Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Two-thirds of Canberrans support 3am last drinks

By Charlotte Harper - 16 June 2016 21

drinking

Two-thirds of ACT residents support the ACT Government’s recent proposal to introduce 3am last drinks for pubs, clubs and bars across the ACT, according to a phone poll conducted on behalf of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE).

FARE commissioned market research specialist ReachTEL to undertake the poll to gain an understanding on attitudes towards alcohol, perceptions of safety and support for trading hour ‘last drinks’ policies.

See the report in full here.

The poll found there is strong support for 3am last drinks across all age groups: 18 to 34 year olds (50.2%), 35 to 50 year olds (69.9%), 51 to 65 year olds (81.6%) and those over 65 (71.3%).

It also found that 39.9% of ACT residents consider built-up areas in and around the city centre, Civic, to be unsafe or very unsafe on a Saturday night.

Respondents who report feeling unsafe or very unsafe in Civic are most likely to cite people affected by alcohol (36.2%) as the factor that contributes to this, almost double the proportion of residents who select people affected by drugs (20.1%).

According to FARE, six people die each month in Canberra and a further 189 are hospitalised in Canberra as a result of alcohol.

The region has witnessed a 32 per cent increase in the number of alcohol-related emergency department presentations in the last four years, from 5,084 a year in 2009-10 up to 6,702 in 2012-13, the organisation says.

FARE Chief Executive Michael Thorn said there was strong evidence that a reduction in trading hours would prevent many of these harms.

“It is abundantly clear that the local community want the ACT Government to act,” Mr Thorn said.

“Alcohol places a huge burden on local hospitals and emergency workers and the broader community. A majority of residents understand that, and clearly believe that a modest reduction in trading hours is a worthwhile policy that will result in significant benefits,” Mr Thorn said.

The lobbyist recommended the ACT follow the example of New South Wales and Queensland, saying those jurisdictions had been guided by the best evidence available and had acted to put the health and safety of their citizens ahead of industry profits and to save lives.

In an interview with RiotACT earlier this year, Frank Condi, owner of the Academy and Mr Wolf nightclubs, argued that the problem is not with venue closing times but with Australia’s drinking culture in general.

“Our culture is drink hard, drink fast,” Mr Condi said.

“I think it’s a big problem, and I’m all for change in laws around alcohol advertising … New York and London don’t seem to have the problems we have. Why is it that in our culture we can’t manage that?”

He said a rephrasing of Sydney’s lockout laws could have a dramatic impact on Canberra’s business community.

“The lockout laws are great in some areas, but what affect are they having on the rest of the precinct?” he said.

“Kings Cross [in Sydney] is a ghost town. A lot of businesses there have had to sack staff and close down.”

ReachTEL conducted the poll on behalf of FARE on May 25 this year, from 6pm to 7.30pm, using an automated telephone-based survey system that called mobile and landline telephones. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were randomly selected, attaining a final sample of 1,184 voters. The results were weighted by gender and age in order to reflect the current Australian Bureau of Statistics population figures.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
21 Responses to
Two-thirds of Canberrans support 3am last drinks
dungfungus 8:48 am 17 Jun 16

dungfungus said :

davo101 said :

pink little birdie said :

I think it’s actually irrelevant what a survey says on this issue as people should be given a large amount of individual freedom to decide when and how much achohol they drink.

As long as they aren’t harming other people (which is already illegal), we should remain as individually free as possible.

How many of the people surveyed would actually be affected by these changes? How many simply want to control what others do?

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms… until they come for yours.

There is a significant cost to the community through the resources needed to “clean up the mess” these people make while they are “individually free”.
How would you react if you were ill at TCH waiting in the ED queue when a late night drunk spewed all over you?

So ban smoking, gambling, drinking, skydiving, sports, driving, swimming, overeating.
These all kill people or put people in hospital at our expense. I demand we stop all these at once to save a few bucks.

Perhaps we could do this by making the working week longer so you can have more money in your pocket and people have less time to do the fun things that might possible put a drain on the ED.

Do you walk up to little kids on the playground and ask them to stop playing because they might hurt themselves too?

I think drinking to excess, smoking, overeating etc are self-inflicted problems. People need to regulate themselves as to what activities they pursue and not expect the public to pick up the tab for their failures.
Kids in playgrounds really have nothing to do with this issue.

dungfungus 8:44 am 17 Jun 16

greenbamboo said :

Genie said :

SallyGreenaway said :

Skepticism is appropriate in the case of any survey run on behalf of a lobby group with an agenda, however, the sample error on a sample of that size would I reckon be about 2pc. Market research companies are given special access to mobile records for survey purposes only, as I understand it. And people who are out to dinner can (and often do, unfortunately!) still answer their mobiles.

