Frontline Wine: On The Law Commission's Report

In the interests of the country the Law Commission has recently recommended that excise duty on alcohol should be increased whilst the purchasing of alcohol from off licensed premises should be raised from eighteen to twenty years of age.

Having read the report I am very skeptical of these recommendations. The report appears to me to be vague and indecisive; a wasted opportunity to unveil the main culprits responsible for the rise in binge drinking. It does not reflect anybody's opinion in the wine trade that I've spoken to, particularly the views of the fine wine shops and specialist producers, who have for years worked at and been successful at preventing binge drinking through education and strict control.

Otago University epidemiologist Professor Jennie Connor, whose submissions were elide on in the report, characterised the problem in this way “Many [New Zealanders] drink in a low-risk manner and reap the social benefits. However for a large sector of the population there is a dominant pattern of heavy intermittent drinking episodes, the worst pattern for the drinker’s own health outcomes, and the worst for damage to those around them.” That's it. What a great opportunity to add something useful to the report, yet the statement tells us nothing we don't already know.

In 2005 Professor Connor wrote a piece titled “The health Benefits of Alcohol: Yeah right.” The results of this study recommend the following...1/ Increasing alcohol taxes; 2/ limiting the density of outlets; 3/ raising the alcohol-purchasing age; 4/ lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers; 5/ setting a zero blood-alcohol limit for young drivers; and, most importantly, 6/ serious enforcement of the existing laws and regulations governing the supply and use of alcohol.” These recommendations are almost exactly the main premises on which the Law Commissions' report is founded on.

Here are my own thoughts on these recommendations:

1/ Increasing taxes: we need a minimum price for alcoholic beverages, not higher taxes.

2/ Limiting the density of outlets: Supermarkets will always be granted a licence. How far away is the nearest one to where you’re sitting now? This just plays into their hands by limiting competition.

3/ Increasing the alcohol purchasing age: if teenagers want drink...they'll get it. This will do nothing.

4/ Lowering the blood alcohol levels for drivers: They've lowered the alcohol in the UK and other European countries...has it really had any effect?

5/ Zero alcohol levels for young drivers: this is an affront to young drivers, the majority of whom are sensible and entitled to the same privileges we enjoy.

6/ Enforcement of existing laws: The laws on alcohol here are amongst the strictest in the world already. The DLA is doing its job.

Also, interestingly Professor Connor adds: “Evaluations of alcohol education and media campaigns aiming to reduce alcohol-related harm have shown little evidence of effectiveness.” Do you think the Law Commission recommend drink driving campaigns on TV should stop? No, instead they choose to mention Otago University's ban on local advertising and sponsorship:

“Following well-publicised excesses in the use of alcohol by university students, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago, Sir David Skegg, and the University Council, have eliminated all alcohol advertising and sponsorship from University of Otago campuses.” Explain to me exactly what removing alcohol advertising and sponsorship will do to prevent students going out to buy cheap piss from the supermarkets at 7pm on a Friday night? Perhaps it was just a measure taken to appease worried University of Otago parents and shouldn't have been included in a report that affects all of us?

“Leadership at a local level can take many different forms. The Law Commission encourages all organisations, businesses, councils, educational bodies and clubs in New Zealand to see what they can do to change the drinking culture by taking steps that are within their control.” What is this? There are already strong restrictions in place forcing businesses to keep a very high standard of control regarding alcohol. How is this a viable recommendation? Shouldn’t existing laws be enforced more thoroughly?

More recommendations...

“regulating the physical availability of alcohol through restrictions on time, place and density of outlets.” Will the Law Commission openly oppose the application for licence from either of the two new supermarket piss merchants being built beside Massey University in Wellington or is its job done?

“taxing alcohol and imposing controls on price”. The proposed taxing of alcohol as conclusively recommended by the law commission purports a 10% increase in excise duty. This adds fifty cents to a $5 bottle of shit in the supermarkets (which plastic bottles will soon neutralise anyway if they get their way). Do you honestly think this is going to do anything?

“Imposing penalties for alcohol-related anti-social behaviour such as drink driving.” How about fitting the cars of repeat offenders with an ignition requiring a negative breath test? How about having antisocial drinkers clean the streets or having the freedom to fly overseas removed so they have to think about their OE before throwing a punch at somebody? How about one meaningful recommendation that makes sense and not some lazily written generalisation that means nothing?

“education and persuasion with the provision of information.” It is the lack of information about quality, not quantity that supermarkets and piss merchants purposefully employ to keep the ignorant, ignorant. People will continue to drink the very worst dregs at the lowest prices if you package it up nicely and put it out at half price. There has to be a balance. Why should fine wine shops be punished with added taxation for worthless education schemes when it is they who employ extra staff at extra cost to educate and cajole people into realising that quality not quantity is best? The market is biased towards the cut priced piss merchants who make NO effort to educate at the sales side, for fear of their customers waking up to the crap they're trying to flog.

