, and 35 shops in the area have also shut their doors. There has been a 40 per cent drop in revenue for Sydney live performance venues alone.

Defenders of the law point out that violence has fallen too. As Senator Leyonhjelm and I have acknowledged, that is true. But it has fallen far less than patronage has. If we reduced foot traffic even further to nothing then of course violence would fall to nothing as well. But this does not justify the policy. Locking everyone in their homes might stop violence, but it should never be acceptable in a free and open society.

A report for the New South Wales government which was released today by the former High Court Justice Ian Callinan recommends that the New South Wales government water down the lockout law modestly. He has proposed, for example, extending some of the times of the lockouts and a few other modifications of some of the restrictions. I think they are modest, sensible recommendations and, at the very least, the New South Wales government should take up these very modest, sensible suggestions.

But my preference, of course, is that they go much further. This sort of nanny state, one-size-fits-all approach is wrong, and it comes at too high a cost. Instead of this nanny state approach, which unfairly punishes law-abiding citizens and businesses, we should instead deal firmly with those who are directly responsible for the violence with sufficient police resources, tough laws for offenders and punishment of rogue venues that flout the law and cause the problems. They are the ones who deserve to be punished, not law-abiding people who choose to go out and have a good night out and not law-abiding businesses who just want to employ people and prosper. They do not deserve to be punished for this. It is the individual perpetrators of these crimes who deserve to be punished. Unfortunately, that is not the approach that was taken by the New South Wales government.

I hope that this report is an opportunity for them to reconsider their policies, because it is having a terrible effect on people's lives. It has had a terrible effect already on the livelihood of these small business operators, which my party, the Liberal Party, says they—and they truly should—always stand up for. We should not be there to give any advantage to bigger businesses, more established businesses, who have the opportunity to lobby for exemptions to the law. We should be there to stand up for these small business people who want to do nothing other than run their late-night venues.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in respect of the matter of public importance that has been raised by Senator Leyonhjelm today. I commence my contribution by referring to the tragic death of a young Brisbane athlete, Cole Miller. He died tragically, following the delivery of a single fatal blow. He was a talented water polo player. This terrible tragedy occurred as he was walking through the Brisbane entertainment precinct in the early hours of 3 January. He was set upon by another person in what can only be considered an unprovoked attack as they walked through the mall to catch a taxi. Mr Miller died as a result of a solitary punch to the head, which caused him to fall on the ground and rendered him unconscious. He died in hospital the next day, of massive head injuries, without ever regaining consciousness. This is a matter that has been before the courts, and the tragedy here is that the person who inflicted the solitary punch on Mr Miller is alleged to have said to a group of other people that he was with at the time, 'Do you want to see something funny?' before he picked a fight with the young person.

I refer to this death because, as I said, Mr Miller, a young athlete, was involved in water polo. My own children have been involved in the sport of water polo. On the many occasions that I have attended water polo games in Brisbane I probably came across this young fellow, who tragically died as the result of a senseless act of violence.

So this issue of the restriction of the sale of alcohol is something that I feel very strongly about. I am not standing here saying that I have all the answers as to how we address this issue, but it has been a vexed issue in my home state and there have been attempts to try to protect members of the community from this terrible tragedy. I know that this has been a problem in the state of New South Wales as well.

I want to point out that, on 12 November last year, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills in Queensland, introduced the Tackling Alcohol-Fuelled Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 into the Queensland parliament. On 20 December last year, a committee visited Brisbane's Fortitude Valley precinct, the Roma Street police watch house and the emergency department of the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital between midnight and 5 am.

Now, I understand and respect Senator Leyonhjelm's passion for campaigning for civil freedoms and liberty, and he has a right to his opinion. But I would say to him that, if he were to walk a day in the shoes of a surgeon, a paramedic, a nurse or a police officer, we would probably not be having this debate. We see newspaper articles and we see the cooked-up statistics from the various alcohol lobbying groups, and we are obliged to look at those. But I also note there has been inquiry by the Economics References Committee of this place, and Senator Leyonhjelm has been instrumental in that particular inquiry into this matter. I note that the Australian Medical Association made a submission to that particular inquiry. They have called on the government to do something about the effects of alcohol on our community, be they from alcohol fuelled violence or excessive alcohol consumption. It is time for something to be done.

