Who do we vote for now?

these guys

seriously fuck the greens. they wont oppose the internet filter either.

here is the motion:

(1) notes the hardship caused to many social, sporting and community clubs, small licensed grocers and bottle shops, live music venues, smaller pubs, vignerons and other licensed venues as a consequence of the Brumby Government’s unfair liquor licensing regime;
(2) notes the Brumby Government’s unfair liquor licensing regime directly threatens the future of Victoria’s live music scene as demonstrated by the closure of iconic live music venue the Tote Hotel in Collingwood with the consequential loss of opportunities for musicians and the loss of jobs for full time and part time staff;
(3) notes that uniform licensing conditions requiring security staff to be engaged at licensed venues featuring live or amplified music are making the performance of live music at some low-risk venues financially unviable with serious consequences for Victoria’s music industry;
(4) notes the unfair fee increases which have seen the liquor licence fee for a small grocer in Port Fairy increase from $249 to $6330, and the liquor licence fees for many small licensed grocers and bottle shops exceed those payable by large liquor supermarkets, and many smaller, family owned pubs with no adverse compliance history being required to pay fee increases of thousands of dollars;
(5) notes the Brumby Government’s statement that despite increasing liquor licensing fees from $15 million in 2009 to $35.8 million in 2010 “The proposed risk-based renewal fees are not considered a burden on businesses”;
(6) condemns the Brumby Government for its failure to implement a genuinely risk-based liquor licensing regime that provides for licensing fees and conditions appropriate to the venue and activity; and
(7) calls on the Brumby Government to immediately scrap its unfair liquor licensing regime in favour of a system that is both fair and genuinely risk-based.

k2 said 50 seconds ago:

seriously fuck the greens. they wont oppose the internet filter either.

agreed, fucking useless

seriously lame!

Pathetic. I had some hope for The Greens, following the publication of their four-point-plan to save live music on Kathleen Maltzahn's website, but should have listened to the realists who repeatedly pointed out that it was merely an opportunistic and cynical vote-gathering exercise, considering their previous support of Labor's Liquor Licensing policies. I admit that I was stupid to have trusted any kind of politicians to represent the interests of a minority interest group. Fuck'em all!

Don't be fooled by this move, people need to be more cynical about politicians. This is a Liberal stunt to dupe music fans into thinking they give a fuck. Point (7) ''calls on the Brumby Government to immediately scrap its unfair liquor licensing regime in favour of a system that is both fair and genuinely risk-based'' - they put this in deliberately because they knew the Greens wouldn't support it, and that it has no chance of getting up, its a tactical gambit. The Libs never expected this to succeed, they just wanted to walk away smelling like roses. Doesn't anyone watch Yes, Minister?

the greens still could've put forward their own motion, or worked with the libs to amend this one, buffy.

I'm with you Buffy. That bill was worded in a way which ensured that no one from Labour would vote for it but it looks as though the Libs care.

x-post

this is why i hate Politics. What a joke!

sad reality is that this isn't a bandwagon issue for the libs. they win votes by supporting small business. it's a horrible catch 22 for victoria.

I think this is an admission from the Greens that they're voters are middle class, home owning bores who like to tell other people how to live their lives.

their* even

Point taken, Buffy. I guess like any halfway intelligent person I object to the cynicism and blatant point-scoring of ALL the political parties.

It's hard to tell who are the biggest cunts in this farce.

hello hotheads! I emailed the greens because i was confused about it and put it the response here . today my thinking is leaning to that of buffytunnel's - suspect the liberal motion was 'puff', and who knows maybe the greens and labor are working on something. This is a link to the greens response to the liberal motion.

can the petitions be signed by people in other states or overseas? Easy to email them one and then they print it out, get signatures, scan it in and email back?

it's good to get passionately hot about this. the greens parliamentarian was equally vociferous last night.

can the petitions be signed by people in other states or overseas? Easy to email them one and then they print it out, get signatures, scan it in and email back?

make sure that they're still victorian voters, it would undermine the cause were it to become public.

