The alcohol restrictions in the city of Sydney were introduced with the best of intents, the desire to reduce alcohol fueled violence in the city. They were always a blunt instrument whose consequences were uncertain.
I don't think that Hugos' closure can be attributed just to the alcohol restrictions.The decline in Kings Cross and nearby Oxford Street as night venues began before the restrictions and reflected in part the rise in alternatives elsewhere. Sydney has just become bigger, more complex. Still, I find the decline sad, in part because I knew both Kings Cross and Oxford Street quite well.
By all accounts, Hugos was a well managed venue without serious alcohol problems. It's demise is best described as collateral damage. The blunt rules will change because of their imposed costs, but in the meantime they have triggered changes in the geographic patterns of entertainment and social life that will not be easily reversed.
On a different but related matter, the Darwin Beer Can Regatta is now, apparently, being challenged by the medical lobby on the grounds that it encourages drinking.
Don't get me wrong. There have been a couple of occasions when I have had to be present in emergency departments on a Friday or Saturday evening watching staff deal with drunken patients. It's dreadful. However, resolution of this type of problem requires a subtlety of approach that cannot be dealt with by rigid rules based approaches.
11 comments:
4 more submissions - each about bicycle helmets :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_bicycles
or as Queen sung it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GugsCdLHm-Q
kvd
Here's where Jim makes an idiot of my earlier suggestion of bans re smoking, although they were based on economic grounds which I readily concede no longer exist anyway.
Like many government initiatives, it is a blunt instrument, doesn't actually deal with the problem or the problem people and of course, doesn't work. Let's kill off another part of our few traditions for an unresearched claim.
Prediction: On about the last day for submissions, the inquiry will received two huge and well researched and written submissions from the alcohol and tobacco lobbies.
I wonder if the bike helmet submissions will be used as comparisons or stalking horses.
Loved the Queen link, kvd. You may be right, 2t, in your prediction. I'm not going to comment on your first sentence! Re the dominance of bike helmets, that's going to be one small gain, I think, but no one is addressing the broader pattern.
Will twig Helen on the last!
Hi tanners. Regarding your prediction - what would you expect such submissions to achieve - except for minimally raising the profile of two industries who don't really need possible further unfavourable publicity?
Seems to me, if I traded upon my customers' weaknesses for diversion thru drugs, I'd keep a fairly low profile. And please understand that I do drink and smoke, and I see these as my personal choices and failings - not the government's.
I just reckon they should stick to bicycles; about which we already have had two exhaustive inquiries in Qld and S.A. (not to mention the various overseas similar pointless wastes of money) so this should cut down on the research needed in the 10 months before they report.
kvd
ps Jim posted as I was typing. tanners, I am actually quite interested to hear your views upon what those industries might submit in their "huge and well researched and written submissions"?
I think they will argue a basic libertarian line, in particular that choice is being squashed by specious appeals to protecting the health of substance users. Substance abusers will be sequestered as an issue or ignored.
The ultimate target for the smoking lobby will be to argue that plain paper packaging infringes on the rights of those who have chosen to smoke; it doesn't matter what the package looks like, the health effects don't change, right? (Wrong, if the packaging changes the overall level of smoking, but let's leave it there.)
I'm picturing the alcohol lobby as running a 'responsibility begins in the home' line aka 'alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people'. And they ought to be taught responsibility in the home, not demonising Australia's favourite social lubricants.
Just my thoughts. If they're hoping some random is going to do this for them, they'll be waiting a long time, I'd suggest.
tanners, due to your present geography, I'm wondering if you caught up with these two very recent articles, both dated July 30th:
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/david-leyonhjelm-why-we-should-not-demonise-shortterm-lenders-20150730-ginmjh?stb=twt
and the second:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/cash-converters-facing-new-class-action-over-payday-loans-in-queensland-20150730-ginn8w.html
There was also a 4Corners episode earlier this year, which I did not see, but is referred to in the Leyonhjelm essay.
What interests me is the apparent divergence of facts between the two reports - and here I'm granting more legitimacy to MB Lawyers on the simple basis that their facts are going to be tested in court, whereas Leyonhjelm's are not subject to the same 'trial' - but certainly do carry the weight of his office.
Anyway, would be interested in what your impression is, and I don't think I'm much off topic - because the thrust of Leyonhjelm's article is toward the possible/potential over-regulation of this industry sector.
kvd
kvd,
I hadn't, and my excuse for an internet hangs halfway through, so I'm guessing at the content. I have always had contempt for payday lenders who rely on financial ignorance and encourage irresponsible spending. They are in the financial sector and should be fairly heavily regulated given that sector's history or malpractice and deception. I think things change once you move from simple choice to histories of manipulation and in some cases misrepresentation to the point of theft (and I'm thinking of the Big Four here). I like banks, and use them to our mutual profit but when they or others are targeting the vulnerable to make superprofits, then there maay be a role for Government.
Hope that's clear-ish
tanners, I basically agree with your comment, except I would add that the payday lenders obviously fulfill a need, so contempt is probably too strong a stance.
On a lighter note, for you and Jim, I have finally found a twitter account which is quite compelling, an example of which I post below as it seems somehow appropriate to discussions of the 'nanny state'. Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/historypicss/status/626409357446643712/photo/1
kvd
So payday lenders are another example of the nanny state. Just disentangling all this is a bit of a challenge! Thanks for the historypics link, kvd. Quite fun!
kvd,
Finally got the link to the age to work, although the Fin was paywalled. I've got to say that circumventing legislation to lend at 160% p.a. when the legislation caps it at "only" 48% p.a. is fairly predatory in my book and especially when it is targeted at those who are already in poor circumstances. Although the pensioner's statement which included the words "vulnerable people like me" indicated to me that he'd be out there sitting on the rock because nothing that happened would be his fault. Bad luck, poor signage whatever. He obviously hadn't used his 16-24% credit card perhaps because it was maxed out and hadn't successfully approached a bank for a 13% unsecured loan from ignorance, fear or bad credit - in short, he was a bad credit risk at least in part from his own actions. I suspect self-inflicted vulnerability.
So payday lenders aren't a symptom of the nanny state - just the opposite - but regulation of them so they can charge usurious but not ridiculous rates does seem reasonable to me. Anyone so desperate or ignorant as to be stung like that probably should have state protection. Their finances may well need protection from themselves as well :)
Post a Comment