NationStates Jolt Archive

A FREEZE on new city bars and clubs, higher licence fees and teenage liquor spies form the biggest industry shake-up in a generation.

Premier John Brumby yesterday released details of sweeping drink reforms covering law and order and health to counter a wave of violence and illness.

The $37 million package includes a lockout system in which from June 3 drinkers will be banned from entering inner-city pubs, clubs and bars after 2am.

Mr Brumby will force licence holders to take responsibility for drinkers, with measures including under-age agents testing whether alcohol is being sold illegally to youngsters.

The plan recommends an overhaul of liquor licensing, including a review of fees and licences, a review of the number of people in high-risk venues and a new health care approach to alcoholics.

Mr Brumby, who acted after a long-running campaign by the Herald Sun, said yesterday he was alarmed at evidence showing that young Victorians were endangering their health and becoming violent during late night binges.

"The growth in this problem is quite frightening," Mr Brumby said.

The measures, which were widely endorsed by experts yesterday, include:

A THREE-MONTH trial of 2am late entry bans for inner-city pubs, clubs and bars.

A BAN on new, late-night liquor licences in four inner-city councils.

A NEW liquor licensing strike force to hit rogue bars and clubs that breach drinking laws.

TRIAL use of teenage spies to catch publicans who sell alcohol to minors.

LEGISLATION to modernise laws allowing the short-term involuntary detention of people with severe alcohol problems.

A RISK BASED licensing system in which licensees would pay more to run a pub, bar or club if it was deemed to be a potential threat to the community.

A COMMUNITY awareness campaign to explain the risks of excessive alcohol consumption.

AN overhaul of the way the director of liquor licensing allows private surveyors to determine numbers at some clubs.

Mr Brumby yesterday conceded Victoria had gone too far when it liberalised liquor laws after the 1986 Nieuwenhuysen report into the Liquor Control Act, which paved the way for an explosion in the number of liquor licences.

After Prof John Nieuwenhuysen's report was delivered, the number of liquor outlets soared from about 3200 to well in excess of 17,000.

Mr Brumby said it was time to restore the balance in favour of health factors.

"The challenge is to preserve our 24-hour city as the safest in Australia while addressing the misuse of alcohol," he said.

The decision to set up the alcohol taskforce - headed by Mental Health Minister Lisa Neville - came after a long-running Herald Sun campaign highlighting how alcohol consumption had spiralled out of control.

The decision to impose a year-long ban on new inner-city licences for after 1am reflects the concerns about violence.

The councils affected by the ban are Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and Stonnington.

These are the same councils affected by the 2am lockout regime, which will mean that patrons can stay in a venue after the cut-off point.

If they leave, they will not be able to return and will not be allowed to enter a bar, pub or club until 7am in the four council areas.

There are some exemptions, including the gaming floor of Crown casino.

The lock-out will be tested for three months.

Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon yesterday embraced measures stopping young drunks moving from one venue to the next.

"We know the majority of alcohol related violence occurs on the streets as people move from venue to venue, not in the actual venues themselves," Ms Nixon said.

VicHealth boss Todd Harper said the reforms were the most significant in decades.

"The industry now needs to play its part in helping to reduce the dangerous binge drinking we're seeing particularly from vulnerable young people," he said.

Australian Hotels Association chief executive Brian Kearney pledged qualified support for the Government's agenda on the condition the lock-out trial was handled appropriately.

Opposition drug abuse spokeswoman Mary Wooldridge said the alcohol plan was six years late, having been promised in 2002.

How long until those teenage spies are reporting their parents' subversive activities back to party headquarters? This country is turning into a fascist dictatorship.

i think be seeing lot of mums and dads who pissed off their teenage spies getting locked up soon then later

Also, the government is placing HUGE taxes of alcohol, tobacco and junk food to force people to stop consuming them, and they're blocking porn from Australian Internet users.

Also, the government is placing HUGE taxes of alcohol, tobacco and junk food to force people to stop consuming them, and they're blocking porn from Australian Internet users.


Outside of the porn issue which I find appaling this whole bit sounds like America.

Also, the government is placing HUGE taxes of alcohol, tobacco and junk food to force people to stop consuming them, and they're blocking porn from Australian Internet users.
Firstly, they are only raising taxes on the so-called 'mixed drinks', ie high-alcohol content drinks which are packaged etc to look like cordial and to appeal primarily to young girls because they taste just like soft drink but get you drunk quickly. Scotch, Vodka and the usual drinks are the same price.

Secondly, I looked up porn yesterday.

Firstly, they are only raising taxes on the so-called 'mixed drinks', ie high-alcohol content drinks which are packaged etc to look like cordial and to appeal primarily to young girls because they taste just like soft drink but get you drunk quickly. Scotch, Vodka and the usual drinks are the same price.

