Back to previous page

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.


Victorian liquor law reform: should shops such as hairdressers and bookshops be able to serve alcohol?




Echo Issue Outline 1998 / 42: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`If a person wants to get drunk, they are not going to go to a book store to do it'
Mr Tim Spicer, the head of the Retail Traders Association

`... we're making more places where they can sell booze, so we're increasing the number of places where kids can go and get alcohol'
Associate Professor Michael Carr-Gregg from the Royal Children's Hospital's Centre for Adolescent Health

On October 8, 1998, the Victorian Government introduced its Liquor Control Reform Bill into state Parliament.
The proposed changes to the law have met with support from Retail Traders Association, the Transport Accident Commission and a number of other groups.
The changes have, however, been opposed by the State Opposition, some experts in adolescent health and by the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores.

Background
The changes proposed by the State Government to Victoria's liquor laws stem from a report that was released in 1997 on competition in the liquor industry.
The Government then established a Liquor Control Act Review which was to examine the current operation of the Victorian Liquor Control Act. Industry bodies were invited to make submissions to the review.
* Under the proposed changes to Victoria's liquor laws thousands of shops will now be able to serve alcohol. These include bookshops, music stores, boutiques and hairdressers.
These shops will be allowed to serve beer, wine and spirits within special `caf‚ zones' set up on their premises. They will be able to serve alcohol by the glass, but they will not be able to sell packaged alcohol to be taken away by their customers.
Shops wishing to serve alcohol in this manner will have to apply for a licence from a newly established Office of Liquor Licensing and from their local council.
* Other proposed changes will allow people to purchase alcohol anywhere in a restaurant without also having to order a meal. Also hotels will no longer be limited in how much of their floor space can be given over to selling alcohol without food.
* Another change will allow Victorians under 18 to enter licensed restaurants and cafes without being accompanied by an adult. (However, minors remain unable to legally enter hotels or nightclubs unless accompanied by an adult.)
* The new laws would also extend the hours for liquor shops so that they may trade the same hours as hotels.
* The new regulations would be accompanied by a change in licensing authority. The current Liquor Licensing Commission will be replaced by an Office of Liquor Licensing. Fines to be paid by those caught producing false identification for under-age drinkers will be increased.
The new laws would not allow packaged alcohol to be sold from milk bars, 24 hour convenience stores or service stations.

There are a number of Internet sites with information relevant to this issue.

The Victorian Liquor Control Act 1987, which is to be superseded by the new legislation, can be found at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/12d/L/ACT01001/4_1.html
The Liquor Control Reform Bill can be found at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/pdocs/bills/B00413/B00413I.html
This Bill will be debated in the Spring session of Parliament and is expected to become the Victorian Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. It will enact the new arrangements discussed in this outline and will replace the previous Liquor Control Act.
Both these documents are for the determined only, as the Liquor Control Act runs to 91 pages and the Reform Bill to 63.

Also of interest is a Master of Health Sciences thesis submitted by Kevin Boots in March 1997. It is titled A Most Ingenious Paradox? Victoria's Liquor Control Legislation 1988 - 1993.
It was produced for the School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, LaTrobe University, Victoria, and is reproduced on the web by the Curtin Institute of Technology's National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse (NCRPDA)
Its index can be found at http://alpha6.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/ncrpda/staff/kevin_thesis/index.html
This is quite complicated material, however the information and arguments it presents are interesting. It gives a public health overview of Victoria's liquor licensing laws between 1988 and 1993.
A good starting point is Chapter 2, which gives the history of liquor licensing in Victoria. This can be found at http://alpha6.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/ncrpda/staff/kevin_thesis/chapter_2.html

Finally, Eurocare (Advocacy for the Prevention of Alcohol Related Harm in Europe) has an extensive site which supplies information on liquor laws in most European countries.
Eurocare is an alliance of agencies set up to tackle problems associated with alcohol use at a European level.
Eurocare's access page to profiles of European nations and their alcohol consumption and regulations can be found at http://www.eurocare.org/profiles/


