Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

 Labour MP Charles Chauvel is calling for a minimum price on alcohol, but there is no consensus among his party about what that price should be.

This is trying to have your cake and eat it to. It is like a party announcing their taxation policy and saying “Oh we favour taxes going up, but we won’t tell you to how much”. A minimum pricing policy with no detail on what they want the minimum price to be, is not credible.

Before the 2011 election, Labour MP Lianne Dalziel argued in the House for a $2 minimum price per standard drink in Parliament. She said this would bump up the price of the $6 bottles of wine which young women “pre-loaded on”, while not affecting a $15 bottle of wine.

National has argued that this would mean no bottle of wine – which usually contained 7 to 8 standard drinks – could be bought for less than $16.

Ms Dalziel’s office yesterday said that the MP used the $2 threshold as an example, and it was not Labour policy. It was up to the Justice Minister to decide on the threshold, and if minimum pricing was voted on in the House, Labour MPs would vote individually on it.

Crap.  Here are her exact words:

we should set a minimum price that would prevent wine from being sold for less than $2 for a standard drink

Does that sound like an example? It is a clear statement of what the minimum price should be.

This was not a one off. Labour’s spokesperson has been very consistent. At the first reading in 2010 she also said:

The priority is to increase the price of dirt-cheap alcohol, and that is why I am arguing for minimum pricing. I refer to the $5.99 bottles of wine. At that price, three young women can buy five bottles of wine to preload on, rather than buy two bottles of very good wine for the same price. The ones who buy five bottles of $5.99 wine are the most price-sensitive buyers. They are the ones who will change their behaviour when prices go up. Do not let anyone tell us that it will do otherwise. That is the reason for a minimum price per standard drink. The $2 per minimum standard drink price would not touch a $15 bottle of wine. That would stay the same price, but it would slightly more than double the price of the $5.99 bottle of wine.

It would touch the $15 bottle of wine. My Central Otago Pinot Noir is 14%, which for 750mls is 8.3 standard drinks. That would mean a minimum price of $16.60. I generally avoid the $6 bottles of wines, but you get many good wines for $11 or so, and Lianne is advocating they increase 50% in price.

I hope that MPs in Parliament will not let Labour get away with their policy of saying we believe in minimum pricing, we want to pass a law to enable it, but we will not tell you what the minimum price should be. Labour should be honest and tell New Zealanders what they think the minimum price should be.

Maybe it is even more than $2 a standard drink?

In my Herald column I write about Labour’s proposed minimum pricing for alcohol.

Labour seem very reluctant to confirm what minimum price they are actually advocating. Lianne Dalziel twice stated in Parliament it should be at least $2 a standard drink. Her colleagues seem to want to ignore that, as seen below.

You can’t have it both ways and have your MPs get up in Parliament and say the law should be this, and then deny that is your policy – especially when the MP is your spokesperson on alcohol issues.

A reader sent me this graphic, which sums it up.

More usefully, Eric Crampton has an excellent analysis of minimum pricing. He states:

What would the world have to look like for minimum alcohol pricing to be a reasonable policy solution?

Suppose it is the case that harmful heavy drinkers, the sort that impose the greatest harms on others when they consume alcohol, really don’t care about the quality of the alcohol they’re drinking; they’re buying whatever product provides alcohol at the lowest price per standard drink. Suppose further that this cohort’s consumption is reasonably responsive to price measures: if you raise the price of the cheapest form of alcohol, you’ll do a lot to curb that cohort’s consumption while not doing much to reduce the normal consumption of moderate drinkers. Finally, assume that there’s little overlap between the kinds of alcohol consumed by harmful drinkers and that consumed by moderate low-income drinkers.

So minimum pricing is a good idea Eric says, if the above holds true.

where both heavy drinkers and moderate drinkers are choosing the same kinds of products, albeit in different quantities, we have to worry a lot about how each kind of consumer responds to changes in prices. The best meta-study on the topic remains Wagenaar, who found that heavy drinkers are roughly 60% as price responsive as moderate drinkers: the price elasticity of demand among heavy drinkers is -0.28 while it’s -0.44 for average drinkers. If we doubled the price of lower cost products, which we’d have to do to get to Labour’s preferred $2 minimum price per standard drink, moderate drinkers who currently choose that class of product would cut back their consumption by about 44% while heavy drinkers would reduce their consumption by only about 28%.

Intuitively you would expect heavy drinkers to be less price sensitive.

Charles Chauvel announced:

 Labour is seeking to toughen up the Government’s proposed alcohol law reform by proposing amendments to allow for minimum prices to be set and to give more clout to local government when licensing decisions are made.

I blogged last November that Labour’s policy is to have a minimum price of $2 per standard drink.

This power, if properly exercised, will put an end to $6 bottles of wine being sold in supermarkets. 

It will put an end to not just $6 bottles of wine, but $10 ones, $12 ones and $15 ones. Labour would make it illegal for a bottle of wine to be sold for less than $16.

I prefer measures that target problem drinkers, not those who sock hundreds of thousands of responsible drinkers also.

The Herald reports:

 Labour is accusing National of doing a backroom deal with supermarket giants after a new store apparently flouted proposed law changes by placing alcohol at its front door.