Yeah. NOW.

Secondly, I looked up porn yesterday.

Some sites are already blocked.

What's this? Apparent oppression that KP/FO can't blame on the Muslims?

What's this? Apparent oppression that KP/FO can't blame on the Muslims?

No, I get to blame this on the left-wing. So it's win-win!

Urr, last i checked, The UK has been using under age spies for years - Its the easiest way to get a conviction for the illegal sale of restricted products.. your blowing the article way out of proportion and picking at straws.

Of course, in the uk, if the teenager obviously looks over 21, then your covered as you are only required to check the id of those who look under 21

Outside of the porn issue which I find appaling this whole bit sounds like America.

It sounds just like pretty much every other country in the world.

It sounds just like pretty much every other country in the world.

Oh goody, we're turning into Saudi Arabia.

Oh goody, we're turning into Saudi Arabia.

...

Because the rest of the world is Saudi Arabia? Did I miss the memo?

Most of the world is crap, only the West is any decent, and now Australia's sliding it's authoritarianism.

Also, did I mention there's a law against swearing at sports event now?

Most of the world is crap, only the West is any decent, and now Australia's sliding it's authoritarianism.

Also, did I mention there's a law against swearing at sports event now?

Howard was far more 'authoritarian' than the current government, and I wouldn't even use that term.

Most of the world is crap, only the West is any decent, and now Australia's sliding it's authoritarianism.

Also, did I mention there's a law against swearing at sports event now?

Did I mention that some fish lay several thousand eggs a day?! Can you imagine?! That's like... an army of fish!

Hey, this is fun.

Some sites are already blocked.
Really? I mean, I heard of the government handing out free filters to parents who wanted them, but I binned their information pack before my parents ever saw it. :p

It's okay, I'm 22. I'm allowed to throw fascist mail away.

Now to a more serious issue, because it's the first scare campaign I have ever seen that I have actually seen. Pretty much everyone over the age of 18 has - people really don't know how to drink. I don't know if they ever did, but today people only drink to "get smashed". And then they crash other people's boats into harmless fishing trolleys and instead of being charged with theft they get tributes on national TV.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a government issue. Even if it was justified in doing something, there is nothing that will work. But that doesn't stop me from recognising that binge drinking is an actual, real-life problem.

Howard was far more 'authoritarian' than the current government, and I wouldn't even use that term.

Umm, no. He wasn't. We never had these laws under him.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a government issue. Even if it was justified in doing something, there is nothing that will work. But that doesn't stop me from recognising that binge drinking is an actual, real-life problem.

So the solution is to strip the majority of their rights?

normal stuff aimed at mostly curbing youths drinking (iirc 20-somethings with alzheimer's have shot up in recent years in the UK) I don't see how this will affect you other than if your underage or that happens to be your main sexing group

good to see Australia remembers it is ruled by my benevolent monarchy though :)

LEGISLATION to modernise laws allowing the short-term involuntary detention of people with severe alcohol problems.

I'm sorry but this is the only restriction of rights I see and its for a damn good reason that I'm horrified Australia's hasn't already implemented

Most of the world is crap

its mostly full of nations that just copy Europe anyway so you can't say a big bland E.U world can have bad spots

I'm sorry but this is the only restriction of rights I see and its for a damn good reason that I'm horrified Australia's hasn't already implemented

A THREE-MONTH trial of 2am late entry bans for inner-city pubs, clubs and bars.

Freedom of movement

LEGISLATION to modernise laws allowing the short-term involuntary detention of people with severe alcohol problems.

Holding without charging

I don't see how this will affect you other than if your underage or that happens to be your main sexing group

It doesn't matter if this affects me or not! It's so anti-freedom, Gandhi is spinning in his grave right now.

Umm, no. He wasn't. We never had these laws under him.
We had others. Binge drinking just wasn't Today Tonight's topic of the week while he was in charge.

So the solution is to strip the majority of their rights?
You will find that I began that very sentence you quoted with an answer to your question.

What I would like to see is people stop glorifying "getting hammered" and acting like idiots (http://www.bigbrother.com.au/), and instead kids getting taught how to drink properly early enough to make sure they're equipped to deal with social influences once they start partying. But those are parenting issues, nothing to do with government.

A THREE-MONTH trial of 2am late entry bans for inner-city pubs, clubs and bars.

Freedom of movement

odd because that has nothing to do with the customers movement but rather when the bars are open :p

LEGISLATION to modernise laws allowing the short-term involuntary detention of people with severe alcohol problems.

