Thursday, 9 September 2021

 Dr READ (Brunswick) (18:30): I speak today on behalf of the Victorian Greens on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021. We have grave concerns about the bill in its current form, and I will be proposing amendments to it today. The bill represents the implementation of the second phase of the government’s review of Victoria’s liquor laws that began in 2016 and is the first time that there has been a true focus on regulating the growing online alcohol delivery services. Online sales and home delivery have been part of our lives for a while, but what we have seen over the last few years is a significant change in the way people buy food and drink in Australia. The COVID pandemic has supercharged online ordering and home delivery of alcohol. We are likely to see higher volumes of this and app-based ordering and home delivery from now on.

VicHealth data show that a lot of home-delivered alcohol is drunk by people who drink at hazardous levels. The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association found that 70 per cent of drug and alcohol clinics reported an increase in demand due to alcohol during the pandemic. So let us just review for second what alcohol does to people. Most people know about the long-term effects of alcohol: it can cause various forms of brain damage, liver damage, pancreatitis, strokes and cancer. And there are also the obvious short-term effects: poor work performance and getting into arguments and fights. Accidents often go unremarked, but violence, including family violence, is an important consequence of alcohol overuse. The last two, violence and accidents, put people in hospital immediately, whereas the other long-term effects take years to put people in hospital. But either way you look at it, the more alcohol that is consumed by the population, the more people wind up in hospital. In fact it is calculated that about 40 000 hospital admissions per year in Victoria are due to alcohol.

Home delivery of alcohol at short notice is relatively new. It has increased during the pandemic, and health authorities are calling for some limits. We know alcohol causes accidents, violence and a long list of diseases and it puts 40 000 people into hospital each year in Victoria. We do not need more people in hospital right now, and all of us MPs are pleading with people to get vaccinated to protect our hospitals, which already hold over 100 COVID patients and are rapidly heading the way of New South Wales, which has over 1000. This bill, which could do something meaningful, does very little to curb the flow of alcohol into people’s homes within minutes of them ordering it.

I will discuss one complication of home-delivered alcohol in more detail, and that is family violence. I need to be clear that by linking family violence to this bill today I am not saying that alcohol is the root cause of family violence, but it is definitely an accelerant. The recent Royal Commission into Family Violence found not only that alcohol is a fuel for more frequent and severe family violence but also that perpetrators are often exposed to alcohol abuse in childhood and that victim-survivors also disproportionately face problems with alcohol addiction as a result of their trauma. So while the bill today contains many disparate changes, what matters to me is: how does this bill address the emergence of online, rapid alcohol home delivery now that we are all more aware of the need to prevent family violence? And given the bill represents a one-in-20-year review of liquor control laws, the key questions we should consider are: does it regulate the delivery services in a manner consistent with how these businesses operate, and does it sufficiently limit the preventable harm from alcohol home delivery? I do not think any fair evaluation would suggest that it does, which is why I will be moving important amendments.

The bill does acknowledge the growth of online alcohol delivery to the home by creating an online-only vendor packaged liquor licence. It does set out basic requirements for licensees, such as restricting online deliveries to ordinary trading hours, which are 7.00 am to 11.00 pm on most days. It prohibits deliveries to persons who appear to be intoxicated and prohibits same-day unattended deliveries and any unattended deliveries if it is the customer’s first order. These measures are better than nothing, but there are clear shortcomings in the bill’s other harm-reduction measures and, critically, some missed opportunities.

Before returning to family violence I should first discuss age verification for alcohol delivery in this bill. The bill’s protections against selling to minors involve a two-stage process whereby, one, a person must tick a digital box to verify that they are over 18 and, two, a delivery driver must be instructed to check their ID on delivery. The first hurdle is just an online anachronism. It is a joke for anyone who knows about teenagers online—they will tick the box. The second hurdle fails to recognise the business model that financially incentivises completed deliveries by the drivers, nor does it require any record keeping of compliance, only that the delivery person receives instructions to check proof-of-age ID. Whether or not the delivery person actually checks ID does not seem to be important, as long as they have been instructed to.

Of course we all know that no proof-of-age checking is perfect. Past weaknesses lay in easily tamperable laminated ID cards that could be borrowed from older siblings, but the bill’s attempts to limit the online sale of alcohol—and I should add tobacco that is also delivered by the same businesses—to children are unacceptable in 2021. More bizarre is the failure of the bill to require digital age-verification technologies when New South Wales has already legislated to require them for alcohol sales from June next year. I feel a bit silly having to remind the government of how online businesses work, but the companies operating in New South Wales are the same ones that operate in Victoria, and people use the same version of an app to order alcohol regardless of what state they are in. So by next year all Victorians will already have the required digital technology on their phones to meet the New South Wales requirements. Is the Victorian government really saying that we should not use it? Nor does legislating mean banking on some unproven technology. The digital infrastructure to effectively check digital ID is already in place. The Keypass digital ID can be used when entering licensed venues in Victoria. Therefore, under standing orders, I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr READ under standing orders.

Dr READ: For reasons I have outlined, my first amendment will require digital identification checks before online alcohol sales can be confirmed, meaning Victorians will be required to use the existing online age-verification services. I have allowed 11 months for this to commence, which means Victoria’s system will come into effect at the same time as in New South Wales. I have a further amendment that recognises that licensees and employees both operate in a business model where there are financial incentives for deliveries to be completed regardless of potential harm, and also costs when alcohol is returned to the business by a delivery driver. Such an environment creates a perverse incentive for employers and employees or agents to make all deliveries, regardless of whether doing so breaches the rules aimed at reducing the harm from alcohol delivery. These deliveries are often made by younger, vulnerable casual workers who generally are not directly employed by the alcohol licensee. My amendments offer some protections for delivery drivers who do the right thing by making it an offence for licence-holders—that is, the business—to withhold payment or similarly penalise drivers who return alcohol deliveries when the recipient is a child or intoxicated or is not present to receive the order. New South Wales has similar laws to these. I would expect that such minimum protections for working Victorians would get even greater support from a Victorian Labor government.