Alcohol reforms due to return to Parliament for their final stages this month would prevent supermarkets from putting beer and wine in places where it could not be avoided by customers.

What silly language. The law has not been passed yet, so you can not be flouting it.

Labour associate health spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said he was surprised to see alcohol at the front entrance of a Countdown supermarket in Palmerston North which opened on Wednesday.

“I queried that … because obviously the Alcohol Reform Bill as it’s drafted at the moment would make that illegal. It seemed an unusual thing to do when the law change is so imminent.”

Also a silly statement to make. Apart from the fact that the Bill still has committee stage (and at ten parts could take well over a week) and third reading to go, the key clause only comes into effect 12 months after royal assent.

So is Iain saying that he thinks that it takes 15 months to move the location of alcohol in a store?

Mr Lees-Galloway said the managing director told him the supermarket expected this placement to be permitted once Justice Minister Judith Collins’ supplementary order paper (SOP) on the bill was passed.

“He was convinced that there wouldn’t be any need for him to move it once the legislation had been passed with the minister’s SOP.”

I’ve had no discussions with anyone in Government on this issue, but know a bit about it having been briefed on it by some supermarket people. If (and this is a big if) Mr Lees-Galloway is reporting the managing director correctly, then I suspect he is quite wrong.

There is an issue around the definition of thoroughfare in the bill, but not with the principle that alcohol not be displayed in prominent areas such as the entrance. It is simply about having it practical, especially for smaller operators.

So basically the entire story is a beat-up. There is no flouting of the law. The new requirement will not take force for at least 12 – 15 months and if there are any changes they are likely to be small technical ones in terms of this clause.

Stuff reports:

Binge drinking could follow smoking in losing its fashionable status, says a Wellington emergency department consultant hoping a sobriety campaign will help reduce alcohol-related harm.

Hello Sunday Morning encourages those wanting to take a break from alcohol to blog on the booze-free experience. The project has already attracted hundreds of followers around New Zealand and is today being given a push with its national launch in Auckland.

Wellington Hospital emergency department consultant Mark Hussey said it “certainly sounds like a good idea” and thought the initiative may lead to binge drinking becoming “uncool” in the same way campaigns against smoking had worked, especially with young people.

This is exactly the sort of initiative that we need. It is a culture change among youth that will see a reduction in harm from alcohol.  It is not making it illegal for a 19 year old to buy a bottle of wine.

Ian Steward in the SST reports:

Rates of serious violent crime double within 900m of a liquor outlet, a new study has found.

And the nationwide study has confirmed that the more liquor stores an area has, the more likely it is to have a higher rate of serious violent crime, regardless of poverty and other factors.

Now I think there is an obvious linkage, as alcohol is a factor in some violent crime.

Study lead author Peter Day said the study ranked the country’s 286 police station areas into five groups (quintiles) according to their rate of serious violent crime.

“The number of alcohol outlets consistently increased with increasing quintiles of serious violent offence rates,” the study said.

A more detailed analysis was performed using census “mesh blocks” where the country was divided into 41,393 small blocks representing about 100 people in each.

Using mapping software researchers were able to work out the median travel distance to a liquor outlet. Areas with the lowest rates of serious violence had to travel a median distance of 4.5km to the nearest off-licence. For the highest rates of serious violence, the median distance to an off-licence was just 1.1km.

Using the mesh block analysis, crime rates were calculated for distances from liquor outlets. On average nationwide the incidence of serious violent crime doubled once you got within 900m of a liquor outlet.

I do wonder though how much of this effect, is just because people are in more dense urban areas. As a comparison, what if you compared violent crime incidence to the distance to the nearest hairdresser? Would you also find there is more violence crime close to hairdressers?

Alac chief executive Gerard Vaughan said the current law did not take into account how many outlets were in an area when granting licences.

“If you want to set up a pub or a restaurant you need to get resource consent and demonstrate you’re a person of good character. There’s no consideration around `does this community need another licence?’,” he said.

The Alcohol Reform Bill will give local authorities the ability to set a local alcohol policy. I can understand the desire not to have a bottle store at every corner. However I hope that restaurants would not be declined on the basis of pre-existing restaurants.

The three spikes with the highest numbers of liquor outlets were Auckland central (447 alcohol licences), Wellington central (423) and Christchurch central (394), all of which had high crime rates.

Again, how much is this due to urban density?

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Teenagers aged under 18 will need the express consent of their parents through a text message or a phone call to have a drink at a party under the latest alcohol curbs planned by the Government.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said yesterday that the Alcohol Reform Bill would be back in Parliament to pass its final stages next month.

MPs are already lining up to back an amendment to the bill which would raise the purchase age to 20, and Ms Collins said she would also introduce a Government amendment in the final stages.

The bill, which passed its second reading last year, would have required adults giving liquor to minors to understand “on reasonable grounds” that there was parental consent.

Ms Collins said the Government now wanted to “tighten that up” so that “express consent” was required.

“That’s a text or a phone call or a discussion with a parent,” she said.

“Before someone supplies your 16-year-old or your 14-year-old with alcohol, they [will have to] tell you.”

I support that change, and the new restriction overall on supply of alcohol to minors. It is silly that it is absolutely legal at the moment to give a bottle of vodka to a 14 year old.

