SUBMISSION
TO THE
LAW AND ORDER SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
SALE OF LIQUOR (YOUTH ALCOHOL HARM REDUCTION)
AMENDMENT BILL
12 August 2005
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Hospitality Association appreciates the opportunity to make submissions
on this bill. The Hospitality Association represents in excess of 2,200 liquor
retailers (including on and off premise) and is the leading organisation
representing this sector.
1.2
The Association has considerable experience and knowledge on the Sale of
Liquor Act, its application and issues associated with the retailing of alcohol
products.
1.3
The Association believes that the Select Committee has two choices with this
bill. The first is to recommend that the bill in its entirety not proceed. The
second option is to delay consideration of the bill until it can be viewed in
conjunction with a complete Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill which looks at all
issues associated with alcohol retailing in a comprehensive and consistent
way. It is the Association’s understanding that the Ministry of Justice has
been working on an amendment bill for some time. Historically, bills
amending the Sale of Liquor Act are more successful when dealt with in a
comprehensive way. When the Sale of Liquor Act was amended in 1999, the
Select Committee did an excellent job of identifying the different options and
putting them in front of the House in such a way that the Members of
Parliament were able to make clear choices, with each of the choices
delivering practical, workable legislative outcomes.
1.4
Traditionally piecemeal and ad hoc amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act
result in poor legislation which is either impractical, inconsistent or
unenforceable.
1.5
The Association’s clear preference is that this bill should not proceed further.
This bill is based on emotion and selective use of research data. The
Association will establish that the normalising of the age of purchase of 18 in
1999 has in itself not been the cause of widespread or significant increases in
harm to young people.
HANZ Submission: SOL (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
h:\bhr5\br5064
2.
History
2.1
This bill is significantly more restrictive than the legislation that applied prior to
1999. It has been suggested that this bill restores the previous age of
purchase to 20. This bill does not do that. Prior to 1999 18 year-olds were
able to purchase and consume alcohol on licensed premises under a range of
circumstances. In fact, the wide range of exemptions and the lack at that
time of effective photographic identification meant that the de facto age of
purchase on licensed premises was 18.
2.2
The changes to the act in 1999 provided for the age of purchase to be
normalised at 18 and the industry was provided with effective tools in the form
of the photo drivers licence and the 18+ card to minimise slippage. This has
been very successful. It is estimated that 50,000 New Zealanders turn 18
each year and 80% or 40,000 of them have a photo drivers licence.
Currently the Association is issuing around 9,000 18+ cards per annum.
Eighteen and 19 year olds would not be applying for 18+ cards at this rate if
they were not being required by the industry.
2.3
It is also significant that along with the normalisation of the age of purchase at
18, beer was allowed into supermarkets and grocery outlets. However, little
attention is paid to this factor when discussing effects of the 1999 amendment
or its impact on the research data.
2.4
Suggestions that this bill restores the previous age of purchase are simply
incorrect and a gross simplification of the circumstances and the legislation
around the sale of liquor.
3.
Harm Statistics
3.1
Supporters of the bill are arguing that the basis for this legislative change is a
massive surge in the harm indices as they apply to young people as a result
of the normalising of the age of purchase at 18 in 1999. This is simply not
supported by the facts. The Ministry of Justice has undertaken four
comprehensive reviews of all of the data available measuring the impact of
lowering the purchase age of alcohol. The Ministry of Justice has
concluded in each of those reports that there is no clear picture on
whether lowering the minimum purchase age has had a detrimental
effect on young people’s drinking behaviour.
3.2
There are changes in patterns of young people and their drinking habits which
show that young people are drinking more on more occasions. These are
trends which commenced well before 1999 and the trend lines have not
changed since the purchase age was normalised in 1999 or beer was added
to supermarkets, or indeed the addition of broadcast advertising of alcohol
products.
3.3
Equally, there have been some positive changes in some indicators through
the same period. These include:
HANZ Submission: SOL (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
h:\bhr5\br5064
3.3.1
Of the 293 drivers/riders killed in New Zealand in 1999 who were tested for
the presence of alcohol, 5 were aged 15-17 with a BAC over 30 mg. In 2002,
there were 8. In 1996, there were 8. In 1992, there were 15. These figures
would appear to be too small to show a trend. (Source: LTSA, now Land
Transport New Zealand – Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand).
3.3.2
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased by 63% since 1989.
3.3.3
Alcohol-related traffic injuries have decreased by 53% since 1989.
3.3.4
Alcohol offences have decreased by 76% since 1998 (Source: LTSA, now
Land Transport New Zealand).
3.3.5
ALAC’s 2003 Youth Drinking Monitor states that only 13% (5% unprompted,
8% prompted) of 14-17 year old current drinkers said they had bought alcohol
themselves. This means that 87% of supply came from parents, friends,
siblings, other family members and strangers.
3.3.6
In the same monitor, 84% of current drinkers aged 14-17 said that on their
last drinking occasion, a parent or guardian was aware that they were
drinking.
