Wine sales in supermarkets
April 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe ODT reports:
Labour MP Lianne Dalziel has called for supermarkets to “lose the right” to sell alcohol because the practice of making a loss on alcohol products in order to entice people into their stores was behind a “significant number” of alcohol-related issues, she said.
“These people are pouring alcohol into our streets,” she said.
Ms Dalziel said the 1989 decision to allow wine into supermarkets was the “most dangerous, low-reaching, appalling decision that Parliament has ever made”.
Really? Wine is our problem? I’m sorry, but I think beer and spirits play a far far bigger role in alcohol abuse and related violence and crime, than being able to buy a bottle of wine with your groceries.
I buy most of my wine direct from vineyards, but it is nice to sometimes be able to grab a bottle when at the supermarket. And Lianne want to make this illegal?
Related posts:
- Labour pledges wine to cost at least $16 a bottle
- Life under Labour’s Lianne
- The policy that Labour is not saying much about
- Labour in retreat
April 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
We can’t all have bottle stores at our workplaces, like parliament does.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Yes it’s not a well thought out argument. I personally think a lot of the current alcohol related problems are a direct result of the lowering of the drinking age and it would be interesting to see if there are any correlating figures that could back that up.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Yes, Lianne wants to prevent people who normally buy their wine straight from the vineyards from buying wine at supermarkets.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I would think that it could be counter-productive, making more people go to liquor stores. They would then go “hmmm…. might get me some vodka while I’m at it.” Making wine & beer more available than spirits probably is a good idea.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The idea is clearly aimed at people who go to the supermarket because the sold-at-a-loss wine and beer is the only thing that they can afford. People who ask people for spare change until they’ve got enough for a $7 bottle of wine from a supermarket are not people who buy the bottle for $12 from a liquor a store and think about throwing a $30 bottle of vodka in just for kicks.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I am intentionally writing typos into my comments in protest against the lack of edit function.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“I’m sorry, but I think beer and spirits play a far far bigger role in alcohol abuse ….
So David, does this mean that if Lianne (or anyone else for that matter) advocated for the removal of sale of beer from supermarkets, then you would agree with their point? If not, why not? You don’t explain this above.
[DPF: There would be a stronger case for beer, but as I think you should be able to buy spirits as super markets, not enough to make be want to ban them]
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I just wish they sold Vodka!
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
She is also wrong.
Supermarkets make their money from the vices (booze and fags), fresh produce (meat, veggies) and supplier funded initiatives whereby the supplier may pay towards marketing, drop the price significantly to the supermarket in return for prime spot and advertising etc Dry goods are about break even.
As sales in a supermarket are quite sensitive to in store promotions, shelf space and shelf position e.g. aisle end spots can triple sales, then the act of the supermarket ‘selling’ that spot needs some sort of quid pro quo and commonly includes price cutting by the supplier. Nobody makes a loss here.
The hot prices in the supermarkets for beers and wines relate to the “stack ‘em high sell ‘em cheap” approach and makes the supermarket more money than without the promotions.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
She has a point. All the alkies I see are loading up their trolleys with bargain $11.95 Stoneleigh Sav Blanc from Pak N Slave rather than wasting their time with the swappa crates at The Mill.
Seriously – what a prig. How come she never maoned about this problem when she was a member of the government. Probably too busy popping down to Thorndon New World for refreshments.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Stop saying drinking age!!!
We have a purchase age in New Zealand. Anyone can legally drink but you have to be 18 to buy.
If we had a drinking age then police could arrest parent for supplying their 13 year old kids at the moment that is totally legal.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Isn’t that more because they’re parents than anything else?
Cos I’m pretty sure you’d get in trouble for supplying someone else’s 13-year-old kids with alcohol, and that’s not a purchase.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Bzzzt! Incorrect!
NZ has NO DRINKING AGE.
It only has laws regulating the sale of liquor and the age at which one can be supplied on licensed premises.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Really? So you can supply liquor to minors as long as you don’t take any money from them?