Another new measure being planned is to ban the sale from off-licences of “ready to drink” mixes with an alcohol content of more than 6 per cent.

The Government has previously suggested a 5 per cent limit, but concerns were raised that might not be possible because of international trade rules.

Ms Collins said RTDs were a legitimate alternative to badly mixed drinks, but there was growing concern about drinks with high alcohol content that were also very sweet.

“It’s better than having people drinking straight vodka, or doing their own mixes and getting it all wrong, or getting their drinks spiked.

“There’s loads of reasons to have RTDs but there is also a real reason to look at the highest level ones and where they’re being sold.”

RTDs are much better than people doing their own mixes. The average self-mix is around 13% alcohol, while the average RTD is 6.5% (around half are 5% and half are 8%).

Those who drink the 8% RTDs atend to be older drinkers and they specifically like the taste of them. If they can not get an RTD stronger than 5%, then many will substitute to spirits and self-mixes. A 6% limit will do less harm than a 5% limit, but my belief is that even a 6% limit will actually increase harm from alcohol, due to the substitution effect.

The proposed “split age” would restrict alcohol sales at off-licences such as supermarkets to 20-year-olds while leaving it at 18 for licensed premises such as bars and restaurants.

National MP Tim Macindoe has put up an amendment calling for the purchase age in all cases to go up to 20, while his National colleague Nikki Kaye has put up an amendment for it to stay at 18.

An increase in the purchase age will in fact undermine the new law restricting supply to minors. It is a bone headed move, based on emotion.

Buried in their health policy is confirmation that Labour will bring in minimum pricing for alcohol. Lianne Dalziel has twice said in Parliament that it should be at least $2 a standard drink. These posters hence reflect the minimum alcohol will cost under Labour – it might be even more than that.

If you decide to stick these posters up anywhere, make sure you stick an authorisation statement on them, as they would then be an election advertisement. While they are on my blog, they represent my personal political view online and are exempt.

They would look very good on university and polytechnic campuses, and in supermarkets and bottle stories I reckon!

If people thought Labour’s 1958 “black budget” was bad, wait until their 2012 budget if they win. The black budget only doubled the tax on alcohol which put prices up around 30%. Labour’s policy would see the price of many forms of alcohol actually double in price!!

In the debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill, Lianne Dalziel has just said that it is outrageous that you can buy a bottle of wine for less than $2/standard drinks.

So this is a sure sign that Labour, if Government, will legislate to ensure wine costs at least $16 a bottle.

Certain lobby groups and MPs would have you believe that since the alcohol purchase age was lowered in 1999, many more young people are drinking alcohol.

But an Auckland University study of 9,000 high school students has found the following changes from 2001 to 2007:

• Students who have never drunk alcohol increased from 18% to 28%
• Students who do not currently drink alcohol increased from 30% to 39%
• Of students who currently drink alcohol, those who have not had a drink in the last four weeks went from 22% to 24%
• Of students who drink alcohol, the proportion saying friends gave it to them dropped from 62% to 53%
• Those asked for ID when purchasing rose from 44% to 61%
• Those who were a passenger with a driver who has had over two drinks dropped from 29% to 24%

So remind me again why MPs are lining up like lemmings to increase the purchase age to 20?

The survey does show some negative increases, such as the proportion who binge drink, but that reinforces why the approach should be to target problem drinkers, not criminalise every 18 and 19 year old in the country.

In my Stuff blog, I look at the cost and costs of alcohol. An extract:

Another key area of controversy is advertising. Some advocate that alcohol advertising and sponsorship should be totally banned. This would mean that Tui billboards would be illegal, and that Brancott Estate would no longer be able to sponsor the World of Wearable Arts show in Wellington. The Government has said it will not ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship, but this decision may change depending on the makeup of Parliament after the election. Do you think an advertising ban would result in young people not drinking, and if so would be worthwhile? Or do you think banning Tui billboards is a step too far?

The full blog is at Stuff, and you can comment there.

Got sent this graph by a reader in the alcohol industry. As people will know liquor advertising is blamed for a lot of things. In fact the Law Commission recommended banning all alcohol advertising and sponsorship – even Tui billboards.

While I do think breaches of the advertising standards for alcohol should carry penalties (at present you just get told to withdraw the ad), I am not convinced there is any case for an overall ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

Having said that, I think there are some issues around price advertising (as opposed to brand advertising) and loss leading that are worth considering changes to.

All teeange deaths are tragic. The families never recover, the friends are traumatised, and a life full of potential is wasted.

I had two classmates die in a car accident in Year 11. It took a long time to get over that, and even today I think of them several times a year.

The James Webster death was due to alcohol, and few would disagree that the ease of supply of alcohol to under 18s needs to be changed – and there are law changes proposed around that.

In relation to the death of David Gaynor, Labour have said:

Labour is calling on the Government to implement all of the Law Commission’s recommendations on alcohol reform in the wake of the death of a King’s College student following his school ball.

I have to be very careful here as there are strict legal restrictions on what I can and can not publish. However what I can say is that I do not believe alcohol was a major, or arguably even minor, contributor to this awful tragedy. To the best of my knowledge this is not a James Webster case, or even particularly similiar.