Holding without charging

police protection

It doesn't matter if this affects me or not! It's so anti-freedom, Gandhi is spinning in his grave right now.

omg they are placing rules on the alcohol business thats like never been done before and has no good reason behind it! (btw I'm sure Gandhi won't be holding your hand on this one not that you would want him too...)

odd because that has nothing to do with the customers movement but rather when the bars are open :p

Bars can open and close whenever they want. You're just not allowed to ENTER them after 2AM. Freedom of movement.

Bars can open and close whenever they want. You're just not allowed to ENTER them after 2AM. Freedom of movement.
I can't recall right now...but how old are you? Have you ever actually been through a full night out?

I can't recall right now...but how old are you? Have you ever actually been through a full night out?

I'm 19. So, yes.

Really? I mean, I heard of the government handing out free filters to parents who wanted them, but I binned their information pack before my parents ever saw it. :p
I can return it to sender, officialy, with a nice little sticker and my name on it and the reason given would be 'refused'.:)

And this has nothing to do with the topic, meh.

There has never been a legal right to consume alcohol wherever and when ever you want. The government is quite within its rights to change the regulations in regards to liquor licensing to suit community standards and to protect citizens. It's the second part that has caused the government to restrict alcohol supply.
In case you are unaware, in the last 3 years violence by drunks has become an extreme problem in the city.

I'm 19. So, yes.
Fair enough then.

The real question is how things like rights to non-interference change when you're drunk and obviously not in posession of the mental faculties that are considered to give you such rights. It's still paternalistic, of course, but I've seen enough shit happen to see the reasoning behind these rules. The entry ban for example keeps people at one place and therefore under some level of supervision. By 2am people are drunk enough to exhibit precisely the dangerous aggressive tendencies that are problem behind binge drinking - keep them under the watchful eye of that huge Samoan man with sunglasses and they're probably less likely to hurt someone.

Alternatively, get more police to patrol the streets, but that'll be charging you and me through taxation. On the other hand, it would allow to make a distinction between those dangerous drunks and everyone else, who would be unfairly affected by an entry ban.

Maybe an increase in alcohol sales taxes, and fund it with that.

Bars can open and close whenever they want. You're just not allowed to ENTER them after 2AM. Freedom of movement.

it is odd in the sense that they should just stop serving but whatever...

this is under the same logic as legally banning entry into crowded clubs due to fire safety (and odds are its not the fires that kill more people)

I'm 19. So, yes.

your 20 next year shouldn't you be settling down with kids and shit? :p (yes I'm soon to be 19 and the fact that I'm 20 next year is scary as hell)

In case you are unaware, in the last 3 years violence by drunks has become an extreme problem in the city.

what ever happened to to Australian spending all night trying to get drunk on his piss poor national beer? :(

Umm, no. He wasn't. We never had these laws under him.

No, instead we had employers with dictatorial powers.

No, instead we had employers with dictatorial powers.
ROFLMAO...that's the best you could come up with?

ROFLMAO...that's the best you could come up with?
The right for worker's to organize freely in such associations is guaranteed by several UN conventions, Howard intentionally attempted to destroy the rights of working people and to make workers little more than common economic commodities of the bosses.

The right for worker's to organize freely in such associations is guaranteed by several UN conventions, Howard intentionally attempted to destroy the rights of working people and to make workers little more than common economic commodities of the bosses.
And workers still had the right to organise freely. They just didn't have the right to decide what they co-workers got paid.

And that's the last I will say on this matter, because the issue of binge drinking and potential legal responses is in principle worth its own thread.

It doesn't matter if this affects me or not! It's so anti-freedom, Gandhi is spinning in his grave right now.
A necessary part of living in a civilised society is the relinquishing of certain freedoms. A society that was totally free, in the fullest sense of the word, would resemble something rather unpleasent...

The Ghandi bit I find rather difficult to swallow, too.

In case you are unaware, in the last 3 years violence by drunks has become an extreme problem in the city.
God, yes. The city can be a bastard of a place now, this coming from someone who lives in one of the most bogan-ish suburbs in Melbourne.

A necessary part of living in a civilised society is the relinquishing of certain freedoms. A society that was totally free, in the fullest sense of the word, would resemble something rather unpleasent...

No. If you lose freedoms, your country is Nazi. End of.

No. If you lose freedoms, your country is Nazi. End of.

Oh quit it, what is it with libertarians and over-the-top overdramatic warnings of fascism?

No. If you lose freedoms, your country is Nazi. End of.
No, it's totalitarian. Nazism has racial ideology in it too, which is absolutely unnecessary to create a totalitarian state.

No, it's totalitarian. Nazism has racial ideology in it too, which is absolutely unnecessary to create a totalitarian state.

I like the term "Nazi" better. People don't understand "totalitarian".