The survey also included fixed line phones.
It worries me that there is “special access” to mobile records for survey purposes only.
Can you get more information on that, please?

http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Stay-protected/My-privacy-world/Reduce-unwanted-calls/do-not-call-register-information-for-the-public-1#exemptions

Exemptions

Some public interest organisations are still allowed to make specific types of telemarketing calls or send faxes to your number even if it is listed on the register.

These exemptions ensure these organisations and individuals can continue to provide services to the community.

Exemptions apply to:

registered charities
educational institutions
government bodies
registered political parties
independent members of parliament
political candidates.

Market and social researchers are permitted to call when conducting opinion polling and standard questionnaire-based research calls. However, these are subject to the industry standard for telemarketing and research calls.

How they get the numbers in the first place, thats pretty easy. All the people entering giveaways for coupons and vouchers or what have you, only need to include a mobile number once and pretty soon it will be on every major list in australia that all the companies use. No conspiracy here.

Thanks for revealing that.
This explains why I never get phone calls asking for my opinion.
It also highlights that the people who get asked are ones that are latent gamblers or ones looking for a handout.
No wonder Australia is in the mess it is.

gooterz 11:06 pm 16 Jun 16

davo101 said :

pink little birdie said :

I think it’s actually irrelevant what a survey says on this issue as people should be given a large amount of individual freedom to decide when and how much achohol they drink.

As long as they aren’t harming other people (which is already illegal), we should remain as individually free as possible.

How many of the people surveyed would actually be affected by these changes? How many simply want to control what others do?

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms… until they come for yours.

There is a significant cost to the community through the resources needed to “clean up the mess” these people make while they are “individually free”.
How would you react if you were ill at TCH waiting in the ED queue when a late night drunk spewed all over you?

So ban smoking, gambling, drinking, skydiving, sports, driving, swimming, overeating.
These all kill people or put people in hospital at our expense. I demand we stop all these at once to save a few bucks.

Perhaps we could do this by making the working week longer so you can have more money in your pocket and people have less time to do the fun things that might possible put a drain on the ED.

Do you walk up to little kids on the playground and ask them to stop playing because they might hurt themselves too?

chewy14 9:25 pm 16 Jun 16

davo101 said :

pink little birdie said :

I think it’s actually irrelevant what a survey says on this issue as people should be given a large amount of individual freedom to decide when and how much achohol they drink.

As long as they aren’t harming other people (which is already illegal), we should remain as individually free as possible.

How many of the people surveyed would actually be affected by these changes? How many simply want to control what others do?

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms… until they come for yours.

There is a significant cost to the community through the resources needed to “clean up the mess” these people make while they are “individually free”.
How would you react if you were ill at TCH waiting in the ED queue when a late night drunk spewed all over you?

Probably the same as I’d feel if I was anywhere and a drunk spewed on me.

You’ll note that nowhere in my comment did I suggest that people should be free from the consequences and costs of their individual freedoms either.

There’s also many other areas where there are significant societal costs from allowing people their freedoms and choices but we don’t seem to ever attempt to control those freedoms either.

Mordd 7:23 pm 16 Jun 16

Attempt 2: It “moderated” my quote for some odd reason:

Exemptions

Some public interest organisations are still allowed to make specific types of telemarketing calls or send faxes to your number even if it is listed on the register.

These exemptions ensure these organisations and individuals can continue to provide services to the community.

Exemptions apply to:

registered charities
educational institutions
government bodies
registered political parties
independent members of parliament
political candidates.

Market and social researchers are permitted to call when conducting opinion polling and standard questionnaire-based research calls. However, these are subject to the industry standard for telemarketing and research calls.

Mordd 7:22 pm 16 Jun 16

Genie said :

SallyGreenaway said :

Skepticism is appropriate in the case of any survey run on behalf of a lobby group with an agenda, however, the sample error on a sample of that size would I reckon be about 2pc. Market research companies are given special access to mobile records for survey purposes only, as I understand it. And people who are out to dinner can (and often do, unfortunately!) still answer their mobiles.

The survey also included fixed line phones.
It worries me that there is “special access” to mobile records for survey purposes only.
Can you get more information on that, please?

http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Stay-protected/My-privacy-world/Reduce-unwanted-calls/do-not-call-register-information-for-the-public-1#exemptions

Exemptions

Some public interest organisations are still allowed to make specific types of telemarketing calls or send faxes to your number even if it is listed on the register.

