Motion: Liquor Licences

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- I will start my contribution to the debate on Ms Lovell's motion by reading from the World Health Organisation's Strategies to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol -- Report to the Secretariat, which was presented to the 61st World Health Assembly in March 2008.

Under the subheading 'Strategies and policy element options to reduce alcohol-related harm' the document lists such important elements as: raising awareness and political commitment; community action to reduce the harmful use of alcohol; health-sector response -- in particular harm reduction and harm minimisation; drink-driving policies and countermeasures -- which obviously we have in the state of Victoria; addressing the availability of alcohol; addressing marketing of alcoholic beverages; and pricing policies. The effective strategies to reduce harm from alcohol are well known in literature throughout the world.

Paragraph 13 of this document states:

13. Addressing the availability of alcohol.

Regulating production and distribution of alcoholic beverages is an effective strategy to reduce harmful use of alcohol and in particular to protect young people and other vulnerable groups. Many countries have some restrictions on the sale of alcohol. These restrictions cover the age of consumers, the type of retail establishments that can sell alcoholic beverages, and licensing, with limits on hours and days of sale and regulations on vendors and the density of outlets.
The density of outlets is an issue that needs to be resolved here in Melbourne in particular.

Paragraph 15 of the report addresses pricing policies, and states:

15. Pricing policies. Price is an important determinant of alcohol consumption and, in many contexts, of the extent of alcohol-related problems.

Considerable evidence has accumulated to support the use of tax changes as a means of influencing price. High tax rates may not be the first choice of policy in countries where alcohol-related problems are less important or there is a considerable informal market ... Even in such countries, decreases in prices of alcoholic beverages or an increase in disposable income without appropriate adjustment in those prices could counteract such policies.
There is a strong body of evidence that taxing alcohol according to the volume of alcohol per alcoholic beverage is the way to go. That is certainly what is done in the United Kingdom. It is interesting that the Henry tax review has flagged that as the way Australia should go. The international evidence is that that is what needs to be done, but in Australia that is a federal issue and not a state issue.

However, at state level we can address the availability of alcohol, which I have already spoken about, and the marketing of alcoholic beverages. Paragraph 14 of the World Health Organisation report states:

14. Addressing marketing of alcoholic beverages. Young people who have chosen to drink alcoholic beverages and who drink regularly are an important market segment for alcohol producers. It is very difficult to target young adult consumers without exposing cohorts of adolescents under the legal age to the same marketing practices. Controls or partial bans on volume, placement and content of alcohol advertising are important parts of a strategy, and research results underline the need for such controls or bans, in particular to protect adolescents and young people from pressure to start drinking.

That is another area where more action is needed at the state level.

I was interested to read an article by Geoff Munro which appeared in the Age of 22 January. I know Geoff from my previous work at the Australian Drug Foundation. His article deals with sponsorship for the Big Day Out in Australia and New Zealand by five large alcohol companies. In his article he points out the contradiction between allowing those companies to be the main sponsors of the event -- and to all intents and purposes the only sponsors of the event -- when a lot of young people who are under the legal drinking age also attend the event. His article mentions the Victorian government's latest innovation: the ministerial portfolio for the respect agenda. His article notes:

If we want our children to respect themselves, their friends and peers, their parents and teachers, and others they don't even know, we have to show that same respect to them, yet we let them down by allowing alcohol to colonise youth culture.

The World Health Organisation's European Charter on Alcohol states that young people should be 'protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages'.

In Victoria we still have a long way to go in terms of alcohol sponsorship of events, particularly sporting events and, in this case, the Big Day Out.

I would like to say at the outset that I am not against alcohol; I drink alcohol. However, I support what I just read to members from the World Health Organisation, and I understand, from my work in this area at the Australian Drug Foundation, the large body of evidence that points to pricing policies and licensing regimes -- in terms of the availability of alcohol -- as really effective measures to deal with alcohol-related harm.

It is worth stating at the outset too that alcohol-related harm is not restricted to just 'alcohol-fuelled violence', which is what we seem to be focusing on in this debate.

Alcohol-fuelled violence definitely is a concern and does occur, but there are other harms stemming from alcohol, such as people being involved in accidents and the medium and long-term effects on people's health. All of these forms of harm can be mitigated by a combination of measures, including pricing and licensing to restrict availability.

I turn to Ms Lovell's motion. We have had quite an extensive look at the motion. I would have to say it makes some relevant points, but it also overstates the case in other respects. It would be fair to say that this motion perpetuates some confusion that could be noted in the public discussion that has been raging or that has come to light since the Tote Hotel in Collingwood flagged that it was going to close down -- and it has subsequently closed down -- due to what it called the new licensing conditions. That was an issue of concern to us, particularly to me, from the point of view of not wanting to see a music venue close down.

Going to see live music is an integral part of my life and has been since -- should I say -- I turned 18.

Mrs Petrovich -- Last week.

Ms PENNICUIK -- Thank you, Mrs Petrovich; yes, it was not that long ago! I enjoy going to see live music and have done for many years. I have many friends who are musicians, and my partner is a musician as well, so I am quite familiar with the issues raised by the Tote. However, the problem raised in the media reports was confusing. What did the new laws mean and what were the things that were actually impacting on the Tote and on other venues, which are being referred to today in this motion?