Every single day we see kids walking through the emergency departments and being pushed into an operating theatre. I want to look at the medical specialty of my friend and Queensland Minister for State Development Dr Anthony Lynham. Before entering parliament as the member for the Brisbane seat of Stafford in 2014, Dr Lynham worked as a maxillofacial surgeon. Upon his election in July 2014, he served as shadow minister for education, innovation, science and information technology; shadow minister for primary industries and fisheries; and shadow spokesman for the public service, assisting the leader. Dr Lynham is an adjunct professor at QUT and an associate professor at the University of Queensland School of Medicine. He graduated in medicine from the University of Newcastle and completed his maxillofacial surgery training in Queensland. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. He worked most of his medical career at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and is part of a research team at Prince Charles Hospital.

There is a very important lesson here, which he mentioned in his speech to parliament that resulted in tighter controls on the trading hours of venues serving alcohol. In the late 1990s, Queensland had one maxillofacial surgeon on the Gold Coast, two on the south side of Brisbane and four at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. We had one in Townsville and we had one in Toowoomba. Now the number of this type of surgeon has at least tripled all over Queensland and it is growing. Why? Because young people are being assaulted in our nightclub districts and our precincts, due to alcohol.

What is our solution to this problem? Do we have one? The Queensland solution is working. I would ask Senator Leyonhjelm: is his solution to simply throw ineffective measures at this problem or simply to ignore it? Do we need to throw more surgeons at the problem? Do we need more operating theatres? The new laws in Queensland are more important, more powerful than any operation that any doctor or surgeon could ever conduct. They are powerful because they prevent harm. By creating these types of laws and coupling them with the right types of education programs, we can prevent alcohol related death and injury.

I know you can speak of the economic damage these laws do to regions. But I would like to address that issue. In Newcastle, another place where these types of rules have been applied, there has been a doubling in the number of bars and restaurants, and increased employment. In Queensland, we have over 7,000 licensed venues; the new laws only affect 99 of them, or less than two per cent, and by only one to two hours—a couple of rounds of drinks. That is all these laws do, but they have the maximum effect of one-third fewer young people being harmed. The initial economic impact is small, but the gains are immense both in long-term economic growth and in a reduction in social harm. These measures are not a magic bullet. If we had a drug that could cure 30 per cent of cancers, we would use it every day. It works because of its simplicity. Reductions in trading hours give people less opportunity to preload, as they have to get to the club before it closes. These measures create a vibrant night-time economy that is safe and simply peaks earlier, and an environment that is more attractive for residents and tourists alike.

It is not about restricting our freedoms and our leisure. It is about keeping our kids and our young people safe. It is about ensuring that visitors to our great cities and regions feel safe. As a parent of four, I feel very strongly about this issue. If these small compromises in terms of our personal freedoms result in one less person being tragically killed, then I think that is a price to pay.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance: restrictions on the sale and service of alcohol at licensed venues and their impact on crime, health and enjoyment. I want to take a bit of a different perspective here and look at where I would argue the most restrictions have been placed on alcohol use: in Aboriginal communities. This has been much debated, including, of course, the bans that were introduced along with the Northern Territory intervention. I would like to look at what role restrictions have played, their appropriateness and what else we should be doing.

If you look at what the World Health Organization has outlined around the social determinants leading to greater risk of harms from alcohol, you will see that they list wealth; education attainment—the level of education people are able to access; housing—whether people are able to access stable and affordable housing; and racism and discrimination that people experience. I would argue that if you address the systemic causes of alcohol abuse—in fact, substance abuse—you would have a much better chance of tackling alcohol harms.

