Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill amends the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 to address problems with the current levy-setting mechanisms. It is a technical amendment that introduces an updated and simple calculation system. It future-proofs the levy against new types of alcoholic products, and provides for regulations to be made by Order in Council to fix the rate of levy payable.
The bill introduces a system of alcohol classification bands, an approach that aligns it with the system the New Zealand Customs Service uses to collect alcohol excise duty and excise-equivalent duty. Under this system, a dollar amount per litre of beverage for the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy will be set for each alcoholic beverage according to its deemed alcohol content or average alcohol content. This means that alcoholic beverages with a higher volume of alcohol will contribute a higher proportion to the levy. This Government, along with members from other parties, is keen to progress a bill that will improve the way in which the ALAC levy is set.
During the bill’s second reading members spoke on the importance of the work done by ALAC. The Government supports the role of ALAC, and it notes that this bill is a technical amendment to the way in which ALAC is funded, rather than legislation to reduce alcohol-related harm.
There are, in my view, four main reasons why this bill should be passed. First, the levy-setting mechanism is outdated, as it is based on only four classes of liquor. The emergence of ready-to-drink products with around 5 percent alcohol, and of an increasing number of standard spirits with less than 42 percent alcohol by volume, is not readily accommodated by the levy in the way it is currently struck. That highlights the need to future-proof the classification system by enabling the easier classification of emerging types of beverage. Second, the spirits category requires the calculation of what are called “proof litres”—a concept that is no longer in use. Since 1986 the New Zealand Customs Service has measured spirit volumes as litres of alcohol, and proof litres are no longer recorded. Third, the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when viewed alongside the way excise and excise-equivalent duty is set—that is, on the basis of alcohol content. Alcohol importers and producers have often noted that this procedure could be simplified. Fourth—and this is the final point—section 27 of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by Gazette notice. There is no process for Cabinet to be involved in the levy-setting procedure. That is inconsistent, I would argue, with more robust approaches to setting levies such as the procedure for the problem gambling levy.
ALAC is funded by a levy on all alcoholic beverages manufactured in, and imported into, New Zealand. The total levy amount for ALAC during the 2007-08 financial year was $12.4 million. That is small compared with alcohol excise and excise-equivalent duty, which was $795 million in the year ended June 2008. The new system will not affect the total sum collected for the levy. Estimates from the 2006-07 levy round suggest that the beer industry will be affected most by the proposed change to the calculation of the levy, due to the high volume of imported and manufactured beer products in New Zealand. The spirits and wine sectors will both contribute a lower proportion of the levy under the proposed system. The change will have minimal impact on those who pay the levy, and industry groups are generally supportive of the bill.
After looking at the bill and considering submissions from six submitters, the Health Committee recommended that the bill proceed with two minor amendments. Mr Ryall, who was a member of the Health Committee when it considered the bill, was pleased to see the two amendments incorporated, because, clearly, they provided more clarity. I understand that at that time every committee member supported the changes.
The bill will provide an easier, more effective, and more robust process for levy setting in the future. I therefore recommend that the House pass this bill.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill, which is a non-controversial and common-sense bill.
It is largely a technical amendment bill. Nevertheless, it has attracted considerable and, at times, colourful debate. We have heard a few confessions, a fascinating story about Maurice Williamson’s travels behind the Iron Curtain, and multiple thorough examinations of some of the finer details and history of the bill. Its progress through the House has been quite an education for me as a new member of Parliament.
The purpose of this bill is, of course, to amend the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 in order to create a simplified and more modern approach to the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). The bill changes the method of calculation of the levy charged on each alcoholic beverage. ALAC is currently funded by a proportionate levy on four categories of alcohol—beer, wine, fortified wine, and spirits—according to their volumes consumed during the previous year. The total levy for ALAC during the 2005-06 year was close to $13 million. This is small in comparison with the total alcohol excise, which was $712 million for the year ended June 2006, which is, in turn, minute in comparison with the billions of dollars that alcohol harm is estimated to cost our economy.
The new method introduced by this bill is a levy per litre of alcohol content. The result is that drinks with higher alcohol percentages will contribute a higher proportion of the levy. The Health Committee has recommended that the rates of levy for particular classes of alcohol be made consistent with the rates of excise duty charged on those classes. This does seem infinitely sensible. It is worth noting that the effect on the price of alcoholic beverages at the point of sale will be negligible. The bill is future-proofed against the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into any liquor class in the current system. These include, for instance, some hybrid drinks that have a mixture of wine and spirits—not to my taste, to be sure—and the alcopops, or ready-to-drink beverages, that seem to be evolving at an ever-increasing rate.
ALAC’s prime objective is to promote responsible drinking and strategies that will minimise alcohol misuse. Although improvements in responsible drinking and the minimisation of harm associated with alcohol misuse and abuse are not the aims of this bill, it does support those aims by amending the Alcohol Advisory Council Act to simplify the current mechanisms for setting the ALAC levy. The amendment provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair, up to date, and simple to calculate, thus securing the future of ALAC.
ALAC’s work is as relevant today as it was in 1976. In fact, the council has done a superb job of moving with the times, and the range of initiatives undertaken by it today is truly impressive. Anamata is the annual national youth conference hosted by ALAC. The purpose of Anamata is to provide a forum where young people from around Aotearoa come together to discuss alcohol issues as they see them. In addition, Anamata provides an opportunity for young people to discuss and debate alcohol issues in culturally appropriate ways. It gives young New Zealanders the opportunity to take part in the wider discussion about the place alcohol should have in our communities now and in the future. That is of immense importance. It is all very well for us to debate the issue of harm reduction and to have a particular focus on issues relating to youth drinking, but without the input from our young people our deliberations—perhaps clouded by the number of years that have passed since most members could describe themselves as young—are likely to be wide of the mark.