These exemptions ensure these organisations and individuals can continue to provide services to the community.

Exemptions apply to:

registered charities
educational institutions
government bodies
registered political parties
independent members of parliament
political candidates.

Market and social researchers are permitted to call when conducting opinion polling and standard questionnaire-based research calls. However, these are subject to the industry standard for telemarketing and research calls.

How they get the numbers in the first place, thats pretty easy. All the people entering giveaways for coupons and vouchers or what have you, only need to include a mobile number once and pretty soon it will be on every major list in australia that all the companies use. No conspiracy here.

devils_advocate 3:37 pm 16 Jun 16

pink little birdie said :

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms……until they come for yours.

+100. These lockout laws were originally introduced due to a handful of “one punch” fatalities.

As regrettable as those incidents are, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing curfews is unacceptable victim-blaming.

Would it be acceptable to tell women to not wear revealing clothing or not drink to avoid sexual assault? Of course not.

As a society we should hold accountable the perpetrators of violence, and the judiciary who impose sanctions on the offenders. We should not first leap to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.

dungfungus 2:33 pm 16 Jun 16

pink little birdie said :

I think it’s actually irrelevant what a survey says on this issue as people should be given a large amount of individual freedom to decide when and how much achohol they drink.

As long as they aren’t harming other people (which is already illegal), we should remain as individually free as possible.

How many of the people surveyed would actually be affected by these changes? How many simply want to control what others do?

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms… until they come for yours.

There is a significant cost to the community through the resources needed to “clean up the mess” these people make while they are “individually free”.
How would you react if you were ill at TCH waiting in the ED queue when a late night drunk spewed all over you?

Lenient 1:53 pm 16 Jun 16

“And what was the sample error? “

Not too bad at all about +/- 2.6%, but this pales into insignificance compared to non-sampling error from a whole range of sources, e.g. non-response (partially mitigated by benchmarking to age by sex population totals), interviewer bias (phrasing of questions), respondent bias (e.g. acquiescence), mode bias (telephone) to name a few.

Non-sampling errors are very rarely quantiifed by private pollsters, who use the sampling error to give users a false sense of security.

I’m suprised the support for this is this low. Compare Aussie last drink times with overseas where 2am is seen as a civilised balance.

chewy14 11:00 am 16 Jun 16

I think it’s actually irrelevant what a survey says on this issue as people should be given a large amount of individual freedom to decide when and how much achohol they drink.

As long as they aren’t harming other people (which is already illegal), we should remain as individually free as possible.

How many of the people surveyed would actually be affected by these changes? How many simply want to control what others do?

It’s easy to remove other people’s freedoms……until they come for yours.

gooterz 10:45 am 16 Jun 16

Well as someone who used to work in civic. The safest times were those times of the week where people were out and about. Those days Monday to Wednesday were the worst nights to be at civic after 10.
The sample error would factor in the rejection rate which is neither stated or inferred.

dungfungus 10:37 am 16 Jun 16

SallyGreenaway said :

Skepticism is appropriate in the case of any survey run on behalf of a lobby group with an agenda, however, the sample error on a sample of that size would I reckon be about 2pc. Market research companies are given special access to mobile records for survey purposes only, as I understand it. And people who are out to dinner can (and often do, unfortunately!) still answer their mobiles.

The survey also included fixed line phones.
It worries me that there is “special access” to mobile records for survey purposes only.
Can you get more information on that, please?

Rollersk8r 10:23 am 16 Jun 16

Read this in the paper and was confused as to the point of a poll. Of people who feel unsafe in Civic, some say alcohol and drugs are the reason. Err, well if you feel unsafe in Civic you’re hardly going to be in there between 3am and 5am on the weekend??

In any case – what proportion of the population is out at 3am?? Over 99% of people couldn’t care less about opening hours because they’re home in bed, safely asleep.

Charlotte Harper 10:01 am 16 Jun 16

Skepticism is appropriate in the case of any survey run on behalf of a lobby group with an agenda, however, the sample error on a sample of that size would I reckon be about 2pc. Market research companies are given special access to mobile records for survey purposes only, as I understand it. And people who are out to dinner can (and often do, unfortunately!) still answer their mobiles.

gooterz 9:51 am 16 Jun 16

And what was the sample error? How many people called just hung up?
How does a private company have access to mobile records?
How does the survey account for people being biased to staying at home, many people whom are social would be out to dinner at that time.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site