And who is to blame for this action imperative?

Utopian Progressives.

They have infiltrated and dominated the political system with their "must do something about" every little thing that isn't perfect (i.e. the way they want it) mentality.

People could once wisely accept human follies and foibles, punishing only genuine crimes, restrictions only where they were practicable.
Not any more.

Until we eliminate the Utopian virus from our society, expect more and more restrictions and controls.

Death to Utopianism!

A bit of perspective is relevant here. The news from Newcastle is that the reduced trading hours are working well and have actually increased the night life in the city, rather than decreased it. It is probable that the reduced fear of assault has had a greater positive effect than any of the negative effects of, for example, making booze hard to come by at 4am.

Get over it. This is not a return to 10pm closing time or the 6 o'clock swill era. The revised closing times are a reasoned and tested response to a long-term social issue.

I am dead against mandatory sentencing for anything, so on that issue I probably agree with the author.

Charlie, this is an extremely one-sided article. What you basically seem to be saying is: how dare government do ANYTHING to try and address these issues!

Surely you agree that there are real issues here that need addressing, and that it is up to government to strive to do something about it.

You would presumably also agree that it is very difficult territory, and that in order to do something of any significance, new laws would impinge on the freedoms of everyone.

You’ve offered no suggestions at all as to what you think should be done. In fact you seem to want the current situation to continue in QLD and the former situation to return in NSW!

The thing I find most disturbing about your article is that not only do you totally criticise any new laws that have been introduced or mooted, you even knock debate on the subject!

For what it’s worth, I am all for restrictions such as not being able to enter a pub or club after 1:30am and no drink after 3am. But I am with you and JohnBennetts on mandatory sentencing.

Divest yourself of any shares you hold in the grog industry, then try to grow "up"

"In central Sydney, punters are now unable to enter a pub or club after 1:30am and cannot get a drink after 3am. There are a few exceptions, like casinos and hotel bars, the managers of which were last seen in fits of ecstasy with dollar signs rolling in their eyes."

It would be interesting to see the results of conducting breath testing on those persons who want to enter a pub or club after 1.30am. It is unlikely that many of those would pass a random breath test.

If the author would have his way , he would want random breath testing banned, on the grounds that it interferes with personal freedom .

The author shows disdain for third parties who are at risk of injury or death from the irresponsible acts of intoxicated drinkers. Police, paramedics, and staff at hospital emergency departments undoubtedly would be able to inform him of such casualties dealt with nightly, particularly Friday and Saturday nights.

Notwithstanding, it is discriminatory from an alcoholic drinks supply viewpoint for the " few exceptions " to be exempted from the entry time limits.

Now where have I heard this type of sophistry before? Oh yes, many years ago, then it was 'smokers rights', there's also the right to be protected from drunken behaviour and passive smoking. We don't let drunks drive cars, why let them roam the streets and menace the public, and sometimes commit assaults and murder? It's part of our culture that an extremely dangerous addictive drug such as alcohol is legal, however that's not a justification for unrestricted sale and consumption.