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.

No they are not!
This long overdue law is being enacted to protect the rights of the not born yet!
The fetus has absolutely no tolerance for alcohol, and those that can't reduce their intake to little or none, need to be prevented from harming the unborn.
Too much alcohol, when pregnant, can result in permanent brain damage to the unborn, who often go on to need institutionalization, and complete care, for the balance of their days!
Someone else has to provide that 24/7 care for the life of these entirely innocent unfortunates, whose only crime was to be born!
Born as a virtual living vegetables, due entirely to the drinking habits of their alcoholic mothers!
And are required to serve a life sentence for it!
A life where they may never ever learn to read or write, or even ever become capable of expressing their feelings!
Deprived of everything we take for granted for ourselves, as part and parcel of a normal human life!
If these booze artists need to keep the freedom to drink themselves stupid, then they need to be sterilized, so they can't go on harming the not born yet!
A woman has a right to do as she pleases with her own body!
But the bodies being harmed, and basic human rights completely violated, are not those of adult women, but completely dependant infants, who then must endure for their entire lives, consequences, which none of us would accept for ourselves, as our deserved lot!
For heaven's sake, pregnancy only lasts for nine months, and surely not too much time, in the context of a whole life, to dry out and simply refrain from imbibing excessive alcohol!
The problem for those targeted by this legislation, is that one drink is too many, and a thousand, never enough!
Rhrosty

You would really be healthier and better off staying home, going to bed at 10pm with a nice cup of milk...

However, the sale and consumption of raw milk is even more restricted than alcohol!

Why is it that lobbies for every possible vice are so loud and even have their issues taken up by political parties, while lobbying for restoring our robbed freedoms to do and have good, innocent and healthy things, is rarely heard of?

One of the best culture mediums for propagating various pathogens in the laboratory, is in fact, raw milk!
Killer diseases like typhoid, were spread, when we last sold raw milk.
And that is the reason, we have laws, that mandate pasteurized milk, so people, like extremely ignorant typhoid Mary, who marketed milk, can't spread a killer disease, that once killed thousands!
While it may be safe to eat cheese made from raw milk, given the maturation process, virtually destroys unfriendly pathogens, while preserving the friendly ones?
No such claim can be made for raw milk.
I spent part of my childhood on a dairy farm, with access to as much raw milk as we wanted!
However, and because neither of my parents were neither illiterate nor ignorant, we not only scalded that milk, but gave all utensils, a final rinse with raw bleach, just to ensure, that no infected milk or milk product, could create a cross infection.
This was a time, when our world was awash with TB, and that also, is easily transferred in raw milk.
That fact that this is not the case today, is arguably down to centuries of pasteurization, and better mandatory hygiene standards, in our dairies.
Frenchman Louie Pasteur invented the pasteurization process centuries ago, and it seems some very ignorant Europeans, want to undo all the health outcomes achieved/won by that very process?
Simply because those centuries, and that progress, has almost eliminated things like deadly Typhoid?
However, the same is not true for TB, which has mutated in poverty stricken Asia, and has resurfaced, as far more lethal strains.
Compulsory pasteurization of milk will help to prevent the spread of these killer strains, which we have little or no immunity to, and even less efficacious medications!
Clearly the common good and sound health outcomes, will always trump the very ignorant views of a very small cliche of ignoramuses!
Rhrosty.

Speaking as someone who finds it extremely difficult to make rational decisions after midnight even when sober, I can't get worked up about denying alcohol to people after one-thirty AM. Provided that reasonable provisions are made for shift workers and others obliged to keep strange hours, then I'm all for getting would-be drunks off the streets. Realistically, if you haven't lined up a shag by one-thirty, then it's not going to happen -- you might as well save your money and go home.

'a nation that takes pride in its drinking culture'? Really? The subset of the nation that has already pickled its brains beyond repair might think that way, but I think the majority believe that it is possible to balance public enjoyment of alcohol with public safety by winding back the fairly recent phenomenon of binge drinking, getting drunk to go out and 24 hour licensing.

Rhrosty - get a grip!

(According to Wikipedia)

In most Western countries, fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) affects approximately 0.2-2% of 1000 live births. Hardly an epidemic!

At least seven medical research studies involving over 130,000 pregnancies and another US study of 400,000 pregnant women have found that consumption of less than 15 drinks per week – approximately 2 drinks per day – did NOT cause any FAS-related effects in their babies. After 15 drinks per week, the probability rose, but the intake had to be extreme before any real damage took effect.

A 1999 Oxford study found that women who consume 144 grams of pure alcohol per day have a 30–33% chance of having a baby with FAS. Given that a standard drink is 10 grams of pure alcohol in Australia and New Zealand, that means a pregnant woman would have to drink at least 14 (that’s ONE FOUR!) alcoholic drinks PER DAY to give their baby a ONE-THIRD chance of FAS.

On the basis of these studies and figures, FAS is clearly NOT related to women drinking during pregnancy. Rather, it’s related to women WHO ARE ALREADY IN AN ADVANCED STAGE OF CHRONIC ALCOHOLISM before, during and after pregnancy.

FAS is not something that can be either reduced or minimised by restricting the alcoholic intake of all women during pregnancy. However, that never stopped society’s patriarchal do-gooders from thinking they have a god-given right to control the bodies of ALL women on some trumped-up charge involving protection of the unborn .

Even more restrictions is not going to stop violent people being violent, women drinking while pregnant, binge drinking, etc.

It just makes going out more of a nuisance for everybody.

I worked shifts in the past (in North Ryde), finishing at midnight and the team would often go to a club afterward (in Kings Cross).

With this curfew, we would barely have made it through the door, only to find we couldn't order anything!
And to be subjected to an insulting breath test as well? Jiminy Crickets!

Wake up, sheeple. Do you really want this 1984 nonsense to get even worse?
How about microchip implants that tell the bartender what your blood alcohol level is?
Justified by the government and do-gooders to "save lives".
Don't laugh. You're leading us down that path.