I haven’t had a chance to look at it properly just yet but here is a summary of the proposed changes, taken from the Government’s press release. I will post thoughts on it later but what do you make of it?
- Introducing a graduated approach to purchasing alcohol – 18 years of age for on-licences and 20 years of age for off-licences.
- Restricting RTDs to 5 per cent alcohol content and limiting RTDs to containers holding no more than 1.5 standard drinks.
- Making it an offence for anyone other than a parent or guardian to provide alcohol to an under-18-year-old without a parent’s or guardian’s consent.
- Where alcohol is provided to an under-18-year-old the parent, guardian or authorised person will need to ensure the alcohol is supplied in a responsible manner.
- Allowing the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Health, to ban alcohol products which are particularly appealing to minors or particularly dangerous to health.
- Empowering local communities to decide on the concentration, location, and hours of alcohol outlets (including one-way-door policies) for both on and off-licences in their area through the adoption of local alcohol policies.
- Setting national default maximum hours of 7am – 11pm for off-licences and 8am – 4am for on-licence, club licence, and special licences for local authorities who do not adopt a local alcohol policy.
- Broadening the matters that must be considered in licensing decision-making to include such things as the object of the Act, the provision of the local alcohol policy, and whether the amenity or good order of the area would be lessened if the licence is granted.
- Strengthening the law on the type of stores eligible for an off-licence to reinforce the current approach that dairies and convenience stores are not eligible.
- Increasing penalties for a range of licence breaches, including allowing an intoxicated person to be on licensed premises, allowing violent behaviour to take place on premises, and running an irresponsible promotion.
- Widening the definition of ‘public place’ in liquor bans to include car parks, school grounds and other private spaces to which the public has legitimate access.
- Strengthening the existing offence of promotion of excessive consumption of alcohol by making it apply to any business selling or promoting alcohol, and setting out examples of unacceptable promotions, such as giving away free alcohol.
- Making it an offence to promote alcohol in a way that has special appeal to people under the purchase age. These changes will apply to any promotion, including TV advertising and billboards.
- Investigating a minimum pricing regime by giving retailers a year to provide sales and price data. If they are not forthcoming the Government will consider regulatory options for obtaining this data.
- Improving public education and treatment services for people with dependency issues.
- Requiring Parliament to lead by example by removing its licensing exemption.
The cabinet paper is on the MoJ website.
Jeremy – On health at least the taxes on alcohol already outweigh the costs of it. The same with tobacco taxes even before the excessive increase in tax. See for instance this post at Offsetting Behaviour:
See. us poor drinkers are being milked
I hope lots of MPs will vote for Nikki Kaye’s amendment to leave the purchasing age at 18. The split age will do nothing to change behaviour and very little to curb the supply of alcohol to underage drinkers.
Again talk to any ED staffer and they will tell you that kids got younger, drunker, and more injured since the drinking age was lowered.
Forget the fancy theory talk to the front line.
The issue isn’t what’s happening, it’s whether the proposed changes will fix it.
There’s nothing that fancy about it. Restricting 18 and 19 year old adults from purchasing alcohol off-license isn’t going to stop it from getting to younger kids when the majority of the time it’s parents supplying it. And the government sending a message that any sort of drinking behaviour is safe if it’s on a licensed premises isn’t going to change our drinking culture for the better.
@QTR, thanks for that info but I was using Health as an example – obviously incorrectly, overall when the Courts, Police, private property damage, etc is taken into account drinkers do not pay for the dent they cost us in the budget, not even close, you cannot seperate problem drinkers from others at point of sale so all drinkers should pay for the cumulative damage they cause…
“Because non drivers have to foot the bill for car accidents. Non smokers have to foot the bill for cancer. Non breeders have to foot the bill for birthing, free doctors visits for under 6s (I think) education. Non politicians have to foot the bill for all their perks!”