I am very aware of the reality that alcohol and substance abuse can and does cause harm in our community, which is why we all work so hard to try and find solutions. The impacts of alcohol on our community do need to be addressed. I think it is an absolutely critical issue and, in fact, so did the committee in the House of Representatives. In the other place in June last year a report was tabled on an inquiry into the harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I would like to quote one of the key findings from the inquiry in the other place:

Alcohol is the fifth leading cause of disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The burden of disease attributable to alcohol among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is twice the level of non-Indigenous people.

This is a shocking and tragic statement to have to read out. The simple fact is that we need to be addressing the issues around alcohol abuse across Australia. Given that I am the Greens spokesperson for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, including health, I thought it was particularly important—if we are talking about restrictions and what we do to address alcohol abuse—that we focus on where restrictions have been applied the most.

We have just heard, in some of the debate, about the devastating impact alcohol-related harms can have. We know alcohol can lead to increased violence, including family violence. The inquiry in the other place also heard evidence that alcohol can have an impact on the transfer of cultural knowledge between generations, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities bear historic burdens from colonisation, stolen wages, systemic racism and other challenges that continue to the present day. In other words, we need to be addressing those systemic issues which are related to what the World Health Organization has outlined in the social determinants of health.

This is a serious issue that we need to address, but in doing so we need to ensure that the measures are driven by the community and are for the community rather than being paternalistic, top-down interventions which only serve to disempower. My argument here would be that paternalistic, top-down approaches have been taken in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there being no better example than the bans that were introduced during the Northern Territory intervention. Solutions must be driven within the community, not from outside. For far too long Aboriginal communities have had policies imposed on them from the outside. As I said, we saw this during the Northern Territory intervention, and we are again seeing it with the cashless welfare card. Governments keep doing things to Aboriginal communities, rather than with them. It is interesting that Senator Leyonhjelm has introduced this MPI around restrictions yet he seems to support imposing other top-down measures on communities.

Community led solutions make a real difference. I would like to point to the example of Fitzroy Crossing in my home state of Western Australia—one that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, also know very well. With people like June Oscar and other women from that community as community leaders, they drove a campaign for alcohol restrictions that called strongly for self-managed alcohol accords. As part of that process, research was conducted into what effect these measures would have, and it showed a reduction in domestic violence, in general violence and in stress for service providers. It also showed increases in food and clothing purchases and care for children. This community pushed for accurate measurement of the alcohol measures that were put in place in that community. The researchers specifically wanted to make sure that they could measure any difference that was applied. This is a clear community led initiative and it shows that measures, such as alcohol restrictions, if the senator wants to call them restrictions, can make a difference, if they are community driven.

One of the key issues the community is focused on is the impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. FASD, as it is commonly known, is associated with, obviously, alcohol abuse. FASD can have a devastating impact over a person's lifetime, and we need coordinated, effective strategies to reduce the prevalence of FASD through effective prevention programs and education of mothers. I will just make a comment here that people talk about FASD in Aboriginal communities, but it is not just in Aboriginal communities; it is in communities throughout Australia.

We need to have community led solutions, and important work has also been done in the Northern Territory, despite my criticisms of the bans when they were first introduced. There is an attempt now for a more sensitive approach. Strategies need to be targeted and culturally appropriate so that they reflect the needs and context of local communities. This works best when communities are empowered to make decisions about their own systems and, most importantly, they must be supported by the community and must empower community members to help manage the systems and ensure that they are working properly.

The point I am trying to make is that we need to consider this issue in the context of the harm we are trying to address. In this context I would that alcohol restriction measures do need to be put in place. They need to be community driven and focused on outcomes. We cannot ignore the fact that alcohol does cause harm in communities across Australia. Therefore it is not as simple as arguing that we should not have restrictions, but they need to be community driven and evidence based, which is why it was so important to look at whether we could achieve change through the alcohol measures that were put in place in Fitzroy community; whereas, when you look at the bans that were put in place in the Northern Territory, they did not actually address the issue of alcohol abuse.

