I do. Liam, can you pelase open another old bar in Sydney. You're up here next week right? can you please bring it with you?

I'm sixteen. I'm old enough to marry and have children, but I can't drink in pubs. When will the government realize the young adults are mature and responsible people?

change the age of consent.

next!

I'm sixteen, right? I can join the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, but I can't drink in pubs. When will the government, right, realize that young adults have a valid contribution to society?

16 yr olds haven't even finished growing.

what are you suggestions to a possible solution, liam? laying low about the whole thing and hoping we'll all be left alone eventually? i feel this is all we can do, but won't work as they have the POWAHH to just keep changing the laws anyway to however they see fit.

A lot of people think that young adults are violent! Well, how would you feel if you were old enough to have intercourse with the partner of your choice, but yet you could not drink in pubs? Huh?

LOL @djllxs

i will do my best to at some point in my life open a bar in sydney.

ok so here is my thought on what we could do, it is not a solution but it is how i would like it played out.

i do not believe tat liquor licensing are being fair, and although that email going around is correct it is not a new law as claimed, it is actually quite old but the difference is that it is now being enforced. there is a massive issue at the moment with the violence in the city and the fact that the media has picked it up as a topical issue. so i see there being 2 choices right now

1) fight like hell and get laws put in place that protect venues that have no violence and heavily punish those that do. the government is punishing good people aswell as the fuckwits who are just in it for a quick buck at any cost.

2) be quiet and dont even whisper a concern and hope like hell that things calm down in the media and i believe that liquor licensing will also calm down and leave smaller venues alone again. things will just slowly go back to the way they were.

there is a way to sort this out fairly but unfortunately i am not in charge of liquor licensing and they wont listen to me until i am.

Down with the system!

if they would just put a system in place that sees troublesome venues punished and the venues that have no problems left alone the n i think this would push owners of venues to be more pro active in keeping their venues safe and if they dont they will get fucked over.

as i said though, the media has a lot to do with why liquor licensing are becoming so strict. violence in the city gets on the news and a whole bunch of people that never go to the city and that have never seen violence in the city start screaming for a solution.

its a real toughy.

also i do realise how bad my typing is today and i make no apologies for it.

I'd be happy to help 'as a concerned ratepayer' - but firstly 2 things:
1. is it possible for someone to post the letter doing the rounds? That way we too can send it in this afternoon, or a variant on it.
2. liam or anyone else - how can the laws ''protect venues that have no violence'' - is there a practical way to phrase this? eg. exemptions from some of the more stringent aspects of the legislation for venues with less than 300 people / venues with less than x incidents of violence per annum (although one gang with a vendetta could fix that) / ?

There is violence at smaller venues, you just don't hear about it.

The pub across the road from RRR had one of their staff members assaulted after her shift and the management allowed a stalker to hang out there for over six months and abuse the staff member in question.

my understanding that we have until 5pm today to make a submission?

Letter that has been doing the rounds:

Liquor Control Reform Regulations 2009 RIS
Responsible Alcohol Victoria
GPO Box 4304
Melbourne VIC 3001
liquorregulationsris@justice.vic.gov.au

Submission

1. Introduction

1.1 The Liquor Control Reform Regulations, Regulatory Impact Statement, is a large document therefore this submission will not be addressing every issue raised in the Statement but will instead focus on a number of issues of concern in inner city live music venues. The Government is to be lauded for its attempt to address the issue of alcohol related harm. Clearly this is an issue that the public has expressed concern about and government must respond. However in its response the government must ensure that the law is proportionate to its intended purpose and does not unduly impact on small local venues to the detriment of the cultural life of the local community.
2. Identifying risk factors

2.1 The Statement identifies a number of risk factors including the following:

· operating hours,
· compliance history,
· venue type - whether it is a bar, nightclub or pub
· crowding
· location; and
· noise

It is right that the government consider such factors but the Statement also points out that ‘risk factors need to be substantiated by a sound evidence base and rationale’ (page 17). It is to this factor that we wish to address our submission. In doing so, we also wish to stress that as well as having an evidence based approach, that any resulting laws or regulations must be nuanced sufficiently to provide maximum protection against alcohol related violence BUT also needs to ensure that small venues - which have no record of violent or drunken behaviour - are not overly burdened with high compliance costs that it affects their ongoing business viability. Indeed, financial viability is recognised as a concern in the Statement itself. For example, Chapter 6, 6.1 states that it is important to acknowledge that ‘the survival rate of businesses in the industry is comparatively low, and …. some businesses may be only marginally profitable’ (page 43). This is particularly important in the context of small local venues.

