Brumby letter, about liquor licensing and the Tote


Here is a letter John Brumby sent out to MPs on Jan 14 or 15 so they could sign it with their own name and send it off to constituents writing to them about the Tote. I found it online, and have verified its authenticity.

It contains lies and distortions, and my response is further down the page.

Chunks of this were in a letter sent to a constituent by Tony Lupton MP, PO Box 2314, Prahran, on February 24, the day after the SLAM rally and two days after the Government signed their silly accord, showing that the Government isn’t serious about honesty in this situation.

The Brumby Labor Government is reforming the liquor licensing system because we want people to be able to enjoy a night out in safety.

For the first time, the liquor licence fees will cover the real cost of policing and regulating licensed venues across Victoria and will be channelled into making our nightspots safer.

Before the new fees were introduced, there was a significant shortfall between the revenue generated by fees and the actual cost of regulating and policing licensed venues. This shortfall was paid for by the rest of the Victorian community.

The new fee structure was subject to a period of public consultation. We listened to the community and adjusted the fee structure so large, late night venues will pay the highest fees while smaller, earlier closing venues will pay commensurately less.

Late trading venues that also provide live or amplified music are also subject to additional conditions to protect community amenity around licensed venues and to keep patrons and the streets safe. The venues are required to employ additional trained security staff, install quality CCTV security cameras and ensure all staff in the venue are trained in responsible alcohol service.

Last year, this Government asked the Director of Liquor Licensing to examine how these high-risk conditions work, to make sure they are applied specifically to the venues that do pose risks to the community.

As a result of this investigation, venues are now able to apply to the Director to be exempted from these conditions.

In the case of the Tote Hotel, it's important to note the venue did not have to abide by high-risk conditions, as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had granted it a stay from the conditions. Therefore, the Tote did not have to pay for additional security and did not incur any additional business costs because of the high-risk conditions.

Also, it has erroneously been reported that Tote's liquor licence fee increased 500 per cent from last year.

Last year, the Tote paid $4289.50 for a liquor licence. This year, because of the new risk-based fees, the Tote was liable to pay $5962.50

The difference is $1673. The increase from last year's fees amounts to an extra $32.17 per week - or around nine pots of beer priced at $3.90 - or $4.60 per day - less than two pots.

* * * * * * *

Here’s my response:

The Brumby Labor Government is reforming the liquor licensing system because we want people to be able to enjoy a night out in safety. - but there won’t be anywhere to GO in safety! Honestly, John Brumby, what is your idea of a night out, and where do you suggest people go, if you are decimating the safe, non-club music venues? I wish a reporter would ask you these questions. People won’t even be able to go to the market and eat a sausage and guzzle some wine from Swords, by the time you have finished.

This shortfall was paid for by the rest of the Victorian community. - you could say this about any number of things. $30 million per year on the Grand Prix, for example. Good governments generally have many initiatives to support businesses, tourism and culture… surely subsidising the cost of administrating liquor licences comes under these headings.

We listened to the community and adjusted the fee structure so large, late night venues will pay the highest fees while smaller, earlier closing venues will pay commensurately less - this is clearly an exaggeration if not a straight-out nonsense if you look at what is actually going on—especially when you take into consideration that the bulk of alcohol is consumed off-premisis, and large alcohol shops are paying relatively small fees.

Late trading venues that also provide live or amplified music are also subject to additional conditions to protect community amenity around licensed venues and to keep patrons and the streets safe. The venues are required to employ additional trained security staff, install quality CCTV security cameras and ensure all staff in the venue are trained in responsible alcohol service. - yes, any live or amplified music, no matter what its nature or the kind of crowd it attracts. Even jukeboxes. And he conveniently leaves out the fact that if a venue has a "high risk" licence, because they trade to 3am on the weekend, they still have to have security guards at all times music plays, e.g. Tuesday evening, Saturday afternoon.

As a result of this investigation, venues are now able to apply to the Director to be exempted from these conditions. - this is clearly not working, and even if it was all cleared up tomorrow, the damage already done to people’s businesses and livelihoods has been huge.

In the case of the Tote Hotel, it's important to note the venue did not have to abide by high-risk conditions, as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had granted it a stay from the conditions. - To get this "stay" (a temporary licence), The Tote had to close at 1am, thus losing income from 1-3am trade. And this statement simply is not true - see next point.

Therefore, the Tote did not have to pay for additional security and did not incur any additional business costs because of the high-risk conditions. - This is an out-right lie. Part of the compromise to get the 'stay" was to have security guards on when music was played, even on Saturday afternoons with 10 customers. The Tote also installed expensive CCTV. I'd imagine the application to VCAT to get the temporary licence also cost money (the February 2010 one to get the permanent licence was going to cost $15,000)

Last year, the Tote paid $4289.50 for a liquor licence. This year, because of the new risk-based fees, the Tote was liable to pay $5962.50 - the increase in licence fees, whatever it was, is tiny compared with the other costs incurred by The Tote, because of the hoops liquor licensing have put The Tote through.