There were a number of people who were very disappointed when the banned drinkers register in the Northern Territory was withdrawn by the then CLP government. There was evidence that it was starting to have an impact, so we need to make sure that we have a rational, sensible debate about how we address alcohol related harm and alcohol abuse.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Macdonald, I would just ask visitors in the President's gallery—I know it is exciting and there is a first speech or two today, but your voices are carrying—if you could just have a little whisper, it would be greatly appreciated so we can hear the contribution of the senators. Thank you very much.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to Senator Leyonhjelm for initiating this debate on lockout laws. I must say that I agree with Senator Leyonhjelm's comments about the nanny state and the propensity, particularly of Labor governments, to try and protect people from themselves on the basis that they, as Labor Party politicians, know better about how people should act and how they should conduct themselves than people themselves do. Of course I always smile at that, because Labor Party politicians, who are always trying to introduce these laws to regulate the habits and actions of others, usually come from a very limited background with not a lot of understanding of real life—that is, real life outside the union movement or the ALP political party. So I agree with Senator Leyonhjelm that we should be encouraging people to be responsible for their own actions. They should be able to be self-reliant and be helped to understand those responsibilities that they, as young adults—and older adults, I might say—would be expected to abide by.

In this debate, you have heard from my colleague Senator Paterson, who is much closer in age to that cohort of our society who is vitally interested in these lockout laws in the various states. You should take notice of what Senator Paterson has said. Of course his comments about supporting small business as opposed to big business—again, part of the coalition's philosophy these days—seems to be contrary to the Labor Party's philosophy, which seems to be more interested in supporting big business and those very wealthy people who run casinos around the country.

Having confessed to my limited personal knowledge of the lockout laws, I say that I am very close to the Young Liberal National Party of Queensland and I interact often with those young people. I employ some of them, and you can be assured that I understand this particular issue from talking to them.

Others have spoken about other states—although Senator Ketter spoke about my home state of Queensland—but in Queensland, the Labor Party in its wisdom has again sought to impose the view of Labor Party politicians on young people rather than helping young people to understand their own sense of responsibility and individual worth. What has happened in Queensland is that the Labor Party has introduced these new laws where you cannot serve high-alcohol drinks after midnight and, after 1 am, you can be in a club, so I am told but, once you are there at 1 am, you cannot leave and go to another club until 3 am when the whole industry is shut down.

This never seems to worry Labor politicians, particularly in Queensland, but it is impacting very heavily on unemployment and youth unemployment in Queensland and particularly in Townsville, which has a real problem with youth unemployment, where a lot of young people are employed responsibly in the club industry. A lot of them are still going to university and they cover living costs to attend university by working at night in these pubs and clubs.

The result of this new action by the Queensland Labor government is that there is going to be quite substantial loss of employment for young people in the Townsville region and in Cairns. I am also advised by the Cairns branch of the Young Liberal National Party of the impact that this new action of the Queensland Labor government is having on employment opportunities in the Cairns region. In fact, I am told that the changes—these new ideas and new legislation—could cost that city more than 240 jobs and $25 million in revenue.

In Townsville, the James Cook University student union has also condemned the state Labor government for these job-killing, nanny-state lockout laws. They have done that in the strongest possible terms. In a media release issued earlier this year by the student association president, Mr Edward Harridge, he said:

Many of our members work in the Hospitality industry to support their studies and face losing their jobs as a result of the proposed laws.

He went on to say:

In Townsville, the 80 licensed venues which employed more than 300 people were worried about their staff and businesses.

This is the result of action taken by the state Labor government, which really is clueless in Queensland about anything but particularly when it comes to employment creation for young people.

By contrast, the Liberal National Party of Queensland has a positive plan to address issues relating to alcohol related violence. I do not have time to go through them all, but one of the key elements of the LNP's strategy on the drug and alcohol problem at night-time amongst young people was compulsory drug and alcohol education in Queensland schools from years 7 to 12. That seems to me to be a pretty good idea. They were also going to establish 15 safe night precincts across Queensland to ensure that popular nightspots had coordinated prevention and support initiatives in place to keep patrons safe. Other elements were: a new offence of unlawful striking causing death, carrying a very severe penalty; increased penalties for other violent and antisocial offences; empowering police to issue banning orders; ensuring police have resources to have a presence and ability to respond quickly to alcohol and drug related violence; stronger and better coordinated action to ensure licensees provide safe environments and comply with the code licensing rules; and an awareness campaign, including advertising, to promote clear standards for responsible behaviour for patrons, licensees and the police.

