Liquor & Gaming Specialists

  • Home
  • News
  • Liquor Licensing
    • Minors on Licensed Premises in Queensland
    • Extended Trading Hours for Licensed Premises
    • Risk Assessed Management Plan
    • FAQ
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Links
  • Call us on 07 3252 4066

8 May 2015 by Matthew Jones

Drink Pre-Loading – Survey Results

I recently attended a very informative presentation by A/Inspector Corey Allen (Queensland Police Service) A/Prof Grant Devilly (Griffith University) on the results of a study of the effects of drink pre-loading in Fortitude Valley, the Gold Coast and Mackay. The survey of 3,201 people revealed a number of interesting facts and attitudes towards drink pre-loading, including the reason people do it and the effect it has on their levels of intoxication.

We’ve been provided with a PDF version of the slideshow from the presentation. You’ll find it makes interesting reading and if you have any questions, the contact details for both presenters are included.

SmartStart Preloading & A Safe Night Out

Filed Under: News Tagged With: advertising, DSP, Extended Hours, Liquor Accord, safe night out, taxis

4 July 2014 by Matthew Jones

Safe Night Out Amendments

The Queensland Parliament has now passed the Safe Night Out amendments, we have summarised the points of the bill below.

Amendments to the Criminal Code

  1. The introduction of the ‘coward punch’ offence.

The offence of ‘unlawful striking causing death’ is introduced by the Bill, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and defined as a death caused by the striking to a person on their head or neck. The distinction between this new offence and the other homicide offences is that it expressly precludes the element of intention from its definition; meaning that defences such as provocation are unavailable. Further, the offence disenables the offender from relying on other commonly available defences such as the defence of accident or that of the prevention of recurrent insult.

  1. Introducing stricter penalties for various offences

The ‘unlawful striking causing death’ offence also obliges the Court to order that an offender is sentenced to serve the lesser of 80% of their prison sentence or 15 years imprisonment before being permitted for apply for parole.

The offence relating to the serious assault against public officers is proposed, under the Bill, to mirror that of the assault against police officers. This means that where certain behaviours are exhibited in the process of the assault, such as biting or spitting at the officer, the offender is liable to a maximum prison sentence of 14 years rather than the previous 7 years.

  1. Aggravation

The Bill introduces a new Chapter 35A to address the circumstances of aggravation in relation to particular offences. This amendment changes the way in which offender’s are able to claim the defence of mistake of fact in relation to intoxication, and introduces presumptive factors in relation to adverse affectation from intoxicating substances.

In addition to these changes to the Criminal Code, the Bill also alters the sentencing process for liquor-associated offences under the Penalties and Sentences Act. The major change is that the voluntary intoxication of an offender is proposed to be removed from the court’s consideration of mitigating factors in determining sentences. The Court is also required to order offenders to complete community service orders when convicted of certain offences committed when intoxicated and in a public place.

Amendments to the Liquor Act

  1. A new definition of “unduly intoxicated”.

The contextual nature of the previous definition has gone, however it may be arguable that the behaviour is the result of the context in which it occurs. Importantly, the objective assessment (the ordinary person reference) has been removed. What we now have is a new concept – “noticeably affected”. Does this mean that if you can tell someone has been drinking (or has taken drugs) from their speech, balance, coordination or behaviour that they are UNDULY intoxicated?  This would seem to be correct, which implies a worryingly low standard; the definition looks more like one for “intoxicated” rather than “unduly intoxicated”.

  1. Introduction of “irresponsible” consumption of liquor.

The previous idea of “rapid or excessive” consumption of liquor will be replaced with the “irresponsible” consumption of liquor. This change applies to those parts of the legislation that regulate promotional practices.

  1. Changes to RAMPs

New sections will allow the commissioner to require a licensee to amend its RAMP and provide the amended plan for approval. The commissioner can do this for single licences, classes of licences, or for all licensees within a safe night precinct or restricted area. The Bill also expands the guideline-making power to expressly refer to stipulating how a licensee should comply with their responsibilities under the Act; an example given being a guideline for how licensees should determining whether a person is unduly intoxicated.

  1. Changes to restaurants

The changes relating to restaurant licences are quite ground-breaking; seeking to control these premises more closely in relation to compliance with their principal activity of serving meals. This is achieved by a combination of requirements applicable “throughout each trading day”. These include that most of the patrons for the business for that day must consume a meal; most of the licensed area of the premise is set up for dining; the kitchen must be open and ‘being used…for meal preparation’ for at least up to one hour before the end of the trading period; and that there are sufficient staff engaged in the preparation and service of meals.