2.2 In addition to the requirement for ‘sound evidence’ and the necessity to recognise small venues as quite distinct from large venues, the Regulatory Authority needs to also consider the role that smaller venues play in the local community. These small venues have provided local people with quality live music for decades. In many inner city suburbs grass roots music thrives much to the delight of local residents. These venues are supported by local residents who frequent them and are not loud venues that are the subject of local complaints.
2.3 However over the past month, in an attempt to reduce alcohol related violence in the city region inspectors have begun to enforce a very unnecessary regulation on these small local venues outside the CBD venues. In recent weeks small venues have been told that security guards must be employed at any pub where live music is being played. Clearly security is necessary at large venues but applying the same requirement to these small venues that have no history of violence is not ‘a sound evidence base’ for enforcing the requirement. Unless there is such evidence then security is not necessary at small venues.

2.4 Responding to the second issue namely the financial viability of these small venues also illustrates the inappropriateness of the requirement for bouncers. Take for example, those small pubs who have been putting on Sunday afternoon music events for years for crowds of around 40 people or so where no violence has ever occurred, and the majority of the crowd over 35 years old. They will now need to employ a security guard. The profit margins are low here. The pubs are only able to pay bands around $300 dollars per session. A security guard will cost $250. If a security guard is required at all entrances this amount can be doubled. In addition, these venues close at the latest by 1am, with the music finishing by 12.30. These are not large, loud nightclub venues.
2.5 The consequence of this requirement has been that a number of local venues in the North Fitzroy/East Brunswick area have already cancelled their resident bands. In one case, a band had been playing on a weekly basis for 4 years has lost in employment. That residency has now been cancelled and may have a flow-on effect in terms of reducing bar and kitchen staff. Other small venues that cannot afford to pay a local band as well as security staff have also been forced to cancel their musicians, again resulting in less patronage, which in turn requires less staff. This surely cannot have been the purpose of the law.

1. Recommendations and conclusion

3.1 The need to curb alcohol related violence in Melbourne is clear. However to punish those who add to the vibrant Melbourne arts community is simply bad law, ill-conceived and a poorly thought out response. The law or regulation needs to be re-examined. Laws must be proportionate to the ends they seek to achieve. Laws that aim to curb violence and drunkenness in big venues need to be targeted towards those venues. A blanket requirement aimed at any venue that has live music fails to acknowledge or consider the following issues the difference in size of the venues and the risks stemming from different crowd capacity. It also illustrates an ignorance of the different types of venues and the patrons that frequent them. It is not law based on ‘sound evidence’. Furthermore, rather than facilitating local culture and arts it undermines the development of them.
3.2 We recommend that the Regulatory Authority develop better targeted laws proportionate to their ends, and sufficiently flexible to allow adaptation to comply with the needs of different venues, crowd capacity and community needs.

thanks Tim. Can we dmake a distinction perhaps between venues that host primarily cover bands versus those that play original music? It's the venues that host primarily original music whose continuance I am most interested in protecting.

The correlation, or connection, between alcohol and live music needs to be dismantled.

Indeed it already is/has been by people running ''un-licensed'' warehouse gigs. This is where we have to head in terms of a healthy live music scene.

Then we won't give a fuck about liquor licensing laws.

The pub across the road from RRR had

The Lowie? Jeebus H Crisp. I sure didn't hear anything about that. I love that fucken place!

