|
Abstract
|
Kypri & Livingston [1] analysed a decade of police data on assaults in and around two Sydney night‐time economy districts. The study spanned the time before and after a 2014 law change which shortened on‐licence trading hours and brought in lockouts. After the law change, there was a large, rapid and sustained drop in assaults in Kings Cross and a more modest impact in central Sydney. There was a small displacement of violence to nearby suburbs. A similar drop in violence was been reported after changes to bar closing hours in Norway [2]. The Sydney data further strengthen the evidence that reducing on‐licence trading hours leads to less alcohol‐related violence.
Restricting where and when alcohol can be sold is already established ‘best practice’ alcohol policy [3]. In the late 20th century, on‐licence trading hours were extended in some states of Australia [4]. As expected, this led to more incidents of alcohol‐related harm late at night. Some fatal acts of alcohol‐fuelled violence in Sydney were widely reported in the Australian national media [5, 6]. There was public outrage. This probably influenced the New South Wales (NSW) legislature's decision to bring in the 2014 law change. However, governments ebb and flow with the tide of public opinion and pressure from lobbyists. Despite opposition from health agencies, in 2019 the NSW government rolled back part of the 2014 law. Economic reasons were cited for the decision [7].
When central governments take a top‐down approach to alcohol policy, it can be harder for local communities to tailor policy to their needs. A 2013 law change in New Zealand [8] handed over some responsibility for alcohol policy to local territorial authorities. Unfortunately, these authorities quickly found that their newly drafted local alcohol policies were stifled by alcohol retailers [9]. Local voluntary liquor accords began in Victoria, Australia in the early 1990s and they have since become widespread in Australia. They allow night‐time economy stakeholders, public health experts and the general community to work together in setting alcohol policy. At face value, these accords make sense: they allow evidence‐informed policies to be put into place without too much pushback from licensed venues. However, in contrast to the evidence on ‘best practice’ controls on alcohol availability and drinking context [3], voluntary accords appear ineffective even when they include parts with evidential support [10, 11]. This could be because accords are, by definition, not legally binding [11]. The answer may be a hybrid approach ...
Language: en |