Some of these matters are presently enforced through licence conditions (the second and third points). The others are new. It’s hard to know how effective the requirements will be in terms of the concern which has been expressed about restaurants operating as bars. “Trading day” and “trading period” are defined without reference to licensed trading hours, so a restaurant which opens for breakfast could take advantage of this patronage to satisfy the requirement that most of the patrons on a trading day consume a meal.

For some time it has been unclear whether the assessment of compliance with principal activity requirements should refer to the totality of trading or to a shorter period. For example, if a restaurant operated as a bar on a Friday afternoon for several hours, but on an overall assessment was primarily a meals business, it was arguably compliant. The new requirements will clarify that compliance is now assessed on daily basis; thus ending the speculation.

Interestingly, the present standard conditions on meals licences about the majority of the premises being set up for dining, and meals being available until 1 hour before close are stated not to apply during a function. This appears to have been omitted.

Last but by no means least is the limitation on access to extended trading hours for restaurants. The new provisions will only allow extended hours through until 1am. Restaurants with later trading will retain these through until 1 July 2015, after which they will revert to 1am.

We assume this provision will also apply to premises in the prepared food category.

  1. Introduction of “Nightclub” licences

Although at present a nightclub business can be established under more than one licence category, the amendments will remove the “entertainment” principal activity category from the commercial other subsidiary on premises licence set, and place it into a category of its own – simply called a nightclub licence. The curious requirement in the present Act that the licence only authorises the sale of liquor to a person who is being entertained has been removed, and replaced with the same general requirement which applies to the other on-premises categories, that the licence only authorises liquor sales if the business complies with its principal activity, which presumably means that if entertainment is provided most of the time the licensee will be compliant.

A further requirement is that toilets must now be provided within the licensed premises; and these licences cannot be obtained for a vehicle.

Nightclub licensees will still be able to operate without entertainment prior to 5pm, but will be required to comply during that period with the new restaurant rules.

  1. Adult Entertainment Permits

An application will require the consent of the local council, although the council may abstain. There is no stated recourse in the Bill if the Council rejects the proposal, meaning that it is likely that merits of judicial review of the Council’s decision is the relevant remedial option for unsuccessful applicants.

  1. Extended Trading Hours

The moratorium will end as promised on 31 August. After that it appears that applications will be considered according to the same procedure and considerations as have applied in the past. One change is that if an approval is given despite an objection from Police, the Commissioner is obliged to publish reasons for the decision on the OLGR web site for a period of 3 months.

  1. Public Safety and Amenity

There are a series of new provisions in a new Division 1A in Part 5 under the heading “Public Safety and Amenity”. They articulate a range of matters which the Commissioner must consider when deciding applications, and also clarify the ability to impose wide-ranging conditions on licences and other approvals such as when liquor can be sold, the type or quantity of liquor, responsible practices about service, supply and promotion of liquor, noise abatement measures, conditions about the structure of the premises and security arrangements.

  1. Responsible Service, Supply and Promotion and Preservation of Amenity

A new Division (Division 1AA) is to be inserted in Part 6. It seems to merely collect and expand upon a number of elements of the existing legislation rather than creating new obligations. For example, a licensee is presently under an obligation to maintain a safe environment in and around the licensed premises, as stated in Section 148A(4). Under the amendments the obligation will be stated in a Section 142ZZB and will be expanded to include a requirement that the licensee “take all reasonable steps to ensure the use of the premises does not adversely affect the amenity of the area”.

The new Division also includes expanded provisions about unacceptable practices and promotions, and the restrictions on advertising. It includes provisions allowing the Commissioner to issue “compliance notices” to licensees directing that, for example, a particular advertising practice cease. There are offence provisions for failing to comply with the notice.

  1. Mandatory ID Scanning

As expected, there are detailed provisions setting up the mandatory ID scanning system. All premises that trade after midnight in a safe night out precinct will be subject to the requirements. Other licences can be conditioned to require scanning, and would be thereafter subject to these provisions.

The requirement will be that a person must not be admitted to the premises unless their ID is scanned during the “regulated hours”, which are either the hours specified on a licence, or otherwise from 8pm through till close.

The scanning system, software, and database management system used by the licensee are all subject to detailed approval and licensing requirements, and there are extensive privacy provisions.

