Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (09:57): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Liquor Control Reform and Other Acts Amendment (Reducing Alcohol-Related Harms) Bill 2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the Transport Integration Act 2010 to tighten regulations around online alcohol sales and deliveries and alcohol advertising in certain locations. The bill establishes prevention of harm as the paramount objective and purpose of the Liqour Control Reform Act 1998 and expands the definition of harm to include sexual violence.

The Bill’s primary aim is to reduce alcohol-related harms, particularly intimate partner and domestic violence.

The Bill introduces new conditions on liquor licences to restrict the delivery of liquor to the hours between 10.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. and to require a minimum two-hour period between the placement of an order and delivery.

The Bill strengthens restrictions on alcohol advertising by prohibiting certain forms of static alcohol advertising on public transport infrastructure, on or above public roads and related infrastructure, and within 150 metres of schools.

The Bill further amends the Transport Integration Act 2010 to introduce a public health principle, which includes consideration of the public health risks associated with alcohol advertising.

Human Rights Issues

In my opinion, the Charter rights engaged by the Bill are:

•   freedom of expression (section 15); and

•   protection of families and children (section 17); and

•   right to life (section 9)

For the reasons outlined below, I am of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Freedom of expression

The Bill engages the right to freedom of expression by restricting alcohol advertising in certain locations. The Bill also broadens prohibitions on advertising and promotional activities that are inconsistent with the objects of the liquor regulatory framework or the newly inserted public health principle.

These measures limit the ability of liquor suppliers, advertisers and other commercial entities to communicate messages concerning alcohol products in certain public settings. They do not prohibit alcohol advertising entirely but instead regulate where and in what circumstances such advertising may occur. Businesses remain able to advertise alcohol through a wide range of other lawful channels.

Accordingly, the Bill limits the right to freedom of expression. However, the Bill establishes prevention of harm as a paramount objective and purpose of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and introduces a public health principle into the Transport Integration Act 2010, recognising the public health risks associated with alcohol advertising.

In my opinion, any limitation on freedom of expression is reasonable and demonstrably justified under section 7(2) of the Charter compatible with the lawful restrictions on this right under section 15, 3(b) of the Charter.

Protection of families and children

The Bill promotes the protection of families and children by reducing exposure to alcohol-related harms and encouraging responsible alcohol consumption. The recognition of sexual violence as a form of alcohol-related harm, restrictions on alcohol advertising near schools, and measures aimed at reducing harmful alcohol consumption support the wellbeing of children, families and the broader community.

Accordingly, the Bill promotes the rights protected by section 17 of the Charter.

Section 17(1) of the Charter provides that families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the State. Section 17(2) provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests.

By reducing exposure to alcohol-related harms, including family violence, community harm and other adverse social outcomes associated with excessive alcohol consumption, the Bill promotes the wellbeing of families and children.

The restrictions on alcohol advertising in proximity to schools and on public transport infrastructure further support the protection of children from exposure to alcohol marketing in everyday public environments.

Right to life

The Bill promotes the right to life by putting in place measures to prevent alcohol-related harms that can threaten individuals’ safety and wellbeing. The bill does this by:

•   introducing measures to reduce risky alcohol consumption, including restrictions on alcohol delivery and advertising.

•   ensuring that decision making within the liquor regulatory framework must take into account the prevention of harm as the new paramount objective and purpose of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

•   expanding the definition of harm in the Liqour Control Reform Act 1998 to explicitly recognise sexual violence as a form of harm along with the existing forms of harm as defined in the Act.

These amendments are particularly relevant to gender-based violence, given the well-established association between harmful alcohol use and increased risks of violence against women. By reducing alcohol-related harms and promoting safer consumption, the Bill promotes the rights protected by section 9 of the Charter.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because any limitations on human rights are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and the Bill promotes the protection of families, children and public health.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (09:57): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

In my opinion, the Liquor Control Reform and Other Acts Amendment (Reducing Alcohol-Related Harms) Bill 2026 (Bill) is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act). I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the Transport Integration Act 2010 to tighten regulations around online alcohol sales and deliveries and alcohol advertising in certain locations. The bill establishes prevention of harm as the paramount objective and purpose of the Liqour Control Reform Act 1998 and expands the definition of harm to include sexual violence.

The Bill’s primary aim is to reduce alcohol-related harms, particularly intimate partner and domestic violence.

The Bill introduces new conditions on liquor licences to restrict the delivery of liquor to the hours between 10.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. and to require a minimum two-hour period between the placement of an order and delivery.

