Blue Jackie: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Blue Jackie: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1585] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to support the second 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 a technical amendment to the Act. In 2004 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The first problem was that the levy-setting mechanism is outdated and based on only four classes of liquor. The old Act uses proof litres which have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. The New Zealand Customs Service measures spirit volumes as litres of alcohol. The review also found that the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when compared with the method of setting excise and excise-equivalent duty based on alcohol content. Finally the review noted that although the current Act allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by  
Gazette 
 there is no process for Cabinet to be involved. The Ministry of Health review felt that this was inconsistent with other levy-setting approaches. This bill updates and simplifies the current mechanisms for setting the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy which is imposed on all alcoholic beverages manufactured or imported into New Zealand. The original bill when it was introduced in the previous Parliament proposed 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 higher-volume alcohol drinks would have a greater levy than lower-volume alcohol drinks. 
There is no doubt that the proposed legislation is fairer and modernises current practice. The proposed regime is also simple to calculate and has been worded in such a way that new composition alcohol drinks not yet thought about or designed other than beer wine fortified wine or spirits can be accommodated. Who would have thought back in 1976 that ready to drinks would be one of the biggest growth markets particularly with young people? The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into any liquor class in the current system such as ready to drinks. This is not a contentious bill. It was heard by the Health Committee of which I was a member in the previous Parliament. The Health Committee was sure that this bill would have minimal impact and would 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 the price changes would be very small. The estimates were less than 1c per bottle of wine six-pack of beer or four-pack of ready to drinks and 2c for a 750ml bottle of spirits. 
The Health Committee recommended 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 original table of the original bill table wine with more than 14 percent alcohol would have incurred a higher ALAC levy than table wine of lower than 14 percent alcohol but under the current excise both would incur the same levy. The Health Committee felt that this was inconsistent. As an example the new table provided ensures that there is consistency between the two systems. For the table wine example I just gave in the new table there are six classes. Class C is for drinks of more than 6 percent alcohol but not more than 9 percent. Class D is for drinks of more than 14 percent alcohol but not more than 23 percent. Retaining the levy but aligning it to excise was the option supported by the Government and most stakeholders as it is simpler than the current method as well as 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 a percentage figure given in the schedule of the bill. Importantly this bill does not address measures to reduce alcohol-related harm. That is not its intention; that will be for future debate and legislation. 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. I acknowledge the important work that ALAC does and it will continue to receive the necessary funding to continue its important work in encouraging responsible consumption of alcohol and minimising abuse. ALAC has existed since 1976 when a royal commission recommended its establishment following an inquiry into the Sale of Liquor Act. Its budget for the 2007-08 year is $12.5 million. 
There is no doubt that in the community there is a growing concern about the effect of alcohol and the community wants to say more. This has been clearly evident in Mount Roskill. Last year the community in Roskill South came together to oppose the imminent opening of a liquor outlet store that was 100 metres from two schools a kindergarten and a church. If the proposal had been successful it would have meant there would be 10 outlets in the Roskill South area. The community was very concerned about the serious and growing incidence of youth crime and violence in the area and it felt that alcohol would only fuel that trend. The community was extremely concerned that the current legislation the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 had no teeth to stop licences being granted where density and location were major concerns. Members of the community were concerned about research that showed a direct link between the number of alcohol outlets in a community and alcohol-related harm and violence. They were very concerned that the local body alcohol strategy the Auckland strategy had no legal status. I was very impressed by their passion and the fact that they were united. 
Rarely has a community come together in such a united way. I am pleased to report to the House that the community was successful and that the proposed outlet did not go ahead. The activism from this small community has given me hope for the future. But my community is not alone. Many communities all over New Zealand are up in arms and are determined to have a say. That will be for the House to consider in future debate and in future legislation. In summary in the second reading of this bill the Government supports this bill and the amendments that have come through after the bill’s consideration by the Health Committee. Thank you.