So politicians who use the death to demand particular alcohol law changes are, I will be charitable, potentially misguided.

My sympathy goes out to the family and friends of David.

One of the justifications for raising the purchase age to 20 is the argument that youth drinking is worse now than in the past.

A reader has sent me a report by the Foundation for Advertising Research, which has the latest data from ALAC in it. A couple of stats readers may be interested in.

Average age of initiation of drinking by youth aged 12 – 17

• 2006/07 – 13.8 years
• 2007/08 – 14.1 years
• 2008/09 – 14.3 years
• 2009/10 – 14.6 years

A pretty clear trend there, and what most would say is a good one.

Prevalance of 12 – 17 year olds who are drinkers

• 2006/07 – 52%
• 2007/08 – 52%
• 2008/09 – 50%
• 2009/10 – 32%

And that’s a dramatic drop in the prevalance of young people drinking.

Percentage of all 12 – 17 olds who drink more than once a week

• 2006/07 – 9%
• 2007/08 – 9%
• 2008/09 – 7%
• 2009/10 – 3.5%

Again a good trend.

Percentage of all youth 12-17 that consumed 5 drinks or more on the last occasion

• 2006/07 – 21.3%
• 2007/08 – 22.9%
• 2008/09 – 19.5%
• 2009/10 – 15.0%

Again a nice downwards trend.

Again all these stats come from ALAC – the Alcohol Advisory Council.

Appeared this morning before the Justice & Electoral Committee (well technically Sub-Committee A of the said Committee) to speak to my submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill which is below. I’ve appeared so often before that Committee, that I’ve now been labelled a groupie

Had around 15 minutes, and thought it was a good discussion. The MPs engaged well and are obviously over the many issues in the bill. Everyone agrees we want less harm from alcohol. The trick is isolating the measures that will do that, and not have consequences which may lead to more harm. Plus also not overly penalising responsible drinkers.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ALCOHOL REFORM BILL 

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
   
   Executive Summary
   
2. The Government’s alcohol reform bill is an improvement on the status quo. However in some areas it does not go far enough, and in other areas it unfairly penalizes all New Zealanders, rather than more precisely targeting drinkers that cause harm to themselves or others.
3. In this submission I have mainly focused on the areas where I think change is desirable, rather than list every clause I agree with.

   A drinking age
   

4. I believe that .the culture of youth drinking will not change unless we have a drinking age, as well as a purchase age. This may not be popular, but I believe it is necessary.
5. At present it is totally legal for an adult (any adult) to supply a bottle of vodka to a 13 year old. It is only illegal to purchase it with the intent of supply, but it is not illegal to supply it. And intent is very difficult to prove.
6. The proposed new requirements around supply of alcohol to minors are a good step in the right direction, and are arguably one of the most important parts of the bill. However I do not think they go far enough.
7. I think parents need to be given assistance and tools in dealing with youth alcohol issues, and a drinking age is one way to do this. It allows parents to say “No it’s illegal to drink at your age”.
8. Some will argue a drinking age is ineffective and can’t be policed. But by that argument we would not have a legal age for sex either. The idea isn’t to arrest lots of parents and young people for under-age drinking – but to send a clear message about appropriate ages. A comparison could be made to the age at which children can be legally left alone – 14. Now parents do not get arrested because they pop down to the dairy for 30 minutes while leaving a 12 year old at home. But it does mean most parents know that you generally should not leave under 14 year olds unsupervised.
9. The ages I would propose for a drinking age are:
   1. 14 with parental supervision
   2. 16 with parental approval and adult supervision
   3. 18 otherwise
10. Effectively this would say that no one under the age of 14 should be drinking alcohol at all, that 14 and 15 year olds can only drink with their parents (a wine with dinner type scenario) and that 16 and 17 year olds can only drink with parental permission and adult supervision (a birthday party supervised by other parents etc)
11. A breach of the drinking age law should be an offence for the young person involved, as well as for whomever may have supplied the alcohol.
12. It could be worth considering that only certain types of alcohol (ie not spirits) be legal at the younger ages.

    The purchase age
    

13. A drinking age will be far more effective in changing the culture of youth drinking than criminalizing 18 and 19 year olds for drinking.
14. I am aware the purchase age will come to a conscience vote at committee of the whole stage, regardless of decisions by this select committee, so I don’t plan to spend too many words on this issue.
15. A purchase age of 20 is impossible to justify as a principled position. At 18 one can even be elected to Parliament or a local Council. I note the future MP for Botany was elected to the Manukau City Council at 18 and the Mayor of Porirua was elected to his Council at the age of 19. This bill would give 18 and 19 year old Councillors a major say in local alcohol policies, but make it illegal to purchase a bottle of wine.
16. The proposed 18/20 split age is better than a 20/20 age, but will seriously undermine the move to make it unacceptable to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds. This is because it will be legal for a 20 year old to supply alcohol to an 18 year old but not to a 17 year old. We want a law which says it is unacceptable to supply alcohol to anyone underage.