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Supermarkets make a loss on beer. Not wine. I do work for Pack N Save and know how they roll. At christmas, Pack n Save sold more wine that milk…
lol?
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The way I understand the law, a parent or guardian can supply a minor with alcohol in a public place. This is specified as being legal.
As far as I can see, there are no provisions for the private home.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Ryan: s 160 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 -
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who purchases or acquires any liquor on or from any licensed premises with the intention of supplying the liquor, or any of it, to any person who is under the age of 18 years.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section applies irrespective of any liability that may attach to the licensee or any manager or other person in respect of the sale or supply of the liquor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who purchases or acquires any liquor with the intention of supplying it to—
(a) [Repealed]
(b) Any child of whom that person is a parent or guardian; or
(c) [Repealed]
(d) Any other person who is attending a private social gathering.
(4) No person shall be guilty of an offence against subsection (1) of this section by purchasing or acquiring any liquor for any other person who then supplies it to a third person who is under the age of 18 years, unless it is proved that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the liquor was intended for that other person.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
So after 9 years of Labour government and with that the ability to pass laws to prohibit supermarkets from selling alchohol, and only now Labour come out calling for this?
So why didn’t they do something about it then?
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
It may have changed since but a few years back I was informed that it was legal for underagers to purchase a still and make their own spirits.
It seems the local highschool hasd a few students do this and it was perfectly ok under the law…..they weren’t purchasing…just making their own.
Also if you want the best price on booze compare your supermarket with your local Indian liqour store…..here in Papakura the Indians are usual the better price for beer and cask wine compared to the Countdown just over the road.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Bevan – good point. And they did – they referred the issue to the Law Comission to undertake a comprehensive review of liquor in New Zealand – it’s place in society, root causes, effects, and the way it is regulated, etc. I’ve heard the Commission is looking at putting out a discussion document in July or August, which will no doubt include options such as those discussed by Dalziel.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
The same mantra from Labourites and Green Party control freaks who love to tell you how to live your life.
They counteract their miserable existence by telling others what to do.
F..k off is the only reasonable answer to all these busybodies.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
What would be good, it seems, is if they outlawed ridiculously cheap spirits, e.g. Kristov etc. I’m sure it would be possible to come up with a price to alcohol ratio which took into consideration volume as well to make illegal sales of $10 1.25L vodka bottles.
Also think of alcohol advertising like cigarette advertising – i.e. restrict it more, including things like sponsorship association.
The more recent studies of alcohol abuse seem to mandate a much harsher approach. Especially in NZ where our drinking culture is pants.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And they did – they referred the issue to the Law Comission…..
After 9 years that is all they did???
Sounds more like they didnt want to do anything so they fobbed the issue off until it was someone else problem.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Typical interefering bloddy socialists Always out to punish the innocent instead of the guilty and then blame the innocent for the acts of the guilty.
Butt out Lianne You lost Remember that loser
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Its one way for someone in oppositon to keep her name in the news I suppose, but Im surprised this is getting as much exposure as it has. The purchasing age at off-licences is the real issue…it’s time it was reset at 20. Supermarkets also seem to be much better at asking for ID than bottle stores, so why pick on them?
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“Also think of alcohol advertising like cigarette advertising – i.e. restrict it more, including things like sponsorship association.”
Fishe, I think you’ll find that Kristov and Woodstock hardly advertise at all. While Matua and Steinlager Pure advertise a lot. So the advertising doesn’t make much difference to the problem drinker. I would suggest their primary motivation would be ‘bang for buck’.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
In many cases wine is the problem, David. Have a look at the trolleyed dollies staggering about on a night out and ask yourself how many bottles of wine they had before they even hit town. And don’t get me started on the carnage that is Toast Martinborough after about 2pm. Similar story with beer in supermarkets – most younger drinkers buy up beer to drink at home before heading out to the bars, so they are often shitfaced by the time they reach town and the relative safety of a bar, which is at least nominally supervised. Stricter enforcement of the liquor laws as they stand is what’s needed rather than more tinkering with purchase ages and extra taxes on certain types of drink. As regards advertising, the best and simplest way to prevent supermarkets flogging below-cost booze is to make it illegal to advertise the price of alcohol, simple as that.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
DPF: Lianne is becoming increasingly shrill on this issue as she has a bill before select committee,[Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill ] with submissions closing next Thursday. As of the beginning of the week there had only been two submissions to it, and it sounded like one was a substantial one from the hospitality association that blew out of the water ^H^H^H provided a robust rebuttal, against most of the proposed amendments.