The Bill strengthens restrictions on alcohol advertising by prohibiting certain forms of static alcohol advertising on public transport infrastructure, on or above public roads and related infrastructure, and within 150 metres of schools.

The Bill further amends the Transport Integration Act 2010 to introduce a public health principle, which includes consideration of the public health risks associated with alcohol advertising.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl (Section 66(3)(a)–(c))

Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for them to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

In my opinion the Bill is compatible with the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act:

•   advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples;

•   addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

•   ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

Advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples (section 66(3)(d)(i))

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with this object.

The Bill does not establish, remove or alter any rights, functions or institutions specific to First Peoples. It does not alter arrangements relating to First Peoples’ governance, culture, lands, waters or decision-making authority.

However, the Bill’s overarching objective of reducing alcohol-related harm and strengthening public health protections may support the capacity of First Peoples, communities and organisations to exercise self-determination by reducing barriers to health, wellbeing and community participation caused by alcohol-related harm.

To the extent that the Bill influences the social determinants of health and community wellbeing, it may support conditions that enable First Peoples to exercise their rights and self-determination more effectively.

Addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoinginjustices of colonisation

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with this object.

Alcohol-related harm has been recognised as contributing to a range of adverse health, social and economic outcomes across Victoria. Although these harms affect all Victorians, First Peoples continue to experience disproportionate burdens arising from intergenerational trauma, social disadvantage and the ongoing effects of colonisation.

The Bill seeks to reduce alcohol-related harm through population-wide measures directed at the supply, promotion and consumption of alcohol. These measures include reforms that prioritise prevention of harm within the liquor regulatory framework.

While the Bill is not targeted specifically at First Peoples, it is reasonably expected that measures which reduce alcohol-related harms may contribute to addressing factors associated with ongoing structural disadvantage experienced by First Peoples.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with this object. The Bill does not establish different rights, obligations or enforcement powers on First Peoples, but instead applies them uniformly across the community.

The reforms may support the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by reducing alcohol-related harm and promoting health and wellbeing through a stronger public health focus.

While the Bill restricts certain commercial activities relating to the advertising, supply and delivery of alcohol, these measures apply equally to all relevant regulated entities.

Several measures in the Bill may advance the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples. In particular:

•   the inclusion of harm prevention as the paramount object of the liquor regulatory framework promotes protection of life, health and wellbeing;

•   the recognition of sexual violence within the statutory definition of harm reflects the significant impact of alcohol-related violence on individuals, families and communities;

I acknowledge that First Peoples may experience the impacts of alcohol regulation differently due to the continuing effects of colonisation. However, the Bill does not create new enforcement powers, criminal sanctions or regulatory mechanisms that specifically increase state intervention in the lives of First Peoples. Rather, the reforms are directed toward reducing population-wide harms associated with the sale, promotion and consumption of alcohol.

For the reasons set out above, in my opinion the Bill is compatible with the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(i) to (iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (09:57): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Liquor Control Reform and Other Acts Amendment (Reducing Alcohol-Related Harms) Bill 2026. At the outset I want to acknowledge all of those who have contributed to this bill, particularly those individuals and families with lived experience, advocacy groups, health experts and my staff, who have put a lot of time and effort into this, particularly Jasper Lees. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Dr Tim Read, as a long-time advocate for alcohol reform.

From religious ceremonies to a toast at a wedding, alcohol has been an important part of human societies for thousands of years. For thousands of years it has been deeply ingrained in many parts of our social and cultural lives and something many people enjoy.

What has changed over time, particularly in the last 30 years, is the mass availability of alcohol, and the role of big liquor corporations. In 1995, 10 of the world’s biggest spirits, wine and beer producers formed the International Centre for Alcohol Policies, which is now known as the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking, or IARD. This was a significant development and initiated a global effort to coordinate political activities.

They worked closely with the tobacco industry, sharing strategies and funding, and adopting their playbook to avoid public health regulation or measures that would reduce alcohol consumption.

These tactics are still being used today. They include political donations and lobbying to resist public health policies; sports and cultural sponsorship; aggressive marketing and advertising; low pricing and high availability. They run responsible drinking campaigns to individualise responsibility for alcohol control and avoid corporate regulation. And of course they promote alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle. While it may be hard to believe now, this was also the case for tobacco prior to major public health campaigns.