Banning notice information must be included in the database, and the scanning will detect a banned person, who must not be allowed entry to the premises.

The new provisions contemplate a licensee banning a person from their premises, and then sharing the ID information about the banned person with licensees linked by an ID scanning system.

  1. Safe Night Precincts

Safe Night Precincts replace the trialled Drink Safe Precincts, and will be expanded to numerous precincts around the State. Each precinct may be overseen by an incorporated association referred to as a “local board”. Licensees within the relevant precinct must become members of the local board.

The new provisions will also allow for the creation of a public safety consultative committee to advise the local board. The Commissioner will appoint the members of the consultative committee, which can include Police, Local Government, Department, Transport and Community group representatives, very much along the lines of the existing DSP committees.

The local board will have the power to terminate the membership of a particular licensee, and the provisions create a procedure for this to occur. It’s unclear what the effect of the membership being terminated is on the licensee moving forward.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: CCTV, DSP, Extended Hours, ID scanners, lockout, restaurant, RSA, safe night out, undue intoxication

5 March 2014 by Matthew Jones

Suspended Licences

Most involved in the exciting world of liquor licensing would be aware that a few years ago the government started a process of integrating the liquor and gaming licensing functions into a single operational unit, which we now know as the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation.  One of the significant challenges, as far as I can tell at least, has been the integration of the computer databases and systems for the two regulatory areas.  The winner of the Liquor vs Gaming IT battle was of course (?) Gaming, and licensing processes and data was subsequently transferred over to something called the “COGS” system.  I don’t know what COGS stands for. I suspect the “S” might stand for “system” which of course makes calling it the COGS system incorrect (think PIN number, ATM machine etc etc) but I digress.

One of the very awkward consequences of the change over has been the loss of the  active not trading” licence category.  Back in the day we had licences which were “dormant”.  Then we progressed to “active not trading” instead, to go with a number of other classifications – “active trading, “cancelled” and importantly “suspended”.  It is the last one, and its substitution for the active not trading category which is causing the problems.  To clarify, if OLGR were, pre-COGS, erm… system, advised that a premises had stopped trading,  then sensibly the licence status was changed to “active not trading”.  Anyone enquiring about the licence, or searching the details would see this and understand that although the licence remained active (so NOT suspended or cancelled) the premises were closed at least temporarily.  Post COGS, these licences are listed as “suspended”, because despite the massive advancements in computer technology over the last blah blah etc there is no room for the active not trading category any more.  

So here’s the problem.  The only way a licence can be legally suspended is via disciplinary action – aka a “show cause”.  This is a complex procedure involving the giving of notices to anyone with a relevant interest, receiving and considering submissions and so on.  It is not possible for a licence to be suspended simply on the basis of advice to OLGR that the place has closed.  So an active not trading style suspension is not really a suspension at all.  It’s a convenient way of noting the database that premises are closed, but it is not a suspension.  A REAL suspension has specific consequences.  

The Liquor Act defines a suspension:

138 Effect of suspension
A licence or permit that is suspended ceases to be in force for the period of suspension.

So a wholesaler, for example, cannot legally supply liquor to the licensee.  The licensee also commits an offence if they trade while the licence is suspended.  The problem with telling the world the licence is suspended when it’s really not is pretty obvious: suppliers, police, certain internal compliance officers and others who are uninitiated in the vagaries of the COGS system are simply going to take the notation at face value and act accordingly.

I’m reliably informed that there at least 400 other things about the COGS system which need attention and are of higher priority.  So actually fixing the technology seems to be out.  So I guess for the time being it’s a matter of educating as many people as possible and looking for solutions within the existing unsatisfactory system.  My suggestion would be to abandon the pretend suspensions altogether.  The “not trading” information, whilst useful, can’t be put ahead of correcting the misuse of legal terminology, and the real consequences for the handful of licensees trying to get on with business.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: compliance, licensing strategy

26 February 2014 by Matthew Jones

Low Risk Is Not Zero Risk

The Liquor Act was amended last year (received assent on 27 November 2013) to change the requirements for "low risk" licensed premises with respect to approved managers and RMLV training.

The relevant parts of the amended version of Section 155AD are set out below. I have bolded the bits that create the exemption for restaurants and cafes, or to be more correct, the holders of commercial other subsidiary on premises licences with either a "meals" or "prepared food" principal activity. The "prepared food" category, also known as a "café licence", gets included because of the definition of "subsidiary on-premises licence (meals)" in Section 4 of the Act (in case anyone’s interested).