Arguments in favour of the proposed reforms to Victoria's liquor laws
The proposed reforms have been welcomed by the Retail Traders Association as a means of attracting customers to those shops now potentially able to serve alcohol.
Mr Tim Spicer, the head of the Retail Traders Association, has stated, `This is saying to people come in, relax, have a look around and spend longer in the store.'
Some of the stores now eligible to apply to serve alcohol appear to believe that allowing their customers to drink on the premises would be in keeping with the character of their businesses and would help to attract customers and keep those customers in the store until they had had time to decide on a purchase.
This view has been put by some retailers, such as bookshops and music shops, which generally require their customers to browse before making their selections.
Mr Mark Rubbo, the part-owner of Readings bookshop in Carlton, has said, `Bookshops have become social places where people like to meet, and having a drink would fit in quite well with that.'
A similar point has been made by Mr Jeff Harrison, the managing director of Gaslight Records.
Mr Harrison has said, `I could see a [music] listening area down the back where we could offer a nice relaxed atmosphere and a glass of wine.'
Further, it has been noted that those stores which do not believe that serving alcohol would suit their merchandise or their usual clientele would simply not need to apply for a licence.
Ms Louise Asher, the Victorian Minister for Small Business, has claimed that many stores would probably not avail themselves of the option.
Ms Asher has suggested, by way of example, `I can't imagine hairdressers en masse taking this up.'
According to this line of argument, the proposed change in the law would not compel unwilling retailers to serve alcohol, rather it gives those retailers who might wish to do so the opportunity to apply for a licence.
It has further been argued that the new laws are `socially responsible' in a number of ways. (This claim has been made by Ms Louise Asher, the Victorian Minister for Small Business.)
Firstly, it has been noted that though the laws potentially increase the number and type of outlets where alcohol can be served, these outlets must still apply for and receive a licence.
Applicants must have their licences approved by both the Office of Liquor Licensing and their local council.
The requirement that the licence be approved by the relevant local council is seen as a way of helping to ensure that the character of an area is not changed in a way that local businesses and the local community do not want.
Further, the new laws require that all applications for a liquor licence be advertised for 28 days and local residents are given the right to appeal against the granting of a particular licence.
Ms Asher has apparently claimed that under these new laws residents would be given strong rights to object if a licensed outlet might have a negative impact on an area.
Secondly, it has been claimed that the new state government body which would grant such licences, the Office of Liquor Licensing, would be more powerful than the body it is intended to replace, the Liquor Licensing Commission.
This would appear to suggest that the Office of Liquor Licensing would be able to inflict harsher penalties on those who did not adhere to the terms of their licence.
Thirdly it has been claimed that the new regulations are aware of and attempt to address the problem of under-age drinking.
Those who maintain this point of view note that though those under 18 would be able to enter restaurants and other premises where alcohol is served without being accompanied by an adult, they would not be able to purchase and consume alcohol at any of these venues.
Supporters of the new legislation also point out that minors remain unable to enter hotels and nightclubs unless accompanied by an adult.
It has also been noted that the new legislation imposes fines of $2000 on those who produce false identification to be used by under-age drinkers as supposed proof of age.
Finally, it has been claimed that the decision not to increase the number of venues where packaged alcohol could be sold is an attempt to minimise the effect of this new legislation on the drinking habits of young people.
The government was apparently advised that young people tend to acquire packaged alcohol which they then consume privately or in groups away from adult supervision.
According to this line of argument the decision not to sell alcohol in milk bars, off-the-shelf in supermarkets or from convenience stores is intended to prevent the new regulations encouraging young people to drink alcohol.
Louise Asher has claimed, `We have deregulated liquor by the glass in restaurants and in businesses, but we have maintained really strict controls on packaged liquor.'
It has also been maintained that the decision not to sell alcohol through service stations or convenience stores was an attempt to keep alcohol consumption separate from driving.
The Transport Accident Commission has been reported as having said that allowing businesses to sell alcohol is unlikely to increase drink-driving.
Overall the claim has been made that the changes are only likely to result in more civilised and leisurely drinking, they are not, it has been claimed, likely to promote drunkenness.
The head of the Retail Traders Association, Mr Tim Spicer, has said, `If a person wants to get drunk, they are not going to go to a book store to do it.'

