Changes were essential, but hotel industry cries in its beer
The O'Farrell government's initiative on drunken violence should finally assist in three long overdue outcomes (''Premier's pledge'', January 22).
It should force the ambulance chasers of the law fraternity out of cases, limit the lenience in sentencing by out-of-touch magistrates and ensure community sentiment is acknowledged in the punishment process and finally see thugs locked up for a long time.
A win-win-win for all but the leeches, the befuddled and the perps. Happy days.
Andrew Millett Annandale
Will the proposed 3am alcohol curfew be the 21st century's answer to the 6 o'clock swill?
Pastor de Lasala Seaforth
So the NSW branch of the Australian Hotels Association believes that the new measures to curb alcohol-fuelled violence ''would have an undeniable impact on the night-time economy'' (''Streets will be full of drunken revellers, hotel lobby claims'', January 22).
I am sure that many will agree that the most effective night-time economy for any society is one which fosters longer sleeping hours.
Frank Vassall Croydon Park
This surprising admission by the hotel lobby that the ''responsible serving of alcohol'' is not working must be one of the biggest reasons for change in the industry.
Brian Smith Ryde
There is Barry O'Farrell on the Herald's front page on Thursday, looking stern and patriotic.
Why is there no sign of our Australian flag behind him? There are two Union Jacks but no Australian flag, alas!
Yvonne van Wensveen Burradoo
Maybe the new liquor laws won't fix the problem entirely, which is really a matter of changing the culture, but it's a start, and of course groups with axes to grind don't like them (''Thousands sign petition against 'draconian rules''', January 22).
They warn us there will be illegal warehouse parties which ''won't have RSA marshals and bar staff who'll be able to cut off their alcohol supply once they become intoxicated''. Where have these marshals and bar staff been over the past bad times? If they had controlled matters better, perhaps we wouldn't be in this sorry state.
It's interesting to see the various lobby groups coming out of the woodwork, saying the ''night-time economy will suffer''. Balance that against the costs of police and hospital staff, and trauma for parents.
As for the wholesale signing of petitions - were these people sober when they signed petitions set up at times at the doors of nightclubs looking to their own interests?
Lots of critics are offering few solutions to the problems. It makes me a bit disgusted at the people bringing up these spurious matters.
Gloria Healey Condell Park
The president of the Australian Taxi Driver Association believes that the government's proposed initiatives to curb alcohol-related violence will make it more difficult to find a taxi in the early hours
of the morning, especially around changeover time (''Cab drivers say passengers will suffer'', January 22).
With respect to Michael Jools, how will that differ to what most patrons experience now?
Matthew Dunn Cronulla
As a mother and grandmother, I cannot imagine the horror of having my loved ones subjected to a coward punch. I would wish for the worst possible retribution for the thuggish perpetrators.
However I recall a case of mandatory sentencing in Western Australia where the judge had no choice but to jail Aboriginal youths for the theft of a box of biscuits and some pens.
What is the point of a judicial system if the judge already has his/her orders?
Lynne Poleson Kingsford
Thorough reflection, community input needed on laws
There is much to be concerned about in the NSW government's response to the scourge of alcohol-fuelled violence, including taking away the court's power to act justly and giving it to police in everyday matters (''Lawyers condemn 'knee-jerk' reforms'', January 22). While a mandatory minimum for one-punch deaths may be viewed as reflecting community concerns, these outcomes are thankfully rare compared with everyday occurrences with new proposed minimums: affray (four years) and assault police in execution of their duty (two years).
Consider a male, 30 years old, with no criminal record, a wife, two kids, a mortgage etc. Out celebrating with friends, had a few drinks, not drunk but getting a cab home anyway. As his party leaves the pub there's some sort of altercation with another group, voices are raised, pushing and shoving, he investigates and punches are thrown. The police turn up, one has his spouse by the arm, he says ''leave her alone'' and pushes the officer away. The police don't like his attitude. He is arrested, charged with affray and assaulting police in execution of their duty.
Under these laws he is prudently advised to plead not guilty, spends tens of thousands on the case running self-defence and is convicted. The magistrate says he would normally give a two-year good behaviour bond but he must be sentenced according to this legislation and his only discretion is to have the sentences served concurrently - four years on the top, 2½ years non-parole period. Family loses home etc. A just outcome?
Or a crying mother, hanging on to her eldest son as a policeman leads him to the van, grabs at the officer. The police don't like her attitude - no discretion for the sentencing court: two years' jail. Younger children put into foster care. Just?
Michael McHugh, SC Redfern