What's this? Apparent oppression that KP/FO can't blame on the Muslims?

the porn ban was at the request of Muslim leaders. something about no more harassing people on the beach for a year if parliament obeys.

I like the term "Nazi" better.
Aye, but then who doesn't when making bullshit statements?
People don't understand "totalitarian".
They should.

I like the term "Nazi" better. People don't understand "totalitarian".

People who wake up sober in the morning because they weren't out binge-drinking all night, do learn words like "totalitarian," eventually.


(*American sits back down to coffee and crossword puzzle, building up that vocabulary.* :))

People who wake up sober in the morning because they weren't out binge-drinking all night, do learn words like "totalitarian," eventually.
I think you're being a bit presumptuous here, I am personally a big fan of the whole binge-drinking lark when I have the money for it and yet can discuss politics with accurate terminology.

I think you're being a bit presumptuous here, I am personally a big fan of the whole binge-drinking lark when I have the money for it and yet can discuss politics with accurate terminology.
Heh, you think so? :p




(SUBTLE HINT!!!!: I'm teasing you.)

How long until those teenage spies are reporting their parents' subversive activities back to party headquarters? This country is turning into a fascist dictatorship.

You must hate it when cops plant bait cars too.

Secondly, I looked up porn yesterday.


Did you suffer through the Capitalist swine's bare skin for the proletariat?

What rubbish... The bars can stay open, you just can't go INTO them after 2pm. This means that if you leave, you leave properly, not end up waiting outside some OTHER bar getting angry and cold and when drunk, that is a BAD combination.

The tax on RTD's is just a re-adjustment. Under the GST they ended up, by some weird twist of tax law, being taxed LESS than they were before. So this combines a re-adjustment of taxation with a potential health benefit. Of course, this means that underage kids will just go back to drinking goon, but hey, thats what they've always done.

(I love being able to say "they". Just a few days ago it was "we". Gotta love that.)

Anyway, your freedoms are not being restricted any more than they are in all sorts of other circumstances. These restrictions are for public safety, not to enact a totalitarian state. Its just a response to what has become a fairly large problem. No need to overreact.

You must hate it when cops plant bait cars too.

Ten dollars says he's annoyed that he got caught doing something.

What I would like to see is people stop glorifying "getting hammered" and acting like idiots (http://www.bigbrother.com.au/), and instead kids getting taught how to drink properly early enough to make sure they're equipped to deal with social influences once they start partying. But those are parenting issues, nothing to do with government.

The Unfortunate thing about it is because kids are told not to drink alcohol, and get banned actually increases their desire to consume alcohol. It really is a society thing in Australia (not all but most) parents from their English background which has been passed through the generations won't allow their children to have even the smallest amount of alcohol, thus when they get to the age (around 15) and are able to get access to alcohol and their parents aren't around they go crazy and drink as much as they can.

Many of the people I know who have had European parents have been given small amounts of alcohol as they are growing up thus the substance is not prohibited nor is it some magical drink which they can only have every now and then, thus they don't go as crazy when they have a lot of access to alcohol.

There are a lot of dickheads out there who think placing a ban on alcohol or some other restriction will stop people from drinking it. That is why I had to laugh when some fruitcake at the 2020 talkfest suggested that the best way to stop underage drinkers from drinking was to raise the drinking age.

I certainly hope Rudd doesn't decide to raise the alcohol tax it is already quite high, but shock, horror a Labor government is raising taxes who would have thought :rolleyes:

The right for worker's to organize freely in such associations is guaranteed by several UN conventions, Howard intentionally attempted to destroy the rights of working people and to make workers little more than common economic commodities of the bosses.

WTF, Howard never passed laws banning Freedom of association, if members thought that they felt the need to join a union they were still allowed. Once again you have posted on a thread that has little to do with the RP and your posts are completely false

What rubbish... The bars can stay open, you just can't go INTO them after 2pm. This means that if you leave, you leave properly, not end up waiting outside some OTHER bar getting angry and cold and when drunk, that is a BAD combination.

The tax on RTD's is just a re-adjustment. Under the GST they ended up, by some weird twist of tax law, being taxed LESS than they were before. So this combines a re-adjustment of taxation with a potential health benefit. Of course, this means that underage kids will just go back to drinking goon, but hey, thats what they've always done.

(I love being able to say "they". Just a few days ago it was "we". Gotta love that.)

Anyway, your freedoms are not being restricted any more than they are in all sorts of other circumstances. These restrictions are for public safety, not to enact a totalitarian state. Its just a response to what has become a fairly large problem. No need to overreact.

the problem is this is a a deal reached with Muslims immigrants and it is the first steps toward outlawing alcohol and porn. next will be a mandatory stop of traffic for prayer time.