Arguments against the proposed reforms to Victoria's liquor laws
There are two sets of arguments offered against Victoria's proposed new liquor laws.
The first are the objections of those who believe the new laws make alcohol too readily available. The second set of arguments are from those who believe that the reforms do not go far enough and that other outlets, which are prohibited from selling alcohol under the new laws, should have been included.
One of the major concerns of those who believe that the new laws would make alcohol too readily available is that the changes may encourage under-age drinking.
According to this line of argument, the more venues there are selling alcohol the greater opportunity under-age drinkers have.
Associate Professor Michael Carr-Gregg from the Royal Children's Hospital's Centre for Adolescent Health has claimed, `... we're making more places where they can sell booze, so we're increasing the number of places where kids can go and get alcohol.'
It has also been claimed that those businesses which have not previously sold alcohol will be unfamiliar with the identification that is carried by those over 18 and so will more easily be fooled by false IDs.
This point has been made by Mrs Margaret Wheeler, a manager at Keypass.
Keypasses are one of four official forms of ID which licensed premises are able to accept. (The others are passports, driver's licences and proof-of-age cards.)
Mr Brian Kearney, the chief executive office at the Liquor Licensing Commission has stated that fake forms of identification would always remain something of a problem `because the ingenuity of those who seek to defeat you is limitless ...'
Similar concerns have been expressed by the Victorian Opposition.
Concern has also been expressed that increasing the number of outlets able to sell alcohol increases community tolerance of the drug and this in turn increases the likelihood that young people will begin to drink.
Ms Dianne Pantazi, in a letter published in The Age on October 18, 1998, wrote, `Many under-age children are supplied alcohol by parents who use the excuse that the children will drink anyway ...'
According to this line of argument, any licensing reform which appears to promote alcohol is likely to increase the number of under-age drinkers and the extent to which they are supported in their drinking by adults.
A further concern of those who believe the new laws make alcohol too readily available is that increasing the number of outlets able to sell alcohol may worsen the State's drink-driving problem.
This point was made by D. Potter, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on October 14, 1998. The letter suggested, `... a person buying packaged liquor is likely to consume that alcohol at a premises that will not require them to drive at all.
However, the person getting his/her hair done has a couple of drinks, then a couple more while trying on some clothes and a couple more here and there, then jumps in the car and drives.
Logic dictates that the net effect of the changes will lead to increased drink-driving.'
A third concern of those opposed to the reforms as too liberal is that some outlets that would prefer not to sell alcohol may be compelled to do so.
According to this line of argument there are outlets which do not believe that serving alcohol suits their merchandise or style of operation.
The hair stylist, Edward Beale, has said, `It's a bit frightening actually ... It's something that has always gone on in salons, especially for weddings, but they always get a bit out of control.'
A similar point has been made by fashion designer Jenny Bannister, who runs a self-labelled boutique in Windsor.
Ms Bannister has said, `Imagine the mess, slopping it all over the dresses.'
However, despite their reluctance to do so, there are some outlets which believe they may be forced to serve alcohol because their competitors are and they would be afraid of losing customers if they did not do the same.
A similar fear had been expressed by milk bar owners who had been concerned that if the new laws had allowed them to sell alcohol they would have been forced to do so in order to compete with the larger outlets, such as supermarkets, which can sell alcohol through their liquor shops.
Finally, there are those who object to the proposed new laws because they claim the reforms do not go far enough.
Service station and convenience store operators argue that they should also be able to sell packaged alcohol.
Mr Brian Mark, the executive director of the Service Station Association, has argued that there is no evidence to suggest that selling packaged alcohol at service stations will increase the incidence of drink-driving.
Mr Mark has claimed that petrol stations in the United States sell six-packs of beer and that there is no evidence that this has affected the road toll.
Similar complaints have been made by Mr Barry Anderson, the chief executive of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores.
In a letter published in The Herald Sun on October 19, 1998, Mr Anderson writes, `Convenience stores ... would sell alcohol to people who were on their way home or to a social outing. They would act as responsibly as every other liquor retailer.
Even the Liquor Review,' Mr Anderson claims, `suggests that a case could be made for allowing convenience stores to sell packaged liquor, yet the new legislation forbids this.'
Mr Anderson has further claimed that Victoria is the only state that stops convenience stores selling alcohol.
It has also been suggested that the new laws would not allow convenience stores to compete with supermarkets which can sell alcohol through their liquor stores.