Group hug

Group hug

like fuck.

they are still not going to oppose that filter, and much as local music is important to me (hell, i make a large chunk of my income from it and those who play it), that filter is far, far scarier than the tote shutting.

sue, why is your username suemlc?

Because her name is Sue, and she's a member of the Legislative Council, would be my guess.

I’m personally committed to fixing the problem that is making it hard for music venues to host live music and for musicians to find places to play.

Um, Hi Sue, i'm in an up and coming grindcore band called Throbbing Nudel and we often find it hard to get gigs as one of our members recently defecated a rodent on stage. Your assistance in finding us places to play would be greatly appreciated. k thnx bye.

I'm guessing because she's a Member of the Legislative Council.

Not to turn this into a broader Greens discussion, but where did the idea come from that the Greens would support the internet filter? Scott Ludlam has been the only person in the senate who seems to understand what's at stake and bothers to ask hard questions of the government. Meanwhile, the party of ''minimal government intervention'' keeps quiet and tries to out-pander Labor.

There may have been some confusion on the Greens position because their candidate at a recent By-election (Clive Hamilton) has been a reasonably outspoken proponent of the filter, but my understanding is that the Greens policy is strongly anti-filter.

thanks sue... i mean block.

You filthy anarchist, Danna.

haha.

Will the Greens vote against the Government on ISP filtering?

Scott Ludlam: No. There’s no way I’m going to outright vote against a bill I haven’t seen yet. I strongly believe there may be opportunities for amendments to the bill that will improve the situation we’ve got at the moment. We might be in a position to delete the mandatory filter parts of the proposal…something along the lines of an online filter that would catch the material they’re talking about that would be opt-in, while strengthening the way the current blacklist operates, which has been shown to be defective.

i think that makes it clear enough...

''might be in a position to delete the mandatory filter parts of the proposal'' sounds super reassuring doesn't it?

Greens policy is strongly anti-filter.

I emailed them directly and got a ''wait and see apprach'' reply. They may have a member who is opposed to it, but they have never out and out opposed the filter, so fuck the greens.

yep, suemlc just seems simple. I'm sue and I'm an mlc.

If we're playing quote games, what about this from Ludlam:

Scott Ludlam: ''The government's plan will not protect children, will do nothing to crack down on criminal activity online, and sets a dangerous precedent of centralised net censorship. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy should start paying attention to the almost universal condemnation of this scheme and pursue alternatives rather than pushing ahead with the mandatory filter.''

This should probably be in a different thread I guess.

Hey ya,

'High risk' category should involve operating hours after a certain time, it should involve number of patrons, it should involve venue / licensee history and it should involve location. It SHOULDN'T involve live music, volume of alcohol consumed, or be reviewed case by case If your pub comes under that category, so be it. Your fees are paid accordingly. By removing live music gets rid of unnecessary security costs

I never suggested anyone in their right mind would get rid of security, we all know that is stupid, however if the regulations are changed, the option is that they COULD. Now we all know the pubs we go to would never do this, and we all know the pubs we go to have responsible and smart management / staff. That's a no brainer. Yet regulations aren't just restricted to the boundary of Smith and Nicholson st. These things go statewide. And there's the loophole.

Unless you specifically put into regulations & legislation the names of particular venues exempt from such restrictions, then absolutely everyone is in the same group.
And doing it case by case is putting far too much responsibility into the hands of government regulators. Your business, staff, patrons and their livelihood are placed into the tiny hands of ONE person, (re:The Tote) charged with reporting to paper the way a venue operates. Even LLV officers entering a pub, checking everything and declaring ''All is fine here'', it is only for that brief instant that they are there. And what if a random incident happens while they are there? How can they be totally across a small venue, let alone a large one that holds 1000+? Simply they can't. By leaving it up to the publican is all good and well......if the publican isn't a fuckhead. Let's face it, outside of our small community of music / non-music inner city pubs, there are plenty of fuckheads who run pubs. And if you think they are going to be truthful about giving information, you're kidding yourself.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but by removing 'live music' (which I am a massive supporter of by the way, and yes of course I will be at the rally), and replacing it with 'venue history and volume of alcohol' - according to SLAM and their push to government - is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul, or Barry or Trev for that matter.