Also, the government is placing HUGE taxes of alcohol, tobacco and junk food to force people to stop consuming them, and they're blocking porn from Australian Internet users.But don't they know the internet is for porn?

No. If you lose freedoms, your country is Nazi. End of.
Well firstly, 'Nazi' is not a type of government or society any more than 'pope' is. Others have been quite right to correct the terminology. Another aspect that I would correct is your choice of syntax. You seem to be suggesting that that any and all restrictions on freedoms make society 'Nazi', not the degree and type thereof.

Secondly, I never advocated an erosion of freedoms of the order implicated by totalitarianism, nor does banning the entry into licensed premises after 2am constitute an advancement towards this. I would agree that laws such as banning gatherings of 3 or more people would be totalitarian, draconian, etc, however I do not see the parallel with the case in question.

Thirdly, the justice system exists to enforce the law - the law by which societies are made viable. Having both law and justice necessitates that certain freedoms are relinquished. For instance, I must agree to not kill people (among many other things) in order to derive the benefits of living in this particular society. My freedom to kill people is thus restricted to cases of self-defence where it is absolutely necessary. So, saying that 'if you lose freedoms, your country is Nazi' is really quite incredible. Are you advocating the logical consequence of a TOTALLY free society, an anarchy, as a viable form of society? If not, it seems that you must abandon your stance that banning entry into licensed premises after 2am is Nazi/totalitarian.

<snip> next will be a mandatory stop of traffic for prayer time.

Nah, we've already got that:

8.30am - 9.30am: Traffic halts for the mandatory Prayer for Dvinie Intervention -- "Please let nobody notice I'm late again."

5pm - 6pm: Prayers for the Smiting of the Ungodly: "Go to hell, tailgater!" and "Damn you, can't you see the lights have changed?"

On the actual topic: The word "Nazi" is something I'd save for Nazi-type actions. The town where I live has introduced limits on pub entry, too, after too many bashings after the pubs closed.

How many's too many? For most of us, it's "My kid is too many." It's not a discriminatory move directed at anyone on the basis of race, gender, politics, religion or sexual orientation. It's just a rule to make living in urban groups easier.

Victoria where?

What's this? Apparent oppression that KP/FO can't blame on the Muslims?

No, I get to blame this on the left-wing. So it's win-win!

It sounds just like pretty much every other country in the world.

Oh goody, we're turning into Saudi Arabia.

...

Because the rest of the world is Saudi Arabia? Did I miss the memo?

But.... but mommy, we've GOT to bring the Muslims into this SOMEHOW....

What rubbish... The bars can stay open, you just can't go INTO them after 2pm. This means that if you leave, you leave properly, not end up waiting outside some OTHER bar getting angry and cold and when drunk, that is a BAD combination.

The tax on RTD's is just a re-adjustment. Under the GST they ended up, by some weird twist of tax law, being taxed LESS than they were before. So this combines a re-adjustment of taxation with a potential health benefit. Of course, this means that underage kids will just go back to drinking goon, but hey, thats what they've always done.

(I love being able to say "they". Just a few days ago it was "we". Gotta love that.)

Anyway, your freedoms are not being restricted any more than they are in all sorts of other circumstances. These restrictions are for public safety, not to enact a totalitarian state. Its just a response to what has become a fairly large problem. No need to overreact.

Ah, but telling FO not to overreact is like telling fire not to burn.

But don't they know the internet is for porn?

I don't know -- have they seen Avenue Q? (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=4619464)

But.... but mommy, we've GOT to bring the Muslims into this SOMEHOW....

i did tie them into it. it is a Muslim plot to slowly ban drinking premarital sex and porn.

normal stuff aimed at mostly curbing youths drinking (iirc 20-somethings with alzheimer's have shot up in recent years in the UK) I don't see how this will affect you other than if your underage or that happens to be your main sexing group

Maybe he has to get them smashed first.

I'm certainly not a fan of draconian measures (although I think these are hardly in that category), but there needs to be something done about the problem in Melbourne. Violence is everywhere. I haven't been on a night out in a long time without seeing or being the victim of violent behaviour - often spilling out onto the streets.

Late September, I was randomly punched in the face in a club by a person I had never seen or spoken to before. My friend intervened on my behalf, but unfortunately a large number of the randoms friends joined in and knocked my friend onto the ground. Several unrelated bystanders, including several women, decided to join in and stomp on his face. Fortunately neither of us were drinking and we had our wits about ourselves - I managed to get him out of there with only a bruised and cut face on my end, but he suffered a dislocated shoulder and several nasty blood bruises.

That was it for me. It's only recently that I've started going "out" again but I've avoided any places that a similar situation could occur in (unfortunately, that doesn't leave much.) Even then, I won't drink unless i'm in a safe area. Why should people constantly have to fear for their own safety when attempting to enjoy themselves? There must be a solution to the problem.

