The Star Casino in Prymont looks to be the newly crowned most violent venue in New South Wales according to recently released figures by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research yet remains exempt from the governments lockout laws.

Between February and September last year there were an average of 6.3 assaults per month – up from 3.5 in the corresponding period for 2013 which equates to around 75 assaults at The Star in the last year alone according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

In comparison The Ivy, which was named the most violent venue in NSW in December recorded 26 alcohol-related assaults between July 1st, 2013 and June 30th last year leading it to be included in the 1:30am lockout laws and a ban on glass and shots.

It turns out the casino has been exempt from any restrictions since it’s inception in 2008 and also skips around the governments ‘Three Strikes’ scheme that puts its licence at risk of being removed if there are any breaches.

Which according to the latest report by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (ILGA) revealed The Star was fined or censured 12 times during 2013-14 for licence breaches yet continues to flaunt outside of the laws.

A spokeswoman for The Star has said “In the context of The Star receiving more than 11,000,000 visitors per year to a single site, far higher than any other venue in NSW, we believe that our record on guest safety is very strong”.

Deputy Premier Troy Grant’s spokesperson said the assault statistics “need to be taken into context with the size of the casino, which includes a hotel and gaming facility”.

“The NSW government will continue to ensure we strike the right balance between individual and industry responsibility,” she said.

When you look at the precincts that now fall under the NSW Governments lockout laws especially those in Kings Cross, its obvious to see that clubs, bars and venues don’t make up the entirety yet cafes, restaurants, hotels, hostels and other entertainment spots suffer enormously.

Isn’t it time to treat all venues, regardless of their taxable income be treated much the same?