I enjoy the odd drink myself, but I do so without any notions that it’s good for me. Many people still believe now debunked data that showed that a glass of wine with dinner was actually more beneficial to health than abstinence – the so-called J-shaped curve. It was something I was actually taught at medical school and for a long time subscribed to that view. But the studies behind this have long since been disproven due to serious methodological flaws – and most major health guidelines now state that the safest level of alcohol for health is none. But the big alcohol industry still promotes that J-shaped curve, framing drinking as a part of a balanced, healthy lifestyle.

In 2009, Professor David Nutt, the UK government’s chief drug adviser, was abruptly sacked. His crime? Claiming that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol, in particular when you consider the broader harms to society. That position has since gone on to be demonstrated time and time again in study after study showing that alcohol-related harms, both individual and more broadly, are by far and away greater than any other drug, licit or illicit.

Part of the reason for this is related to the properties of alcohol itself – including its inherent toxicity, its addictive properties, the effects on the brain – but it is also because alcohol is so widely used. Over three-quarters of Australians drink alcohol. And while many people consume alcohol infrequently or within the recommended guidelines, 33 per cent of adults consume alcohol at levels that put their long-term health at risk, and 25 per cent of people, particularly young people, drink amounts in a single session that put them at risk of acute injury or death. I mean, these are staggering statistics.

Alcohol is a leading cause of preventable death in Australia. According to the latest data, 1765 deaths were directly caused by alcohol – around 90 per cent due to chronic heavy alcohol use and conditions like alcoholic liver cirrhosis, and 10 per cent due to acute alcohol poisoning or overdose. However, it is linked to a far greater burden of morbidity and mortality. It is well established that alcohol is a carcinogen, with strong links to many cancers, including bowel, mouth, throat and stomach cancers, breast and liver cancers. It is also linked to cardiovascular disease, dementia, osteoporosis, depression, anxiety, and many other conditions. It is a significant contributor to road trauma and death, accidents and falls, suicide, and is frequently a factor in violent assaults. Studies that have attempted to capture all of this estimate that alcohol-related deaths are more likely to be over 9000 per year, placing it in the top five causes of death in Australia.

But the harms are much greater than simply individual. Last year La Trobe University launched a landmark study right here in the Victorian Parliament, Alcohol’s Harm to Others in Australia: Patterns, Costs, Disparities and Precipitants. Over six years data was compiled and analysed to understand the health, social and economic burden of alcohol harm beyond the individual consumer. Its findings should be a huge wake-up call. Around half of Australians have been negatively impacted by the alcohol use of others.

Of all police-reported family and domestic violence incidents, alcohol was involved in 47 per cent of cases, largely by perpetrators. In 2023 Victoria Police responded to 94,170 family violence incidents, which shows the scale of harm where alcohol was a contributing factor. While alcohol is never an excuse for violence, its role as a contributor must be acknowledged. And over 17 per cent of parents and caregivers reported harm to children from someone else’s alcohol use.

In 2021 alone, the economic cost of the harms from others’ drinking was estimated at $34.3 billion. This includes $81.8 million in healthcare costs, including assaults and road trauma, $18.42 million in premature deaths, $10.5 billion in informal caregiving, $21.15 billion in loss of quality of life, and $149 million in social services, as well as $1.476 billion in loss of productivity. Again, staggering figures. The scale of harm is undeniable. Yet the response of policymakers is completely discordant and reflects the power of the alcohol lobby and their ability to deflect attention from this staggering problem.

While regulations were already inadequate, in a digital age the way alcohol is marketed and sold has totally outpaced our Liquor Act and regulatory controls. The current liquor laws in Victoria were largely designed for traditional ‘bricks and mortar’ premises like pubs, clubs and bottle shops. In these venues there are some safeguards in the form of physical oversight, regulated trading hours, and face-to-face service requirements. Today, alcohol can be purchased via apps or websites and delivered, with minimal safeguards.

Online alcohol sales have almost quadrupled over the past decade, meaning the current laws have fallen out of step. In effect, every smartphone has become a bottle shop. Alcohol companies are engaging in predatory marketing practices online that are greatly exacerbating already unacceptably high alcohol-related harms in our communities. Increasingly, marketing online – on social media platforms and elsewhere – is taking advantage of people’s data to target ads to those who are already vulnerable to drinking harms. This includes things like direct targeting of people who have already ordered significant amounts of alcohol online and therefore are more likely to be at risk of problematic use. Or even more sinisterly, those who have used search engines to find information about alcohol detox programs. Their ads ramp up over certain times of year – summer, sporting events and other holidays – and they use push notifications and so-called ‘specials offers’ to prompt people to buy more. They include direct click-to-buy links, usually through delivery services, which can deliver alcohol to the person’s home in under 15 minutes, with few checks or requirements enforced. This is very different to a physical venue, where there are responsible service of alcohol requirements, including ID checks, laws against selling alcohol to someone who appears to be intoxicated and laws against selling alcohol to someone who is under-age.

