Sydney Lockout Law Case Study

In the modern capitalistic society of Australia’s economy, businesses have predominantly more power over their marketplace counterpart, consumers (general members of society), as such the government finds it relatively necessary to enforce legal regulations to ordain the environment. Cambridge Dictionary defines a “necessary evil” as something unpleasant that must be accepted in order to achieve a particular result. Evidently, the major issue that is of concern is whether such relevant legalisation either enhances or hinders a business’ capability to achieve profit, in balance with, the rights and safety of consumers. More specifically, the consideration that relevant legal regulation such as Sydney’s Lockout Laws “villainise” the business culture of late night entertainment industries, limiting business profitability in order to achieve a greater sense of safety in the community. Furthermore, the innovative Uber …show more content…
Compliance with legal regulations are not optional, this explicitly creates a controversial dilemma as to what is required in satisfy both parties interests. The government pertain a duty of care to society, in their relative safety as reference in the ACL, whereas, there is also an obligation to relatively omit themselves in their “free market economy”. Recently, there have be declines in foot traffic of up to 84% in Kings Cross, to the downfall of more than 40 nightlife venues by effect of the Lockout laws. City of Sydney, Lord Mayor Clover Moore expressed her concern stating
“There was no doubt Sydney’s lockout lockout laws made some areas, including Kings Cross, a safer place. That must not change ... but the lockout laws have hurt Sydney’s cultural life and had negative impacts on businesses, including live music venues, small bars and restaurants, and many people have lost their