Evaluation of Restricted Liquor Trading Hours in Australian capital Territory, 1996-97

An Evaluation of the Trial of Restricted Liquor Trading Hours in the Australian Capital Territory, 1996-97.

This is a summary of the three stage evaluation of a seven month trial of 4am closing of nightclubs in Canberra. For several years prior to this, nightclubs had been legally able to trade twenty four hours a day. The A.C.T. Government decided to conduct a "before-and-after" study to determine whether any reduction of crime and/or anti-social behaviour was achieved by the early closing.

In 1996, the ACT Legislative Assembly considered a proposal to restrict the sales of alcohol between the hours of 4am and 8am in response to concerns about levels of alcohol related crime and incivilities near some of Canberra’s licensed premises. Stage 1 of this study examined the literature relating to liquor trading hours and proposed a range of data collections and analyses that could be used to evaluate a trial of such restricted trading hours.

The literature addressing the general issue of the relationship between the consumption of alcohol and undesirable social or biomedical consequences, such as crime, disorderly conduct or ill health, is vast. It comprises several hundreds of thousands of references to books, articles, conference proceedings and reports of research studies, virtually all of which conclude that the incidence of crime, disorderly behaviour and traffic accidents increases along with increased availability of alcohol.

Fortunately, the element within this literature which focuses on the specific question of whether or not changes to liquor trading hours have any measurable impact on the incidence of crime and other anti-social behaviour is considerably less daunting, and in fact may be readily summarised.

Even though this sub-set of the broader literature is of a manageable size, some of the findings reported from studies which purport to be scientific are inconsistent, and even contradictory. For example, one of the studies from the United States claims to show that increased rates for homicide and illegitimacy are associated with increased availability of alcohol, while a study in Britain claims to show that the abandonment of traditional licensing hours reduces crime and rowdyism!

In the Australian context, the most relevant literature comprises a series of nine reports prepared for the National Symposium on Alcohol Misuse and Violence, hosted by the Department of Human Services and Health in December 1993, and one of these reports focuses on the specific issue of the appropriateness and efficacy of liquor licensing laws across the nation. This exhaustive study concludes that small variations in the hours of trading have little impact on overall levels of alcohol problems, but cites evidence purporting to show that the incidence of traffic accidents and assaults are closely associated with hours of trading with a peak occurring after closing time.

Another area in which the literature is clear is that of public opinion, which appears to be consistently and strongly in favour of strict enforcement of the law on public drunkenness, but rather opposed to reduced alcohol licensing hours. It may be suspected, however, that what these survey respondents are opposed to is a return to Sunday closing, the 10pm closure, or even 6pm closure of bygone years. None of the studies related to the fairly modest restrictions being proposed for trial in the A.C.T. this year.

From this study’s point of view, therefore, there is enough evidence in the literature to suggest that there may be sufficient benefits to the wider community to justify the financial harm which would be imposed on some licensees by the reduced hours of sales. A 4am closing time which affects only a small number of drinkers may not impose great harm on licensees, but it may not bring major benefits either in terms of reduced crime, disorder and road accidents. It may emerge that, even if the cold hard facts about crime, disorder and road accidents do not show any advantage for the 4am closing time, public opinion and changes in perceptions of crime may be enough to justify making the change a permanent one.

The first part of the report of Stage 2 of the evaluation of the trial of restricted liquor trading hours in the ACT analysed the effect of existing crime prevention measures on alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in Civic and Manuka. In particular, an assessment was given of the following programs or activities:

While none of these programs or activities was the subject of independent and objective evaluation, in the opinion of key informants, such as police, licensing inspectors, nightclub licensees, etc, all of these programs or activities were seen as having a positive impact on the level of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in the territory.

The second part of the report presented baseline data from six different sources which were to be used for comparison purposes for the final stage of the evaluation. The first source of data was the Australian Federal Police (ACT Region) who supplied the consultants with extensive statistical material on anti-social behaviour for the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1996. This material, which covers the number of incidents of assault, sexual assault, drunkenness, underage drinking, disturbances and street offences, was presented in both numerical and graphical form, in four-hour intervals, separately for Woden, City, Tuggeranong and Belconnen.

The second source of data was the Registrar of Liquor Licenses who supplied the consultants with full details of the number of premises visited (including public open spaces and car parks) by licensing inspectors during the first quarter of 1996, together with the numbers of offences detected in each suburb in the ACT. These data clearly show that Civic was the focus of most attention by inspectors during that period, with 65 visits in Civic identifying 17 offences compared with 76 visits identifying seven offences elsewhere in the ACT.