    Excise Duty/Minimum Prices
    

17. I support the level of excise duty being set as a level which will cover the external costs of alcohol consumption.
18. There is credible research that the current level of excise duty does cover the external costs. There has been other research done which has concluded that the level of excise duty is not high enough. However that research has been shown to be totally flawed, containing the most basic errors such as counting private costs as external costs, yet not counting private benefits. The Government and Parliament should be very wary of decision making on such flawed research.
19. The current excise regime is not consistent by strength of alcohol. Wine has a much lower excise for its volume of alcohol than other products, for example.
20. I believe there is merit looking at either revising the excise tax to be less discriminatory or a minimum price scheme based on alcohol volume.

    Local Alcohol Policies
    

21. I generally support the ability of local communities to set alcohol policies for their area. What is appropriate for Cannons Creek may not be appropriate for Courtney Place.

    RTDs
    

22. The Government has announced a policy intention of limiting RTDs to 5% strength and 1.5 standard drinks. This is not directly in the bill, but provision has been made to enable the Government to regulate this at a later date.
23. As a market research company, my company (Curia) was engaged by Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd to do quantitative and qualitative research on this issue, including the likely impact of any change. This research has been cited in their submission on the bill.
24. Based on this research, and also research in Australia, I have no doubt that a law change to restrict RTDs to 5% strength would in fact lead to more alcohol induced harm, rather than less. Around half of RTD drinkers buy 6% to 8% RTDs, and if these were legislated out of the market, many of them would then purchase spirits instead so they can self-mix drinks.
25. The Law Commission itself warned of the dangers of targeting just one sort of alcohol, due to substitution issues. I would urge the Government and Parliament to take heed of the Law Commission advice on this issue.

Again, in summary, I would urge the committee to apply a filter to all proposed measures, measuring how effective it will be in reducing harmful drinking, and how much it will impact people undertaking non harmful drinking. We want measures that maximize the former and minimize the latter.

TVNZ reports:

A ONE News investigation into a study that claims alcohol is cheaper than water has found that’s not always the case.

The report by the University of Otago, based on Department of Statistics figures, found a glass of water costs 67c, while a standard drink of beer costs 64c and a standard drink of cask wine costs 62c.

At the supermarket, the cheapest water ONE News could find came in a three litre container, which cost $2.57.

The cheapest wines in the same quantity on the other hand were priced at $22 and the cheapest beer, in a 12 pack and about five litres in quantity, was $18.40.

Applying the same calculations used in the Otago study, the glass of water cost less at only 21c, while the beer pack cost $1.10 for a glass and the cask of wine cost 71c for a standard drink.

The Otago study author, Associate Professor Nick Wilson, blamed price fluctuations for the difference.

“When you look at some specials, [alcohol] is actually cheaper than bottled water in some cases and at other times it may not be.”

Wilson is also sticking to his call for increased taxes to push the price of alcohol up.

I’m really pleased that TVNZ, unlike most media, didn’t just report the so called study as gospel and repeat it unthinkingly. They went out and tested the results and found they are bunkum.

The study seems to have cherry picked data so it could compare the most expensive bottled water to the cheapest ever alcohol, and come up with a conclusion that alcohol is now cheaper than water.

TVNZ have shown this is crap – that bottled water is under a third the price of the cheapest wine. Will other media report this as they reported the original study?

Also they are not comparing apples and apples. Water is in fact almost free as a product. when people buy bottled water they are buying it for the convenience. The correct comparison to bottled water would be the cost of alcohol in an on license – where you are also not paying so much for the alcohol, but for the convenience also.

The Herald reports:

Alcohol has become so affordable that it is cheaper than bottled water and approaching the price of milk, says a study made public today.

Silly comparisons. Tap water is still near zero. Bottled water is a premium product – comparing it to discounted alcohol is misleading. One should compare it to the more expensive alcohol products. And milk is outraegously expensive – but that is no reason to make alcohol the same.

A $2 minimum price per standard drink would reduce binge drinking without affecting social drinkers, Professor Sellman said.

First of all a minimum price would be the wet dreams for the liquor industry. Their profits would go up massively. Nothing wrong with that – just a surprise that someone who equates them to drug dealers wants them to make so much more money.

So what would $2/standard drink mean for certain items. A standard drink is 10g or 12.7 ml of alcohol.

• a 350 ml bottle of 4% beer could not cost less than $2.20. 5% beer would cost $2.76 or $33.07 for a dozen – not sure if GST would be on top of that
• a 750 ml bottle of 12% wine could not sell for under $14.17
• A 1l bottle of Baileys could not sell for under $26.77
• A 1125ml bottle of vodka could not sell for under $65.55

The Herald reports:

Supermarkets are drug “pushers” who are selling high quantities of discounted wine and should be viewed the same as dealers dishing out Ecstasy pills or morphine.

It may seem extreme but it’s a view that Professor Doug Sellman, director of the National Addiction Centre and spokesman for the Alcohol Action Group, is taking quite seriously.

Need more be said. Alcohol Action are not the voice of a balanced group. It is an extreme voice, pushing policies that few New Zealanders would agree with. Sadly, it seems to be the group that the Law Commission gave the most weight to.

The Herald has surveyed MPs on where they stand on the drinking age. They have a story, and full results.

I’ve summarised the results, by party. They are:

So MPs for 18 are slightly ahead of 20, but a third of the Parliament favours a split age. What will be important is if a split age is defeated, will those MPs then vote for 18 or 20.

