The Queensland Government recently published a report known as a Regulatory Impact Statement/Draft Public Benefit Test (“RIS”) relating to the review of the Liquor Act 1992. The RIS is part of the legislative process. It sets out the proposed changes, and calls for submissions on the changes from any interested party. You can download a copy of the full document here.
The RIS raises many questions but lacks the detail necessary to form a proper view of the changes in many respects.
Submissions in response to the RIS closed on 13 March 2008. To view submissions we made on behalf of a number of trader groups visit our documents page. After considering the submissions the Government issued Outcomes of the RIS/DPBT Consultation Process for the Liquor Reforms.
As more detail comes to hand we will publish it on this website.
In the meantime, the proposed changes are set out below, together with some short observations regarding possible issues for licensees in Queensland and the community as a whole.
a) Ministerial banning power
It is proposed that the Minister will have the power to ban certain irresponsible liquor products not in the public interest for up to three years. The banning power would be directed at products which specifically target and encourage the consumption of liquor by minors, or products which encourage the rapid or excessive consumption of liquor. This would include products packaged in a way that does not allow the consumer to recognize the impact of the beverage (such as the number of standard drinks contained per drink). Examples stated are alcoholic iceblocks, alcoholic milk, alcohol vapour, and alcoholic products sold in aerosol containers which are considered undesirable because of their appeal to young people and their ability to increase intoxication in a very short timeframe.
The introduction of a power of this kind is largely uncontroversial, and brings Queensland into line with other jurisdictions. However, it would be reasonable to expect that the power would be described in such a way as to preclude the banning of products which do not meet the criteria referred to in the report. The Government also plans to have a consultation process with industry and allow a manufacturer seven days to show cause why the Minister should not ban a product.
b)Mandatory RSA and RMLV training
An amendment will make RSA training mandatory for all staff involved in the sale or supply of liquor in licensed premises state-wide, including bartenders, glass collectors floor hostesses, security providers, room service staff and bottle shop staff. RMLV training will become mandatory for all licensees, nominees and managers and will need to be renewed every three years.
These requirements already apply to any licensed premises operating after 1.00am within the Brisbane City Council area. The principle issues for liquor licence holders are increased costs to the licensee and further pressure on workforce participation in hospitality jobs. Questions might include whether the cost of training should be subsidized and whether school-based training should be made available as part of the education system.
c) Standard trading hours
It is proposed that ‘high risk’ permits (as an endorsement on a licence) will be required for trading between 12am-3am, and ‘elevated risk’ permits (as an endorsement on a licence) be required for trading between 3am-5am. One-off permits for trading during these periods will also be available. However, trading between 5am-7am will no longer be possible.
The 3am lockout will be retained.
Trading other than for functions and other than with some form of special approval will not be permitted prior to 10am.
It is unclear what issues are being addressed by these measures. On the face of the report it appears that current arrangements for late night trading will remain untouched. However, other than renewal fees no detail is provided regarding any specific requirements with respect to either permit, what conditions will be imposed, cancellation provisions etc
d) Manager’s licence
An amendment to the legislation will make it mandatory for an approved manager to be present if the venue is licensed to operate after 12am, or is catering to a function (on or off-site) where the number of consumers for the current licensed operation or activity is increased.
It is proposed that a manager’s licence/approval will be assessed according to the same criteria as an application for a new nominee which includes:
• completion of a RMLV course;
• completion of a separate RSA course;
• probity check; and
• assessment of management history e.g. infringement notices, complaints.
In the event a licensed manager is found to have a poor management record, such as frequent infringement notices or documented complaints, the licence may be refused.
The issues here again relate to the absence of any detail in the report. For example, how will licensees cope with processing delays with Liquor Licensing? How many licensed managers will be required for each venue? What will be the policy for dealing with an emergency situation where the venue might be without a manager, or the manager might call in sick?
Consideration must also be given to the effect on labour force participation in duty manager roles if the requirements are too difficult. Although it is hard to argue against any measure which improves the quality of management, yet another licensing system will create further compliance issues and must be applied using a common sense attitude.
The most recent information from the Liquor Licensing Division allows for managers of “low risk” venues to be absent for up to 28 days, subject to conditions, but no allowance has been made for other venues.
e) Licence type restructure
It is proposed that the licence categories for applications will be streamlined into two distinct licence types – commercial and community – with subcategories for each based on risk.