ALAC runs a number of campaigns. The “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” campaign holds up a mirror to New Zealand and our drinking culture. It forces us to question the belief that it is OK to deliberately plan to drink to excess. It forces us to face up to the dangers of alcohol misuse and abuse. ALAC’s television advertisements have become legendary. Yes, they are brutal, but they bring to our screens some of the very real repercussions suffered not only by those people who take their drinking to the extreme but also by their friends and families. ALAC does not take a prohibitive approach to alcohol consumption—far from it. Indeed, ALAC actively supports measured and responsible drinking. However, too many New Zealanders do not drink in a measured and responsible way. Too many New Zealanders bank up their drinking, then spend it all in one go, in one massive binge. That is when most harm occurs.
ALAC’s programmes are designed to change the acceptance and celebration of drunkenness and intoxication, and to reduce the amount of alcohol that we might drink in any one session. It is difficult for us as legislators to tackle something as deeply ingrained in our culture as binge drinking. Clearly, change has to come from within our communities and families. However, it is possible through legislation to set a regulatory environment that supports safer drinking, balances liberty and responsibility, and seeks to reduce the rates of crime, disease, and injury related to alcohol abuse.
The debate around how best to tackle the enormous costs associated with alcohol abuse must be an informed one. It is vital that we resist the temptation to base our decisions on our own bias or our own narrow range of experiences. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and make sure that any legislative change is done in the interests of genuine harm reduction. That is where ALAC comes in. The collection and dissemination of information about alcohol consumption support considered and knowledgable debate, both in the public arena and in this House.
This bill supports the continued existence of ALAC, and its continued ability to advocate, educate, and disseminate information. I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I congratulate the previous Labour Government on introducing and promoting it.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
It is indeed excellent that the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is finally reaching its third reading in the House, and that everybody is supporting it. But where there is some degree of concern is about the fact that the bill was introduced on 11 December 2007. This is a bill to simplify outdated legislation, and one would have thought that if the previous Labour Government had been studious, it would have got on and passed it during its time in office. Instead, it was concentrating on absolutely undemocratic legislation that cluttered up the whole workings of Parliament—legislation like the Electoral Finance Bill. That is what Labour was concentrating on, instead of getting on with good, sensible legislation that would simplify and put into line a measure where the need for it was quite obvious.
I understand that the Health Committee worked extremely well together during the consideration of the bill. There were six submissions and there was unanimity of opinion as to the result.
This bill will address problems with the current method of setting the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council. We recently heard a very good contribution from Iain Lees-Galloway pointing out the extraordinary contribution made by the Alcohol Advisory Council. The work that it does in research, dissemination of information, educational programmes, and innovative treatment programmes is absolutely vital. It does all that work on a budget of about $12.4 million. I believe that the council’s task is undoubtedly an enormous one, and the council does it with extraordinary commitment and dedication. The speaker before Iain Lees-Galloway, the Hon Dr Richard Worth, gave an excellent contribution and pointed out just how much the total levies are. They are in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars. So it is a very small amount that goes to the Alcohol Advisory Council.
But it is important to note that this bill is not intended to contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm; instead it aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds the council. It, of course, has a very significant role to play in reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
He is right; my glasses are a bit loose. I must say it makes me think that there must be a huge number of combinations and permutations of riveting new information that one could contribute to this debate, so I do not want to be deflected by the fact that my glasses are, indeed, a bit loose. I will get them fixed.
The Government is very concerned about alcohol-related harm in New Zealand. However, a technical amendment to simplify the funding of a Crown entity is not the place to debate ways to reduce alcohol-related harm. The good news is that the excellent new National Government is introducing a whole raft of measures to help combat both violence and alcohol-related harm. Only last evening in the House there was a vigorous debate along those lines.
The key point of this bill is to bring the levy-setting regime into line with the excise-setting regime. In 2004 a Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 found four major problems, which are dealt with by the new bill and which were described so eloquently by my colleague the Hon Dr Richard Worth. Firstly, the levy-setting mechanism is outdated. Secondly, it is based on only four classes of liquor. For example, ready-to-drink beverages, commonly known as the “RTDs”, did not exist at the time the Act was passed into law. Proof litres have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. The New Zealand Customs Service measures the volume of spirits as litres of alcohol.
Thirdly, the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when compared with the method of setting excise and excise-equivalent duty based on alcohol content. That bears out the very fact that the lazy previous Labour Government did not get on and pass this bill.
Shane ArdernDr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
As my excellent colleague Shane Ardern points out, the previous Government had 9 long years to pass the bill. But with alacrity the excellent new National Government is expeditiously passing the bill, within our fourth month. The fourth area is that although the current Act allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by Gazette notice, there is no process for Cabinet to be involved, and that is inconsistent with other levy-setting approaches.
The bill repeals the four current definitions of “wine” and replaces them with a single definition. [Interruption] One has to think of innovative ways to go over the same subject matter time and time again. My glasses have done me well! The Act currently defines the term “wine” as “all products that, if imported, would be admissible for the time being” under a variety of headings. The term “fortified wine” means “any product that, if imported, would be admissible for the time being” under those same headings, “and that exceeds in strength 14 percent alcohol by volume”. The definition “fruit wine” means “wine manufactured in New Zealand from any product other than grapes”.
