On a superficial level it appears that the sort of crime associated with late-night drinking has shifted from Civic to Manuka. The impression has been gained for several events, notable last New Year’s Eve where the unruly crowds of previous years appeared in Manuka. Last weekend problems arose again in Manuka, this time in the form of vandals hitting cars in the covered carpark in Manuka. Traders immediately called for a change in the law on drinking hours. The Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, has commendably not gone for the knee-jerk response. Rather he has referred the question to the Community Safety Committee.
This committee was responsible for the Civic by Night report which made recommendations that appear to have had beneficial effect in Civic. Those recommendations appear to have worked because they were not knee-jerk and they attempted to solve the problem with a range of measures: police, licensees and transport. Changing licence hours alone will do nothing. The experience of prohibition in the United States showed that people will get their grog from somewhere. The better response is multi-faceted. Licensees have to be convinced to act more responsibly with under-age drinking and serving intoxicated people. A greater on-the-ground presence of police forces is needed. Better late-night public transport is needed to prevent drink-driving. It may be, however, that the sort of vandalism seen in Manuka has deeper causes: unemployment and general alienation from society.
It is certainly true than changing drinking hours would not have prevented the vandalism at the weekend: it is common ground that it occurred between 9pm and 2am. The closing hours issue is centred on whether places outside Civic should close at 4am. So it may be that the few Manuka incidents this year do not represent a full-scale shift of the drink-crime problem from one location to another. The important point is that treating the causes of crime is more important than treating the symptoms. In the ACT, some very worthwhile work is being done with making criminals meet their victims so they can understand the grief and anger they cause and held repair the damage.
This is not as spectacular nor as easy as announcing huge increases in penalties (for people who may never be caught), but it is more effective. Being tough on causes of crime rather than symptoms may have become a political cliche in recent months. None the less it is true. Whether politicians can live up to it, however, is another matter. It may be that some will mouth the cliche and not do the unspectacular work of attacking the symptoms. Mercifully, even in this election environment we are not being treated to some of the idiocy seen in other states and territories where politicians, out for a quick vote, chant “”lock them up”.