'liam or anyone else - how can the laws ''protect venues that have no violence'' - is there a practical way to phrase this? eg. exemptions from some of the more stringent aspects of the legislation for venues with less than 300 people / venues with less than x incidents of violence per annum (although one gang with a vendetta could fix that) / ?'

this is in the hands of liquor licensing, im not sure why they think it is easier to just put a blanket law over all venues because it really isnt. if they just focusied on the venues that say had the police called to it then that would sort it out. the old bar hasnt had the police called to it in the at least 6 years that i know of so why should i be involved in harsher laws?

but as ive always said, victoria is a babysitting state. we are apparently unable to police ourselves what so ever.

The correlation, or connection, between alcohol and live music needs to be dismantled

we need to all get over the fact that they are praying on 'live music or bands', its not the case. its just that they dont see the difference between a live band or a dj or loud house music. thats the issue. if you went through police records id say that venues with djs have way more violence than venues with bands.

live venues attract a crowd that generally goes there to see a band, venues that have djs tend to attract a crowd that dont go out a lot or are there to prey on the opposite sex or to just get fucked up.

know the name of the act?

Try here? there's a couple of liquor ones in there

nope, i just called up liquor licensing to ask about a strange clause i found on a licence and it was explained to me as above.

if you are at a live music venue you will see that while a band plays the bar slows almost to a halt, and then people drink between bands. bands normally play an average of 30 mins so i would suggest that this is a fantastic breather for the system instead of being at a so called ''beer barn'' where people just drink constantly throughout the night and try to pull the opposite sex.

Yep.

^ Yeah would be great if more bars and pubs were actively encouraged to provide other types of entertainment other than drinking or gambling.

*actively encouraged by the government

i'm wondering if that 1980 legislation was paving the way to allow more gaming in venues? poker machines were introduced in 1992 in vic, but gaming was happening before that. the ex memo to the 1980 legislation could be an unintentionally useful read - i'll track it down if noone else does (probably on the weekend though)

this reads as live music or dj type entertainment specifically though.

I'd still like a return to the days when licensed venues had to serve a meal on Sundays - an obligation that could be discharged by means of a platter of marginally edible slices of processed meat.

^free sausage rolls & party pies!

Tacos?

the bridge mall inn in ballarat had one of these licences until the late 90s. By 2000 LLV had reissued it as a 3am extension mon -sat pretty much in the form licences are today. They did this without consultation - it just arrived as a fait accompli on renewal.

I'd still like a return to the days when licensed venues had to serve a meal on Sundays - an obligation that could be discharged by means of a platter of marginally edible slices of processed meat.

Roast and three veg - roast spud, mash with chips!

Flaming bar hosed down in booze crackdown
Megan Levy
September 15, 2010 - 11:34AM

A Melbourne nightspot where patrons can dance on a flaming bar has been stripped of its nightclub licence and fined $10,000 as part of a crackdown on booze-fuelled violence in the city.

Icon Bar is one of three nightspots hit with fines and cuts to operating hours after Victoria Police took the licensee group to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) following drunk and anti-social behaviour at the premises.

Police outlined a series of licensing breaches and issues at the three nightspots - Icon Bar, The Loft and The Long Room, all owned by the same licensee group - including:

• urination and vomiting outside The Loft, on Lonsdale Street;

• Damage to properties near The Loft;

• a drunk female lying in a comatose state outside The Long Room, on Collins Street;

• the dangerous practice of staff putting flammable liquid onto the bar and igniting it at Icon Bar, on Flinders Lane.

On its website, Icon Bar is promoted as ''the party venue of Melbourne with a well-deserved reputation over the past 10 years for its party hard atmosphere''.

''More importantly Icon Bar is the only place where you can dance on the bar!!'' the website says.

Following a settlement reached between the licensee group and police at VCAT yesterday, Icon Bar's licence will be changed from a general licence to a restaurant and cafe licence from December 1. Icon Bar has also been ordered to pay a $10,000 fine to Liquor Licensing Victoria.

The Loft had its trading hours changed from a 24-hour operation to 3am with a 2am lock out, while The Long Room was ordered to pay a $3500 fine to Liquor Licensing Victoria.