I'm certainly not a fan of draconian measures (although I think these are hardly in that category), but there needs to be something done about the problem in Melbourne. Violence is everywhere. I haven't been on a night out in a long time without seeing or being the victim of violent behaviour - often spilling out onto the streets.

Late September, I was randomly punched in the face in a club by a person I had never seen or spoken to before. My friend intervened on my behalf, but unfortunately a large number of the randoms friends joined in and knocked my friend onto the ground. Several unrelated bystanders, including several women, decided to join in and stomp on his face. Fortunately neither of us were drinking and we had our wits about ourselves - I managed to get him out of there with only a bruised and cut face on my end, but he suffered a dislocated shoulder and several nasty blood bruises.

That was it for me. It's only recently that I've started going "out" again but I've avoided any places that a similar situation could occur in (unfortunately, that doesn't leave much.) Even then, I won't drink unless i'm in a safe area. Why should people constantly have to fear for their own safety when attempting to enjoy themselves? There must be a solution to the problem.

^ This.

So? That's nothing that a couple of police can't stop. I've never seen a single cop in Melbourne at night when I go drinking.

Outside of the porn issue which I find appaling this whole bit sounds like America.

Not quite, we're still allowed to get fat.

Not quite, we're still allowed to get fat.

Several websites have been blocked from Australian users.

the problem is this is a a deal reached with Muslims immigrants and it is the first steps toward outlawing alcohol and porn. next will be a mandatory stop of traffic for prayer time.

Do you have any reliable sources this little rant of yours?

Many of the people I know who have had European parents have been given small amounts of alcohol as they are growing up thus the substance is not prohibited nor is it some magical drink which they can only have every now and then, thus they don't go as crazy when they have a lot of access to alcohol.
To be fair, I had European parents (still do, in fact), and though I did have wine once or twice, that didn't exactly stop me from almost poisoning myself with a toxic mix of various funny-coloured 20%+ spirits when I was 14.

So European-ness isn't a guarantee. But I'd like to think that having had more experience with the effects of alcohol would have allowed me to stop after a few sips, rather than drinking like half a litre of that stuff.

I certainly hope Rudd doesn't decide to raise the alcohol tax it is already quite high, but shock, horror a Labor government is raising taxes who would have thought :rolleyes:
It's hardly because Labor wants to spend more. You'll have heard about the budget - spending or redistribution is the last thing they're thinking about right now.

In this case it's a "sin tax", supposed to alter behaviour and as such as nothing to do with left vs right. As I said, none of these measures are something the Liberals wouldn't do in principle, it was just that the great binge drinking problem wasn't in the headlines while they were in power.

To be fair, I had European parents (still do, in fact), and though I did have wine once or twice, that didn't exactly stop me from almost poisoning myself with a toxic mix of various funny-coloured 20%+ spirits when I was 14.

So European-ness isn't a guarantee. But I'd like to think that having had more experience with the effects of alcohol would have allowed me to stop after a few sips, rather than drinking like half a litre of that stuff.

Well I said most people I know with European parents I am aware that it may not apply to everyone, I just noticed that those who I would ask "do your parents let you drink alcohol?" Those which replied no or never were usually the ones who were passed out on the front lawn at 3am or chucking up their guts. Those that replied yes or sometimes they give me a bit (all of these people had european parents) while still drank and may have got drunk were not at the extent where they would try to drink as much as they could in a few hours and usually (there was the odd time) were not so pissed they couldn't even remember their name.

I also point to Europe as I remember reading an article on how binge drinking in Europe (amongst youger people) was not as rife as in the UK or the US because they were introduced to it at a younger age in controlled conditions.

It's hardly because Labor wants to spend more. You'll have heard about the budget - spending or redistribution is the last thing they're thinking about right now.

In this case it's a "sin tax", supposed to alter behaviour and as such as nothing to do with left vs right. As I said, none of these measures are something the Liberals wouldn't do in principle, it was just that the great binge drinking problem wasn't in the headlines while they were in power.

I never said they wanted to spend more I was mearly stating that it is not a surprise to see a Labor government rasing taxes.

I never said they wanted to spend more I was mearly stating that it is not a surprise to see a Labor government rasing taxes.
Which is an implication that is basically misleading in this case. You're implying that there is something about Labor that makes it more likely for them to be increasing alcohol taxes. There is not - in fact you'd think that since this is a "sin tax" and conservative parties are more likely to fight "sinning", it is more of a surprise that Labor is raising these taxes than it would be if the Liberals did it.

Of course, that would assume that the ALP was internally and ideologically consistent rather than just the curious mix of populism and union activism that it actually represents a lot of the time.