I want to return now to the important family violence aspects of the bill. I outlined earlier why it is important that contemporary liquor regulation recognises the role of alcohol in the problem of family violence, primarily because we know that alcohol contributes to more frequent and severe family violence by perpetrators. Now, I accept that the government has consulted widely on these reforms, including with community and family violence stakeholders as they were required to by recommendation 93 of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, but to me this is what makes the bill disappointing. I note that my disappointment, by the way, is shared by victim-survivors. What the bill does is it inserts a definition of alcohol harm into the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, which will include reference to family violence and other community-level harms, including injury and property damage, but that is it.

The bill defines family violence but then does next to nothing to limit the additional damage caused by the ever-increasing volumes of alcohol being delivered directly into family homes a matter of minutes after being ordered. This government has done many good things on the issue of family violence, and I have heard moving contributions in this place by members on this issue, but good speeches do not amount to much unless the government seizes this opportunity to protect a woman who knows she is in danger after the alcohol van arrives. These businesses promise very quick delivery—under 20 minutes. Victim-survivors of family violence want this bill to set a minimum delay between ordering and when the alcohol arrives at the doorstep, and there is no delay in this bill. A delay would allow the violent drinker to sober up or pass out. It might allow that woman time to escape. So my final amendment to this bill requires that alcohol cannot be delivered to a person’s home less than 90 minutes after it was ordered. There is an exception for restaurant and cafe licensees providing limited volumes of alcohol with food.

Of course the protection provided by this amendment is not perfect, and it does not address the root cause of men’s violence in the home, but it is also likely that in some circumstances this delay will limit alcohol-fuelled violence in the home. I concede that imposing a delay does limit a person’s ability to have large quantities of alcohol delivered to their door almost immediately, but is waiting 90 minutes unreasonable when compared to the damage a family violence perpetrator might do?

The government has said that they may at some future date be able to set regulations to achieve some of the objectives in my amendments, but as recent history demonstrates this government has been very obliging to the alcohol and gambling industries. Here, it is watering down even the most basic harm minimisation legislation and essentially allowing self-regulation. We do not have to look too hard to see how well such an approach works out in the end.

I am also aware that there are many other potential problems and loopholes in this bill, and I have only proposed three amendments, representing the absolute minimum required for this bill to be of significant benefit to public health. I know there will be considerable scrutiny in the other place, and the Greens will definitely be looking at further amendments at that time. As one victim-survivor recently said, this bill is not just about changing lines on a piece of legislation. Our decision has a real impact on people’s lives.

 Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (18:42): I am delighted to speak today in support of this important liquor licensing reform measure aimed at further modernising Victoria’s liquor licensing regime for the online era and providing for the minimisation of harm to be a principal object of the bill. We have just been hearing from the member for Brunswick comments that will challenge us in terms of implementation if not in any other way, but implementation is going to be very, very important. I have also heard comments from the member for Euroa, and I will need to say a bit more about that, I am afraid, in terms of the concern over the dry areas, which is just light years apart from the concerns of the member for Brunswick, I would have thought.

Let me continue. This bill will see the government’s second phase of licensing reform built upon the government’s Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and designed to modernise our regulatory framework and minimise the effects of alcohol misuse and abuse while acknowledging the positive effects—culturally, economically and also on employment—that result from licensed premises in our society. In short, this bill is about making the act fit for our times. These reforms will balance the need for harm minimisation measures and also reducing unnecessary and unfair red tape for the industry.

Let me explore a few of the key features. The ones that I have selected tonight are the dry area polls, harm minimisation, the risk at point of supply and, if there is time left for it, supply to minors, red tape and appeal rights for proprietors. We will see how we go.

If we look at the dry area polls, in making the act fit for our times the legislation involves a matter of particular relevance to my electorate of Hawthorn—namely, the infamous Boroondara dry area. The affected areas within the electorate of Hawthorn and neighbouring electorates of Box Hill and Burwood include parts of Glen Iris, Camberwell and Canterbury. In acknowledging that there are conscientiously held views on both sides of the proposed provisions, it is important to note the following. One, the status quo reflects the prohibitionist movement of the 1920s—Al Capone and that sort of thing—when the local option vote was enacted. Dry areas are relics from another age. It is time to move on, and this is what the government is prepared to do now. The second thing is that the licences involved today are for general-purpose hotels, on-premises bars or club licences, and a licence cannot be granted unless a vote of electors in the neighbourhood of the proposed licensed venue indicates a majority of electors support the application. No vote is currently required for BYO permits or restaurant and cafe licences. Since 2004 the Victorian Electoral Commission has conducted polls which have cost almost $500 000. On average polls cost about $10 000. Residents failing to vote are subject to a fine of $80, with a reminder penalty of $25 should they be tardy in paying up. This is an extraordinary financial burden on both proprietors and local residents. Now, this will interest you: 56 dry area polls have been conducted since 2000. Only one—I repeat, one—vote in the City of Whitehorse resulted in a licence application being refused. This statistic underscores the point that the existing measures are outdated.

The government’s policy, set out in the Premier’s 5 November 2018 election commitment, has been to end the anachronism of dry area polls by bringing all Victorians under the same licensing rules. There has been an outrageous fear campaign started by members of the opposition in the other place and continued on here by the member for Euroa. I was just surprised, really. In a completely different vein to the sorts of important things that the member for Brunswick was talking about, we had this business from the member for Euroa:

I am sure that the member for Kew will wish to go into further detail on this, as no doubt Mr Davis and Ms Crozier in the other place will also, but they have received literally thousands of responses to their survey, which has overwhelmingly supported the retention of the dry zone.

And it goes on from the member for Euroa. The claims really are quite farcical when you think about it. They would have us believe that nightclubs and pokie machines would open on every street corner were this bill to pass. We heard from the member for Box Hill on just this very thing earlier today. It does not take much to see that these claims are overblown. There are plenty of areas in my electorate and indeed in the broader city and state where dry area measures are not in place, and those residents did not suddenly wake up one morning to find that a new nightclub had all of a sudden appeared at the end of the street. This has really been unhelpful in all this discussion, I would have to say, to be frank. They claim that the community have lost their voice—this is on the dry area business by the way, nothing to do with the more important matters raised by the member for Brunswick. Again it is simply untrue. The community will have the right to object to liquor licensing applications as set out in the original act. The abolition of dry zone polls will simply mean that the same application processes apply across these local government areas as the rest of the state. This includes compliance with applicable local laws and planning permits. The community therefore have the right to object through the council process or directly to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. The bill also makes a number of changes to make the serving and selling of liquor safer than it has been before.

So we have in this the aim of further harm minimisation. The commission will be obliged to consider the matter of harm as a principal object of the bill in all licensing applications. This mandatory measure on family violence and other social harms such as injury and property damage will, it is intended, advance the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence.

We also have the issue of the risk at the point of supply. As a higher level local community risk is thought to attach to larger packaged liquor outlets with a floor space greater than 750 square metres, if you please, licence applications of this type will receive a more rigorous commission review requiring community consultation and an impact statement, establishing a new online vendor licence category for those vendors supplying packaged liquor for purchase through internet and online orders. Delivery to persons who appear to be intoxicated will be prohibited, as will be same-day unattended deliveries and unattended deliveries on any day it is the customer’s first delivery. There are issues about the risk of supply to minors. Again, 150 metres distance at least from a school is one of the provisions that are there.

An important aspect of it is getting rid of the red tape. You know the phrase ‘getting defeated in detail’, and that is what can happen. If you have got red tape, it can count against you, can’t it, and count against what you are trying to do and so on. So any attempt to remove red tape is always to be welcomed, I would suggest. It delivers relief from the burden of red tape and regulation by expanding the scope of restaurant and cafe licences to permit a limited quantity of packaged alcohol to be included with a takeaway or delivery meal.

I would just like to conclude by saying that this is really a most important bill. I am very disappointed with the work of two other people in the other house who have been spending a lot of money, too much money, on letters to people whipping up trouble on the dry area business. It is just a little bit over the top. I commend the bill.

 Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (18:52): I am pleased to follow the member for Hawthorn on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021, in particular in deference to members in this place, particularly the member for Hawthorn and others who have a particular interest in these matters given they affect the communities that they represent. But also it picks up on the fact that having been a candidate prior to his election the member for Hawthorn will well know that much of what is outlined in this bill was affirmed by voters at the ballot box at the last election in overwhelming numbers that also saw the member for Hawthorn of course swept into this place—and part of the policy commitments that we are delivering on in legislation in the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill reflect that affirmation at the ballot box nearly three years ago.

In particular I want to pick up too on a couple of the matters that the member for Hawthorn has raised in relation to dry areas. That certainly was an area of interest through the campaign. Certainly as a past Banyule City councillor I also know, as you would, Acting Speaker Dimopoulos, the role that local government plays in relation to liquor reform and liquor regulation in local communities, and we have seen that too in the support that we have sought to provide to many hospitality and small businesses around liquor licensing, compensation, support, financial assistance and engagement through the global pandemic that has been COVID.

When we look at those opposite and they are mired in the past, and when we go back to the Roaring Twenties and 1920, when we look at the time when the dry areas were created here in Victoria in what are now the cities of Boroondara and Whitehorse—and a shout-out to the past CEO of Banyule City Council who is now at Whitehorse, Simon McMillan, doing a fine job over there as he did at Banyule—of course it is not surprising that those opposite from conservative parties are not big on change. They are not very rational in relation to leaving things as they are, as they have ever been and as they always were. That is the motivation, rather than any great common sense.

So when we look at some of the figures that even the member for Hawthorn touched on, since 2004 the polls that have been conducted around liquor licensing applications have cost nearly half a million dollars, and the abolition of those dry areas will mean the provisions of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 will apply consistently across the whole state. Well, what is wrong with that? I would have thought that those opposite, who extol these claims of virtues around cutting red tape and free enterprise, dog eat dog, get your own dog, go and run everyone down as best you can and let a thousand flowers bloom regardless of your capacity to kick on, would support this. What I think is interesting here in relation to these matters is their view that nothing can change in these communities, when really the constituents have not only voted for and affirmed a proposal that we took to the election but we have already seen in relation to day-to-day activities in the way in which liquor licensing regulations have been applied in those in local government areas (LGAs), for example, that the community has already not only moved well and truly beyond those dry area regulations but moved well beyond those opposite and their desire to leave those communities mired in the past and entangled in red tape.

We see that in relation to the Age, where it reported in February 2018 under ‘End of the dry: Melbourne’s only alcohol-free zone now teems with licensed venues’:

Melbourne’s only dry zone is two years short of its centenary, but locals say the area is dry in name only, as dozens of food venues are granted liquor licences and wine bars open for the first time.

To quote again, Jack Roach, a consultant to the Boroondara Residents Action Group, said the:

… old and now out-of-favour dry zone is now a non-issue as most residents do not object to the issuing of restaurant liquor licences.

But of course they are drawn into these matters outside of planning permits, liquor licensing regulations and appeals processes that apply through planning permits and the rest in a local government context because they are drawn into what are arcane arrangements that have been left untouched for decades.

So ultimately, as we have seen, not only with this legislation, in relation to this amendment bill which deals with an affirmation of election commitments that we have taken to the community and that have been endorsed, we are providing a level playing field for the small businesses and the hospitality industry and providing some clarity for local government and some clarity for local residents. This is the same application of the law and regulations—and very stringent and appropriate regulations—that this Parliament has continued to evolve and add onto and reflect community sentiment in relation to liquor licensing over very many decades.

Certainly at the time when I was growing up you did notice a great difference, growing up in West Preston and Heidelberg and moving across to the other side of the Yarra, with some of these quaint arrangements that were in place. I respect all communities, and you reflect I think as much as possible on the engagement and the way a community develops, its geography and its architecture and its thriving shopping ships and its activity centres. All these things in large part are reflected in planning law, they are reflected in liquor licensing law, they are reflected in a range of height limits and all kinds of density and engagements that we see have built up over time, decade upon decade. They are a reflection of community sentiment, community engagement, but what we have perhaps found in some of that, when you look at the historical context of many of the towns and suburbs that are affected in the dry areas reforms that we have put forward here that have had wide and extensive consultation, let alone been taken to an election, is that it does reflect the architecture and the engagement and some of the arrangements that have happened historically in those communities and how centres of activity have developed. But in more recent times, as I just reflected on with that article, the constant approvals and support for liquor licensing arrangements have probably put an onerous burden on those communities to be drawn in to make those determinations where a similar business owner engaging to seek the same appropriations and arrangements as a neighbouring LGA has to go through a different process, and it is just unfair, it is not equal, it is not appropriate and it is not reasonable.

And so the changes really reflect a philosophy, too, on this side of the house that there should be an equality in how the law and the regulations apply to all Victorians, and we are righting that. We have not just chosen to do it; we put that to people in those communities and actually found, amongst their determination to affirm their support for our government and its policies, that that election put a few more people in this place on this side of the house to advocate and advance those interests.

I would just say further, having listened to the contribution from the member for Brunswick, there is not too much, I think, to be in disagreement about on those matters. Of course he is someone who has worked very much in the public health space and elsewhere in his working life. I think there are a range of challenges that the house continues to deal with in relation to alcohol, its availability, its advertising and its regulation. These are really serious and important matters. This legislation seeks to deal with a certain range of amendments, again touching on those implementation measures around improving or providing flexibility to assist licensees during the COVID recovery and future states of emergency. These things then prompt legislative change, but it also deals with the dry areas legislative commitment and a couple of the other matters that relate to phase 2 of the government’s review of the act and to reducing compliance, red tape and that burden. So I think there will be other opportunities to continue advancing the public health matters that the member for Brunswick has raised.

I want to also commend Sandro Demaio for the work that is happening at VicHealth. I think we have seen in the past couple of years a greater reason for being at VicHealth in his passion and desire to continue to advance the public health interests of all the Victorian community, particularly those who need that advocacy most to improve their health outcomes. But I do think that this legislation in particular and the amendments that we are making have been affirmed by the Victorian community. They provide equality of the law and its regulations as they apply across different communities across the state. That is something that is important to us all. There is some further work that we need to continue to do around liquor licensing, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (19:03): It is an absolute pleasure to rise this evening and speak on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021. As we have heard so eloquently put by members on this side of the house, this is amending an act that is well over 20 years old now, and of course since its introduction into Victorian legislation there have been many changes, many innovations and things that would not have even been thought of when this act was introduced originally.

In particular I guess we are talking about things like off-premises ordering and online deliveries, which are not particularly addressed in this act now. You would not expect them to be, and that is why we are here today, but this has led to inconsistent regulation as well. The bill also will modernise the act by directly addressing online ordering and delivery and applying clear and consistent provisions that apply to all licensees who supply liquor online.

I am absolutely shocked—absolutely shocked—to hear that members of the opposition in the upper house have tried to make a campaign out of dry areas. Before maybe six or seven years ago I had not heard of a dry area, and I am not sure what that even refers to these days. We have local government for a reason, and these dry area polls seem to undermine the significant work of local government. We do not have a poll every time there is a new planning permit applied for to build something. It does not make sense to me and it is very archaic. But I will pick up on the previous speaker’s opinion on this, and I agree totally: it is very bizarre to be standing up here and be hearing from those opposite, the supposed purveyors of free business and the party of free enterprise, talking about how they want to keep red tape that is 100 years old.

People were actually pulling kegs in carts in those days. We want to keep that legislation here and now. It does not quite make sense; it seems like it has got very political. I for one have not heard anyone say that this would affect them in a way that would be negative; indeed we have heard from the member for Hawthorn that it would save money. And that is a good thing, because if we have had that many applications come through with these polls in the last 10 years, as he referred to, and only one of them was rejected, it says quite a bit, doesn’t it?