3.4
Perhaps the most significant is that 84% of current drinkers aged 14-17 said
that on their last drinking occasion, a parent or guardian was aware that they
were drinking. This reinforces the Association’s view that alcohol use is a
societal issue and has more to do with parental attitude than it does with
legislative imperatives. The Association strongly supports the Alcohol
Advisory Council’s cultural change approach to minimising harm from alcohol.
3.5
The data available simply does not support the changes proposed in
this bill.
4.
Equity and Natural Justice
4.1
The Association believes that this change is seriously at odds with natural
justice and creating a climate of individual responsibility for our young people.
Furthermore, it can be considered patronising and paternalistic to the majority
of young adults who purchase and consume alcohol in a responsible manner.
4.2
It is estimated that there are 100,000 people between the ages of 18 & 19
who, if this bill is passed into law will with the stroke of a pen be denied their
right to purchase alcohol.
4.3
This legislation is seriously at odds with Parliament’s other decisions that at
the age of 18 an individual can and should take responsibility for their own
actions whether it be to smoke, to gamble, enter into a civil union or marriage,
have children, or indeed sell themselves for sex. It seems patently absurd
that an 18 year old should be able to legally do all of the above but not be
able to buy themselves a beer.
HANZ Submission: SOL (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
h:\bhr5\br5064
5.
World-wide Experience
5.1
If this bill were to be passed, it would put New Zealand significantly at odds
with the rest of the world in terms of the age of purchase of alcohol.
Currently there are 49 countries with national laws specifying a minimum
purchase age of alcohol beverages by minors. In countries where no
exceptions have been noted, 24 countries set the purchase age at 18.
Indeed, four countries set the age at 16. Only one country set the age at 20
and two at 21.
5.2
With New Zealand increasingly relying on tourism as an export earner, raising
the age of purchase also has the potential to have an impact on the tourism
market. It is estimated that at least 50,000 tourists to New Zealand each
year are aged between 18 & 20. These are mostly young adults on their gap
year or undertaking their overseas experience as well as a significant number
of international students. Should New Zealand become known as a country
where they cannot buy a drink until they’re 20, it is likely they’ll find a more
accommodating destination.
5.3
These visitors to New Zealand also spend some time working in the
tourism/hospitality sector. This bill could have an adverse impact on an
already under-supplied labour market.
6.
Broadcasting
6.1
The Association opposes the changes to the broadcast liquor advertising
requirements. The suggested changes are unnecessary and will make no
difference to harm related issues.
6.2
Alcohol consumption has decreased since TV and radio brand advertising
was allowed in 1992, despite alcohol being more widely available with beer
going into supermarkets and grocery outlets, and the age of purchase being
normalised at 18.
6.3
The Association strongly supports the submissions of the Beer Wine and
Spirits Council in regard to this part of the bill.
7.
Restricted Areas of Bottle Shops
7.1
The bill proposes to make it a requirement for all bottle shop off-licences to be
deemed “restricted” or “supervised” areas. This proposal is absurd and will
make no difference to harm related issues. The issue in a bottle store is the
purchase age. The law is currently absolutely clear that it is illegal to sell to
anyone under the age of 18.
7.2
What is absolutely unclear is what preventing minors from being in a bottle
store will do to minimise the harm to young people. The justification for
requiring bottle stores to be “restricted” or “supervised” while leaving
supermarkets and grocery outlets undesignated is completely inconsistent
and contradictory.
HANZ Submission: SOL (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
h:\bhr5\br5064
7.3
Many bottle shops also sell other products such as snacks and soft drinks
and should not be precluded from catering to that market, just as
supermarkets and grocery stores do. Indeed, promoting food with alcohol
and promoting non-alcoholic beverages should be encouraged.
7.4
If the very presence of alcoholic products on shelves being sighted by minors
is to be a cause of harm, it would seem to be equally necessary for those
outlets which sell cigarettes to similarly not be permitted to have minors
allowed into the store.
7.5
This proposal is completely unnecessary and along with the rest of the bill,
should not proceed.
8.
Conclusion
8.1
The Association believes this bill should not proceed. While there are some
issues about how New Zealanders drink, the legislative changes proposed in
this bill will not address them and will not change any of the harm indicators.
The cultural issues associated with the way New Zealanders drink are best
addressed through the cultural change programme being implemented by the
Alcohol Advisory Council.
8.2
The harm related indices covered by the Ministry of Justice’s report clearly
indicate that normalising the purchase age of alcohol at 18 has had no
measurable impact either positively or negatively on existing trends. Rather
than address alcohol harm by encouraging New Zealanders to take
responsibility for their own actions, it will reinforce the current legislation that
New Zealanders drinking alcohol is someone else’s problem best fixed by
legislative intervention.
8.3
The Hospitality Association urges the Select Committee to recommend that
this bill not proceed.
8.4
The Association wishes to be heard orally on this bill.
Bruce H Robertson
Chief Executive
Hospitality Association of NZ
12 August 2005
Ref: h:\bhr5\br5064.doc
HANZ Submission: SOL (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
h:\bhr5\br5064