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