“increasing the purchase age for alcohol.” This is an insult to the eighteen year olds of New Zealand. If you think this will stop them obtaining alcohol in the Otago University for example (a university that appears quite a bit in the report), you must be completely detached from reality. If they want it, they'll just ask the second or third year students to get it for them in exchange for a few beers. It sounds like this is a mollycoddling. I believe it is an adult's (eighteen year olds are adults) RIGHT to purchase alcohol. It is only through education and the slow introduction to alcohol at the dinner table (the association has to be made with food so that it is not seen to be a drug to get wasted on) that any effect on binge drinking will be made. Interfering in the decisions made by these young adults removes responsibility and increases interference into their lives…which as we all know, has an adverse effect!

Can we rely on the supermarkets (who sell most of the food in this country) for increased education on the benefits of food and wine matching? Of course not…how ironic. It would be funny if the kids of the country weren't drinking themselves to death…

Think about it…supermarkets are now selling $5 a bottle ‘cleanskin’ wines. Beer, particularly at Christmas time has been reduced to ridiculously low prices and now supermarkets have found a way around the 'strict' licensing laws and are now selling rock bottom priced bottles of spirits on the floor at supermarkets (see below). Their flagrant disregard for quality is reducing wine, beer and spirits to the level of piss. They won't educate customers, they won't push suppliers for quality, they simply exist to make profit and it's the youngsters and students of this country with the least money who are stocking up and losing control.

“liquor store within the physical footprint of a supermarket or grocery store should only be able to sell wine, beer and mead.” At last. Sense...but, too late. The supermarkets have found a way around the current laws and you can bet your ass they won't give it up. Go to the Pak and Save at Porirua if you want to see just how cheeky they're getting. The store doors face directly onto the supermarket forecourt with no real distinction between the two retailers.

“Supermarkets should be required to keep liquor in one place on the premises (known as a “single-area restriction”) as a condition of their licence. This will prevent supermarkets placing alcohol at the end of other aisles, in doorway entrances and among other goods.” Is that really going to make a difference to the binge drinking culture? What about the $5 cleanskin wines?!!! For all of the submissions received, did not even one state that supermarkets are solely responsible for dragging average spend per bottle of wine/beer in this country so far down through the floor that it has become almost impossible for those who wish to educate the public on the enjoyment of wine and food to compete with them? Why are people drinking more? Because piss is now cheaper than bottled water!

“We recommend changes to the law but we are under no illusion that this will be sufficient to combat the problems outlined in this report. Law changes are a necessary condition for other changes to be achieved and can nudge the community in a different direction by creating an environment more conducive to less risky behaviour”. All of those who work in the responsible areas of the wine trade in this country are under no illusion that the recommendations made will do anything to combat the problems faced by the drinks trade in this country. The biggest problems being posed are those created by supermarkets and the most effective solution to binge drinking is raising the minimum price on alcohol combined with a push towards young people being introduced to alcohol in moderation at a young age at the dinner table. The Law Commission's report, for the amount of time, effort and money used and much to its own detriment, completely missed the mark.

Tasted.

Renato Pinot Gris 2007, Nelson.

Pinot Gris is never going going to be a success in this country on the international market. It basically just fills in the gap left by Muller Thurgau for cheap, easy to drink aromatic white wine. Generally, it makes soapy, fruit laden crap for middle-aged housewives to cluck over like they know what they're talking about. Realistically, however, there are no really amazing examples. There are some very good ones though. A favourite of mine is Renato's Nelson Pinot Gris. A stubby wearing, passionate Swiss winemaker who sells much of his produce back to the homeland. He has an understanding of aromatic wines that lifts his above most at the price range. This is an unctuous, full bodied style that coats the mouth in a film of subtle, soft autumnal fruit notes. Best of all the residual sugar is just right, especially for food, and even more especially-er...try it with baked salmon fillet with teryaki sauce. Seek it out.

$28.00

Esk Valley The Terraces 1994 Merlot, Malbec, Cab Franc, Cabernet

A New Zealand icon and a very well made wine that’s holding up well, but perhaps had just slipped past its peak when I tried it recently. It still retains good depth and power on the palate. It has a pleasant savoury oiliness to it and the finish goes on for some time. The balance was good overall, even though age had left some of its ass exposed to the air, but side by side with a Stonyridge Larose 1999, it lacked complexity, but beat it for intensity of flavour and concentration, even though it was older. If you have a bottle in the cellar, drink it now.

Vieux Certan 1985, Pomerol.

Excellent structure and depth on the palate. Skinsy, fine, flavoursome, tannins (sediment) line a rich, textural style smattered with restrained earthen, truffle notes and cassis. Just trying to get past nosing the wine is difficult when there are so many subtleties vying for attention: withdrawing to drink means missing the ever-evolving aromas. However, the palate is just reward. A harmonious, firm blast of flavours that, when taken as a whole almost give the wine a delicate simplicity with cassis, cedarwood and pencil shavings prominent on a lingering back palate. Comparable to the memory of a last night on holiday, drinking something of this quality stays in you mind for many weeks afterwards. A masterclass in winemaking, it is a very powerful wine administered with silk gloves.

Paul Brannigan, http://www.rumbles.co.nz/

© Scoop Media