Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7296. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to make some response to the contributions that have been made by those promoting Supplementary Order Papers and to give a response from the Government perspective. The point in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 114 from Sue Moroney is that the advice we have received from the ministry in response to her comments is that it is important to note that there is a lot of public support for introducing warning labels on alcoholic beverages and perhaps similar warning labels to those found on tobacco products but labelling is outside the scope of the bill. Because of an agreement that we have with Australia any changes to alcohol labelling must be developed through the joint food standard that we share with Australia. In response to a joint ministerial review of food labelling law and policy our Governments have recently agreed to give the alcohol industry 2 years to introduce pregnancy warning labels on alcohol beverage containers. If the industry does not do this we will consider regulation. 
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 113 by Lianne Dalziel this amendment is premature as the Government is already investigating minimum pricing. A minimum price will have impacts on New Zealand businesses. These impacts are being considered as part of the minimum pricing investigation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well if I screamed it would you be happier? I am giving you the response that our advisers have given us and you would expect us to do that I am sure members of the Committee. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’ve already read that. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Here we go. I am responding. I was asked to respond. I am giving you the response. We do not sit around and make it up. In respect of the point made by the honourable member Phil Twyford I do not believe for a moment that the Hon Judith Collins has been sitting around on her hands. The fact is that 12-month lead-in time is the result of advice that she has taken. You would expect a Minister to take that advice. It does not prevent for instance territorial local authorities getting on and consulting on the alcohol plans that they want to prepare and doing everything they can. In respect of the advice that we have been given that is the advice that the Government has been given. 
In respect of—[ 
Interruption 
] Members can rate it out of 10 if they want to; I am giving to members the response to the questions that they have asked. Supplementary Order Paper 112 from the Hon Maryan Street again relates to minimum pricing and excise tax—I am sorry; it is creating a regulation— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: It’s not excise tax Chester. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Sometimes we get things wrong Maryan. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: It’s not excise. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Let me finish. It is creating a regulation-making power to enable a health levy to be imposed on holders of off-licences to fund alcohol-related health and treatment services. The existing lever to influence the price of alcohol in New Zealand is excise tax. From 2012-13 the Government has committed $10 million annually from alcohol excise tax in respect of alcohol and drug assessments and interventions to better enable access to treat hazardous drinkers young people drink-drivers and other offenders. The rationale for an off-licence health levy at point of sale is to increase the price of certain types of alcohol products such as ready-to-drinks which have proven to be harmful. The problem is that as the levy would not be tied to alcohol content it may well encourage people to substitute more alcohol-fuelled drinks for those particular alcohol products. 
In respect of the points made by the Hon Phil Goff on his Supplementary Order Paper 122 the point needs to be remembered that through the course of the select committee debates discussions and hearing of evidence we found that drinkers will move quite quickly from one product to another product. Limiting the level of alcohol per volume to 5 percent and standard drink containers does have an effect on the trade provisions that we enjoy with other countries particularly Australia. There is a way round that and there is a mechanism within the bill to be able to change it depending on the compliance or otherwise of those within the alcohol industry but it does give us the opportunity without breaching that trade barrier to be able to change the law. One example of how we could do that for instance is to limit the sale of ready-to-drinks with a higher alcohol per volume to on-licence premises only. We look forward to seeing how our research is going in respect of this. It is serious. It has been considered as part of this. 
"