An excellent column by Chris Trotter:

THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEBATE on “What should we do about our drinking problem?” one very important issue has been consistently overlooked.

The constitutional, political and moral objections to “down-sizing” the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds.

Eighteen and nineteen-year-olds have the right to vote in local and general elections, perform jury service, join the armed forces, make a will, sign a contract, and purchase alcohol. …

When it comes to the other rights, responsibilities and duties of citizenship, however, 18 and 19-year-old New Zealanders are legally recognised as responsible adults.

This raises a couple of very serious question. Having admitted 18 and 19-year-olds to the ranks of adult New Zealanders, is it constitutionally, politically and morally justifiable to cast them back into the ranks of non-adults when it comes to purchasing alcohol?

How can prohibiting their participation in a social activity in which all other New Zealand adults are free to engage without legal sanction possibly be right?

I would argue that it is neither right nor justifiable. Once specific political and social rights (like the right to vote or the right to purchase alcohol) have been given to a group of citizens they cannot be taken back without placing the rights of every other citizen in jeopardy.

Were the White Americans living in the Deep South justified in stripping their Black neighbours of their civil and political rights in the latter half of the 19th Century? Did the Nazi Government of Germany have the right to strip German Jews of their citizenship in the 1930s?

Both of these cases involved the persecution of a politically friendless minority whose morals, capabilities and behaviour were openly despised and derided by the majority.

Find out if you are a problem drinker or have hazardous levels of consumption. Complete the survey, and post your score in comment. Later on, I will post what different scores mean according to the World Health Organisation.

1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?
(0) Never [Skip to Qs 9-10]
(1) Monthly or less
(2) 2 to 4 times a month
(3) 2 to 3 times a week
(4) 4 or more times a week

2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?
(0) 1 or 2
(1) 3 or 4
(2) 5 or 6
(3) 7, 8, or 9
(4) 10 or more

3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

4. How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

5. How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

6. How often during the last year have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

7. How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

8. How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year

10. Has a relative or friend or a doctor or another health worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year

[DPF: Update: WHO states:

Total scores of 8 or more are recommended as indicators of hazardous and
harmful alcohol use, as well as possible alcohol dependence.

This is how Alcohol Action come up with their stat that 700,000 NZers are problem drinkers.  But it is even worse than that:

In general, a score of 1 or more on Question 2 or Question 3 indicates consumption at a hazardous level.

So if you have ever had more than two standard drinks in a session, this indicates hazardous consumption!]

The Keep it 18 page on Facebook has been gaining members at a massive rate. It hit 10,000 overnight and is now at 10,550. Join up, if you support the cause.

You can also follow the campaign on Twitter.

Stuff reports:

Liquor companies lobbied the Government furiously in the weeks before a reform package was announced.

They pressed Justice Minister Simon Power with claims he was being served up biased and flawed recommendations by the Law Commission.

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show a procession of companies and industry groups wrote directly to Mr Power, but he insists they had no influence over his recommendations to the Cabinet.

On Monday, Mr Power announced changes that will affect bar hours, off-licence trading, liquor advertising and the purchase age. He declared a moratorium on meeting advocates on either side of the debate after the Law Commission tabled its report on alcohol law reform in April.

I’m sorry, but what is the purpose of this story?

The Minister refused to meet with lobbyists from either side. How could criticise him for that? So the story is about the fact is about that some industry groups wrote him a letter? Even worse, they wrote “directly” to him. Well how else do you write? Should they have sent letters to Mrs Smith of Taihape and asked her to pass them onto the Minister?

But that did not stop more than 150 people writing with concerns about liquor and a further six industry groups or companies sending their views.

As people and groups should. In fact it would be unthinkable for such groups to not write to the Minister with their views.

If there is a proposal to regulate the medical profession, would one expect the Medical Association to not offer its views? Of course not. So why is it newsworthy in this case? Because certain lobby groups are trying to push a theme that the “liquor industry” has too much influence. I can only imagine they wish them to be banned from writing letters.

On May 10, Hospitality Association chief executive Bruce Robertson wrote to Mr Power expressing “real concerns with the interpretation of some of the data … and inconsistencies with the [Law] Commission’s advocacy”.

The Law Commission seemed to have chosen data which supported the advocacy of the public health sector, he wrote. Then, on June 14, Mr Robertson wrote to Mr Power with a full commentary on 146 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations.

Bruce would be sacked if he did not offer a commentary on the recommendations. That is his job. Again – why is this a new story?

Where are the stories about how Alcohol Action is funded, and the massive amount of lobbying they have done?

The dairy owners are not too happy:

Several changes announced yesterday included a law that will clarify that dairies and convenience stores cannot be off-licences, therefore cannot sell alcohol.

Ashok Darji, who owns Ash’s Wine and Lotto Superette in Mission Bay, says the move unfairly targets and punishes dairies.

“It basically contradicts. People who want to get a lot of cheap alcohol will go to the supermarket. And a little superette – that’s mostly a customer coming home from work and just wants to pick up a bottle of wine.

“It’s not really our core business, but it’s more a convenience thing. They’re not coming here to buy a dozen beers, they’re going to supermarkets, so why [punish] us?”

Mr Darji has been selling wine at his superette for more than 10 years.

