Gotta draw the line somewhere.Twenty seems an odd age if it's going to be raised. Twenty-one is traditionally the age of majority, key of the door and all that.
But keep as is would seem the way to go. Unfair to punish the responsible eighteen and nineteen YOs for the sins of their twattier peers.
IMHO the idea of a "drinking age" is all a bit self-defeating anyway. The idea that at 17 years & 364 days old one's incapable of having a quiet beer and the next day one's fit to consume whatever one can afford is patently a nonsense.
They did but, from what I remember, lockouts causing more violence is anecdotal, not supported by evidence/experiment. That's one of those unmeasurables (aside from crude violence rate)Wasn't one of the things introduced in Newcastle a lockout? I know that in Melbourne, it led to more violence on the streets as people weren't prepared and happy to go home and there weren't enough cabs to get everyone home at that stage of the night anyway.