The fourth source of data was a postal survey undertaken by the consultants of nightclub licensees. This survey aimed to measure the expectations of licensees prior to the trial period with a view to comparing these expectations with their actual experiences with restricted trading at the end of the period. Forty licensees selected from the Registrar's list of licensed premises were sent questionnaires with reply paid envelopes, but only sixteen completed questionnaires were returned. The response rate was thus 40.0%. Two thirds of the respondents - mostly those who never serve alcohol after 4am - expressed the view that the restricted trading hours would not affect them very much. However, of the nine licensees who actually served alcohol after 4 am regularly or occasionally in the past twelve months, none were in favour of the (then proposed) restriction, although three were indifferent to the change. With such small numbers it would be unwise to draw general conclusions, beyond saying that none of those licensees affected by 4am trading are in favour of the move.

The fifth source of data was a survey of ACT taxi drivers undertaken by the consultants with the cooperation of Aerial Taxis Ltd. Here, with 94 completed questionnaires being returned in reply paid envelopes, the response rate represents approximately one third of all taxi drivers in the ACT. This survey, which is comparable to a survey of taxi drivers undertaken in Newcastle in 1989, produced a wealth of information on offences committed against drivers as well as their views relating to the types of passengers who cause problems and the locations where problems might be expected. Of particular interest, however, is the finding that just over one third, 35.1%, of the respondents supported 4 am closing, while just under two thirds, 64.9%, were opposed, with the more experienced drivers tending to be more strongly opposed. A number of the respondents also accepted the invitation in the questionnaire for them to express their views about the proposed change, and did so in strong terms.

As might be expected from any exercise in which data are gathered from different types of sources, this stage of the evaluation has produced mixed results. Before the introduction of the trial of restricted liquor trading hours, strong support for the proposal was expressed by both residents and shopkeepers in the vicinity of licensed premises, but the proposal was strongly opposed by the licensees who stayed open after 4 am. Taxi drivers were more evenly divided in their views, but the clear majority were opposed to the proposal.

In addition to collecting data from the six sources mentioned above, the consultants visited licensed premises, at various times of the day and night, and held formal and informal discussions with licensees, patrons and other members of the public. These visits and discussions continued throughout the trial period.

Stage 3: - Before-and-After Comparisons of Levels of Crime, Anti-social Behaviour and Public Perceptions

The trial of restricted liquor trading hours in the ACT took place in an environment in which a wide range of other crime prevention measures were already in place, some of which may have had an effect on alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in areas such as Civic and Manuka. The normal operations of the ACT police and licensing inspectors co-existed, throughout the seven months period, with a number of crime prevention measures and programs relevant to the serving and consumption of alcohol, which are described in the report of Stage 2 of this project.

While none of these programs or activities has been the subject of independent and objective evaluation, in the opinion of key informants, such as police, licensing inspectors, nightclub licensees, etc, all of these programs or activities are seen as having a positive impact on the level of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in the territory. Of particular note is an apparent reduction in drink driving incidence, which police associate with the processes of diversionary conferencing and possibly with a greater effectiveness of the designated driver scheme as groups of nightclub patrons go home at 4 am. No other major changes, however, occurred during the trial period in any of these programs or activities which could readily be seen to have affected the trial or its outcomes.

Data from six different sources were collected for comparison purposes for the final stage of the evaluation. The first source of data was the Australian Federal Police (ACT Region) who supplied the consultants with extensive statistical material on reported incidents of anti-social behaviour for the period of the trial itself and for the same period in the previous year, as well as trend data from 1992 to the present. This material, which covers the number of incidents of assault, sexual assault, drunkenness, underage drinking, disturbances and street offences, was presented in four-hour intervals, by day of the week, separately for Woden, City, Tuggeranong and Belconnen. These data show no significant changes in levels of police recorded incidents of crime and incivilities which could be reasonably attributed to the 4 am closure, but do show apparent decreases in the incidence of driving with excessive blood alcohol levels. It is difficult, however, to tie this success specifically to the 4 am closure of taverns and nightclubs.

A submission from the ACT Police argued that, while their own statistics may not show convincing evidence of reductions in levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, the early closure of nightclubs has resulted in cost savings for police operations and a cleaner city.

The second source of data was the Registrar of Liquor Licenses who supplied the consultants with full details of the number of premises visited (including public open spaces and car parks) by licensing inspectors during the first quarter of 1996 and for the same period of 1997, together with the numbers of offences detected in each suburb in the ACT. These data clearly show that Civic was the focus of most attention by inspectors during both periods, with little identifiable change from one year to the next.