The bill repeals all those definitions and replaces them with one definition: that of wine. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes wine, in noun form, as “an alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice”, or “a fermented alcoholic drink made from other fruit or plants.” The bill is, indeed, very much in alignment with The Concise Oxford Dictionary in its new definition. It states: “wine means the product of the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit (including grapes), vegetable, or honey, and—(a) includes—(i) cider, perry”—pear wine—“and mead; and (ii) fortified wines such as sherry, port, and fruit or vegetable-based liquors; but (b) does not include—(i) beer or spirits; or (ii) any liquor containing no more than 1.15% volume of alcohol.”
Undoubtedly this bill does some very, very useful things. The proposed regime is up to date and simple to calculate. The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages, which keep on being changed from month to month by somewhat innovative brewers. There is minimal impact on those who pay the levy, and the price changes will be very small. Finally, the new schedule addresses the concerns raised by New Zealand winegrowers about the need to clarify which rates will be applicable to particular products. It is with great pleasure that I support the third reading of this bill.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
I rise in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, Dr Paul Hutchison, told us in great detail, this is a technical amendment bill that provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair, up to date, and simple to calculate, and that removes historical anomalies. Previous speakers have touched on those issues, so I will add a personal touch.
I want to talk about some of the social issues surrounding the use of alcohol. I am sure all members have their own stories from their electorates and home towns that they can recount regarding the problems that arise from the consumption of alcohol, and I will add my own tales. I need to add, though, that this bill is not designed to remedy the social ills that alcohol presents, as members have touched on. Even so, we need to take every opportunity we can to highlight the problems that alcohol causes and the harm associated with it.
Only about a week after my candidacy was announced I received a letter from a gentleman in Rotorua who warned me of the perils of alcohol, and particularly the harm it caused to Māori. Although I found the tone of the letter a little condescending towards Māori, I could not help but agree with much of what the gentleman had to say. I assumed from his tone that he was not Māori himself, and I winced at some of the Māori stereotypes he reinforced, such as our not being genetically wired to handle alcohol. However, I felt that there was an underlying concern about us as a people and about the fact that many of us as Māori find ourselves in trouble because of the frequency and volume of alcohol consumed.
I grew up in Leonard Street, Kawakawa, which I can assure members was not a neck of the woods that was affected by skyrocketing real estate prices a few years back. In fact, I doubt whether property values have moved much at all in that particular part of town. Leonard Street is a cul-de-sac that one can get to only by driving down Whiteman Road. I doubt whether there is a road in New Zealand less aptly named, because it is a road full of brown faces. Let me tell the House now that those people are some of the greatest I know. Even though my family moved out of Leonard Street when I was aged 13 and moved a full mile and a half to the other side of town, the friendships I made with kids on that street endure to this day.
But some of my earliest memories are of some of the folk in that street regularly having parties that seemed to last all weekend. None of us living in that street had money, but there always seemed to be money for alcohol. I do not know what was sacrificed so that the weekly party could be had, but I have memories of guitars and singing, cars ripping up and down the street, and often more people sitting on the boot, bonnet, or roof of the car than there were people on the inside being driven. There were 14 families living on that street, and close to 100 kids, excluding the mokos, the whāngai, the nieces, the nephews, and the hangers-on. Of those 100 kids only three, to my knowledge, gained a university degree. Some went on to the police or owned businesses, but many succumbed to the system and did not achieve their potential. I cannot help but wonder about the part that alcohol had to play in that underachievement, given that alcohol and parties seemed to have a higher priority than education.
To change tack slightly, I recall a wānanga held at my marae in Kāretu about 10 years ago where, for part of the time, we spoke about some of our elders who had passed on and what sort of people they were. I was quite astounded that most of our men were described in two ways: firstly, they could swear, and, secondly, they could drink. At the time we laughed because the stories were anecdotes and reminiscences of people we loved, but it dawned on me that the men we held up as role models and examples in our community were actually hardened drinkers—it was OK to drink.
I wonder how our women felt back in those days about having their men come home from work drunk most nights. When the freezing works opened in Moerewa and most men went there to work, many of them rode bicycles to and from work. This was a journey of some 14 or 15 kilometres. On many occasions they would stop at the Star Hotel in Kawakawa on their way back from work and buy a keg—would members believe—and carry it home on their bicycles, drinking as they went. There is a hill and a flat about 4 kilometres from home that carry the beautiful name of Waitemaringi. This hill is where these elders would stop to drink the last of their keg before getting home. Unfortunately, the quantities of alcohol consumed on the way would necessitate a comfort stop. Such was the regularity of this that the name Waitemaringi is basically lost and this hill and flat are now known as Mimi Hill and Mimi Flat respectively. Not only can we conclude that alcohol is partly responsible for the loss of some of my hapū’s beautiful traditional place names, and therefore another part of our culture, but also that my elders set a poor example for our youth, not by drinking and driving but, rather, by drinking and cycling.
This bill arose as a result of a review of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 conducted by the Ministry of Health in 2004. Problems were found in the way levies were calculated and apportioned. The Alcohol Advisory Council—or ALAC, as it is known—received a total levy amount of $12.4 million in the 2007-08 financial year, which is small in comparison with the $795 million collected as excise payable on alcohol manufactured in New Zealand, and excise-equivalent duty payable on alcohol imported into New Zealand, in the year ended June 2008. Given the amount of damage that alcohol causes, I would like to put in a plug for ALAC to receive a greater share so that it is better able to fulfil its functions, which include research, dissemination of information, educational programmes, and innovative treatment programmes.