Of course licensing alcohol and regulating the sale of alcohol is very, very important. I will take you back five or six years to being elected a first-term member for Frankston. One of the things we looked at was how we improve amenity and safety for people in Frankston, and unsurprisingly to people like me, who worked on the streets in Frankston and many other suburbs that have the same issues, alcohol was the number one issue. We like to think that it is more like the movies and whatnot, but alcohol is a huge issue in many communities. It is the number one issue. It is not ice; it is prescription drugs and it is alcohol. I trust Frankston council to make the correct decisions, and I think we should be trusting Whitehorse and Boroondara councils to do that too. That is why we elect those people—that is democracy—and I think that people made their decision at the last election, where they thoroughly endorsed those changes as well.

I would like to just address, though, some of the amendments that have been put forward. And I would like to do this respectfully, because I think the member for Brunswick did put these amendments forward in good faith. However, I think there are issues with these amendments, and I just wanted to respectfully go through them. I heard the member for Brunswick talking about how we should require digital identification checks online before alcohol sales can be made, and he has gone into some detail on that. I would remind him that in the legislation in Victoria, and in this bill, the proposed amendment is for all online orders. He referred to New South Wales, and in New South Wales there is an age verification requirement, but that is only restricted to same-day deliveries as well. I think the path forward from here is some consultation and asking what people in this industry and what consumers actually want and what delivery drivers might actually want. It is always best to ask the stakeholders. I am not sure if and when and how there was community consultation undertaken—and I am not going to question that here—but I think it is preferable to do that consultation before enshrining in legislation rules and laws that are either inflexible or just do not work in any area.

The second part of the Greens amendment was to create an offence for licence-holders to withhold payment or similarly penalise delivery drivers who return alcohol deliveries when the recipient is a minor and intoxicated or is not present to receive the order. This is based on the fact that the legislation requires a delivery driver to ask to see some identification. Again, it is about community consultation. The proposed amendment assumes that this is what has been asked for, and I have got to say I have asked a few questions in briefings and I have not heard that this has been asked for by any stakeholders. It might have been—the Greens might have their own datasets for that, but certainly I have not seen them. The amendment also presumes that there is a direct relationship or another financial relationship between the employer and the employee, and that is not always the case.

So putting this amendment forward without putting those thoughts into it and working out what is actually going to work could lead to unintended consequences that are quite negative. Now, that is not to bring down some nice, progressive thinking, but it is to say that practically when you are building legislation and you are changing business models effectively, you have to go to the people at the coalface who it affects and actually ask them. Much like the dry area polls, that decision was made over a state poll, and that has been done. This bill has required quite a bit of consultation to support what we are doing, and we will always consult the community in order to make these changes.

There is also a thought bubble to introduce a 90-minute delay, or a sobering-up period, for alcohol deliveries, excluding cafes and restaurants. Now, the government has committed to monitoring the impact of on-demand delivery on the community, together with the Department of Health of course, but the proposed Greens amendment actually exempts restaurants and cafe licensees as they deliver meals with alcohol. However, it does not also carve out licensees that currently deliver alcohol with a meal under other licences, such as clubs, renewable limited licensees and some on-premises licensees who operate like restaurants as well. Further, there has been no cost-benefit analysis of this in regard to the proposal itself and also in terms of its commercial impact and its potential to address harm.

This bill is all about addressing harm, and we have heard people today talk about the consequences of alcohol in our community. They are wide, they are far, they are varied and on the whole they are negative. The thought that when there is a sporting competition family violence rates go up and that is combined with alcohol advertising and that is combined with a culture, I guess, is very, very alarming. It is a culture change that we need to have here. It is not about banning people from drinking or banning people from gambling. It is actually about responsible regulation in partnership with the community of Victoria. To come to this house with the great responsibility of being an elected government, we listen to people. This government listens to our communities, and they have led us to the path where we are today, putting this legislation forward.

Especially in the dry area poll sense of the legislation, it has been wholly endorsed by the communities involved, and for my community of Frankston I see this legislation as taking us forward into the future and taking into account those things that were not thought of 20 years ago, as we do so many times when we stand in this chamber. Also I think the public is actually past the dry area poll debate. I think that is done and dusted. It was a rum-runner, Al Capone-kind-of-era policy, and it probably was good at the time. It probably did what it set out to do at the time, but it is just not doing it now and we need to move with the future. I thoroughly commend this bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Following speeches incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 September:

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast)

I make this contribution on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021 having just spoken to a number of liquor licence holders in my electorate who are on their knees and struggling with yet another statewide lockdown.

This bill makes several amendments to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to implement the outcomes of the government’s review of that act. It aims to cut red tape, modernise laws applying to liquor and hospitality and to ensure the harm minimisation measures in the bill are as effective as they can be.

As has been stated—we won’t be opposing the bill but will be moving some amendments to address the concerns that the shadow minister, the member for Euroa, has outlined in her speech.

I was concerned that there would be issues created by requiring the person who is ordering liquor online to be the one to receive that delivery. But I understand the government has since made amendments to this change.

In my electorate we have a number of small boutique producers—like Noodeldoof in Koroit, run by Sam Rudolph and Alex Carr; the Timboon Railway Shed Distillery, which may not be located within my electorate boundaries but owner Josh Walker is a constituent of South-West Coast; and Shane Clancey’s Basalt winery at Killarney, who have turned to gifting and hampers as a way to overcome the restrictions that have been placed on their businesses.