He said during that time, he had never had any problems regarding his selling alcohol, and was upset that he – with many others around the country – would be punished.

It would be interesting to see some solid research on how much alcohol is sold where, to try and ascertain if dairies are a problem.

In this story, my dreams come true. Labour is campaigning for the entire Palmer report to be adopted:

Labour leader Phil Goff said he wanted the commission’s full set of recommendations, including an increase in alcohol excise and tougher rules on advertising.

A vote for Labour means a vote for a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, a ban on Tui billboards, sports teams losing tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship, outlawing the Speights Southern Men ads, a compulsory one way policy at 2 am, and making it an offence for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine in a restaurant with their parents.

This story reports on the impact on RTD makers:

Independent Liquor Group has been given a serve in liquor law reforms announced yesterday.

The South Auckland-based firm dominates the market for “Ready To Drink” products popular with the young – the segment most directly affected by the changes.

The company, owned by private equity group Pacific Equity Partners, got sobering news with the Government limiting the maximum alcohol in RTDs to just 5 per cent.

Many RTDs are 7 per cent and above. In particular, Independent’s bourbon and coke brand Woodstock is a market leader in the RTD market. Its alcohol content is 8 per cent.

I’ve never had an RTD myself. From what I can tell, the intent of the package is to make it hard for people to get hammered on RTDs. What we don’t know is whether this means people will stick with RTDs if they are the same strength as beer, or will they move onto hard spirits?

Derek Cheng reports that the Government did not agree to the recommendations to ban Tui billboards:

Tui billboards, alcohol-sponsored music festivals and sexy television advertisements depicting euphoric parties will not be affected by the Government’s alcohol reform package, despite evidence that a crackdown on marketing would reduce youth drinking.

If you do want Tui billboards banned, Labour is promising to do so.

Having said that I don’t think the current ASA self-regulatory model is effective. There needs to be a sanction for ads which breach the code beyond no longer displaying the ad. I think there needs to be actual penalties for advertisements that breach the code.

The Auckland Mayoral contenders support the 4 am closing.

The NZ Herald editorial says the package is a solid start:

Anything less than a full-scale embrace of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations on reducing the harm caused by alcohol was always going to lead to accusations of Government tinkering and timidity.

But the plans announced yesterday amount to a reasonably practical and coherent response to the problems that have arisen from two decades of liberal liquor laws.

Sensibly, the temptation to return to a time when access to liquor was strictly constrained, but drinking habits were in many ways worse, has been resisted. Instead, there is to be a targeted assault on the excesses encouraged by the current regime.

Vernon Small reports those who wanted more:

The Salvation Army, Alcohol Action and the Drug Foundation said the Government should have raised excise on alcohol to make drinking more expensive – a key recommendation from the Law Commission, which reviewed all the alcohol laws.

The Drug Foundation said it was “deeply disappointed that two vital areas of reform have been ignored: the proliferation of cheap booze and the intense marketing, advertising and promotion of liquor”. …

Professor Jennie Connor, head of preventive and social medicine at Otago University, said the changes would make no substantial difference to the heavy drinking culture, or to the scale of harm caused. They were a small step in the right direction, but were like “fighting a bushfire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years. The Government has seriously misread public concern about heavy drinking and needs to rethink its policies”.

If Professor Cooper thinks the public were demanding a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, she is seriously wrong.

John Hartevelt reports another critic:

The director of Christchurch’s National Addiction Centre, Professor Doug Sellman, said the Government was wrong to see alcohol abuse as essentially a youth problem.

Research found that 92 per cent of New Zealand’s heavy drinkers were 20 years and over, and 70 per cent were 25 and over.

“Aiming measures primarily at youth while avoiding anything substantial that would reduce heavy drinking among adults is scapegoating young people for the country’s heavy drinking culture and fails to address the main issue,” he said.

The Government had avoided the big policy decisions, such as increasing prices and restricting advertising, and ended up with a package that was “like treating cancer with a couple of aspirin”.

So does that mean banning Tui billboards would be like chemotherapy?

The Press reports Bob Parker supports the package:

Liquor-law reforms will enable Christchurch communities to “write their own futures”, Mayor Bob Parker says.

The Government yesterday announced a package of alcohol measures.

The reforms feature a proposal allowing communities to decide their own “alcohol plan”, including the concentration, location, and opening hours of liquor outlets.

Parker said he felt “very positive” about the proposed reforms.

“We’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time.”

Finally The Press editorial says they are a step in the right direction but a lost opportunity:

The package of Government policies to reduce problem drinking is a step in the right direction but it is still a relatively modest step.

While the measures it will introduce are welcome, in several areas, including the adult drink-driving limit and the price of alcohol, the Government has resisted calls for more decisive action. …

Overall, therefore, although the Government package will assist in the battle against excessive drinking, it also represents a lost opportunity to make more serious progress in our society’s goal of ending the binge drinking culture.

Have been in the lockup for the Government’s response to the Law Commission report on alcohol. It is one of the largest cabinet papers on record, with a huge 202 recommendations. The Minister has obviously spent a lot of time going through the issues.

The zealots have already slammed the report because the Government did not implement everything the Law Commission recommended. I say thank God for that. The previous Labour Government commissioned that report, from a body headed up by a former Labour Prime Minister.  Why on earth a National Government would be expected to do everything they say, I don’t know.