Under the system proposed by the bill, the dollar amount per litre of beverage for the ALAC levy can be set for each alcoholic beverage according to its deemed alcohol content or average alcohol content. This means that alcoholic beverages with a higher volume of alcohol would contribute a higher portion of the levy. The new system will not affect the total sum collected for the levy, and the effect on the price to consumers will not be significant—approximately 2c less for a 750 ml bottle of spirits, and a difference of less than 1c for a bottle of wine, a six-pack of beer, or a four-pack of ready-to-drink beverages.
I welcome the changes that attempt to future-proof against new types of beverages that will most likely hit the market over the coming years. When growing up in the 1970s I thought there were four classes of alcohol, as are described in the bill, but I thought they were Lion Red, DB, wine in a cask, and top shelf. I did not really understand at the time that top shelf was not actually a product brand. I remember the first time I sneaked a sip of whisky from a bottle and understood instantly why our people call alcohol wai piro—putrid water. I could not stand the taste then and I cannot stand the taste now. Seeing the range of beverages available and on sale these days, I can only imagine the types of firewater that will be available in the future, with the different mixes of alcohol—spirits and wines—all tasting like children’s cordial. Therefore, it is great that the levy system has been future-proofed to cater for these possibilities. This future-proofing was the first of the improvements to the Act to address the four problems that needed rectifying.
Other speakers have covered most of the technical aspects, but before I wind up I take the time to return our attention to the need for ALAC to receive greater funding in order to support its aims. As principal of Kaitāia Intermediate School, it broke my heart to hear from members of the Kaitāia police and the local safer community group the stories of some pupils’ drinking excesses on Friday nights. It is not uncommon for the police or that community group, in the course of their patrols, to come across highly intoxicated—and in some instances comatose—kids. I can tell the House that, as the father of a 13-year-old girl, the stories of how some of these kids—young girls, mainly—acquired some of their hard liquor absolutely turned my stomach.
I do not want to leave anyone in any doubt as to the need for greater funding for ALAC so that there can be greater access for our youth to educational programmes on the safe consumption of alcohol. My personal belief is that there is not really a safe level of alcohol consumption for youth. However, the reality is that youth drinking is a fact of life, and is often condoned by parents. So if youth drinking is going to happen, our youth need access to information they can relate to, in the hope they can make safe decisions when consuming alcohol. As adults, we need to step up and set an example to our youth, who are really only mimicking our behaviour.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I want to make just a very short contribution tonight. The Green Party is supporting this bill, and we are pleased to do so.
I hear a number of concerns from other members about the drinking culture, and the kinds of messages that social marketing is trying to send to the community about the dangers inherent in drinking. Of course, alcohol is a drug like any other drug. It is one of the two major legal drugs in this country. The problem, as I see it, is that alcohol is not treated as a drug in law and in regulation. It would be consistent, and indeed a very good message for this Parliament to send, to have alcohol listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I imagine it would be most appropriately listed in schedule 4, and be what is known as a class D drug.
If that was to happen, alcohol could be dealt with by regulation; Parliament would not have to deal with legislation every time we wanted to make a change. We would then be able to provide very strict regulations about the advertising of alcohol and about the provision of alcohol in the community, and we would be able to deal with issues like these levies and taxes on alcohol, all within a regulatory framework that would put alcohol squarely where it belongs, which is alongside other drugs that impact on our community. It would be a very consistent position if we were to put tobacco into the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well—in the same schedule—and therefore give this Parliament, the Government, more control over how regulations and restrictions are set for the sale, the marketing, and of course the display of those drugs in our community.
We must be serious about the harms those drugs cause to our community. They are serious harms. Those drugs cause deaths. I think it is 5,000 deaths a year for tobacco and 1,000 deaths a year for alcohol. People are being killed by the use of those drugs, so they should be treated as other drugs are treated. It is clear that there is no real drive to reintroduce prohibition for the drug alcohol and the drug tobacco. But that is why we have, in law, the capacity for a schedule 4, class D classification, in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It sends the message to the community that drugs, when misused—particularly by young people, but also by the community as a whole—are harmful. Therefore Parliament should rightly have the role of setting restrictions on how those drugs should be used. That would be a consistent position; that would send a consistent message. It would also send a consistent message to the producers of these drugs, the manufacturers of these drugs, that Parliament and the country consider them to be harmful, and will take the maximum amount of responsibility for controlling them in a way that reduces the harm that we have seen them cause to our people.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am delighted to support the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. This bill amends a 30-year-old Act, the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The bill in front of the House is in essence a technical bill, an amendment to this Act.
In 2004, as we have heard from other members’ contributions, the Ministry of Health reviewed the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 and found four major problems, which are dealt with by the new bill. The first is that the levy-setting mechanism is outdated because it is based on only four classes of liquor: beer, wine, fortified wine, and spirits. In fact, we know that there are now many more, such as pre-mix cocktails and ready-to-drinks. Secondly, some terminology is outdated. The Act uses proof litres, which have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. In comparison, the New Zealand Customs Service measures spirit volumes as litres of alcohol. Thirdly, the review found that the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex. Finally, the review noted that there is no process for Cabinet to be involved.