The proposal is for effectively 5 licence categories –
• Commercial Hotel – equivalent to a current General licence
• Commercial Casino
• Commercial Other – this will be the category for nearly everyone else: restaurants, cabarets etc
• Community Club
• Community Other
It is also proposed to introduce new licences for small/boutique bars and wine (exclusive) bars with a maximum venue capacity of 60.
There is very little detail provided in the RIS regarding how the risk-based subcategories of the Commercial Other designation will work.
Gaming and detached bottleshops will only be possible for a Commercial Hotel licensee, although the RIS does not deal with take away packaged liquor from a main licensed premises at all. Commercial Hotel and Community Club licensees will be the only categories permitted to have a DOSA.
This may be no more than a re-naming exercise. On the other hand it may lead to issues with proliferation of outlets, particularly when the new boutique bar proposal is considered. Interestingly, the report does not discuss the effect of increased numbers of licensed premises from a harm minimization point of view.
There is an inadequate level of detail about the practical aspects of the changes. For example, will the 60 person capacity for boutique bars be determined on seating or standing room? Or on floor area?
The most recent press release regarding this aspect says only “Typically, these venues seat less than 60 people.”
(f) Licence fee restructure
It is proposed to amend the Liquor Act and the Liquor Regulation to require annual renewal of licences. The annual renewal fee would seek to cover the direct costs to Government of regulating the liquor industry.
|
Criteria
|
Scale |
Risk |
Fee $ |
|
Commercial |
Hotel |
$2 700 |
|
|
Special facility (5am-12am trading up to 10 outlets; for each extra outlet above 10 add $1000) |
$10 000 |
||
|
Special facility (10am-12am up to 10 outlets; for each extra outlet above 10 add $1000) |
$7 500 |
||
|
Other |
$500 |
||
|
Community |
Club (large) |
$2 200 |
|
|
Small Club (<2000 members) |
$500 |
||
|
Other |
$250 |
||
|
Bottle shops |
Detached bottle shop (for each shop) |
$3 000 |
|
|
Trading Hours |
7am to 9am – clubs – demonstrated need (sporting or shift workers) and includes functions if approved |
Low |
$1 000 |
|
7am to 9am – functions (only) |
Low |
$1000 |
|
|
9am to 10am – subject to demonstrated need – |
Low |
$ 500 |
|
|
(commercial & community licences) |
|||
|
10am to 12am standard trading |
No |
$0 |
|
|
12am to 3am |
High |
$7 500 |
|
|
3am to 5am |
Elevated |
$10 000 |
|
|
Noise dB(C) |
Exempt existing cabaret licences with current structural specifications |
No |
$0 |
|
≤ 75 |
No |
$0 |
|
|
76-90 Noise with an acoustic report |
Med |
$500 |
|
|
91-100 |
High |
$1 000 |
|
|
>100 |
Very High |
$2 000 |
|
|
Provision of food |
Off-site sales |
No |
$0 |
|
(standard trading hours) |
Not applicable |
No |
$0 |
|
Prepared meals (2hrs prior to closing) |
No |
$0 |
|
|
Prepared snacks (2hrs prior to closing) |
Medium |
$500 |
|
|
No food |
High |
$1 000 |
|
|
Provision of food |
Prepared meals (1hr prior to closing) |
No |
$0 |
|
(extended trading hours) |
Prepared snacks (1hr prior to closing) |
High |
$1 000 |
|
No food |
Very High |
$10 000 |
|
|
Compliance history |
Positive management history |
No |
$0 |
|
Warnings |
Low |
$3 000 |
|
|
Infringement notices |
Medium |
$5 000 |
|
|
Prosecution/Disciplinary action |
Very High |
$10 000 |
|
|
Major trauma |
Encumbrance |
$20 000 |
The table above is from ‘Outcomes of the RIS/DPBT Consultation Process for the Liquor Reforms’ From the figures above, a licensee trading under a general licence until 5am with music levels of more than 100dB(C), not providing food until 1 hour before closing will pay an annual fee of $32,200, or higher in the event of any compliance problems.
Issues here are relatively obvious. There is no distinction made between venues based on geographic location or size. The economic pressure will therefore vary from one venue to another which is not a fair approach.
Also, although annual licence fees were abolished in 1997 they were replaced with sales tax changes and ultimately with GST. So it is incorrect to say that licensees are not already contributing to meeting the costs of regulation etc.
(g) Liquor accord legislation
Liquor accords are not currently recognised in the Liquor Act. Recognition in the legislation will offer certainty as to the nature of accords and the responsibilities of those who are members of the accord.
Most industry participants are supportive of accords, and any strategy to increase participation is probably welcome.