There is no such thing as a car accident, there are car collisions and someone is always at fault, ACC covers those and that is a choice we’ve made as a country… Smokers taxes cover their cost to the Health system and then some I believe and they save us money on Superannuation – 9 years usually… Not sure how I’m paying for birthing but I’m guessing the taxes on goods produced by an animal over it’s life pay many times over for whatever this cost is… Health care and Education is a positive thing for society, cannot be compared to drinking and lastly we should not be paying politicians a cent for any perk apart from travel to and from Wellington and accomodation while they’re are there, they get a (very handsome) salary and that is all they should get…
“Maybe that could just have a fee for people who booze and then hurt themselves. The safe drinkers deserve to drink in peace.”
So people who get hit by a car because they’re pissed, they should only get threated if they present their VISA first..?
Yes there are car accidents, ice, livestock, that dude who had a tree narrowly avoid landing on his car as he drove under it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1-95SqamqA
You’re paying for birthing through your general taxes which end up in the health system
Now now Jeremy, some of those poor bleeps live in deepest darkest Dipton, you must have compassion for regions with shallow gene pools
You’ve got me on the hitting thing, I wasn’t thinking so much about accidents – because a tired person could equally be hit by a car, but people jumping off stuff or vandalising.
Anyway, yes education and health are assets. They enable people to be born and read alcohol labels
Drinking is good for society too! 
– Not talking about alkies and munterish drinkers – drinking enables the hard working to unwind – which keeps them going for another week and contributing. It makes social times fun. It has aided the populating of the country and therefore contributed to the tax payer pool. Beer goggles have helped many. 
It keeps people warm, reduces pain and increases circulation, kills germs, and many many other good things
Oh yeah, why are the police exempt from stuff?!!!!
“Drinking is good for society too!”
No it’s not… 15% of us manage to live our lives without any alcohol at all and have just as much fun and are more relaxed… Alcohol is a luxury and I don’t wanna pay for the damage caused by your luxury…
“15% of us manage to live our lives”
Jeremy, statistics prove that 85% of statistics are made up!
15% is a minority. There are people on the other end of the spectrum who due to life circumstances or just their make up are more relaxed WITH drink.
I don’t see it as a luxury – some people need it – it has fewer side effects than tranquilisers and it eases pain and helps with a sore stiff body. I don’t see a hard working person getting some wine FROM THE SUPERMARKET
as having a luxury. A luxury drink would be one of those fancy spirits served in the bottom eighth of a big glass with the drinker inhaling the scent and savouring it. 
Now that is a pricy drink anyway.
And just think of the people who get paid to serve drinks, would you have them our on their ears because of the downturn from expensive grog?
And those cute rescue St Benards who find people in the snow and people get revived with alcohol and stuff
Do you eat meat? Meat eaters create a demand for livestock, who fart and then I get lumped with a dodgy ETS that goes into other areas because it’s too hard to stop the methane from the animals yet we must strangely get our tiny emissions down
Now I don’t eat meat, but I wouldn’t begrudge someone a steak just because I’m paying extra from the ETS 
@Richard LOL
“15% is a minority.”
Ever heard of the tirany of the majority..?
“There are people on the other end of the spectrum who due to life circumstances or just their make up are more relaxed WITH drink.”
Good for them but don’t make me pay for it…
“I don’t see it as a luxury – some people need it – it has fewer side effects than tranquilisers and it eases pain and helps with a sore stiff body.”
The people who NEED it have a problem and should quit, do you have some medical studies claiming it has fewer side effects..?
“I don’t see a hard working person getting some wine FROM THE SUPERMARKET as having a luxury. A luxury drink would be one of those fancy spirits served in the bottom eighth of a big glass with the drinker inhaling the scent and savouring it. Now that is a pricy drink anyway.”
Of course it’s a luxury, you don’t need it, as evidenced by the 15% who live without it…
“And just think of the people who get paid to serve drinks, would you have them our on their ears because of the downturn from expensive grog?”
Yes, if alcohol abuse is being subsidised by those not abusing…
“And those cute rescue St Benards who find people in the snow and people get revived with alcohol and stuff”
Lots of these in NZ..?