This bill updates and simplifies the current mechanisms for setting the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy, which is imposed on all alcoholic beverages manufactured in or imported into New Zealand. I would like to take some time to compliment ALAC, and to talk about its process and levy. ALAC’s total budget for 2008-09 is almost $13 million, and it is funded largely from the alcohol levy that is collected by the New Zealand Customs Service. The levy is charged on both New Zealand - produced and imported alcohol products, intended for consumption in New Zealand. The levy ensures that the funds are targeted at alcohol-related problems. In the 2007-08 year the ALAC levy was just over $12 million, representing approximately 1.5 percent of the total excise and levies from alcohol. The total excise collected for 2007-08, in comparison, was $795 million.
ALAC is a Crown entity, with a single focus on alcohol. It has a statutory role to research, provide advice, and make recommendations to Government authorities in the fields of health, education, and social welfare, and to any other relevant bodies or persons, on alcohol issues. ALAC’s vision is of a nation where people understand the harmful results of alcohol misuse, and share responsibility for minimising them. Where people aspire to moderate alcohol consumption in the environments where alcohol is consumed, ALAC will also support moderation, and abstinence will be accepted as a valid choice to make. These are indeed very commendable visions.
Alongside this, people who have problems with alcohol consumption will be able to receive appropriate support and treatment. As such, ALAC’s important mission is to lead a change in New Zealand’s drinking culture. I have heard tonight that New Zealand has a drinking culture that accepts binge drinking as a normal social behaviour. ALAC’s research shows that about one-third of adult New Zealanders consider drunkenness to be socially acceptable. ALAC considers that this view is no longer acceptable, nor is it sustainable for New Zealand. The social and financial cost of alcohol-related harm has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year, in New Zealand.
In the past ALAC focused on strategies to reduce alcohol consumption; now it focuses more on patterns of drinking and the ways people are drinking, as that is the area where most harm occurs. To change the way people drink, ALAC is trying to change the drinking culture. ALAC’s social marketing campaign has achieved high awareness, and it is encouraging New Zealanders to think about their own behaviour. I applaud its powerful recent television adverts.
This bill proposes to align the ALAC levy according to alcohol classification bands, which is similar to the approach used by the New Zealand Customs Service. In essence, this means that drinks with a higher alcohol volume will have a greater levy than drinks with a lower alcohol volume. There is no doubt that this proposed legislation is fairer and modernises current practice. The proposed regime is also simple to calculate, and it has been worded in such a way that new composition alcohol drinks not yet thought about or designed, other than beer, fortified wine, or spirits, can be accommodated. Back in 1976, who would have thought that ready-to-drinks would be one of the biggest growth markets, particularly among young people? The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into the liquor class in the current system, such as ready-to-drinks.
This is not a contentious bill. It was heard by the Health Committee in the last Parliament, of which I was a member. The Health Committee was assured that this bill would have a minimal impact and be far easier to operate. Indeed, it was evident from submissions that industry groups, including producers and importers, were generally supportive of simplifying the process of calculating the levy. We were told that price changes would be very small. The estimates were for an increase of less than 1c for a bottle of wine, a six-pack of beer, or a four-pack of ready-to-drinks, and 2c for a 750 millilitre bottle of spirits.
The Health Committee did, however, recommend some changes to the original bill. We were concerned that there was inconsistency between the excise and the ALAC levy collection systems. For example, in the table in the schedule of the original bill, table wine with more than 14 percent alcohol would have incurred a higher ALAC levy than table wine of less that 14 percent, but under the current excise system, both incur the same levy. The Health Committee felt that this was inconsistent. The new table provided in the bill now ensures that there is consistency between the two systems. In the table wine example there are, in fact, six classes. Retaining the levy but aligning it to the excise collection system is the option supported by the Government and most stakeholders, as it is simpler than the current method, as well as being cheaper and more transparent than other alternatives.
One other change was recommended by the Health Committee. The definition of “rate” has been inserted into the bill to clarify that it is the percentage figure given in the table in the schedule of the bill.
This bill does not address measures to reduce alcohol-related harm. That is not its intention. That will be for future debate on other legislation currently before the House. This bill aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds ALAC, which has a significant role in reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm in society.
There is no doubt that there is growing concern in the community about the effect of alcohol and that the community wants to have more of a say. That has been clearly evident in the community in Mt Roskill, where I am a list MP. Last year, the Mount Roskill South community came together to oppose the imminent opening of a liquor outlet that was only 100 metres away from a school, a kindergarten, and a church. If the proposal had been successful, it would have meant that there would be 10 outlets in the Mount Roskill South area. Members of the community were concerned about the growing number of serious incidents of youth crime and violence in the area, and thought that more alcohol outlets would fuel that trend. They had a number of concerns about the current legislation having no teeth, and were concerned that the local body alcohol strategy had no legal status. I am pleased to report to colleagues that in the face of this united front, the proposed outlet did not go ahead.
My community is not alone; many communities around New Zealand are up in arms, determined to have their say. But that issue is for other current legislation in front of the House. In summary, the Government supports this bill and the amendments that have come through after consideration by the Health Committee.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill, and, as my colleagues have done, I welcome the changes that this bill will facilitate. Any bill that provides a level of consistency across any form of industry and/or product can be only a positive step in the right direction. Even though this bill is technical in nature, we must, as parliamentarians, always work to ensure that all legislation is fair, up to date, and simple to calculate. We must also work to ensure that, as far as possible, legislation is future-proofed to take into account possibilities imagined but not yet realised.
This legislation had its genesis in the 2004 Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting mechanisms outlined in the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The review found four major issues concerning the methodology around the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy calculation and apportionment. First, the levy-setting mechanism is out of date. The alcohol market has changed considerably since 1976, and the provisions no longer reflect the range of alcohol now consumed in New Zealand. Second, the spirits category requires the calculation of proof letters, a concept that is no longer in use and has been replaced with litres of alcohol in terms of determining excise duty. Third, the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex, and, fourth, section 27 of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 does not have a process by which Cabinet can be involved in the levy-setting process.