Further implications
The State Opposition has called for a six-month delay on the debate of the Liquor Control Reform Bill to allow for wider community consultation.
Given the Kennett Government's comfortable majority in both house of State Parliament it appears unlikely that the Bill will be delayed for this reason. Such delay is only likely to occur were there significant public opposition to the proposal.
Given that the opposition that exists appears to come from opposite directions - some critics regarding the new laws as too liberal and others regarding them as not liberal enough - it seems unlikely that sufficient concerted opposition to the Bill will be mustered to delay its progress.
Once the Bill becomes law it will probably take some time before its impact for better or worse to become apparent.
The Government appears to have no plans to monitor the new laws' impact and then fine tune its liquor control laws in the light of whatever might be revealed by a study of their operation.
One further consequence of the Liquor Control Reform Bill is that Box Hill and Camberwell residents could vote to remove the area's `dry zone' status.
It has been illegal to sell alcohol in Box Hill and Camberwell since 1920. The the local ban was imposed as the result of a plebiscite (vote of all citizens) and can only be undone by the same means.
The last poll to have local laws changed and to allow hotels to open in the area was held in February 1990. In this poll a majority of residents voted to have their suburbs remain 'dry'.
With shops and boutiques in the area likely to apply to their councils to for a liquor licence it seems likely that another plebiscite will be held once the new state legislation passes.
It is not possible to predict how the residents of Camberwell and Box Hill will vote on the question.

Sources
The Age
15/9/98 page 4 news item, `Stores seek beer sales go-ahead'
9/10/98 page 5 news item by Clare Kermond & Karen Lyon, `Labor alarmed at liquor law change'
11/10/98 page 5 news item by Gabrielle Costa, `Law revamp sparks under-age drink fears'
12/10/98 page 8 analysis by Clare Kermond, `The story so far ... Victoria's liquor laws'
12/10/98 page 8 analysis, `Squeezing the last drop'
12/10/98 page 12 editorial, `A drink to a more mature Victoria'
14/10/98 page 9 news item by Fergus MacGuire & Karen Lyon, `End liquor drought: residents'
17/10/98 page 10 letter from Philip Touzel, `In support of being dry'
18/10/98 page 24 letter from Dianna Pantazi, `Booze control'

The Australian
19/9/98 page 5 news item by Sally Jackson, `Just bring yourself, BYO's off the menu'

The Herald Sun
8/10/98 page 1 news item by Damon Johnston, `A liquor revolution'
9/10/98 page 5 news item by Greg Thom & Sasha Baskett, `Business toasts liquor law changes'
9/10/98 page 5 news item by Genevieve Lally, `Nips and snips don't mix'
9/10/98 page 5 news item by Genevieve Lally, `Thumbs down on shop tipple'
9/10/98 page 5 news item by Genevieve Lally, `Stores step up sales fight'
9/10/98 page 18 editorial, `Wowsers R.I.P.'
14/10/98 page 20 letter from D Porter, `Drink-drive shopping trips'
19/10/98 page 20 two letters under the heading, `Alcohol law changes irresponsible'