This will mean that if someone in Melbourne wants to organise a bottle of whiskey from Timboon, a sixpack of pale ale or stout from Koroit or a riesling from Killarney for their dad who lives in the south-west for Father’s Day—then those businesses I mentioned above won’t actually be able to deliver it because the father wasn’t the person who ordered it.

I am very glad to see the government has recognised this and has made sensible amendments here to ensure that these businesses who are already struggling because of 18 months of restrictions and closures can still support themselves after finding a way to pivot and adapt their business.

While we are speaking about support and liquor licensing, I want to touch on the shambles of the business costs assistance program and the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund payments that the Labor government has promised.

Victoria has been locked down more than any other place in the world. Businesses are on their knees. They have been destroyed by the continued restrictions that have been put on them.

These businesses aren’t on their knees because they aren’t viable, it’s not a reflection on their business acumen—they are being forced into this position by government restrictions. While some businesses are doing well, our hospitality sector is absolutely crippled by the government’s approach.

The Premier has said it’s a small price to pay, but for the businesses who have been absolutely destroyed by blanket lockdowns, they are paying the biggest price.

I just got off the phone from Michael Pickles who owns the Royal Hotel in Portland—he’s decided to close his business even for takeaway for the rest of this lockdown because he is still waiting for those supposed ‘automatic payments’ to come through.

Michael last received a support payment in June—but there’s been nothing since. Without those payments it’s just not viable for him to keep his doors open. He still has expenses, he still has costs that he needs to make but can’t because he has been shut down by the government, in Portland, 400 kilometres away from the nearest exposure site of active case of coronavirus.

I’ve had calls from pubs and restaurants across my electorate who just get no information about their support payments, their applications have been left in limbo, there are constant errors in payments and processes and when they question it, they just get nothing in return.

They are just left in limbo, watching their applications, waiting for them to progress and keeping an eye on their bank accounts, hoping and waiting for those supposed automatic payments to come in.

But they are told to be patient, to wait, that the money is coming.

That’s not good enough—it’s not fair. These businesses are on their knees, they are doing the best they can, they are trying to survive, but they are being held back by the government—first by statewide, blanket restrictions and then by delays and bureaucracy.

Small businesses like these are the backbone of our communities, they provide jobs and provide the state with taxation revenue that helps pay for doctors, nurses and teachers—but they are being treated with complete distain by this government.

The support offered is a pittance of what is needed to cover the damage caused by the continued lockdowns and then what is available to them isn’t paid in a timely manner or isn’t being paid at all.

My region has been locked down under incredibly harsh restrictions for months—it’s hurting businesses and it’s hurting people. People are tired, they are over the blanket rules 18 months after the pandemic began, they expected we would move to a more nuanced approach.

They accept the need for restrictions when there is an outbreak, but they don’t accept places like Portland, where there hasn’t been a case for over a year and is 400 kilometres from the nearest active case, being placed into a hard, harsh lockdown.

They want a localised approach, they want rapid testing to help get us open. My region is doing their bit—we have some of the highest vaccination rates in the state, we have stayed home, we have stayed away from family and friends. We just want some respect, we want the Premier to tell us what his plans are to open our hospitality and licensed venues.

Overall the bill makes some sensible changes and will help the hospitality industry when it is eventually allowed to reopen. That’s absolutely something I support; these businesses have been through the wringer over the past 18 months and we need to be making it easier for them when they are able to welcome people back.

I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister and I implore the Andrews government to move away from blanket statewide lockdowns that are crippling our hospitality and licensed venues.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood)

It is my pleasure to rise this evening to make a contribution to the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021.

This is especially the case as this bill deals with an important issue for my community, the abolition of the dry zones within the cities of Boroondara and Whitehorse, which includes parts of my electorate of Burwood as well as parts of the electorates of Box Hill, Hawthorn and Kew.

Speaker, the dry zone was always a source of some confusion and perhaps amusement to me and my friends when we were growing up. With the western side of Burke Road, Camberwell, full of licensed restaurants and pubs, but the eastern side completely bereft of licensed venues, it always felt like absurd and arbitrary bureaucratic overreach. What was it about Camberwell that was so very different from Hawthorn East as to require these special rules?

When we discovered that the dry zone was subjected to a referendum requirement, perhaps the only piece of statutorily enshrined, direct, deliberative democracy in the nation, the sense of absurdity was compounded. So, we can’t vote on whether tertiary education is fully funded, or whether public transport should be free, or whether we should go to war, but we can vote on individual liquor licences? It was absurd then and it’s absurd now. Our model of representative democracy, at the local, state or federal levels, does not presuppose the decision-making is outsourced on particular policy matters. The cities of Boroondara and Whitehorse routinely make decisions that are far more impactful then whether a local pizza joint can sell grog or not. As they should.

Dry zones were established in our local area during the 1920s and exist nowhere else in the state. This regulation forces residents to participate in compulsory polls on liquor licences or face an $83 fine. Since 2004, these polls have cost taxpayers more than $500 000.

In addition to the abolition of dry zones, the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021 strengthens harm minimisation measures to protect our community. This includes broadening the definition of harm to include family violence, strengthening safeguards around liquor delivery and specifying types of advertising that can be banned.

The review of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (the act) considered the effectiveness of the act’s harm minimisation measures, including the degree to which they can play a part in minimising the incidence of family violence, as recommended by the Royal Commission into Family Violence.

The proposed amendments to the act included in the bill recognise family violence as a harm associated with alcohol. This definition will provide greater clarity and certainty for the regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR), which must consider the objects of the act in its decisions. The definition will include family violence and other community-level harms, including injury and property damage.