This bill solves the problems that exist in the current levy-setting mechanisms by introducing an updated and simple calculation system that reflects the current alcohol market. As has been noted, this bill does not address concerns around the abuse of alcohol in our society, and it does not debate the social issues around the causes of alcohol abuse and misuse. However, as is the case with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—another Labour-introduced bill before the House—any legislation that helps our communities to be better served through education and enlightenment around the healthy and safe use of alcohol is a start, and I think we would all agree with that. Our communities deserve this, and our constituents demand this for the sake of our diverse communities and society as a whole.
I think we all know that ALAC does a magnificent job and is a very important body in terms of the delivery of social outcomes to our diverse communities. As has been previously mentioned, ALAC was set up by Norman Kirk’s third Labour Government on the recommendation of a formal commission of inquiry into the sale of liquor, and it is just one of many examples of Labour putting in place important social agencies and advisory councils to help educate our diverse communities around the issues confronting all New Zealanders, either directly or indirectly.
Like many previous speakers, I think that if we went to the ALAC website we would see that it has had about four or five times more hits than it would normally have in a day. Let me talk about ALAC’s vision. I ask members whether they have heard it before.
Yes, it is worth reinforcing, because it is a very important agency. ALAC’s vision, as its website states, is for “A New Zealand drinking culture that supports the moderate use of alcohol so that whānau and communities enjoy life, free from alcohol harms”. The website goes on: “We will know we are on track when New Zealanders share responsibility for: minimising harm that results from alcohol misuse in our communities, families and whānau; a culture where all aspire to moderate consumption and reject drunkenness, or choose abstinence if that is best for them; widespread understanding of the harms associated with the misuse of alcohol; supporting the measures that control the environments where alcohol is consumed; ensuring that those who do have problems with alcohol consumption will have access to appropriate support and treatment for themselves, their whānau, families and communities.”
I do not think anyone would disagree that those are very laudable goals and objectives. ALAC has a budget of only $12.7 million, but many of us will be familiar with ALAC’s work. Members may be pleasantly surprised to learn that DB Breweries, Lion Nathan, and the Wine Institute are among the organisations that endorse ALAC’s work. Even these companies understand that sensible drinking is the only way we can keep ourselves and our communities safe.
An example of ALAC’s work is the current campaign saying “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” In my view, this is very effective. It is a salient campaign because it takes alcoholism and binge drinking out of the scenes of pubs and bars and puts it into contexts that we all recognise. There are real people in these ads. These are the guys we play rugby with. They are our girlfriends, work colleagues, mothers, fathers, and wives. Now, when I say “our girlfriends” I am not talking about “my girlfriend”. That is a generic statement, of course. Goodness me! Alcoholism knows no social or economic barriers. I am saying that the advertisement brings our families and the families of our nation into it. We are all affected by the destructive consequences of binge drinking.
It also appears that alcohol consumption does not recognise age or political affiliation. There are some absolutely dreadful statistics for 12 to 17-year-olds. How about the following: 17 percent of 12 to 17-year-olds reported that getting alcohol is not a problem, and 24 percent said they can afford as much alcohol as they want. Goodness me! One in three make no attempt to limit their drinking. We are not talking about university students here; we are talking about high school students. One-third of young people reported that they make no attempt to limit the amount of alcohol they drink—so they do not care about waking up with a hangover. Thirty percent reported that they make no attempt not to drink so much that they forget what is happening. Many claim that it is OK to get drunk—these are 12 to 17-year-olds. Fifty percent reported that it is OK to get drunk as long as it is not every day. Sixty-one percent disagreed with the statement that it is never OK to get drunk.
As for adults, well, goodness me! Twenty-seven percent of adults reported they feel more confident when they drink alcohol. Twenty-four percent agreed that everything seems happier when they drink alcohol. Thirty-nine percent agreed that when they drink alcohol it is easier to meet people and to get to know people. Forty-five percent claimed they enjoyed the buzz they got when they drank alcohol, and 68 percent claimed that drinking alcohol helped them to unwind and relax. Goodness me! Are we that pent up and frustrated? Twenty-three percent disagreed with the statement that they limit the amount of alcohol that they drink so they do not wake up with a hangover. I could go on—and they are pretty damning statistics, are they not? Members can find all those statistics on the ALAC website, and I urge them to go to it, because there is some great stuff on that website.
We are drinking more as a nation. The total volume of alcoholic beverage available for consumption in December 2005 was 458.8 million litres, which is an increase of 14.1 million litres compared with December 2004. That is 100 litres per man, woman, and child in this country. So when we think about the harm caused through excessive consumption of alcohol by those who lose control under the influence, we understand how necessary it is for an organisation such as ALAC to exist. As members of Parliament we have all heard stories from victims who have felt and experienced the misuse of alcohol. There is an ad about people who have been affected by drink-driving, and it shows the drinker being referred to as “Mate!”, but, later, just as “Dave.”
I contend that ALAC’s role is extremely important, and will become more so as the economic crisis starts to deepen even further into the bowels of society. Currently, 7 percent of adults who drink say they do so to escape reality. ALAC undertakes valuable research, disseminates information, and runs educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes designed to target those at risk. For those and other reasons I support the passage of this bill through the House.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I, too, rise to support the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. It has been unanimously supported in this House, and it has been very interesting to listen to MPs talk about the use of alcohol in their communities, reflect on their childhoods, and even talk about how alcohol and tobacco should be listed as drugs.
