Blog post
September 19, 2019

Sydney’s Nightlife Unlocked: An Analysis Of The Lock Out Laws

In an effort to compete with cities around the world with a bustling nightlife, Sydney’s controversial lock out laws have recently been dialed back to resuscitate the city’s weakened night-life and revive the city’s economy.

In this article we’ll explore the media coverage around Sydney’s lock out laws in the lead up to the recent changes.

About the lock out laws

Since the inception of the laws in 2014, many restaurants, pubs, nightclubs and bars in Kings Cross, Haymarket, Surry Hills, Cockle Bay and Darlinghurst have been required to abide by the laws of denying people entry after 1:30am and ceasing alcohol service at 3am. 

The lock out laws will remain in Kings Cross however they will be abolished in the CBD. 

Sydney is a global city, yet it’s also a city that turns into a ghost town once the sun goes down. It’s lacking nightlife has not reflected the status of a global city and as such a rev up has been ordered by the NSW Premier. The City of Sydney Council notes the nearly half a million people aged under 35 give Sydney a miss every year and as a result is hurting the economy.

A parliamentary inquiry was undertaken to examine the impact of the laws on nightlife and crime. With over 800 submissions, the committee were given insight into the restrictions having reduced crime in Kings Cross, yet it had also taken a toll on Sydney’s night-time economy and had taken a hit. The live music industry has been the main industry affected with more than 170 venues shutting down during the past five years. 

The Keep Sydney Safe campaign- run by the Last Drinks coalition of emergency service workers, questions whether removing the restrictions is a good idea as their studies show the most effective way to reduce alcohol-fueled violence is by placing restrictions on the late-night sale of alcohol. 

Lock out laws media mention analysis and key spokespeople

Mentions of lock out laws January 1 2019 – September 13 2019

Not surprisingly, we have seen a spike in conversations around the topic of “lock out laws” in September since the announcement of their abolition, with mentions reaching similar figures to those in May when it was first announced the laws would be reviewed.

It is notable that the top five spokespeople leading conversations about the lock out laws are split for and against removal.

We see in the graph below Gladys Berejiklian is leading the conversations across Print, Broadcast and Online with 41 percent and she discusses the need to balance the community safety alongside having a strong night time economy and it being time to revitalise the city’s nightlife.

Dr Tony Sara from the Last Drinks Campaign, who opposes revocation, makes up 21 percent of conversations, and he focuses on the laws have dramatically reduced alcohol-related assaults. Tyson Koh from Keep Sydney Open, who has been campaigning for the removal of the laws for the last five years and has recently started a campaign for pill testing at festivals, follows closely behind Dr Sara with 18 percent of conversations. 

Other opponents of the reversal, including the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association and St Vincent’s Hospital, are calling on the State Government to retain the laws. They point out that laws have already saved half a million dollars in ambulance and medical costs at St Vincent’s Hospital alone by decreasing the number of fractures requiring surgery. They also warn the rollback could result in a rise in alcohol-fueled violence, putting the safety of the community at risk. Hospital emergency staff are disappointed in the decision as they treat most of the city’s emergency patients and see the results of violence first hand.

Although the government is set to lift the laws, the NSW Premier has stated they could be reintroduced quickly, if their removal does not make a positive impact on the city.

If you would like to learn more about this topic through the media lens or anything media intelligence related, get in touch with us today.


Share

Similar articles

object(WP_Post)#8268 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(40160) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-05-26 02:54:37" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-26 02:54:37" ["post_content"]=> string(3706) "

Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters.

In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for customer sales. CRM systems, built for structured pipelines and linear user journeys, have long been the default for managing contact databases. They work well for sales and customer service functions. But for communications professionals managing journalists, political offices, internal leaders and external advocates, these tools often fall short.

Stakeholder relationships don’t follow a straight line. They change depending on context, shaped by policy shifts, public sentiment, media narratives or crisis response. A stakeholder may be supportive one week and critical the next. They often hold more than one role, and their influence doesn’t fit neatly into a funnel or metric.

Managing these relationships requires more than contact management. It requires context. The ability to see not just who you spoke to, but why, and what happened next. Communications teams need shared visibility across issues and departments. As reporting expectations grow, that information must be searchable, secure and aligned with wider organisational goals.

What’s often missing is infrastructure. Without the right systems, strategic relationship management becomes fragmented or reactive. Sometimes it becomes invisible altogether.

This is where Stakeholder Relationship Management (SRM) enters the conversation. Not as a new acronym, but as a different way of thinking about influence.