This isn’t just a theoretical problem. The cost is very real and very human. In 2023 Kathleen Arnold was, tragically, found dead in her Heidelberg home as a result of alcohol poisoning. She was just 30 years old. The coroner’s investigation into her death found that she had bought 319 alcohol-based products via delivery services in the six months before her death. The coroner recommended a curfew on alcohol deliveries and a 2-hour delay between orders.

The coroner’s recommendations mirror similar findings handed down by the rapid review of prevention approaches to end gender-based violence – set up in response to the public outcry over an alarming number of domestic homicides two years ago. As part of the review, it identified evidence-based approaches to gender-based violence and explicitly highlights alcohol’s role. This was reinforced in the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence in 2025. Both found unprecedented growth in alcohol availability, including extended online delivery hours, is statistically linked to increased alcohol-related violence.

At national cabinet in 2024, following the rapid review, recommendations were made for state governments to strengthen alcohol laws with respect to online alcohol sales and delivery timeframes, as well as advertising. Specifically, the recommendations called for changes to: regulatory objectives, by adding clear aims to prevent gender-based violence to state and territory liquor laws alongside existing harm reduction rules; availability limits, by restricting physical outlet density and trading hours, especially in locations prone to high risk; delivery controls, by strengthening rules on online sales and delivery timeframes to limit late-night access; and advertising curbs, by restricting alcohol marketing and advertising, particularly during major sporting events.

While each state and territory agreed at national cabinet to review their liquor laws in line with the review’s recommendations, only South Australia has commenced this process so far, with draft legislation released last year but then put on hold due to pushback from industry. Two years down the track, and countless deaths later, there has been no movement at all from the Victorian government. Families, frontline services and advocates for reform have tried meetings, they’ve tried letters, they’ve tried events and awareness campaigns. We have tried asking questions in Parliament to the minister. And yet nothing. So we’ve decided to write the bill ourselves. The Greens’ bill seeks to take action where the Victorian Labor government hasn’t. Our bill amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the Transport Integration Act 2010 to regulate the online sale and delivery of alcohol and regulate alcohol advertising with the purpose of minimising alcohol-related harms, particularly domestic and intimate partner violence.

The bill has four main areas of reform. First, it amends the purpose and objective of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to include the promotion of responsible consumption of liquor and the minimisation of alcohol-related harm as the paramount purpose and objective of the act. To support this new purpose the bill amends the definition of ‘harm’ in section 3(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to expressly include sexual violence. This amendment recognises the significant relationship between alcohol misuse and incidents of sexual violence and ensures that this form of harm is specifically considered in the administration and interpretation of the bill. Second, the bill amends a number of liquor licence conditions for venues that offer online delivery of alcohol. The first is that delivery of alcohol to consumers would be limited to between 10 am and 10 pm. Delivery outside of this window would be a breach of licence. The second is the introduction of a 2-hour cool-down period between ordering the alcohol and delivery to the consumer. Third, the bill significantly expands restrictions on static alcohol advertising by: prohibiting static alcohol advertising on public transport infrastructure; prohibiting static alcohol advertising on or above public roads, road infrastructure and road reserves; and retains existing restrictions near schools; as well as updating exemptions applying to certain vehicle advertising. Finally, the bill inserts a new public health principle into the Transport Integration Act 2010. The new principle requires that consideration be given to the promotion and protection of public health and specifically recognises the public health risks associated with alcohol advertising.

The amendment is intended to ensure that transport planning, management and infrastructure decisions take account of public health considerations relating to alcohol exposure and promotion.

Given the scale of the problem, and the extraordinary power and influence of the alcohol industry, these changes may seem relatively minor. But they would make a meaningful difference in reducing some of the alcohol-related harm our communities are currently experiencing. The fact that they haven’t been made yet by this government says everything you need to know about their priorities.

The Greens are proud to table this bill today and hope it marks a step forward in reducing alcohol-related harm in Victoria.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:11): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.