But this bill really concerns only a technical amendment to the Alcohol Advisory Council Act of 1976. The bill is about updating, streamlining, and making a cheaper calculation system for the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). ALAC was set up over 30 years ago after a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Liquor. It was set up because at that time, in 1976, it was thought there was a need for a permanent council whose aim would be to encourage responsible alcohol use and minimise the misuse of alcohol. It has been particularly interesting to listen to MPs, to listen to the statistics, and to ask, when ALAC has been going for over 30 years, how much real progress it has made. We are all concerned about the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand; we are all concerned about our young people. We are looking at ways to control the number of outlets in cities, and the hours those outlets are open. Alcohol is more available, but how much has ALAC actually delivered over the last 30 years?
This bill supports the existing levy that underpins the money for ALAC, but it ties the levy directly to, and aligns it with, the separate excise and excise-equivalent duties that are also calculated on alcohol. The whole idea of this change is to make the levy easy to calculate and to have a more transparent process, but it is also to reflect the products in the current alcohol market. Back in 1976 we were drinking very differently—drinking different products, drinking in different places, and drinking at different times. It is interesting to see how the definitions of alcohol have changed. For example, we have taken the four definitions for wine that were originally in the levy, and reduced them down to one.
We have also looked at definitions in terms of the new products that are very commonly in use, but I think that the ones that are perhaps the most frequently used, and the ones that are perhaps most disturbing to New Zealanders are the ready-to-drinks—that is, the mixtures of spirits and sticky soft drinks that young people particularly enjoy. I think that one of the problems that really concern people is that those ready-to-drinks are so similar to soft drinks. Obviously the marketing is designed so that young people can pick them up and go glug, glug, glug, just as they did with soft drinks in the years when they were kids. Ready-to-drinks taste the same as soft drinks, look the same, have similar graphics, and have bright-coloured containers. I think those are the things that make young people attracted to the drinks, but also that cause them not to understand how powerful the drinks are. Ready-to-drinks are certainly leading to lots of trouble for young people.
When we were looking at this levy, we also wanted to make sure that it was flexible enough to be able to deal with future products that we have not thought about yet—to future-proof it so that it would not have to be updated again, as we are doing right now. This levy will not affect the people who pay it. In fact, it is supported by the industry—by producers, manufacturers, and wholesalers. It makes only the most minor of price changes: a few cents on a bottle of wine, on a six-pack of beer, or on those ready-to-drinks.
We support the levy because we support the fact that a levy should go to ALAC, and that ALAC should be educating New Zealanders to use alcohol sensibly and to reduce alcohol harm. We support it because we understand that we need good research into how we are drinking, why we are drinking, and where we are drinking. We need good research so that we can create more innovative treatment programmes. We need good research so that we can educate our young people, and ALAC is particularly active in the education area. It works with schools, it works with communities, and of course it has a very powerful and regular advertising programme to educate us that “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” In other words, it educates us that alcohol is not necessarily bad—it is how we use that alcohol that can be bad. Those advertising messages are very powerful; 94 percent of New Zealanders have seen them, have listened to them, have been moved by them, and have considered how much they are drinking now and how much they should be drinking in the future. Yes, ALAC is there, it is doing good work, and it is educating New Zealand. It is trying to make us use alcohol more sensibly, and we support it. And we support this bill, which streamlines, simplifies, and calculates the levy for ALAC. Thank you.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I rise in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. This is, as has been noted, a rather technical bill, but it is none the less a very important update for the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). ALAC’s role is around the minimisation of the harm that alcohol causes, and I believe it is a desperately needed agency in this nation of ours, particularly when we see the many other people whose job it is to promote alcohol. Not very long ago—around the time when ALAC was first suggested in the early 1970s—our drinking culture revolved around the 6 o’clock swill. It was mostly focused on men aged at least 21, and on those much older than that. Now, of course, our drinking culture is evident around the clock—24 hours. Rather than just being about men in pubs, it is very much focused on the availability, around the clock, of alcopops, spirits, wines, and, still, beer—but 100-plus different varieties of beer.
There is absolutely nothing wrong, as most members of the House would agree, with having a sophisticated drink—most of us enjoy it. Just last Thursday I had the pleasure of accompanying the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, on a wander down The Strip in my electorate of Christchurch Central. It was very good natured—people were out enjoying an early evening drink.
Lots of people recognised the Leader of the Opposition. Many people insisted on stopping and talking to him. He did not have a drink with them, but he certainly had his photograph taken with them. That is the sort of sophistication that we all want to support and encourage.
But, unfortunately, that is not the only picture we see with alcohol, which is why ALAC is so important. In fact, ALAC is a brick in the wall against alcohol. Our Sale of Liquor Act, which has as its principal objective the minimisation of harm, is really observed in the breach rather than in practice. In the city of Christchurch, sometimes we do not have to look very far to see a manifest failure to realise the objective, as specified in the Act, of minimising harm. Obviously, ALAC is the agency that tries to assist in that role. We all know that very, very messy consequences arise from the prevalence of alcohol and its associated culture. If we have any doubts about that, we can ask anybody who is at the mop-up end: police officers, ambulance officers, staff at accident and emergency departments, health agencies, and church and social workers. Our current, wide-open liquor laws are driving many of the problems we face in our inner-city areas, and Christchurch is no exception to that. The laws contribute to some of the damage that is done, such as to our reputation as a tourist destination. All sorts of tougher sentences are being promoted, and societal change and other issues are being aired. This bill is a small step in the right direction.