We have elections in this country to decide policies, and I am glad the Government has not gone down the total nanny state path. In some areas they have gone done that path, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

If Labour want to campaign at the next election to ban Tui billboards, outlaw alcohol sponsorship of sports, hike the alcohol excise tax by 50%, make it a crime for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine with his/her parents in a restaurant and force bars to have a one way policy at 2 am, then that would make my day. The alcohol zealots should encourage Labour to promise that, and then the people can decide at the election.

So what is in the Government’s proposals.

1. More powers for local authorities to set a local alcohol policy which will determine locations for licenses premises, trading hours etc. This is sensible in my opinion as the needs of Wainuiomata (for example) may be very different to Courtenay Place.
2. Tighter criteria for off-licenses so only eligible are retailers where alcohol is 85% of sales or grocery stores where food is 50% of sales, or hotels/taverns – unless there are a lack of premises in the area. Again, no real issues with this.
3. Provision of free drinking water a requirement for premises which sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. At present this is a custom, not a requirement.
4. A maximum trading hours for off-licenses of 7 am to 11 pm. I don’t support this, but am glad they at least changed it from 10 pm to 11 pm. I often am doing supermarket shopping at 10 pm, so will be able to grab a bottle of wine still.
5. Maximum trading hours for on-licenses from 8 am to 4 pm. Again I don’t support this, but it is only an hour earlier than the de facto 5 am close most places have. It isn’t true nothing good happens after 4 am – ironically by that time of the night you are normally on non alcohol drinks sobering up. So forcing a closure at 4 am may in fact make things worse.
6. Rejected the proposed one way policy from 2 am. Thank goodness for that. It would have destroyed Courtenay Place as you wouldn’t be able to have outside drinking areas under such a policy.  It would also have led to all sorts of problems as people can’t catch up with their friends etc.
7. Local authorities can vary the national trading hours (both shorter or longer) if they wish. So Queenstown for example might set a time beyond 4 am. However their decision can be appealed for reasonableness. I think this is good flexibility.
8. Parliament loses it exemption from liquor licensing laws.
9. Split purchase age of 18 for on-license and 20 for off-license. This will be a conscience vote. This is better than a 20/20 age but is quite deeply flawed. As one looks at the details one will still be able to supply alcohol to 18 and 19 year olds (just not sell it directly) so it will create a culture of supplying alcohol to those who can not legally buying it. You will hear more on this point.
10. Ironically 19 year olds will be able to sell alcohol in supermarkets and bottlestores, but not buy it! To be fair, currently a 17 year old can sell alcohol also.
11. Parents can continue to supply alcohol to their own children at home, or in any private setting or at certain licenses premises such as restaurants.
12. Under 18 year olds can not possess or drink alcohol in public, unless with a parent. This will be a $200 infringement.
13. Consent of a parent is needed to supply alcohol to an under 18 year old, and supply without consent can be a $2,000 fine. Long overdue – finally it is an offence to give a 14 year old a bottle of vodka.
14. The adult who supplies alcohol (with consent) to under 18 year olds must do so responsibly and supervise the consumption. Again – long overdue. This is what may have made a difference to the Kings College case.
15. The 50% increase in excise tax is rejected. Yay. I have yet to see a compelling economic analysis that the current excise tax does not cover the external costs of alcohol.
16. A minimum price regime will be considered in a year’s time once they gather data from retailers. I have some sympathy for a minimum price regime, as loss-leading on alcohol isn’t that desirable. It is a better response than an across the board excise tax increase.
17. Will be an offence to promote excessive consumption of alcohol or to advertise in a way that appeals to those under the purchase age. Also can not promote free alcohol or make purchase of alcohol mandatory for other goods and services.
18. The recommendation to have a total ban on all alcohol advertising and sponsorship has been rejected and sent back to Russia. Having said that I do think the current ASA code on alcohol advertising is ineffective and do actually support there being some sort of penalties for advertisements that breach the code. At present the only penalty is the advert gets withdrawn.
19. Makes it an offence with a fine of up to $2,000 to make a false representation of age. So having a fake ID could not be very expensive. Also an offence to lend someone your ID so they appear 20.
20. They have rejected the proposed $200 fine for people who spend the night in the cells detoxing. I like this proposal but the argument against is it would cost more to set up the fine system, than it would bring in, and also it may discourage drunk people from approaching the Police for assistance – which could lead them to more harm.
21. The Ministers of Justice and Health can ban certain products deemed undesirable such as alcoholic milk, or alcoholic iceblocks. I never knew one could get alcoholic milk!
22. RTDs to be a maximum 5% and also a maximum 1.5 standard drinks. This is also a good move, as it was the RTDs that had four or five standard drinks in them which were plastering people. At 1.5 standard drinks they actually become difficult to get too drunk off.

Overall, it could have been a lot worse – some stuff I don’t like, but they have rejected the worst excesses of the zealots. There are a lot of things there that will help – especially banning supply to under 18 year olds without consent or supervision.

I’ll blog more on this over time. But I think Simon Power has done a pretty good job with this one. As I said at the beginning, Labour will make my day if they campaign on implementing the entire Law Commission report.