Including family violence in the definition of harm is an important measure in acting upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence that the review consider family violence and alcohol-related harms, confirming its relevance in relation to liquor regulation for the VCGLR and the community.

The bill also recognises the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on industry and amends the act to make support for industry easier to access and to be more efficiently provided by the regulator. The bill will empower the minister to authorise licensees to supply a limited volume of packaged liquor during a state of emergency as well as provide the regulator with the ability to perform its duties during a state of emergency.

Speaker, this bill is a very important piece of reform work. Not only does it acquit an election commitment that will bring much my electorate into the 21st century, responding to the review of the act, it addresses a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into Family Violence.

It is sensible and proportionate, it cuts red tape, it vests decision making responsibilities where they should be vested, and I commend it to the house.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley)

I rise today to make a brief contribution to the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021.

But before I do, I want to reach out to all the hospitality businesses in the Ovens Valley, and as we are discussing liquor control and regulation, it is fair to say that the pubs, clubs and wineries within the magnificent Ovens Valley, and they are towns like Bright and Myrtleford, of Wangaratta and Cobram and Yarrawonga on the Murray River and of course all of the wineries in the beautiful King Valley, I have grave concerns for their ability to trade under such tight restrictions. I mean, 10 people indoors and 20 people outdoors makes it very difficult for businesses to offer all of their wonderful food and beverages, or for some businesses they will not be able to open as their costs will not be covered with such low numbers.

Now, I don’t to want stop regional people from getting out and opening up but I suggest to be cautious that your preferred venue is reopening and has available spots.

Now on the bill, there are two main aims, firstly, to reduce red tape and regulatory burden on industry, and the other, to consider the harm of alcohol.

It is not lost on me that there are many things within this bill that are quite disputed by stakeholders.

We had very wide consultation with a range of stakeholders, both from alcohol change groups but also from industry, and across a very wide section of industry.

I do believe that there are some good aspects to this bill. For example, clause 52 gives parties the ability to have an internal review decision made by the commission actually reviewed at VCAT rather than the current process, which assists them to take it to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, strengthening on the prohibition of the licensing of petrol stations and convenience stores is also wise.

I want to point out that the government undertook a regulatory impact statement on this bill, but it has refused to release the details, saying that goes against cabinet in confidence. This is a further lack of transparency which Victorians have come to know as a regular trait of the Andrews government for Melbourne.

This is somewhat disappointing in that I think this bill does make such substantial changes that the Parliament and the public have a right to see the details of that in more depth, and I am sure that that is canvassed in greater detail within the regulatory impact statement.

As the shadow minister, the member for Euroa has pointed out that there was no exposure draft of this bill released. The amendments that we have had moved is obvious that there has actually been a significant issue with this bill.

Again we see another bill come to Parliament with shortfalls and omissions that the opposition need to point out again. With those brief comments I commend the bill to the house.

Mr NORTHE (Morwell)

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021. This bill amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 with the intent to reform the categories of licences authorising the supply of liquor, including the introduction of a new licence category, to address the risks of large packaged liquor outlets in order to reduce harm, to make amendments to the review of decisions, to abolish dry areas and to make other related amendments to improve the operation of that act and for other purposes. Specifically the bill seeks to make the following six primary amendments:

1:   To make amendments to certain licences authorising the supply of liquor, including the introduction of a new licence category for online-only vendors of packaged liquor.

2:   To make amendments to the application and objection process for licences that apply to large packaged liquor outlets in order to reduce harm.

3:   To make amendments to the review of decisions made by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.

4:   To introduce a new mechanism for VCAT to review decisions made by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation on internal review.

5:   To abolish restrictions relating to the granting of liquor licences in dry areas.

6:   To make other related amendments to improve the operation of that act.

As is noted in the second-reading speech, a review of the act commenced in November 2016 with the second phase of the review now seeking to introduce amendments including those related to how improved liquor regulation may be a tool in helping to reduce the incidence of family violence. Indeed on this very point the Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria sought to ensure the said review captured the links between alcohol use and abuse and family violence. This bill introduces the definition of ‘harm’ into the act and therefore includes family violence as a consideration the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) must give in its liquor regulation determinations. Whilst I would argue that the vast majority of the community consume alcohol responsibility the reality is there are some who have bad experiences with alcohol and that can also negatively impact those in and around that person’s network. Whilst the insertion of ‘harm’ into the act makes sense on a number of levels, how ‘harm’ to one’s mental health is determined by the regulator in terms of liquor regulation is somewhat unclear.

In terms of other aspects of the bill that might be of interest to my community include that applications for large packaged liquor outlets with a floor space greater than 750 square metres will be considered high-risk applications. This will lead to a more thorough planning process including the requirement for a community impact statement to be included. There are greater flexibilities in terms of what alcohol advertising might be banned in certain circumstances, including advertising of a sexual nature or that contains violence. The purposes include ensuring minors are not swayed by such advertising. In what has been an awful time for the hospitality industry it is pleasing to see some positive changes. For cafes, restaurants, on-premises and general licences they will be able to supply liquor on premises as of right for an additional 2 hours which now takes the allowable time from 11.00 pm to 1.00 am.

There are changes to the growing off-premises and alcohol delivery sector. To quote the second-reading speech:

The Bill will modernise the Act by directly addressing online ordering and delivery, applying clear and consistent provisions that apply to all licensees who supply liquor online.