She is trying to bang the pots to get supporters for her bill to file submissions.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Interesting – saw a sign in a local Woolworths saying that all liquor sales will be vetted by a supervisor and thanking customers for their patience. It seems they are unwilling to place their trust in the more experienced and mature checkout operators since a slip up can ‘delicence’ them for a period (a New World was delicenced for 2 days for this some years ago).
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I think Dalziel is drawing upon her own experience in the 90s as she did have some problems around then.
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I hope Dalziel also wants Supermarkets to lose the right to sell coffee, tea, coke, sugar, or any other loss leader they choose to use to get more punters in.
Actually, why not regulate the price of everything, like Mugabe does in Zimbabwae?
Vote:April 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Although I disagree with what Dalziel is saying. I also disagree with DPF’s unawareness that wine is a cheap way to get really pissed.
Being a student, great bang for your buck is a $15-$20 CASK WINE which equates to 30 standard drinks…. amazing value. You are neglecting this amazing bargain DPF. Beer? cheapest you can nab is a $10 dozen = 12 standards.
Plus if you really want me to go into it… you can drink wine faster and therefore feel the effects quicker.
Also, anecdotally, the homeless (probably) busker in johnsonville is constantly swilling down cheap wine from the supermarket across the road.
So wine is definately not avoided by people trying to binge drink, cheaply. But I dont agree with Dalziel either.
so meh.
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Ms Dalziel said the 1989 decision to allow wine into supermarkets was the “most dangerous, low-reaching, appalling decision that Parliament has ever made”.
If thats the “most dangerous, low-reaching, appalling decision that Parliament has ever made” Ms Dalziel has obviously been doing far to much research in the wine section of supermarkets.
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Anyway if not from supermarkets, where do the “Righteous Reds” get their Chardonnay from? Oh thats right they steal it
Wasnt Lying Dalziel sacked in 04, in fact a quick google search confirms my worst fears
From the NZ Herald Feb 20 2004 Headline “Dalziel forced to quit”
Helen Clark said “I have accepted the resignation with great sadness because I know just how much Lianne Dalziel has poured into her job these past four years and two months.”
I think it must be a typo and job should be gob.
The prosecution rests.
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Q: Which word meaning ‘terminological inexactitude’ can be found lying repeatedly inside the names Lianne and Dalziel?
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 9:06 am
You can just imagine the Labour Party in Government having food police in every Supermarket going through people’s shopping with some lesbionic women looking like Rosa Klomp telling people what to buy. They just can’t help themselves but what can you expect from a Party of school teachers and Union Officials.
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Once bitten twice shy …. Supermarket discounted wines don’t attract me … I bought a New World Pinot Noir and it was insipid dishwater … never again. Mind you at 50% discount I really should have known better becuase you need to look sideways at any discounted product at the supermarket, it is usually an inferior spoilt item.
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 9:47 am
This probably came about because Labour are worried they are losing ground to the Greens, who want to ban everything – they want in on this!
Labour can cry all they like, as mentioned above, Dalziel had 9 freaking years to do this and nada, just like the left are getting stroppy about the Nats canning the pay equity discussions – and yet we had 9 painful years of our most radical feminist Govt and no progress made then either.
Now Labour want to meddle in what is sold in private supermarkets – lets also ban fatty foods and cigarettes there too. We can appoint supermarket commissars who can inspect everybodys trollies and follow people home if they sneak chocolate bars into the household….
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I just think this is the tip of the iceberg in seeing a slow move to wipe out Alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
In the US they have an Alcohol, tobacco and firearms force which was present at Waco.
Why would you need such a force unless those articles are going to be illegal in the future.
Vote: