With two Melbourne venues – The Birmingham Hotel and The Old Bar – subject to noise complaints last week

The Old Bar too, now?

yeah, liam's been talking about it in another thread, noise from the courtyard.

''Under the agreement, the government will recommend that Maclellan reverse the blanket security requirements placed on venues over the past 12 months upon request and if police raise no objections. However, as an independent statutory officer, Maclellan retains the power to impose conditions at her discretion.''

So basically, no change to the present situation.

unless, of course, maclellan isn't reappointed in april...

much as she seems like your typical arrogant, detached public servant, it really is looking like the government is going out of their way to set her up as the fall guy for their lazy and ham fisted legislation...

that won't solve the situation either. the power and discretion will still lay with a new person, who could actually be a bigger prick than sue.

''much as she seems like your typical arrogant, detached public servant, it really is looking like the government is going out of their way to set her up as the fall guy for their lazy and ham fisted legislation...''

scapegoats. that's what governments do best.

hey Jon and SLAMmers

when can we see a copy of the Accord? i presume this is an Accord under Sec 146A of the Liquor Act - licensees will have to formally sign on?

from the government's release:

Under the terms of the Live Music Accord, the Government recommend to the Director of Liquor Licensing that:
• Crowd controller conditions not automatically be applied to new live music venues;
• Crowd controller conditions only be applied to venues if recommended by Victoria Police, as a condition of planning approval or because of breaches of liquor laws; and
• The Director of Liquor Licensing reverse the blanket crowd controller requirements placed on venues in the past 12 months upon request and if police raise no objections. Conditions placed on individual venues as a result of compliance issues, planning requirements or mediated outcomes will continue to apply.

govt's press release here, but no link to any document:
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/9508.html

Crowd controller conditions only be applied to venues if recommended by Victoria Police, as a condition of planning approval or because of breaches of liquor laws

This may be a dumb question, but who sets the conditions on planning approvals? Local councils?

hi greg. last time i spoke to jon (this morning), he said he was putting the accord into pdf format.

The old bar has just been approached by the council with the information that there was a noise complaint in regards to noise from the courtyard and at this stage there is no further action to be taken that I know of. We also had two written noise complaints from the council in regards to live music late last year but we know that these complaints came from the front of the building and we are working on sorting this out aswell.

As I said to a friend last night, it is as difficult and stressful to run a legal venue as it would be to run an illegal venue. You just never know how long this will last.

Hey Jose, I'm on my phone but I'll be at work soon so I'll be in contact then.

The Herald-Sun readers are right onto this

And who'd ever guess that it's an election year? Once again, our non-elected Premier has dropped the ball on a vital issue affecting law and order. In a blatantly cynical attempt to buy votes, Brumby has succumbed to pressure from the pro-alcohol lobby. What's even more obvious is that the weakened agreement runs -- conveniently -- until just after the election. What a surprise!

Pro alcohol lobby? Wow, some people amaze me.

I am however very pro alcohol

A-ha! So you admit it?

Yes I do, I will now vote brumby and then we will get pissed together.

There is definitely a new (renewed?) element of wowserism arising in this state.

Live Music Accord, now available on SLAM website
http://www.slamrally.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Live_Music_Accord.pdf

this war is only halfway, any ideas for how to prevent it dying a slow quiet death in the bureaucracy of a taskforce?

Make sure you sign a paper copy of the petition.
Support FG4LM and VicMusic - make sure they represent all views and have power to bang on Spring St doors
Go to live shows - a lot

Go to live shows - a lot

YEAH!

MissAustralia2003 the Greens will be sending a copy of the Accord to all the licensees we can find who have the same or similar conditions to the Tote. we'll be asking for their views on it, particularly where and how they might be able to make use of the agreement to get their conditions changed. it's still basically a case-by-case approach, as the state govt originally said.

the old bar has the same restrictions as the tote.

i think this accord has some postive views in it and it is a step in the right direction but it is shit that i now have to apply to have my license changed to a person who had nothing to do with writing the accord and has no actual responsibility to say yes to any changes. even brumby was kinda dodging this question on the news saying that he can only reccomend these changes, sue has every right to say no.

point 5 of the accord is questionable because so far ''common sense'' hasn't been evident in the llc. it's good to see point 1b - venues can reopen until 3am, once approved on an individual basis by the llc but how slow will the llc go in processing all the individual cases...

it's all positive wordage, but no rest until changes are legislated, because the wordage is at risk of stagnating quietly in the bureaucracy, as fg4lm appears to have done years ago

The clock is ticking to the end of the current LLV Director's tenure. Let's see which way she moves.

Interesting point MissAus.

Now that the rally is over I guess the hard work begins for SLAM and fg4lm. It's going to be an uphill battle to keep public pressure on because the gov has spun the accord as a win for live music. What does SLAM have in mind now? What's the plan?

It's getting lonely in this thread...

We need to keep a close eye on LLV decisions, at the accord holds no water. It is simply a recommendation that will evaporate in 12 months.
Changes to the LAW is what is required to ensure what has happend to the Tote and other venues, never happens again.

best quote from the rally was ''i feel safer in a dimly lit Tote than out the front of a brightly lit crown casio''. gold.

What's the plan?

Good point. Last time this blew up there was a political settlement of sorts and then it was promptly forgotten about.

I saw and spoke to Quincy today- this shit is not over, by any means. Oh no.

That is good news Block.

A week on from the 'accord' and I'm not aware of any statement (public or otherwise) from Sue McLellan? Of course this isn't over yet. The status quo remains.

I'm surprised that the Govt has not been sending out lots of press releases with any scrap of positive spin they can find about what's happening with the process of the accord.

I think the Gov thinks the issue is solved now that the accord has been signed. And ostensibly for them it has been. They have been able to spin the signing of the accord as solution to the problem, so now they've moved on to other matters.

Unless SLAM or fg4lm activate people again I don't think the government has any use in drawing attention to the issue.

A week on from the 'accord' and I'm not aware of any statement (public or otherwise) from Sue McLellan? Of course this isn't over yet. The status quo remains.

Live music accord a partial victory
DEWI COOKE AND SARAH-JANE COLLINS
February 24, 2010

LIVE music venues will still be judged on a case-by-case basis when applying to have security restrictions eased, despite liquor licensing authorities accepting new protocols suggested by the government.

Licensing director Sue Maclellan released a statement yesterday saying she would implement the approach outlined in the live music accord, signed by industry representatives and Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson late on Monday. In the accord, the government urged Ms Maclellan to ease security requirements on venues affected by the changes to late-night licensing arrangements over the past year, providing neither the venue nor Victoria Police objected.

cont...

Thanks for that - April is coming up pretty quickly, it appears.

I'll be interested to see who the first venue is that applies, and what the outcome is.

Madden clearly wasn't consulted, and has no idea about, the Accord as it relates to planning...

25 February 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Live music: government support

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- My question is for the Minister for Planning. In 2003 his predecessor, Minister Mary Delahunty, engaged in an exercise then known as the live music task force. The output of that was a document called Live Music -- The Way Forward. A practice note associated with an amendment to clause 15.05-2 of the planning scheme was also developed. That section of the planning scheme says that:

Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate ...

That sounds lovely, but the problem with it is it then goes on to say that those decisions must be consistent with any relevant aspects of several documents, including the state environment protection policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2. The N-2 state environment protection policy operates only on live music venues as an emitter of noise. It literally says that rock-and-roll is noise pollution. What I would like to ask is: can the minister point me to any example since that amendment was introduced, including in his time as minister, where that particular clause has been used to support live music? That could be, for example, in a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision, in a panel report on a planning scheme amendment or on local councils' practice of issuing planning permits?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Mr Barber's line that rock-and-roll ain't noise pollution took me back to the other week when I was in the city near the AC/DC concert venue and there was a gentleman there who looked not unlike Mr Barber. I do not think it was Mr Barber, but he was about my age, Mr Barber's age, and he was dressed in a school boys uniform with a cap. I know it was not Mr Barber, even though I suspect he is a fan of not only live music but potentially AC/DC.

We do have a wonderful live music industry in this state. But let us recognise that we have quite an extreme range, from the big concert venues such as where AC/DC played the other night, where we have got thousands and thousands of people and no doubt some fairly substantial noise, right down to the quiet little acoustic small lounge-type of environment where music is played as well.

I think that was the point that many people were trying to make the other day in the celebration of live music on the steps of Parliament -- that live music venues can be different, from big to small, in many different ways.

My understanding of many of the matters Mr Barber has raised in relation to the control of music in various premises is that the state environment protection policy for the control of music noise from public premises basically sets out that venues cannot operate after 11.00 p.m. and that the noise limit for indoor venues is the background level plus 8 decibels.

In 2004 the then Bracks Labor government amended planning schemes to ensure that in considering community amenity -- and it is not being reduced to just noise alone -- councils must consider a range of building and design techniques rather than just land-use separation.

I understand that the concept which was developed is known as the agent of change principle, which determines responsibility for noise management. So where changed conditions are introduced into an environment -- for example, for a new use or changed operating conditions -- the reasonable expectations of the existing land users should be respected. This applies to both venue operators and residents. For an existing resident this means the continued protection of amenity in the event of a change to an existing venue's operation or the development of a new venue. In these circumstances the burden of any remedial measures such as noise attenuation or modified operating practices falls upon the venue operator -- the agent of change in those circumstances. For an existing venue operator this means that where a venue is currently compliant with relevant noise-attenuation standards and its operation does not change, new residential or other noise-sensitive development should not lead to new compliance costs for the venue operator.

The onus of any remedial measures in this instance falls upon the new resident, owner or developer -- the agent of change.

I hope that addresses Mr Barber's question. Basically if you are not changing any conditions, the person who was first there has the entitlement. My understanding is that that has been relatively successful, particularly in inner-city areas, particularly in inner Melbourne, where somebody might do a residential development near an existing venue, and you cannot then complain if that venue has been operating for some time under those conditions without any adjustments to the arrangement. I believe this is an appropriate mechanism for balancing the right of venues to operate -- particularly to play live music, where there might be a bit of noise -- with the amenity of potentially new residents, but also trying to get the balance right if there is a change in the licensing or the arrangements for the existing venue.

The government thinks this works relatively well. It will not necessarily satisfy everybody long term. There will always be concerns, but that does not just relate to music; it might relate to the operation of venues of different sorts -- restaurants and the like. A lot of people settle in areas because of those opportunities. Over time they might tire of them, but those opportunities still exist. I think the planning system on this basis balances those needs fairly reasonably.

Supplementary question
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I thank the minister. I was aware that that was the principle. My question went more to whether the minister could point to any case where that principle had been put into practice. But let me ask this by way of supplementary question: the live music accord signed by the government a day or so ago committed -- --

Hon. M. P. Pakula -- What is your theme song?

Mr BARBER -- Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.

The accord committed the government to a review of these very matters -- the planning aspects of it -- and I ask: is the minister aware that that commitment was made, and can he tell me when and how that review will commence?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I will no doubt receive advice from the department as to the best way to manage that review process.

I think it is important that the enthusiastic support of live music shows there is a recognition across the community that live music is one of the great attractions of Melbourne. We have a live music scene that rivals other cities. We want to maintain that, but we also want to get that balance right. I think this mechanism works pretty well, but if there is some finetuning on either side of the ledger that does justice to those venues that want a little bit more licence but also does justice to residents, then this will form part of the review. I would not think this will change civilisation as we know it, but I look forward to seeing what recommendations come from that review. Once I get the advice from the department as to the mechanisms for that review to be undertaken, I will be happy to provide that information to the member or present it to the chamber.

So any news on an action plan/timeline from SLAM yet?

They're meeting tonight.
I assume the next step is to put some licenses up for reconsideration asap.
LLV has (I believe) 21 days to review.
FG4LM will make a public announcement/update at Golden Plains.
Don't forget to sign the petition.

Yes, meeting tonight. You gotta realise that SLAM is/was a volunteer force, a voice intially for the musicians and punters, dedicated to putting on the rally and getting in the Govt's ear. That's happened now with the accord and widespread public awareness. Many more publicans have been speaking up with regards to licensing issues. There are meetings with FG4LM and the Govt coming up as Bruce mentioned. Music Victoria has only been formed - it'll be a few months before they work out their board, tender out their admin and really get cracking - will know more tonight. They'll be a great advocate for musicians and venues alike.

Yes - petitions will be at Golden Plains at the info centre. Get signing! Even if you've already signed the online petition, we still need to present Parliament with signatures on hard copy.

Interesting Kuro. Are you saying there will be a crossover or membership/policy development with SLAM and Music Victoria?

or = of

No, Meg! Check your PMs in a sec.

So is there a transcript of the FG4LM statement that was made at Golden Plains?

There wasn't one, unless you count the GP organiser's editorial bit in the programme.

First venue is saved, 6 weeks later!

By George! A licensing win, but only six bother to apply
DEWI COOKE AND PATRICK DONOVAN
April 14, 2010

JUST one drinking venue has had its high-risk security conditions rolled back since the state government signed an ''accord'' with the live music industry more than six weeks ago.

The George Hotel in Hamilton is the first pub in Victoria to successfully apply for a change to its licence conditions after the director of liquor licensing began enforcing tighter crowd control restrictions on venues hosting live music.

But it is one of only six pubs to apply to have restrictions eased since the government and Liquor Licensing director Sue Maclellan agreed on a set of terms that would allow certain venues to have their licenses reviewed.

Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson said he was concerned by the low number of pubs that had applied since the accord was signed on February 22. ''I encourage live music venues to contact the director for a review of their security conditions, whether under the accord or by the standard process,'' he said.

Increased security restrictions have been blamed for the closure of the Tote in Collingwood and the cancellation of live music in smaller Melbourne venues. It triggered a mass protest of music-lovers through the streets of Melbourne in February.

George Hotel manager Vicki Hollard said she and her husband were ecstatic to be told on Friday that their licence conditions had changed so that they were no longer required to hire two security guards for their live music events.

''We're so excited because it means we can offer a little bit more,'' she said. ''We're one of those country pubs that you have your karaoke once a month and you'll have the odd guy that might happen to come along and say, 'can I sing solo?' We're pretty irregular with our music.''

Ms Hollard praised the review process and said they would still employ security guards when they believed the event warranted it. But she said: ''We all have to work as one; we are all trying to do the same thing - we are trying to control. Hoteliers that do run their business tightly, we know what the law is and we try to abide by it … but I think licensees should be given more respect than they are.''

According to the government, 33 venues were eligible to be reviewed under the protocols and had been notified by letter in March.

Save Live Australia's Music spokesman Quincy McLean said he was heartened by news of the Tote reopening and the George Hotel receiving a roll-back on its conditions.

But he questioned whether authorities had done enough to notify venues about the exemption possibilities. He said he believed there were more venues affected by the policy than those contacted.

''The purchase of the Tote by Seventh Tipple suggests that these guys have faith in the government's intentions, which is also great. But it is very important that we don't lose sight of the fact that many other venues have had their legs broken by the implementation of these policies and they have only been given the promise of a pair of crutches to help them walk again,'' he said.