Helping alcohol sales

We have become so used to weasel words about alcohol reform from successive governments, they glide over our palates like a smooth single malt.

Last week it was the turn of Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee, insisting proposed law changes Cabinet has signed off strike a careful balance, making life fairer for responsible drinkers and honest businesses, while continuing to target the areas where alcohol misuse can cause real harm.

It was news to us responsible drinkers were concerned about being treated unfairly, but some "honest businesses" have clearly been bending the ear of Ms McKee.

We have to admire her chutzpah when she says, "most New Zealanders who choose to drink alcohol do so responsibly. Our reforms recognise responsible drinkers should not be penalised because of the behaviour of a few who do not drink safely."

But it is not a few. According to the recently released Public Health Advisory Committee report "Determining Our Future", although hazardous drinking has dropped significantly from a decade ago, 720,000 adults drink at a rate considered hazardous.

The report says the estimated cost of alcohol harm is $9.1 billion a year. (This is billions of dollars more than taxes collected through sales.)

This estimate includes its contribution to poor health, social and family violence, injuries and road deaths.

The number of 15 to 17-year-old drinkers and female drinkers has increased.

Online alcohol sales have expanded rapidly since the Covid-19 pandemic, which risks increasing underage and binge drinking.

The government’s answer to this is not to prohibit such sales because they are hard to police and unnecessary, but to propose what it calls stronger safeguards, such as improved age verification under the government’s Digital Identification Trust Framework. However, it is unclear how that might work when there are no accredited digital identity organisations on the framework register yet.

Ms McKee says there will also be clear responsibilities for alcohol delivery services to prevent sales to underage or intoxicated people.

Little thought appears to have been given to how safe a solo delivery driver might be turning up to a residence full of belligerent drunks should that driver refuse to hand over the booze.

Among the changes proposed by the government will be allowing licence applicants a right of reply to objectors and restricting objectors to those living in local communities. Also, when renewing a licence under a new Local Alcohol Policy (Lap), district licensing committees must change licence conditions rather than decline the application. Are we to believe there would never be good reasons to decline rather than alter conditions?

Communities keen for more restrictive Laps will fear the new rules will swing the pendulum back to favour Big Booze with its deep pockets. Supermarkets held up the introduction of restrictions in Auckland and Christchurch for years, costing the local authorities hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ms McKee and Cabinet did not favour advice to reduce off-licence sale hours nationally from the current 7am to 11pm to 9am to 9pm. They did not accept the calculations which suggested this change might prevent 2400 crimes a year.

No relevant documents were released with the announcement so we cannot establish the calibre of the advice Ms McKee has received and whether Cabinet’s decisions stand up to scrutiny.

Nor is there much detail in what has been announced thus far.

Ms McKee told the media conference she received advice through the Ministry of Justice rather than direct advice from police or the Ministry of Health.

With regard to health, the moves being made do not fit with the government’s recently announced Health Plan which includes the aim of reducing the availability and social acceptance of alcohol.

None of what is proposed does that, including making it legal for a hairdresser or barber to serve a wine or a beer to customers without a licence.

It was clear at Ms McKee’s media conference the government’s priority was making the selling of alcohol easier for businesses rather than any real attempt to reduce alcohol harm.

While this approach might earn brownie points with booze sellers, it does nothing for all those affected by alcohol harm, including the hapless taxpayer.