155AD Who must be present or reasonably available at licensed premises etc.
(1) This section applies while the licensed premises or premises to which the permit relates are open for business.
(1A) However, this section does not apply to licensed premises under a subsidiary on–premises licence if the premises are a boat or on a boat.

(2) If the licensee or permittee is a corporation, the licensee or permittee must take reasonable steps to ensure that a person employed by the corporation as an approved manager–
(a) is present or reasonably available during the following times at the licensed premises or premises to which the permit relates–
(i) ordinary trading hours;
(ii) approved extended trading hours between 7a.m. and 10a.m.; and
(b) is present during approved extended trading hours between 12 midnight and 5a.m. at the licensed premises or premises to which the permit relates.
Maximum penalty–50 penalty units.

(3) If the licensee or permittee is an individual, the licensee or permittee must–
(a) be present or reasonably available, or take reasonable steps to ensure that a person employed by the individual as an approved manager is present or reasonably available, during the following times at the licensed premises or premises to which the permit relates–
(i) ordinary trading hours;
(ii) approved extended trading hours between 7a.m. and 10a.m.; and
(b) be present, or take reasonable steps to ensure that a person employed by the individual as an approved manager is present, during approved extended trading hours between 12 midnight and 5a.m. at the licensed premises or premises to which the permit relates.
Maximum penalty–50 penalty units.

(4) Subsection (3) applies subject to section 155AF.
(4A) If the premises are low risk premises and are not open for business beyond 12 midnight, the licensee or permittee is exempted from–
(a) for a licensee or permittee that is a corporation–subsection (2)(a); or
(b) for a licensee or permittee who is an individual–subsection (3)(a).

(4B) If the premises are low risk premises but are open for business beyond 12 midnight, the licensee or permittee is exempted until 10p.m. from–
(a) for a licensee or permittee that is a corporation–subsection (2)(a); or
(b) for a licensee or permittee who is an individual–subsection (3)(a).
…
(9) In this section–
low risk premises means premises to which any of the following relates–
(a) a subsidiary on-premises licence (meals);
(b) a community club licence if the club has 2000 or fewer members;
(c) a community other licence;
(d) a restricted liquor permit.

The changes are a little controversial for a couple of reasons. Firstly, many of our LGS Training clients have taken some convincing that this has actually happened – understandable of course when licensees have become used to the approved manager regime which has been around since the start of 2009. The feedback has bordered on incredulity at times. "So you’re saying no-one has to be trained? This is a big restaurant! What if something goes wrong? This can’t be right!" etc etc. I’ve patiently explained that even though it’s no longer a statutory requirement, it’s probably a very good idea for a licensee to have personnel with the RMLV qualification.

Secondly, as far as I’m aware it was actually intended to retain a requirement for low risk premises to at least have someone trained in RMLV. This has not eventuated with the amendment, but it may well be that further changes will correct this. The parliamentary committee (deep breath – the State Development Infrastructure and Industry Parliamentary Committee) in supporting the new 155AD mistakenly reported that "all licensees must complete Responsible Management of Licensed Venues (RMLV) training, which is the same training as that undertaken by approved managers." Of course, only a person who holds a licence as an individual needs to the do RMLV, and almost all licences in Queensland held by companies.

We know from long experience the value of proper diligence when it comes to liquor compliance, and conversely the elevated risk of negative consequences for licensees who do not have a clear focus on their technical obligations. "Low risk" does not equal "no risk" and we will continue to recommend to our clients that they ensure key members of staff obtain the RMLV qualification.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: amendments, compliance, Extended Hours, restaurant, RMLV

15 November 2013 by Matthew Jones

A Matter of Hours

As a practitioner in the liquor licensing field of quite a few years now, I have to admit to finding the current trading hours debate a little strange. At the risk of getting political, reacting legislatively to what are essentially emotional and illogical arguments (whether in the press or elsewhere) rather than looking at the substance of the matter seems more like the behaviour of the previous government than the new one.

I can’t even remember who was in power in 1992 when the current legislation commenced, but as a result of the original drafting of that law, and through subsequent amendments, what we have today actually includes some decent teeth when it comes to trading hours. Even back in 2000 when we took a case (unsuccessfully) to the Liquor Appeals Tribunal arguing for the ability to trade 241 hours the clear legal authority for the hours to be taken away in the event that trading activity lead to problems in the locality was a key argument.

