The press release headline about the latest attempt to tinker with the country’s alcohol laws highlights the lack of consideration of alcohol harm in the reform.
‘‘Bill introduced to cut red tape and modernise alcohol law’’ it says, followed by a breathless opening sentence about the new Bill being part of the government’s work to unleash New Zealanders and businesses from the stranglehold of red tape and support economic growth.
Although associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says, in the release, over time alcohol law has become increasingly complex, bureaucratic and disconnected from the harms it is supposed to address, her proposed reform hardly recognises there is harm.
The regulatory impact statement (RIS) for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill says the alcohol industry contributes $1.92 billion to the Gross Domestic Product and $1.819b in tax, employs an estimated 10,000 people directly and indirectly a further 21,000.
Great. But a few paragraphs on we read it is estimated alcohol-related harm cost New Zealand approximately $9.1b in 2023.
The stranglehold of red tape does not seem to have stopped that.
People living in the poorest neighbourhoods are 1.3 times more likely to report drinking hazardously than those in the wealthiest. Although the proportion of Māori who drink is roughly that of the general population, Māori are 2.5 times more likely to die from an alcohol-attributable death compared with non-Māori.
Addressing these issues seems far more important than worrying about whether hairdressers can legally give their customers a tipple, limiting who can object to liquor licence applications, making it harder to decline applications and several other adjustments to the law, making it easier to sell or serve alcohol.
Limiting who can object to applications is petty and short-sighted. It sends the message none of us should care about what may be happening outside of our own community.
It is not unreasonable for people who may regularly visit somewhere on family holidays, or parents who have their young adult children temporarily living in, say, Dunedin, to care about liquor restrictions.
It would be up to those considering the application to decide what weight to give to out-of-town objectors, as they would with any others.
More proposed liberalisation of laws seems likely as there are additional changes the hospitality sector would like to see, according to Mrs McKee and Minister for Regulation David Seymour.
But what about changes public health advocates might want to see? Are they being given ample, or any, consideration?
It is difficult to see they are nor how, as we have previously pointed out, this proposed legislation fits with the government’s Health Plan which includes the aim of reducing the availability and social acceptance of alcohol.
If anything, it seems likely to have the opposite effect.
For instance, serving alcohol with a haircut may become the norm, rather than a practice previously confined to a minority of salons unaware they were law breakers.
We remain sceptical about the feeble attempt to exert some control over rapid delivery of alcohol from online sales (that delivered within two hours after the sale is made). The Bill requires services offering this must ensure the deliverer is not a minor, that the alcohol is delivered to a person and that person is not a minor nor intoxicated.
How any of that can possibly be adequately policed is not explained.
As is so often the case with this government, there has been no attempt to involve the public in the preparation of this legislation. Those preparing the RIS said there was no time for this and that people would have the opportunity to comment on the Bill through the select committee process.
But that means alternatives to the Bill already discarded without public examination, including restricting bottle store hours to 9am to 9pm, something which was expected to prevent 2400 violent victimisations annually, will not be up for discussion.
For a government which talks up its work to reduce victims of crime, this early rejection risks giving the impression it finds pandering to the booze industry more important.