Which is an implication that is basically misleading in this case. You're implying that there is something about Labor that makes it more likely for them to be increasing alcohol taxes. There is not - in fact you'd think that since this is a "sin tax" and conservative parties are more likely to fight "sinning", it is more of a surprise that Labor is raising these taxes than it would be if the Liberals did it.

Of course, that would assume that the ALP was internally and ideologically consistent rather than just the curious mix of populism and union activism that it actually represents a lot of the time.

Any tax not just alcohol tax, and yes there must be something about Labor that makes them want to increase taxes, which is why I am not surprised that they are, and don't be surprised if they decide to raise a few different taxes later in their term. In regards to taxes they are consistent, you may be to young to remember but before the '93 election Keating said he would not raise taxes other wise he would resign, come the next budget taxes are raised and I don't have to tell you that he didn't resign. If you look at many of the current state Labor governments they have either increased taxes or they have failed to fulfil promises on lowering state taxes.

Yes the Labor party is full of populist ideals, the unionism has fallen out of it a bit (yes they were strong during the past two years only because of the workchoices, you will see them not to be so relevant) it is also full of leftist ideals, some good some bad. As the late Kim Beazley Sr said on what the Labor party has turned into (and I am paraphrasing him as I don't remember it word for word) The Labor party used to have the cream of the crop of the working class, now it is full of the dregs of the middle class, who only wish to promote their own twisted ideals.

I think your ideas on the two major parties are strange to think that the Liberal Party would increase taxes due to a sin? Maybe you have been hanging around Americans to much?

The Liberal party would place in more education they may or may not just raise taxes. They may also not increases taxes because they are not trying to be popular like PM Rudd who seems to only do something if it will help the polls and is being sensationalised on Today Tonight, (which is also why it not surprising that the PM has raised these taxes)

Any tax not just alcohol tax...
That's the point. This is not any tax, it is a particular policy that seeks to increase the price of a good in order to reduce consumption of it. There are no other motives for it, given that the government really doesn't need or want more money right now.

Hence why whatever ideological reasons there may be for the ALP to want to redistribute or flatten income distributions are irrelevant to this particular issue, and why the Liberals would be just as likely, if not more, to increase this particular tax if they were in power right now.

In regards to taxes they are consistent, you may be to young to remember but before the '93 election Keating said he would not raise taxes other wise he would resign, come the next budget taxes are raised and I don't have to tell you that he didn't resign.
Three letters: GST.

Let's just say breaking promises with regards to taxation is par for the course in government, regardless of the party.

Also, don't diss Keating. As an economist, I'm one of the few people in this country who seem to acknowledge just how much we owe that man. Well, me and John Howard perhaps, though he'd never admit it.

If you look at many of the current state Labor governments they have either increased taxes or they have failed to fulfil promises on lowering state taxes.
Any specific examples then?

Anyways, the current ALP budget will include tax cuts, while Campbell Newman (a Liberal) here in Brisbane is spending hard and increasing council rates. As I said, taxation is a bipartisan affair.

I think your ideas on the two major parties are strange to think that the Liberal Party would increase taxes due to a sin? Maybe you have been hanging around Americans to much?
No, I've seen the Howard government operate. It's a mockery of the party's name that he, who openly proclaims an allegiance to conservatism, should have been its head for such a long time. Howard's Liberals were a party of conservative, traditionalist and xenophobic populism. Apart from Costello, who got no say on things other than economic policy, there was not a liberal in there.

I maintain some hope that Turnbull will change things once he decides to take charge, which would remove the final vestiges of this monumental hijack Howard committed. But we'll see.

Either way, yes, the Liberal Party is more likely to legislate how people should live than the ALP on social issues, if only marginally so.

The Liberal party would place in more education they may or may not just raise taxes.
First of all, education is a state matter, and the states don't charge most taxes. Secondly, the Liberals had plenty of time in power to "place in more education", but the degree to which they actually did it is questionable. As the ALP likes to point out, compared to other OECD countries, we haven't exactly outdone ourselves during Howard's reign.

They may also not increases taxes because they are not trying to be popular like PM Rudd who seems to only do something if it will help the polls and is being sensationalised on Today Tonight, (which is also why it not surprising that the PM has raised these taxes)
Howard had bashing immigrants and "Australian values" to appeal to the Today Tonight audience, Rudd will have to find something else. It's a sad truth that elections are decided by idiots with more mortgage debt than brains and who make "Border Security" a top-rated show.

Anyways, you'll see in this budget that Rudd realises that occasionally short-term popularity will have to take a back seat to avoid greater unpopularity in the future. Obviously we're more likely to see rich people being targeted, but the principle remains the same.