That authority has been used on a number of occasions over the years, and importantly, a number of those decisions have been supported on appeal, reinforcing the power to take action where necessary. In the 2006 decision in the Molly Malones2 case for example, the Tribunal supported Liquor Licensing and Police when they took action to reduce the hours of that premises. The Tribunal found that “the cancellation of the privilege of the extended hours permit”3 was reasonable having regard to the violence which had occurred on a number of occasions. More recently the Normanby Hotel suffered a similar fate when the licensee failed to secure 5am trading in a challenge to a deemed refusal to renew the relevant permit4. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the licensee had “the ability to control the noise and behaviour of the number of persons who could reasonably be expected to be on the premises between 3:00am and 5:00am” due to its findings about the history of problems associated with the hotel.

Recently I heard Clubs Queensland’s Doug Flockhart on radio stating that there were very few 5am traders in the State ? around 100 out of 6,500 premises. Since 2009 and the introduction of substantial licence fees linked to late trading, to the list of those who have lost their late trading privileges for disciplinary reasons we can add a group of licensees who have opted to reduce hours to save costs.

So where does that leave us? Theoretically, we have around 100 operators in the State, each of which runs a tight enough ship not to have drawn the adverse attention of the authorities, and which are financial enough to meet the recurrent costs associated with this industry segment (which include not only higher licence fees but: security personnel, at costs of perhaps $20,000 annually for a smaller venue, and well into 6 figures for the larger ones, top notch surveillance cameras, ID scanners in an increasing number of places as well as penalty rates for staff and so on).

We do not have uniform trading hours in Queensland. We have trading finishing at nearly every hour of the day and night. There’s a licensed restaurant down the road from my place which doesn’t even open for dinner. So the proposed change in hours negatively affects those who have been able to retain 4 or 5am trading, and at the same time provides a benefit to those competing in the same market but with shorter hours. It makes absolutely no sense that a number of the businesses which will benefit from a blanket reduction in trading hours already have reduced hours as a result of poor trading practices.

Ill leave it to others to analyse broader statistics, but anyone who thinks 5am trading per se causes violent behaviour needs to look closely at the times when most of the reported assaults occur. Im unaware of any evidence base which even suggests a causal link, and certainly no logical basis for the view that reducing hours for some of the venues but not others will lead to a reduction in poor behaviour. If you accept that trading hours by themselves do not cause poor behavior, then making changes to those hours becomes nothing more than some kind of social experiment: an experiment which places businesses and jobs at risk.

What Malcolm Turnbull said of the mining super profits tax is apposite to the remaining crop of late trading licensees. He said you dont nobble your front-runners. Doug Flockhart said it made sense “statistically” to bring hours back to 3am. I would have thought the reverse made more sense, whether statistically or otherwise. In circumstances where we have strong and proven legislation around extended trading hours, why should those surviving licensees be effectively targeted in the absence of some real link between their trading activities and problems in the community? What’s completely clear is that in the past, including the relatively recent past, hours have been reduced where there is a proper case for action to be taken. I would defy anyone who suggests that Police and Liquor Licensing are anything other than vigilant in the prosecution of these matters, and it follows that licensees who have retained extended hours must arguably be doing the right thing.

Knowing all this, I’m left bemused that any government would contemplate arbitrarily reducing trading hours. The regime which is in place was created by Government, and comes with its own checks and balances. The competitive water has found its own level. There is simply no case for experimenting with changes in hours when the outcome is likely to be the loss of businesses and jobs for no improvement in behavior.

1. Shooters Saloon Bar 4 [2000] QLAT 32
2. Molly Malones Townsville Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Liquor Licensing Division [2006] QCCTL 4
3. ib id at paragraph 69
4. Revestar Pty Ltd [2008] QLAT 76

Filed Under: News Tagged With: compliance, Extended Hours, licensing strategy, noise management, safe night out

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 11
  • Next Page »

Search

Recent Posts

  • Christmas & New Year Trading Hours 2024
  • Easter and ANZAC Day Trading Hours 2024
  • OLGR’s Liquor Compliance Strategy

Connect With LGS

Liquor & Gaming Specialists
Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on LinkedInFollow Us on YouTube

Contact Us

Liquor & Gaming Specialists
30 Prospect Street
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 AU
T: 07 3252 4066
F: 07 3252 1466

Send a Message

Copyright © 2025 · Local Business Marketing and Website Design, Brisbane