The first part of Ms Lovell's motion talks about hardship caused to many social, sporting and community clubs; small licensed grocers and bottle shops; live music venues; smaller pubs; and vignerons and other licensed venues as a consequence of the Brumby government's unfair liquor licensing regime. Ms Lovell and Mr Hall raised quite a few examples of licensees that they say have been unfairly impacted on by this licensing regime. I am not sure that the licensees they referred to have been impacted on unfairly -- or unpredictably. The whole aim of the regime that was put in place by the legislation last year was to increase liquor licence fees for venues and for packaged liquor outlets, and the effect has been that people's liquor licence fees have gone up. Nobody should be surprised about that, because that was the intent of the legislation, and as was alluded to in the World Health Organisation report, that is an effective method for reducing alcohol-related harm.

As I said, quite a few examples were raised which I think just serve to perpetuate some confusion, and they are really just the result of the regime raising the amount paid for licences across the board. That may be viewed as unfair by some people, but it was the intent of the legislation. One example Mr Hall gave was a bed and breakfast, I think, whose licence had been $50 and was going up to $400 -- for the ability to serve alcohol. I think anybody would have to say that $400 a year is not very expensive and that $50 a year was probably not very high; as was suggested to me, it is almost on par with a fishing licence. Yes, the cost of licences has gone up.

In the first paragraph of the motion there is also, however, the issue of vignerons -- people who sell wine, for example, at markets. That has been brought to our attention. They have been caught up in what the government has called the risks. One of the risks is selling alcohol outside normal trading hours, being 9.00 a.m. till 11.00 p.m., such that if you trade outside those hours -- to 1.00 a.m. or to 3.00 a.m. -- the licence goes up. Trading between 11.00 p.m. and 1.00 a.m. is one sort of risk, and trading between 1.00 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. is seen as a higher risk, and the licence fees go up accordingly. Caught up in this seem to be people who sell wine they may produce -- organic wines, for example. They take them to the market and set up at 6.00 a.m., and so they are caught in those non-trading hours between 3.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. and are being slugged with the very high licence fee, which is actually aimed at venues which are trading in the wee hours of the morning.
That seems to be a glitch in the system. One of those wine cellars have provided us with some figures that show that fees at the South Melbourne Market have gone up from $1600 to $6000, with the same increase at the Queen Victoria Market, and at the Clifton Hill and Prahran markets fees have gone from $249 to $1590 and $500 to $1590 respectively.

My colleague Colleen Hartland has written to the liquor licensing commission, which is now the responsibility of the Director of Liquor Licensing, Ms Maclellan, to ask her to clarify that issue. As Ms Lovell mentioned in her contribution, it has been reported in the Weekly Times that Minister Robinson said he will look at that issue and do some work on refining those risk categories because it appears that activity is being caught up unexpectedly in a risk category not aimed at it. Certainly that could be tweaked.

The second and third points in Ms Lovell's motion are:

(2) notes the Brumby government's unfair liquor licensing regime directly threatens the future of Victoria's live music scene as demonstrated by the closure of iconic live music venue the Tote Hotel in Collingwood with the consequential loss of opportunities for musicians and the loss of jobs for full time and part time staff;

(3) notes that uniform licensing conditions requiring security staff to be engaged at licensed venues featuring live or amplified music are making the performance of live music at some low-risk venues financially unviable with serious consequences for Victoria's music industry.

The Greens agree that the linking the provision of live music in a venue with the requirement to pay for a higher risk licence is not a good thing because if we are talking about the risk of violence or alcohol-related harm, that is unrelated to music and should be related to the risk of alcohol harm. We agree that that is an issue.

When it was first raised the problem as to what was actually happening at the Tote Hotel in Collingwood was very confusing to us. It seemed that, along with all the venues the same as the Tote Hotel, its licensing fees had gone up by probably almost 50 per cent.

Many venues such as the Tote had not changed the way they were operating; they were still operating as they always had.

We acknowledge that the Tote has been a trouble-free venue, but it seems that, contrary to reports in the media and what is in this motion, the requirement for security where there is live music is a longstanding one. As Mr Leane pointed out, that requirement has been around for about 10 years. It is certainly not something that was established in the recent changes to the liquor licensing regime. What may be happening is that it is starting to be enforced more often.

Mr Barber looked on the liquor licensing website for venues in his electorate and found that there are 107 venues with general licences in Fitzroy, North Fitzroy, Collingwood and Abbotsford.

Of those, 21 have identical conditions to those for the Tote Hotel, and 22 others have some other condition that is either a variation or a softer version or some sort of restriction related to the issues of security and CCTV (closed-circuit television). If there is live or amplified music there are requirements, which can vary slightly, to have security cameras that start 30 minutes before and finish 30 minutes after music is being played, and the requirement is for two security guards for between one and 100 people.