At Isentia, we’ve seen how a purpose-built SRM platform can help communications teams navigate complexity more confidently. Ours offers a secure, centralised space to log and track every interaction, whether it’s a media enquiry, a ministerial meeting, or a community update, and link it to your team’s broader communications activity.

The aim isn’t to automate relationships. It’s to make them easier to manage, measure and maintain. It’s about creating internal coordination before the external message goes out.

Because in today’s communications environment, stakeholder engagement is not just a support function. It is a strategic capability.

Interested in how other teams are managing their stakeholder relationships? Get in touch at nbt@isentia.com or submit an enquiry.

" ["post_title"]=> string(52) "SRM vs CRM: which is right for PR & Comms teams?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(44) "srm-vs-crm-which-is-right-for-pr-comms-teams" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-06-02 02:39:21" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-02 02:39:21" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=40160" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
SRM vs CRM: which is right for PR & Comms teams?

Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters. In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for […]

object(WP_Post)#8485 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(39776) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 01:03:57" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 01:03:57" ["post_content"]=> string(8358) "

This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives.

1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it

At the start of the campaign, traditional media focused on familiar priorities. The Labor government’s May budget led with cost-of-living relief, fuel excise changes and increased rental support. The Liberals responded with proposals for nuclear energy and a plan to cut 40,000 public service jobs. While these issues framed the early weeks, they were quickly overtaken in online discussions by stories with more cultural weight.

On social media, a video comparing Peter Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely, while Anthony Albanese’s “delulu with no solulu” moment during a Happy Hour podcast interview was picked up by national outlets and widely shared on social platforms. Personality often generated more interest than policy.

2. Messaging strategy went beyond the platforms

Both major parties tried to engage younger voters where they spend their time. Albanese’s appearance on podcasts and his interviews with influencers like Abbie Chatfield reflected a values-driven approach. Dutton’s appearance on Sam Fricker’s podcast targeted young men through a more casual, conversational format.

Mainstream media covered these appearances but often through the lens of political tactics rather than substance. When Abbie Chatfield’s pro-Greens posts attracted AEC scrutiny in early April, the story became more about influencer regulation than her political message.

3. Polarisation dominated public debate

The second leaders’ debate on 10 April marked a turning point, with stark contrasts on energy, education and immigration. Dutton's focus on crime and border control drew backlash, while Albanese was seen as calm but cautious. Instead of clarifying party differences, the debate intensified existing divides.

Online commentary quickly split along ideological lines. Audiences did not just debate the leaders’ points but used the debate to reinforce partisan views, highlighting how polarised public discourse has become.

4. Influencers reshaped election storytelling

Influencers became central to election storytelling. Abbie Chatfield faced strong support and criticism after posting about the Greens and questioning the Liberal Party’s media strategy. The Juice Media released satirical videos targeting defence and energy policies, resonating with disillusioned younger audiences.

Even incidents unrelated to official campaigns became flashpoints. In February, a video from an Israeli influencer alleging antisemitic comments by NSW nurses went viral, triggering political statements and shifting media attention to broader issues of hate speech and accountability online.

5. Culture wars outpaced policy in the final stretch

As the election neared, cultural tensions gained traction. On 12 April, media attention turned to Peter Dutton after reports emerged that his Labor opponent Ali France was leading in Dickson. Around the same time local authorities dismantled a tent encampment in the area while Dutton was campaigning in Perth. This raised questions about leadership and visibility on local issues.

Across social and news media, themes like Gaza, curriculum debates and identity politics took centre stage. Slogans such as “Get Australia back on track” were interpreted as echoes of US political rhetoric. Jacinta Price and Clive Palmer were both linked to similar messaging, fuelling memes and commentary about the Americanisation of Australian politics.

Rather than rallying around shared policy concerns, audiences engaged with content that reflected deeper anxieties about national identity and international influence.

What stood out the most wasn’t necessarily the policy itself, but the moments, memes, and messages that tapped into cultural tensions. The freedom for media and social media users to connect with and amplify these narratives created an arena where some politicians struggled to engage effectively. While some stuck to party lines without fully understanding the patterns driving media and social discourse, others embraced the shift, adapting to the rhetoric that was emerging online. The lesson is clear: in today’s media environment, ignoring what people are saying or the patterns of conversation isn’t an option.

" ["post_title"]=> string(59) "Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(58) "media-and-social-highlight-from-the-election-campaign-2025" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=39776" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025

This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives. 1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it At the […]

Ready to get started?

Get in touch or request a demo.