“Do you eat meat? Meat eaters create a demand for livestock, who fart and then I get lumped with a dodgy ETS that goes into other areas because it’s too hard to stop the methane from the animals yet we must strangely get our tiny emissions down Now I don’t eat meat, but I wouldn’t begrudge someone a steak just because I’m paying extra from the ETS”
Well an ETS is a stupid idea to start with, we should be using TEQs but the cost of the carbon will be included in the meat you eat when you buy it (when subsidies that never should have been included expire)…
@Jeremy –
Since you make this assertion you should provide some numbers to substantiate it with reference to the benefits of alcohol of which without any reason you refuse to acknowledge. But I don’t really think this is about harm or public health for the puritanical wowsers that are conducting this assualt on liberty. I don’t believe the puritans believe that this will even accomplish much at all. This is simply an irrational moral crusade.
It depends by what means by luxury by your reasoning most things are luxuries, such as chairs or mattresses, because we can live without them. We should be living ascetic lives of self-denial and poverty.
For light relief (the puritans should deny themselves of it) – this whole thing reminds me of an episode of Blackadder, here’s a good scene from it. I wonder if what Blackadder’s aunt and uncle are wearing will become standard attire for the Labour party?
“Since you make this assertion you should provide some numbers to substantiate it”
The figures were released when Palmer’s review first came out, it showed that there was a multi-billion dollar deficit…
QtheR
Getting drunk and driving your car into a person, or a car full of persons would not be harm to others?
Drinking and then hitting your partner wouldnt be harm to others?
Drinking and killing someone isnt harm to another
Drinking and wrecking your liver and life and requiring society to support you financially isnt harm to another?
I dont agree JSM would say that’s not harm.
He didnt define “harm” Next you’ll tell me it depends on what you mean by “it”
QtheR were you drinking while writing some of these posts?
“It depends by what means by luxury by your reasoning most things are luxuries”
Has sitting on a chair ever caused harm to another in the way a drunken assualt, tirade, driver does?
and it takes into account none of the benefits (it’s not a cost benefit analysis). See my earlier link.
We already have laws against murder, assault, etc.
Wrecking your liver and life is harm to yourself and as Mill’s harm principle, of which you seem to be fond of, sets out we ought not to coerce people because they are harming their selves. Again, it is the state that forces you to pay for the health costs which are more than covered by current excise taxes alone.
<blockquote.I dont agree JSM would say that’s not harm.
He didnt define “harm” Next you’ll tell me it depends on what you mean by “it”
That John Stuart Mill never adequately defined what he meant by harm is a serious defect in his harm principle. I’m not making some esoteric point here it is a common criticism of his harm principle. As such, whilst I think it a good guide, I don’t think it overly useful.
I’m sure many have fallen out their chair, or thrown a chair, or tripped over a chair and caused harm to others. But that’s not the point it’s about the silly argument around “luxury”.
“Ever heard of the tirany of the majority..?” I’ll think of you and that line when I get drunk on New Year’s Eve
Though I will say that I used to be a very staunch non drinker while my friends were getting wasted. One of those, I remember everything smuggos
“The people who NEED it have a problem and should quit, do you have some medical studies claiming it has fewer side effects..?” My friend does and I’ll get it for you when I get home
In my opinion they should only quit if they are drinking to excess – i.e. too much too often, blacking out, damaging organs, getting damaged in the brain ….
Otherwise I think it’s a very good tool for getting through life
“Of course it’s a luxury, you don’t need it, as evidenced by the 15% who live without it…” He he he
It’s 15% because it is a good drug and people value it in their lives. Right from the olden days, Kings etc 
“Lots of these in NZ..?” I don’t know, but we do have a lot of skifields
@Quoth the Raven – LOL
Excellent comment! 
@Tracey – drunk drivers are idiots
Don’t blame alcohol, most people are happy to limit or stay sober if they have to drive. 
Hitting people when under the influence means that that person can’t handle his/her grog. They should seek anti violence help.
Killing people is a sign that something else is wrong surely.
Detoxing is hard, I feel sorry for alcoholics, I know one
“Has sitting on a chair ever caused harm to another in the way a drunken assualt, tirade, driver does?” It could do if some obeso decides to sit down and doesn’t see his anorexic friend
Whew, no spam trap
I saw breakfast this morning, poor Jacinda after her late night, and why should police be treated differently? And no I don’t buy that they are better moral people just because they are cops!