I held a forum last June on the issue of alcohol availability and the harm that it has done—the sort of harm that ALAC is charged with trying to reduce. There was very wide consensus around the need for the minimisation of harm to actually take effect, which this bill attempts to support. At that forum last June in Christchurch, we had almost universal support from the then Minister, Lianne Dalziel, our mayor, Bob Parker, the police commander for Canterbury, publicans, youth workers, and retirees. Barely a dissenting voice was heard at that forum; there was not even any real dissent around the issue of age. What was at stake, and what was discussed, was the harm that alcohol is doing—the very harm that this bill attempts to support ALAC in minimising.
At around the same time, I went with Lianne Dalziel, who was then the Associate Minister of Justice and responsible for liquor laws, on a tour through my inner-city area on a Saturday evening. It brought home in quite stark relief some of the issues we want to try to address around the minimisation of the harm that alcohol does. When we see a 15-year-old sprawled in her own vomit on a main street in Christchurch at 11 o’clock at night, we begin to understand the scale of the issue we are facing. ALAC, through the levy this bill confirms, will help to try to reduce some of the problems that we, as members of Parliament, all see in our communities.
In Christchurch, one issue is around the number of liquor outlets. There are 1,200 outlets across the city, which is more than three times the number of 20 years ago. We can buy alcohol late at night from a supermarket, at 3 a.m. in a bar, and at 5 a.m. from a convenience store. I was pleased that just yesterday the Committee debated the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which begins to deal with some of those issues. Clearly, Parliament never intended that dairies would be selling alcohol. We also want there to be a move towards the prosecution of people who supply alcohol to younger people, which is also a subject of that bill.
One issue that came up at the forum I held last year related to the input of youth. Alcohol abuse and the harm minimisation that is needed are not just youth issues. Our current laws create quite a volatile cocktail in respect of alcohol being glamorised. ALAC, through its advertising campaign, tries to offset that, but it is really pushing it uphill with a rake to see the clever advertisements that are promoted by the liquor industry, which basically say people cannot have fun unless they have a beer or alcohol in hand. Also, ALAC very much has youth as its focus, and that is why this bill is an important small step. We do not even have disagreement from the Hospitality Association. I believe it thinks that ALAC needs to be well funded, and that we need to minimise the damage that alcohol is doing.
One thing we need to acknowledge is that alcohol is our No. 1 drug problem as a nation. There is sometimes a lot of focus on P, marijuana, and other drugs, but alcohol drives three-quarters of hospital admissions and weekend assault injuries, and it is at the base of most of our domestic violence problems. For most of our crime in total, it is probably a major factor. We need to acknowledge that liquor licences are very easy to get hold of. Basically, people who apply for a liquor licence will get it unless they have a criminal conviction. Occasionally, small victories can be won, such as the rejection last year of an attempt by a Christchurch supermarket to get a full liquor licence for its Moorhouse Avenue store.
The liquor laws are just one signal of what we face as a community and society. We need to develop a broad consensus for some change. I am pleased to see this bill, as it is a small step in the right direction. If we are looking for changes, we need to look at a number of ingredients: parental responsibility, a change in community attitudes, and education programmes. The availability, pricing, and supply of alcohol are also important. We need ALAC, using the funding it will receive under this legislation, to play its role. The Government of the day, whatever its flavour may be, also has to take responsibility. Obviously, it receives a large amount of money through excise tax on the sale of alcohol. Therefore, in the final analysis, the Government is responsible for ensuring that the principal object of the Sale of Liquor Act, which is the minimisation of harm, is actually put in place and into law, and that ALAC and other agencies are funded to assist in achieving that goal.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I rise to take a quick call in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As the curtain falls on the debate on what has been variously described as a technical bill, a tidy-up bill, or a simplifying bill, I reflect on some of the discourse that has taken place.
At the various stages of this bill, speakers have been at pains to point out that this legislation is not intended to contribute to a reduction in alcohol-related harm. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which was introduced yesterday, and other bills that are coming up are appropriately designed to do that. Those speakers usually went on to describe the very good work done by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) and other organisations that work to reduce alcohol-related harm. We were also treated to a confessional from members who described aspects of their ill-spent youth. Of course, they are now reformed. No MPs I know would abuse alcohol—at least that they can remember.
More seriously, we debated the concerning aspects of the very public disorder of events in my own home town of Dunedin, such as the toga parade, the Undie 500, and other alcohol-fuelled events. We also heard some very serious descriptions from Messrs Flavell, Jones, and others of the serious harm alcohol can cause, and it is on this relevant—for me—issue that I will reflect. Last Saturday night a friend, who was a former colleague and one of the nicest people I have ever met, was killed in a car accident in Central Otago. Investigations into the cause of the crash are continuing, but early indications are that alcohol played a part in the actions of the driver of the other vehicle. Alcohol may once again have taken a life and destroyed the lives of many others. No amount of legislation, education, advertising, or attempts at behaviour change will prevent this type of tragedy from occurring.
Although we may differ on the manner and the extent to which this House intervenes in the lives of its citizens, I believe we all have a fundamental goal at the heart of our reason for being here. It is to protect, support, and encourage the well-being of our citizens socially, psychologically, and financially. So when we sometimes light-heartedly debate a technical bill, an update bill, a simplifying bill, or a bill that will not set the world on fire, I hope that we do not lose sight of the goal of passing laws—however technical—that improve the safety and quality of the lives of the citizens of our great nation. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to its safe passage.