The third source of data was a randomly selected telephone survey undertaken by the consultants of residents in the Civic, Manuka, Belconnen and Tuggeranong areas. A total of 300 residents were interviewed before the trial, and a second sample of 300 interviewed at the end of the trial. The survey questionnaires included questions on victimisation related to late night drinking, fear of crime, and other standard questions used in national crime victimisation surveys. Both before and after the trial, a large majority expressed very high levels of satisfaction with living in their suburb, even though more than half were at least "somewhat afraid" to walk in the area at night. Before the trial, in relation to the (then proposed) 4 am alcohol trading restriction, a clear majority of the respondents supported the proposal. Just over 75 per cent were in favour, 15 per cent were not in favour, and 10 per cent had no opinion, with women and persons over 40 years tending to be more supportive than others. By the end of the trial, however, fewer than 24 per cent believed that it had been effective in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. Almost half, 47 per cent believed it was not effective, and 29 per cent could not say. Younger people were particularly likely to feel it was ineffective. No detectable differences in respondents’ perceptions of safety at home or in the streets could be found between the periods before and after the trial.

The fourth source of data was a before-and-after postal/telephone survey of licensees nominated as ‘late traders’ by the Australian Hotels Association. These surveys aimed to measure the expectations of licensees prior to the trial period, and to compare these expectations with their actual experiences of restricted trading at the end of the period. Prior to the trial, of the nine licensees who responded and actually served alcohol after 4 am, either regularly or occasionally in the previous twelve months, none were in favour of the (then proposed) restriction, although three were indifferent to the change. After the trial, all fifteen licensees who had previously served alcohol after 4 am on a regular basis were interviewed. Twelve of these stated that their businesses had suffered financially during the trial. One stated that there had been an improvement since the commencement of the trial. Most thought that it had made no difference to levels of antisocial behaviour in and around their premises, but several thought it had made things worse, most commonly citing problems with taxis.

The Australian Hotels Association, ACT Region, argued that the policy was unfair, and that there had been considerable costs imposed on licensees resulting in eighteen enforced job losses.

The fifth source of data was a before-and-after survey of ACT taxi drivers undertaken by the consultants with the cooperation of Aerial Taxis Ltd. Prior to the trial, just over one third, 35 per cent, of the respondents supported 4 am closing, while 65 per cent were opposed, with the more experienced drivers tending to be more strongly opposed. A number of the respondents also accepted the invitation in the questionnaire for them to express their views about the proposed change, and did so in strong, sometimes scathing, terms, often stating that it would cause trouble at a number of ranks at closing time and that the coincidence with the 4 am driver changeover time was particularly unfortunate. After the trial, the drivers’ responses were essentially unchanged. Only 4 per cent thought it had reduced crime and incivility, while 58 per cent thought it made things worse and 31 per cent thought it made no difference.

The sixth and final source of data was a survey of businesses in Civic and Manuka in the vicinity of licensed premises undertaken by one of the consultants. This survey took the form of a written questionnaire given to approximately one in three shopkeepers in the two areas. A total of 80 reply paid questionnaires were delivered by hand before the trial and again after the trial, with a response rate of almost 50 per cent in each case. Prior to the trial, more than half of the respondents expressed the view that crime was either a serious, or fairly serious, problem in their area, and an overwhelming majority, 84 per cent, were supportive of the proposed restriction on the sale of alcohol. Only 5 per cent were opposed to the proposal. At the end of the period, by contrast, only a third thought it had made any difference. Over half thought it had made no difference, and some even thought it had made matters worse. (Two business people in Civic independently commented that they thought it ‘drove young people into the hands of the drug dealers after 4 am’).

Other sources of information provided additional insights to the evaluation of the trial. For example, Casualty departments of both public hospitals reported no apparent change in numbers and types of admissions, including those which may have been associated with domestic violence, while a spokesperson for ACT gays and lesbians claimed that 4 am closing had increased levels of apprehension amongst their community.

As might be expected from any exercise in which data are gathered from different types of sources, this evaluation has produced mixed results. Before the introduction of the trial of restricted liquor trading hours, strong support for the proposal was expressed by both residents and shopkeepers in the vicinity of licensed premises, but the proposal was strongly opposed by the licensees who stayed open after 4 am. Taxi drivers were more evenly divided in their views, but the clear majority were opposed to the proposal. At the end of the trial, however, the major pros and cons of the 4 am closing of nightclubs and taverns can be summarised in the following eight points.

Copies of the full set of 3 Reports are available from:
John Walker Consulting Services,
6 Severne St, Queanbeyan, NSW 2620.
(Price AU$100.00 plus postage & packing)

Written By John Walker & David Biles
for other articles by this author, visit http://www.ozemail.com.au/~born1820