Where was buzz when this one got announced. 

Nationals Member for Benalla, Bill Sykes said today that the Liberal Nationals Coalition Government has announced changes to liquor licensing fees to help ease the burden on over 10,000 Victorian small businesses and community groups that pose a low risk in relation to alcohol-related violence.
Dr Sykes said that this is a positive step toward moving to a true risk based fee structure.
The base renewal fee has been reduced for the following categories:
• Full club (without gaming machines);
• Restricted club;
• Vignerons;
• Restaurant and café;
• Renewable limited; and
• BYO permits.

“The reductions will benefit regional venues which have been hit with steep increases in annual fees implemented under a Brumby Government.
“Restaurants and cafes including BYO, vignerons, limited and restricted clubs licensees, who would have been paying over $400 will now pay a base renewal fee of just $200.
“Full club licensees without gaming, will now pay just $400 instead of the $800 imposed by the Brumby Government.
“The Liberal Nationals Coalition believes that the former Labor Government’s increases in licensing fees have caused a significant and unnecessary financial burden on community clubs and businesses who pose a low risk in relation to alcohol related violence.
“I along with my Liberal Nationals opposition colleagues and liquor licensees lobbied extensively the Brumby Government in 2009 and 2010 and as a result a number of changes were implemented. This included the removal of licence fees for B&B’s, florists and giftmaker businesses and a new Producer’s Licence for brewers and wineries.
“The Coalition Government recognises that these changes did not go far enough and has therefore taken action to reduce the licensing fee burden for many businesses and community based clubs.”
Dr Sykes said that the Coalition Government will also review fees for packaged liquor licences to address any anomalies that see all packaged liquor outlets charged the same fee regardless of their size.
“Small country pubs however continue to bear the burden of increased fees and I will continue to lobby on their behalf for a reduction in liquor licence renewal fees.”
Licensees can seek to reduce renewal fees by applying to reduce their patron numbers or trading hours.
Invoices were issued to licensees at the start of January and must be paid prior to March 31, 2011.
Licensees who continue to supply liquor after this date and who have not paid their renewal fee will be doing so illegally.
In certain circumstances, such as hardship applications, the Director of Liquor Licensing has the power to waive or reduce licence fees. These applications must be received by Liquor Licensing by 15 February 2011. Applicants should be aware that they will be required to submit certain financial information and provide a reason why they are seeking relief for payment of full fees.
Licensees were sent a letter in December to explain the new fees and the due date, which has been extended to accommodate the changes

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:


Yet you dont actually have any proof do you.

Well here was a simple place to make cuts, all the ALP spin doctors on the payroll, that alone has save millions but I have yet to see you post anything about this positive step?

This should be titled "Buzz's one man negative bandwagon", because you have failed to be even remotley impartial during the entire thread and have purposely gloss over the positive changes while you push you bitter spiral of denial that the ALP lost an unlosable election.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:15pm:


How can you make such a comment yet you have purposely ignored the Coalitions cutting of TAFE fees for thousands of students?

Here we have millions of dollars going to fund a education within a public system helping people get the skills they need to get a job yet you make not one post about it.

It is because its a positive thing and as a result according to you it didnt happen?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:24pm:


How much per child do they fund public schools versus private schools.

Its only a disadvantage if the private schools are funded more per child.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:


Great answer, how can you call for a slash of funding when you dont even know what it is.

Every child still has a right to have the government fund their education does it not?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 4:14pm:


How is that even remotely relevant?

Its a poor attempt at best.

So if you want funding cut, why cant you tell me how funding per child they actually get compared to state schools?

How much per child should they get?

Damn, you are a cry-baby buzz! You are an embarrassment.