Smith Nick: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9720. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will be nominating the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill.The passing of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act in December 2012 marked the first time in more than two decades that the Government moved to restrict rather than relax New Zealand’s alcohol laws. The Act introduced a range of measures to combat alcohol-related harm crime and public health problems. It also empowered our communities across New Zealand giving them a chance to have a say in how alcohol in their area is sold and supplied. Two years on is still early days to draw overall conclusions on such a major regulatory reform. However the early signs are encouraging: we are already seeing far fewer alcohol outlets the first local alcohol plans are coming into force and more communities are getting the chance to have a say on the way in which alcohol is sold in their community.This relatively short bill is not an overhaul of New Zealand’s alcohol laws because they need time to settle. Rather this bill addresses a couple of unintended effects that have arisen since the passage of the Act—a couple of tweaks in the law that are needed. Such changes are unfortunately always possible when such large reforms are done and this is not atypical.The first change addresses how non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beer and wine are displayed in supermarkets and grocery stores. Under the Act supermarkets are required to place all alcohol and promotions of alcohol in a single area of their store and no other products may be placed there. This was quite properly put into the alcohol reform law so that it would limit how much shoppers are exposed to alcohol and—for those people familiar with alcoholism—to recognise how difficult it is for people going to get their essentials to not be inadvertently tempted to attempt to buy alcohol. It is part of the broader effect of trying to improve New Zealand’s drinking culture.However because of the way in which alcohol has been defined in the law stores cannot now legally place beer and wine with very low-alcohol content in that single area. This sometimes leads to supermarkets having to place very low or no-alcohol beer or wine with the fruit drinks and soft drinks or opting not to sell them at all and that is not to the community’s advantage. Although these products have existed for some time there has been a significant increase in their popularity. I for one—particularly with the change in the drink-driving limits—confess to often wanting to choose to drink low-alcohol beers of which there are some excellent products. They are positive moderation products which allow people to enjoy the social aspects of drinking while limiting their intake of alcohol. I have no doubt that it was ever the intention of this House to place a legislative block in the way of these sorts of low-alcohol products being sold alongside full-strength alcohol.The amendment in this bill addresses this by permitting supermarkets to place these products in the alcohol area. It will allow supermarkets to place these alternatives alongside the full-strength alcohol where shoppers would expect them to be and in my view where they will actually have the positive effect of people making that choice more often. It will remove the need for the products branded like alcohol to be sold with fizzy drinks and fruit juice—which I actually think is also counter-productive to what the intent of the House was in requiring supermarkets to have a clear separation of those sorts of products. So the provision in this bill is a common-sense solution that provides clarity for the stores for responsible drinkers and for the general public.The second change that is proposed in this bill addresses the definition of a “company”. Under the previous Sale of Liquor Act companies were explicitly included under the category of those who could hold an alcohol licence. This was not carried over in the same way to the new Act. Although this oversight has not caused problems it is important to make clear in the law that companies can continue to hold licences as they always have done. I think most of us would acknowledge in our communities that most of our stores that hold licences—cafes liquor stores—are in the structure of a company and it is appropriate for them to be able to hold a liquor licence in the name of that company. The amendment simply adds “company” to the list of who can hold a licence and rectifies this problem.Although the changes in the bill are minor they are necessary and positive for the overall functioning and common-sense way that I think the House would expect the law to function. I commend the bill to the House.