At the moment it seems the act has not kept speed with the momentum of home-based alcohol delivery and times that have changed with respect to COVID restrictions. Of course there are provisions in place to align with the sale and consumption of alcohol laws and regulations in place such as delivering alcohol to minors and similar. The bill also creates an online vendor packaged liquor licence category to capture those businesses who supply liquor but don’t necessarily have a retail premises. One question I would pose is ‘What measures will be put in place with respect to days or hours where the sale of alcohol is not permitted in a retail setting? Will these same prohibition time lines apply to the online space?’.

Part of the purpose of contributing to this bill is to raise the plight of many who hold liquor licences in the Morwell electorate. The restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 have caused enormous angst whether they be a cafe, restaurant, accommodation provider, pub, club, winery or florist who might supply liquor as part of their business operations. Whilst I understand there have been government business supports announced, the reality is that there is a significant difference between the amount of government funding received and the actuality of the losses incurred by the said business.

Many businesses have contacted me over the past 24 hours, including those who sell liquor, stating that they are dismayed by the apparent easing of restrictions in regional Victoria. For example, so many in the hospitality sector are stating that given they are only allowed in certain circumstances to have a maximum of 10 people inside their establishment and 20 outside, it is pointless to open their doors as to do so would mean operating at a loss. Remembering that some businesses only have a small footprint with no capacity to have outdoor customers so what are they to do? It’s also important to point out that many regional businesses rely on the trade and visitation from people in the greater Melbourne area. Tourist, event and accommodation providers in regional areas will continue to be heavily impacted by lockdown in Melbourne. What I want to point out is that whilst some might say regional Victoria is out of lockdown the reality is many regional businesses are not and they will require continued support from all levels of government until lockdowns everywhere are over. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some feedback on the bill before us.

Ms STALEY (Ripon)

I contribute to the parliamentary debate on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2021 and in particular the government house amendments to clause 17.

This bill makes many amendments to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the lead speaker for the opposition, the shadow minister for liquor control, the member for Euroa, admirably addressed the full scope of this bill. I am therefore restricting my contribution to clause 17 which in the original bill distributed by the government was highly problematic for many of the 50 wineries in Ripon.

Ripon is a golden area for Victorian wine, home to three wine regions and 50 wineries. Whether it is the majestic reds and sparkling shiraz of the Grampians region or the highly awarded reds of the Pyrenees or of course its award-winning sparkling, there is much to enjoy. And that’s before I add the wineries of the Ballarat region—small in number but mighty in interest and diversity.

Many of the wineries of Ripon run active cellar doors as a key distribution channel. This channel has either been closed or so heavily restricted that it might as well have been closed for nearly 18 months. On top of that, the Chinese tariffs on Australian wine have closed another channel. Lastly, with the ongoing closures of Melbourne restaurants, a third major channel was removed.

I think about the cellar doors of Great Western, Best’s at one end, Seppelt in the middle and Grampians Estate on the eastern side. All brilliant businesses run by local families. All contributing to the wine village atmosphere of Great Western. The home to some truly outstanding and awarded wines.

Or the equally charming wine village of Moonambel in the Pyrenees. Home to behemoths such as Taltarni and Blue Pyrenees but also the most boutique of boutique in Peerick, St Ignatius and Grape Farm Winery. And let’s not forget the mainstays of Sally’s Paddock, run by the Robb family, or Summerfield Winery, with Mark Summerfield at the helm. Again, Moonambel really punches above its weight in the quality stakes and the cellar door experience.

While I’m mentioning Ripon’s wineries, there’s many more from the Grampians that can’t be omitted. Mount Langi Ghiran, Montara, Clarnette & Ludvigson Wines and SubRosa Wine all produce high quality wines. While I know this is akin to naming a favourite child; however, I can say this latest lockdown has seen me particularly enjoy the SubRosa Nebbiolo.

Now, having mentioned 14 wineries, I need to stress that should in no way diminish my admiration for the remaining 36 wineries located in Ripon—they all form part of a wine region that is at one level highly established yet also emerging. Best’s has been in operation since 1866 and is one of Australia’s oldest and continuously family-owned and operated wineries. Yet compared to the Yarra Valley or the Mornington Peninsula, the Grampians, Ballarat and Pyrenees wine regions are not as well known.

So, the original intent of clause 17 of this bill was particularly problematic for Ripon’s wineries because it contained a prohibition on gifting wine through online sales. The region had pivoted away from cellar door to online sales and had done so in various innovative ways. For example, I gifted my brother-in-law a ‘Seriously Shiraz Grampians Wine Tasting Masterclass at Home’ for his 50th birthday. That allowed him to experience six Grampians wines, most he had never heard of before. I saw on his Instagram he had subsequently bought a Mount Langi Ghiran 2019 virtual wine tasting, proving the point that once people know about my region’s wines, they love them.

Wine Victoria opposed the new section 18C(2) because it ‘poses a significant threat to the Victorian wine industry as wine is a common and customary gift for many occasions and celebrations such as engagements and birthdays’.

The opposition also recognised that the drafting of that section is highly problematic for the industry and opposed it in its original form. The government has now been forced to concede its original bill was faulty and has introduced house amendments to rectify its error and allow gifting of wine online.

Once again we have seen house amendments brought by the government because it has not undertaken proper consultation with industry. This is not the first time. A competent government would learn from previous errors yet has not. However, I am pleased a solution has been found in the end.

I appreciate this bill contains many other amendments to the Liquor Control Reform Act which I have not covered. Some are not relevant to the Ripon electorate and I leave comments on those clauses to others. In relation to clause 17, we now a have a workable regulatory system for online alcohol purchases.

 Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (19:13:053:): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.