Inspector Bernie Jackson from Melbourne East police has ''serious concerns'' about violence and aggressive behaviour and the supply of alcohol to drunk patrons at the three nightspots.

''Public safety is our number one priority and I believe that a key part of this is ensuring licensed venues are being run properly and in accordance to their licences,'' he said.

''While we work in partnership with licensees on addressing a number of issues we do have an expectation that venues will be run in a safe manner. When we have concerns, we will take action.''

Inspector Jackson said police would continue to visit licensed premises across Melbourne to monitor licensing requirements.

''We want people to be able to go out, have fun, and get home safely and we believe licensing compliance is essential for this to occur,'' he said.

The licensee group has been contacted for comment.

claps hands (as long as they keep the flaming cocktails at the richmond tiki lounge)

WIN!

I entirely did not know that you didn't need to get a license to have a BYO restaurant:

http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/liquor_info_byo.asp

But what I want to know is: what are the license requirements for BYO at events?

Wow.

PEOPLE who move to the inner city and then complain about the noise from the pub next door are often derided. But what about when a pub moves in next door? ''We certainly never envisaged that a 200-seat hospitality venue would be installed 15 metres from our kitchen window,'' said Karen Conway, a resident of Whittell Street in Surry Hills.

Baillieu Government in fines, laws crackdown on drunks

UPDATE 3.20pm: VIOLENT drunks will be banned from pubs and clubs for up to six months and hit with fines of up to $1100 under new laws being introduced to parliament.

Anyone who is booted out of a bar and loiters in the area will also be breaking the new laws and could face fines of almost $600 in an attempt to stem the bloodshed on Melbourne’s streets.

The announcement comes on the back of a possible probe into whether the previous government fudged the figures on the extent of Melbourne’s city violence.

Those deemed to be “drunk, violent or quarrelsome’’ will be issued with a barring notice by police or publicans, which is legally binding and prevents them re-entering the same bar or club for up to a month for their first offence.

Anyone who commits a second offence can be barred for two months, and up to six months for a third offence.

Although venues have always had a common law right to ban individuals from their premises, Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O'Brien said the law had fallen into disuse and it was appropriate to hand the powers to licensees.

“Venue managers have a responsibility and an interest in making sure their venues are safe for the community.

“It doesn't help any venue manager to have a reputation where it is not safe to go for a night out, so we think it will be very welcomed by venue managers.

“It will give them more powers to be able to manage their own premises, but on the flip side is expected of venue managers.''

The changes will also hand venue operators the power to police their own interpretations of actions that warrant a barring notice, but must meet the statutory threshold that a person is in imminent risk, or that they are behaving in a drunk, violent or quarrelsome manner.

Mr O’Brien said it was backing up its election pledge to boost the powers of police and licencees.

Mr O’Brien said the proposed changes to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and Summary Offences Act 1996 were aimed at cracking down on obnoxious and alcohol-fuelled problems.

“We promised to send a strong signal that drunken, loutish and threatening behaviour on our streets would not be tolerated and that people who engaged in such behaviour could expect a punishment that would hurt,” Mr O’Brien said.

“Under these reforms, police and venue operators will have greater power to deal with people who get themselves drunk and cause trouble on the streets or in licensed venues.

The new changes include:

RAISING the on-the-spot fine for being drunk and disorderly from $478 to $590 for a first offence, repeat offenders face $1100 fines;

INCREASING on-the-spot fine for anyone drunk, violent or quarrelsome who refuses to leave a licensed venue from $238 to $597;

INTRODUCING a new law to make it an offence to loiter around a licensed venue after being refused entry or told to leave;

MAKING it against the law to try to re-enter a venue within 24 hours of being denied entry or told to leave a venue; and,

CREATING new powers for licencees and police to ban anti-social patrons from entering venues for set periods.

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce the banning from any venue when you've been banned from another.

MAKING it against the law to try to re-enter a venue within 24 hours of being denied entry or told to leave a venue

There needs to be exceptions to this. Not very practical.

interesting review on a book that claims to investigate the history of the Australian pub