By keeping the category 'high risk', however taking the phrase 'live or amplified music' out of it should be the only change that is made. Nothing else. Because we could end up with egg on faces if quality media such as the herald sun for example who have been SO supportive of our general cause.....NOT, decide to create a story from nothing by say, finding someone who was bashed outside the Espy - plenty of them to find mind you - and linking that to the removal of live music from regulations.
All it takes is ONE person, ONE incident, ONE journo, ONE LLV officer, ONE simple fuck up from somewhere......and all of the protesting, the hard work, everything is close to fucked.

WE need regulations, and for some places to be categorised as high risk, as a compromise to government, so our general music community doesn't become extinct completely.

• again if SLAM can correct this as being my inability to read their statements, then please do so, maybe get Kuroneko to type your response slowly and not use big words for me so I can get my head to comprehend it, and get her to insult my intelligence while your at it, as it is her abnormally high intelligence level that keeps this place up to scratch.

About six copies of this were waiting for me in my in-box this morning. Make of it what you will:

To all Melbourne musicians and music fans,

Make no mistake: the Australian Greens are tremendously proud of
Melbourne's famous live music culture and we lend our full support to
the upcoming Save Live Australian Music (SLAM
) rally on 23 February.

That's why we are sending out an email to all our members in Victoria,
encouraging them to come to the SLAM rally, where I will be speaking
on behalf of the Victorian Greens.

An article in the Sunday Age (7/2) inaccurately reported that The Greens
voted against a Liberal motion in Parliament regarding live music. In fact,
The
Greens abstained from voting on the motion, because, as often happens, there
were parts of their motion we couldn’t agree with.

During the debate we made very clear our opposition to the requirement that
venues must provide security guards when live or amplified music is played,
even where there is no history of violence. This senseless requirement is
crushing Melbourne's live music culture and it’s making it very hard for
musicians to find venues with live audiences. The closure of The Tote shone
a light on this issue, which has forced other small venues to simply stop
holding live music.

Certainly, preventing harm from alcohol-related violence is crucial,
and The Greens will continue to support evidence-based, positive
approaches for reducing such violence. However, music doesn’t cause
violence.

The Greens are your genuine supporters of live music inside Parliament
and out on the Melbourne streets. We will do whatever we can to ensure
that Melbourne's live music scene continues to thrive. Have a look at
our four point plan that
outlines how we will make sure that live music remains viable.

On a personal note, I have been going to live gigs around Melbourne
for years and years. It is one of my great pleasures in life. I have
many friends who play in bands, so I know the issues facing our
musicians and Melbourne's live music culture.

Thank you,

Sue Pennicuik, Greens MLC and Spokesperson for The Arts

P.S. Given the misreporting of our position in The Age, we really
appreciate you passing this message on to anyone you know who's
interested in this important issue. Thanks.

I foudn this inteesting:

The Greens abstained from voting on the motion, because, as often happens, there
were parts of their motion we couldn’t agree with.

More details would be nice.

Was that sent out overnight?

Yesterday but I left work early and didn't get 'em 'til this mornin'.

suemlc should have thought out her username some more. looks like sue mclennan.

Good point de.foxus - didn't think of that, just that I use suemlc on twitter so just thought I'd use the same one.

JRB - I did explain on this blog in a little more detail a couple of days ago but basically we don't agree with the scrapping the whole LL regime, which was part of the motion.

Block, I first sent out the letter last Monday.

It's time the Greens became real politicians MELISSA FYFE February 21, 2010
The party poised to grasp the balance of power must reveal what it stands for.

