The aim of the following report, is to explore the “Northbridge Curfew” examine its value and criticisms’. Finally to recommend whether the policy should be expanded to areas other than Northbridge.
2.0 Purpose of the policy
‘This Policy is the Government’s response to the immediate problem of ‘at risk’ children and young people in Northbridge at night.’ (Young People In Northbridge Policy, 2006, pg2)
It is part of the states commitment to; “Revitalise Northbridge”, “ensure the safety and security of children and young people.” Finally “to address the issue of young people who behave in a disorderly manner.” (Young People In Northbridge Policy, 2006, pg3).
The policy is not as Koch suggests a ban on “unsupervised youths up to the age of 18 years from the inner city entertainment area”. (Koch, 2003, pg7) However it contains a curfew on the metropolitan area commonly known as Northbridge described by the policy as the “adult entertainment district”. (Young People In Northbridge Policy, 2006, pg1)
It is imposed upon “children 12 years of age and under, in the Northbridge precinct during the hours of darkness.” And “Young people 13 to 15 years of age in the Northbridge precinct after 10.00 pm.” (Young People In Northbridge Policy, 2006, pg2)
The policy goes on to include young people up to the age of 18, “who by their anti social, offending or health compromising behaviour are at risk to themselves or others.” (Young People In Northbridge Policy, 2006, pg3)
2.1 Critiscisim of its purpose
Critics suggest the reason for the policy is the “current popularity curfew laws (Adams, 2003, pg3 )” to appease “the desire by local traders to attract more patrons to their establishments”. Furthermore to “assist the Government’s agenda as champion of the law and order debate to target young Aborigines” (Kock, 2003, pg7).
If the policy is a response to crime, kock cites research to argue, “70 percent of crime in the curfew area as being