A common-sense thought is that we should not be banning young people from having a night out. Why you would want to stay out until 5 am I cannot quite understand. It is a bit foreign to me at my age, but apparently that is what the young people like to do today. But no longer is this possible in Queensland. The evidence has already shown that this great new nanny-state regulation by the Queensland state Labor government has not made any difference to the amount of violence on the streets at night. What I would like to see is a greater police presence, not just for enforcement but for support and help.

Remember, most young people who go out for a night on the town are non-violent people. They go out to have a good time. There are one or two bad eggs. They should be addressed. Those troublemakers should be targeted by the authorities, rather than stopping everybody's enjoyment and their good times at night because of the issues of one or two who should be dealt with in other ways.

I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for raising this important issue. I make a plea on behalf of young people in Queensland that the Queensland government might reassess and re-evaluate their nanny-state proposals and try to encourage in young people the self-reliance and self-respect to look after themselves rather than introducing these silly laws which, as I say, benefit only the multinational owners of the casinos and the big establishments around Queensland. It would be good if the Labor Party could acknowledge and recognise that they have made a mistake and do something serious to address the issue, but in a way that is appropriate and does not cost the jobs of young people.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is curious that in the contribution from Senator Macdonald—and I am not unsympathetic to aspects of it—he confined his empathy to the young people of Queensland. As it happens, almost exactly the same set of laws that Senator Macdonald has objected to so vehemently apply in the state of New South Wales, where they were implemented by the Baird Liberal government. So I think if we are to be consistent in our treatment of what is actually quite a serious issue, we probably need to examine how it applies in places other than Queensland. But I appreciate Senator Macdonald's contribution.

The lockout laws in New South Wales were put in place in 2014. They have three elements: 1.30 am lockouts; a 3 am cessation of liquor sales; and a 10 pm cap on takeaway of alcohol. Today the New South Wales government has actually released publicly former High Court Justice Ian Callinan's independent review of those liquor laws. That is very welcome. The review was very welcome. I think, two and a bit years on, it is a good time to stop and have the opportunity to think about how this particular policy response has worked and what have been its strengths and weaknesses.

I am not going to stand up in this chamber and put the simple view that these laws are good or bad, because the truth is that how we manage our public spaces, how we manage alcohol and how we balance the risks attendant with alcohol related violence with the freedoms we like to imagine might be available in our most cosmopolitan cities are complex questions. People who say they have straightforward answers are almost certainly having us on. The truth is we do have a problem with alcohol related violence in this country. Before the lockout laws, a significant percentage of assaults being recorded were alcohol fuelled—27 per cent of all assaults in Kings Cross; 22 per cent, in the CBD; 25 per cent, in the suburbs that surround the CBD; 29 per cent, in Newtown, Bondi, Coogee and Double Bay; and 23 per cent, in Pyrmont. Some of these assaults represent quite serious injury and some of them even represent lives lost. People will recall that loss of life was the impetus for the review of these laws some years ago. The liquor law review has found that the lockout laws have had an impact: they actually have helped reduce alcohol fuelled assaults.

But I do want to use my time this afternoon to think a little bit and reflect on some of the unintended consequences of these laws. I want to talk particularly about live music, because the truth is that the lockout laws have had a real and very substantial impact on the live music industry in Sydney. The report actually acknowledged this. Justice Callinan said:

I am concerned that live entertainment and those employed in it (including sound and light technicians etc) have lost opportunities of employment.

The way to deal with this, in my view, is to sit down with the stakeholders and have a sensible discussion about what we can do to protect the important contribution that is made by live music. Unfortunately, what we often get from the Baird government in New South Wales is very much a top-down approach that very infrequently involves genuine consultation with the community or genuine consultation with the economic stakeholders.