That's the point. This is not any tax, it is a particular policy that seeks to increase the price of a good in order to reduce consumption of it. There are no other motives for it, given that the government really doesn't need or want more money right now.

Hence why whatever ideological reasons there may be for the ALP to want to redistribute or flatten income distributions are irrelevant to this particular issue, and why the Liberals would be just as likely, if not more, to increase this particular tax if they were in power right now.

Well quite but I don't see how you weren't surprised that Labor decided to increase taxes, whatever the reason

Three letters: GST.

Let's just say breaking promises with regards to taxation is par for the course in government, regardless of the party.

Yes well, was that apart of his election promise into 1996? I am asking I thought it was what he said when he was leader before Downer. Yes I am aware of what he said so no need to bring it up again.

As for the GST regardless of what people said it didn't actually increase taxes it took off the Sales Tax in some cases it was 40% and placed a uniform tax of 10% on almost everything. (Yes I am aware that some things didn't have a sales tax and some where lower than 10%)

This is something that the Labor party acknowledged when it said that the GST took the price of alcopos down. And now they are raising it back up (as I said what a surprise)

Also, don't diss Keating. As an economist, I'm one of the few people in this country who seem to acknowledge just how much we owe that man. Well, me and John Howard perhaps, though he'd never admit it.

I wasn't dissing Keating as a position of treasurer, I will acknowledge that a lot of his deregulation and some of his other economic policies. (who was a borderline alcoholic, and I am not criticizing him for that it should be something Rudd looks at before he decides to socially engineer our life)

I was nearly dissing Keating in his other roles as a politician.

P.S I am an economist too, nice to see another one on here

Any specific examples then?.

Well the SA government was saying before the last election that Stamp duty will be decreased, it is yet to. I also remember how the Victorian government has also increased taxes over the years.

Anyways, the current ALP budget will include tax cuts, while Campbell Newman (a Liberal) here in Brisbane is spending hard and increasing council rates. As I said, taxation is a bipartisan affair.

Yes but only because Rudd said he would, and doesn't want to break a promise that might make him unpopular as I said he is after the polls, evidenced by the spin that shoots out of his mouth on any decision that he makes, remember he was a career diplomat so he knows how to sweet talk people.


No, I've seen the Howard government operate. It's a mockery of the party's name that he, who openly proclaims an allegiance to conservatism, should have been its head for such a long time. Howard's Liberals were a party of conservative, traditionalist and xenophobic populism. Apart from Costello, who got no say on things other than economic policy, there was not a liberal in there.

Either way, yes, the Liberal Party is more likely to legislate how people should live than the ALP on social issues, if only marginally so.[/QUOTE]

Any specific example on Australians lives were legislated?

First of all, education is a state matter, and the states don't charge most taxes. Secondly, the Liberals had plenty of time in power to "place in more education", but the degree to which they actually did it is questionable. As the ALP likes to point out, compared to other OECD countries, we haven't exactly outdone ourselves during Howard's reign.

I was not just talking about school education which yes is a state matter, I was referring to other education techniques such as pamphlets on alcohol and drug abuse which I do remember getting in the letter box published by the former government. That is the sort of education I am talking about including TV advertisements etc.

Your last sentence I must have missed that bit, where was this and what was it on. If you are referring to money spent on education then as you say it is a state matter, how can you have it both ways? And regardless of what the Labor party might have said they was quite a bit of money spent on education by the former government and even if Rudd wants to make his new Trade schools the former government set up a bunch of similar schools around Australia the newly formed Australian Technical colleges

Howard had bashing immigrants and "Australian values" to appeal to the Today Tonight audience, Rudd will have to find something else. It's a sad truth that elections are decided by idiots with more mortgage debt than brains and who make "Border Security" a top-rated show.

The price of democracy I suppose. And (I know you weren't referring to me) but I don't watch Border Patrol and I only watch Today tonight if I am bored and feel like laughing at the shit that they broadcast.

Anyways, you'll see in this budget that Rudd realises that occasionally short-term popularity will have to take a back seat to avoid greater unpopularity in the future. Obviously we're more likely to see rich people being targeted, but the principle remains the same.

Well maybe I would like to see the details of the Budget before I pass any judgement on it.

Yes attacking the so called rich a favourite of the Labor government, don't allow people to become rich let them continue to live in squalor, and those that have invested their money and worked hard for it (many of these are lower middle class to middle class families) they will be punished, I suppose it is an old ideal that still remains with the socialist crowd.

I find it interesting that Swan considers families earning $60,000 a year as rich. I wonder when was the last time he was earning that little amount? Maybe 20 years ago in fact for certain $60,000 a year was a lot not nowadays. With families barley able to live a decent life on $55,000 or less I find it hard to imagine why he thinks $60,000 you must be rich.