The Greens have been concerned about the linking of live music to the requirement for security because venues that do not have anywhere near 100 patrons are being caught up. They have music playing and are not causing any trouble. They are being slugged with a requirement to provide security when security is not necessary because the other risk factors of numbers of patrons, hours of operation and consumption of alcohol are not there.

The Greens have looked at this issue and developed what we call our four-point plan to save Victoria's live music industry. The first point is to target violence, not talent -- that is, make the triggers for special licence conditions a history of violence, levels of alcohol consumption, late-night operations or patron numbers, but not the presence of live or amplified music.

The second point is to strike the right balance. Liquor licensing policies and laws should support the aims of the state live music policy which should be developed and should make it clear that changes to licence conditions must be assessed for their impact on the viability of live music venues as well as reducing alcohol-related violence.

The third point is to give live music the attention it deserves. As live music is a major feature of Melbourne's culture, protecting and promoting live music should be a key job for the arts and tourism ministers. Those ministers should create a forum where all parts of the live music community can be a sounding board for proposed changes to licence conditions.
The fourth point is to abandon the proposal to introduce 2.00 a.m. lockouts permanently. The state government has a proposal to introduce 2.00 a.m. lockouts before the Parliament. That bill is still on the notice paper. The Greens oppose this measure because the 2.00 a.m. lockouts trial simply did not work, but left people wandering the streets and made everyone less safe.

As Ms Lovell said in her contribution, people in the live music industry have met with the liquor licensing director who has only gone as far as saying that she would ease security conditions on venues on a case-by-case basis.

As Fair Go 4 Live Music is saying, the issue of linking live music with the security conditions is what is knocking off gigs around town and creating the cultural carnage. We agree. There should not be a link between the provision of live music and the need for security. The need for security should be based on the other risks that I mentioned before.

There is no proven link between the presence of music and violence, and the regulatory impact statement for the liquor control reform regulations states at page 4:

In relation to other venue types, particularly those offering live and recorded music, limitations in the data ... prevented drawing any firm conclusions about whether they represent a risk factor. For this reason, they are not included in the proposed model as specific risk factors.

On page 22 it states:

The relationship between licences offering 'live and amplified music' and alcohol-related harm could not be adequately tested in the analysis of Victorian data due to data limitations ...
That is, there is no evidence that the presence of music per se is associated with violence.

The ability of the liquor licensing commissioner to impose special conditions on the basis of the presence of live music may be targeting particular small venues, particularly those which host live music during ordinary trading hours and which pose little risk of violence but would not be able to afford security personnel and would not need security personnel in most instances.

Most of those larger venues that do have the other risk factors -- heavy consumption of alcohol and large numbers of patrons -- do provide security as a matter of course anyway, so they are not being affected by the requirement to have security linked with music because they fall into that category because of their other risk factors.

Ms Lovell talked about a grocer in Port Fairy whose licence fee had increased from $249 to $6330. As far as we know that is because of the particular way that operation wishes to operate its business, so it falls into that particular category. In fact what has happened in that particular case is not a surprise.

Paragraph (5) of Ms Lovell's motion talks about increasing liquor licensing fees from $15 million in 2009 to $35.8 million in 2010 and that this is a burden on business, but, as Mr Leane outlined, it is a cost-recovery system and is meant to be a cost-recovery system, as many other licensing systems are, such as chemical licensing et cetera. Across all sorts of industries licensing fees are meant to be based on cost recovery, and I think Mr Leane makes a very good point, as does the World Health Organisation, that that should be the case. It was not the case in the past, and I think Mr Leane used a figure of $380 million as the estimated cost of alcohol-related harm per year in Victoria.

Paragraph (6) of Ms Lovell's motion condemns the government for its failure to implement a genuinely risk-based licensing regime that provides for licensing fees and conditions appropriate to the venue and activity. As I said earlier, the system is meant to increase licences across the board for venues supplying alcohol, so that is not a surprise to anyone.

There needs to be some discretion with some small tweaking to the system in terms of vignerons and those types of facilities that seem to have been caught unawares and been classed as high risk when they are not really, but to all intents and purposes the risk-based fees do correlate with the risk that the venues pose. Ms Lovell said that if there were venues that were problematic and caused a lot of harm in the community, they should be punished. The system does allow for that so the compliance history is taken into account in terms of licence fees. If there were one to two paid infringements in the previous 12 months, there will be an increase in the fee of $3180, and if there were more than three paid infringements, there would be an increase in the fee of $6360, so that in fact is in the system.

Even though Ms Lovell's motion picks up what we think are the two major issues, which are selling alcohol at markets early in morning and the issue of linking the presence of music with the requirement for security, which is actually not part of the liquor licensing regime that was brought in with the bill last year, apart from that it does not appear to us that the issues raised by Ms Lovell are a crisis; they are not a crisis. They are the foreseeable results of increasing liquor licences across the board, and the reason for that is to reduce alcohol-related harm, and that is a good thing because that is what the evidence all around the world says is one of the most effective things to do.

Paragraph (7) of Ms Lovell's motion asks the government to scrap its unfair licensing system. We would not agree with it being scrapped, but we would agree with it being tweaked and refined in the areas where it seems to be mistargeted.

I conclude with those few words.

Click here for the full debate