ON AN overcast day last month, a politician wove through a crowded pub, climbed the stairs and came to an open window with a speaker and microphone. He then made a speech to the hundreds of people gathered below in Wellington Street, Collingwood.
His words dripped with anti-Brumby government sentiment. The crowd soaked it up. They were there to lament the passing of The Tote, a temple of Melbourne's independent music scene and victim of the liquor licensing laws. Underlining the protest was something broader: a belief that John Brumby was sacrificing their culture for more mainstream law-and-order votes.
These people were ready to consider political alternatives, which made The Tote rally fertile ground for the Victorian Greens, who are eyeing the seats of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick. But the man at the window was not Greens MP Greg Barber, who did not show up. It was City of Yarra Socialist Party councillor Stephen Jolly.
It took a week for Barber and his fellow Greens Sue Pennicuik and Colleen Hartland to draw up a live music policy (Barber said it was ''complicated''). It is hard to say whether this was a lack of engagement or bogged-down decision-making. But it is typical: the Greens were not just missing at The Tote rally, they have gone missing in the Victorian political landscape.
Apart from the environment, it is unclear what they stand for. They have done good work scrutinising bills, particularly on gambling. Their advocacy on public transport is also worth a mention. But, in an election year, this record alone is not good enough. Now they need to become real politicians.
This is especially so after the Altona by-election and its 12 per cent anti-Labor swing. An analysis prepared by former ALP state secretary Stephen Newnham and former Liberal staffer Rick Brown showed an average and uniform swing of 4 per cent against Brumby would result in a hung parliament, with Greens support needed to form government. This is a big responsibility and voters need to be able to assess the Greens' policies.
But the Greens fail to communicate with voters. When, for example, a recent poll showed that support for the Greens had jumped 4 per cent since the 2006 election to 14 per cent, barely a press release was issued. ''They haven't been able to get their message across to voters, to have someone who is a clear leader and a key spokesperson to effectively tell the community what they are doing and why,'' says former Greens member and Victorian secretary of the Electrical Trades Union Dean Mighell, who wants to see the Greens ''fire up'' in Victoria.
Firing up is hard when the Greens do not have a leader. Their leadership structure, as Barber explains, is ''an agreement that all three of us lead''. Ridiculous. As one observer noted of Greens decision-making generally: ''They try and reach a consensus position and for everyone to have a group hug at the end, but they need to toughen the f--- up on policy and politics.''
The Victorian Greens need only to look across Bass Strait for a working model. There, Nick McKim leads a team of four that could form government with the Liberals if Labor loses the Tasmanian election. And when November comes, how will the Greens spruik their four-year record? Many of the things they do are worthy and maybe one day, as Barber says, the ''chickens will come home to roost'' because of the checks and balances the Greens put in place. But Green-leaning voters are not going to vote on scrutiny of bills. What else do these politicians stand for? How has the party used its leverage to secure real gains for the Victorian environment?
But perhaps their record doesn't matter - the Labor protest vote will come their way, regardless. Every day, Barber says, his office receives calls from people who ''just want to tell someone'' they've changed their vote to Green because of the desalination plant, urban sprawl, the trains.
This is what infuriates Labor, which could lose two cabinet members, Bronwyn Pike and Dick Wynne, to the Greens: that the party is not really earning votes, but the Green tide, especially in the inner-city, has a sense of inevitability. The last poll showed the party would get 16 per cent of primary votes in Melbourne (although their Altona result was flat). The danger for the Greens is that a vote not earned is a vote more easily lost.
Barber's response is that the Greens' ways of doing things must be different to those of the Coalition and Labor. ''I am running an insurgency and you are judging me on standards and strategies of the big parties,'' he said. But Barber, a keen student of politics, particularly of the Labor variety, knows he will only get away with that for so long.
''Eventually,'' he says, ''Che Guevara comes down from the mountain and gets to be foreign minister.''