Live music is an economic issue. It is fun and I like it, but it is also an increasingly valuable part of the Australian economy. Research shows that live music spending in Australia delivers at least a three-to-one benefit-to-cost ratio. That means, for every dollar that is spent on live music in Australia, three dollars worth of benefits are returned to the wider Australian community. It was estimated that in 2014 the live music industry contributed around $15.7 billion to the Australian economy, and the lockout laws in New South Wales have taken a fair chunk out of that.

APRA/AMCOS is the industry body for live music. It released figures in February this year that set out just how much licensing revenue fell in the period from 1 February 2013 to 31 January 2015. Of venues with a live artist performance licence, all premises experienced, on average, a 40 per cent overall decline in the value of door charge receipts and a 15 per cent overall decrease in the value of venue expenditure on live artist performers. Venues with a live artist performance licence—hotels, bars and nightclubs specifically—actually experienced a 32 per cent decrease in the value of door charge receipts. Venues with a recorded music for dance use licence—you can see that the licensing laws are complex, and I have every respect for the people that navigate the system—experienced a 19 per cent decrease in attendance figures across all venues.

The consequence of this is not that these venues are just making a little bit less money. The consequence of this is that that they are shutting down and it is changing the fabric of Sydney's cultural scene. I think it is easy for people who are a little bit older, who do not go out very much, to think that this is not something that affects them. But it ignores the fact that Australian artists do not produce music in isolation; they are part of an ecosystem. Artists develop and are recognised by audiences, by labels and by their peers by playing at live music venues all throughout Australia.

I want to tell a little story. Every so often, the White House releases President Barack Obama's Spotify playlist. The latest one has a song on it by Australian singer-songwriter Courtney Barnett, and that is a fantastic achievement. We congratulate Courtney. But Courtney and artists like her do not emerge fully formed, ready to just claim a spot on the presidential mixtape. Australian artists do their gigs in pubs and clubs and small performance spaces. That is where they start, and they grow in ability and recognition as they do so. I was reminded of this on Saturday night when I went to see Flight Facilities play—and, before people get too excited about my night-life, I will explain that they were playing with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. It was a pretty amazing mix of families and young people listening to really wonderful Australian music. But as the Sydney based music critic Jonno Seidler wrote: 'What many people forget, or perhaps are not aware of, is that James and Hugo—the members of Flight Facilities—met each other, held a longstanding residency, developed their sound and found guest vocalists in various Sydney clubs. All of them have now shut down.' He continued:

What that really means is that if Flight Facilities had started in 2015, they'd never be able to get to the point where they sold out a 15,000 capacity venue with a live orchestra, because the only place they—

and other merging artists like them—

could train under Mike Baird's cultural policy is in their bedrooms.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my right, I can hear only you, so I would ask you to extend the courtesy of letting Senator McAllister be heard.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

And you too, Senator Cormann.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will conclude the quote: 'The music that you love cannot be divorced from the context out of which it grows. We do need live venues more than ever.'

I will wrap up now—I am conscious that we have a first speech on its way—but we do need policies to make our cities safer and more liveable. I started my remarks by explaining that I am not one-sided about this. I think we do have some genuine challenges to address about alcohol fuelled violence. But I want to say that, when we do so, we need to make sure that we do not snuff out the soundtrack to our cities. Music should have a place in our bars and in our clubs, not just on our iPhones.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his matter of public importance: restrictions on the sale and service of alcohol at licensed venues and their impact on crime, health and enjoyment. I echo and appreciate Senator McAllister's comments about the complexity of the circumstances and Senator Ketter's comment about the tragic deaths that we need to avoid. I also want to say that I am, yet again, not surprised that a Greens speaker is supporting a view that wants to kill jobs and control people's lives. But, in deference to Senator Pauline Hanson's presentation of her first speech, I would like to make just two comments—firstly, that police powers, if enforced, are sufficient to protect life, property and freedom; and, secondly, that these laws are leading to gross abuses of power, and we simply need to get back to enforcing the laws through appropriate judicial responses and police enforcement.