The stubby, the bottle and the floor price

2589 Michael Coper OKBy ERWIN CHLANDA

 

The Territory’s new alcohol minimum floor price seems safe from breaching the Australian Constitution, which requires that trade between the states “shall be absolutely free,” because it applies to both local and interstate sellers in mail order or internet purchases.

 

Emeritus Professor Michael Coper (pictured), from the Australian National University’s College of Law, says the price restriction does not breach section 92 of the Constitution though it might have done prior to Cole v Whitfield in 1988 because it simply put an economic burden on interstate trade.

 

“The only laws that will now breach s 92 are laws that discriminate against interstate trade so as to give local trade a protectionist advantage.

 

“On its face, the minimum floor price does not appear to do that,” says Prof Coper, stressing that he is not giving legal advice, “just my first impressions from relatively limited information”.

 

But he says there are some further points that might be made: “In some cases, the law in question [the NT floor price legislation] may appear to be non-discriminatory on its face but nevertheless be discriminatory in the way that it applies to the particular facts of the situation.

 

“A good example is the Castlemaine Tooheys case from South Australia in around 1990 – there were different bottle deposit regimes for refillable and non-refillable bottles, which appeared non-discriminatory on its face, but gave SA an advantage because the outsiders sold predominantly the bottles with the higher deposit regime.”

 

“The way in which you might make this kind of argument here is that the impact of the floor price on interstate wine sellers might confer an advantage, not on the local wine sellers but on the local sellers of a competing product, namely, beer.

 

2589 bottle, stubby OK“This is a question of fact that would have to be investigated and is difficult to answer in the abstract (for example, would the wine floor price particularly advantage local beer sellers as compared with interstate beer sellers?).

 

“However, in any challenge this would an argument worth running.

 

“There is, however, the further point that, even if the floor price does in some way confer a local economic advantage, the [new NT] law might yet be justified as a genuine health measure and any local economic advantage thus be regarded as incidental.

 

“Again, whether the floor price is a genuine health measure is a question of fact, though there seems little doubt about this given the enquiry and the general background.

 

“Whether it is an effective health measure is a different issue that the courts would be reluctant to buy into.”

 

The Alice Springs News Online put several questions to a spokeswoman for the NT Department of the Attorney-General and Justice who said interstate liquor retailers are entitled to be granted a NT licence if they advise the NT Liquor Commission they intend to sell liquor into the Territory and provide a copy of their interstate liquor licence: “As at October 3 this has seen 48 companies sign up to distribute alcohol into the Territory and that list continues to grow,” she says.

 

Question: What would happen to holders of interstate liquor licences who sell into the Territory without holding a Territory licence – something that has been standard practice for years?

 

The spokeswoman also says: “All the application requirements for NT alcohol licensees do not apply to interstate retailers and they are exempt from the BDR scanning requirements. However, minimum pricing requirements apply to interstate sellers of alcohol as part of the conditions of their interstate retailer’s NT licence.

 

“There is a condition on every interstate retailer’s NT licence that the licensee must ensure that no liquor sale or offer is made or liquor sold below the minimum sale price within the Territory or to a purchaser who is in the Territory.”

 

Question: How would the NT Government proceed against an interstate company which is in breach?

 

Department: If an interstate licensee sells liquor to a person who then takes the liquor into the Territory no offence has been committed.

 

Question: Is that irrespective of the floor price not having been applied to the purchase?

 

Department: The minimum floor price conditions only relate to offers and sales of alcohol within the Territory or for delivery to a purchaser in the Territory.

 

Question: Would a purchaser be committing an offence by bringing to the Territory alcohol to which the floor price has not been applied?

 

Meanwhile Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Natasha Fyles, says evidence presented in Trevor Riley’s alcohol review shows a floor price in the NT is very effective at tackling alcohol related antisocial behaviour and crime.

 

“A minimum floor price on alcohol was trialed in 1995 and found to be very effective in reducing alcohol related violence and crime,” she says.

 

“In 2006, a voluntary floor price of $1.10 was trailed and found a 12% drop in overall alcohol related crime and halted the alarming rate of increasing assaults suffered by Aboriginal women. Not all licencees took part in this voluntary arrangement.

 

“The floor price is just one of the 219 recommendations from the Riley Review, designed to tackle alcohol related violence and crime stemming from alcohol abuse.”

 

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Local1
    Posted October 21, 2018 at 10:42 am

    Interesting figures Eleanor, ar they NT or National?
    What is the source of the figures?
    If they are the national figures are you saying that 33% of the fatalities are caused by 3% of the population, or that 33% of the fatalities are indigenous and non-indigenous combined, and represent a cause other than alcohol.
    Are the stats you are quoting caused by alcohol alone or was it merely a contributing factor? The other two major factors are speed and no seat belts.
    If you are quoting the NT figures have you factored in pedestrians being killed on the road (sadly, predominantly Indigenous), overcrowding in a vehicle or tourists falling victim to fatigue, not being used to our uniquely long distances and animals on the road?
    Evidence shows that people will pay whatever they need to to get grog, particularly in remote communities where police are still making regular arrests and a bottle of Bundy will sell for well over $100.
    You will see an increase in property break-ins and a switch to spirits, with more bang for buck.
    Unfortunately for people who are not restricted by a budget, and get large amounts of money on royalty days without equating effort to reward, the floor price may make a small difference, but will just be another addition to the cost of living out here (like fuel costing $1.75 a litre) that will make residing in the NT unviable.
    Unfortunately the key to the Territory succeeding primarily rests with increasing our population. While we pander to minority groups and the expense of contributing members of society, that will never happen.

    View Comment
  2. Eleanor Diflo
    Posted October 19, 2018 at 11:42 am

    All people against a minimum floor price should read the alcohol related article in the “Conversation” and watch the ABC doctor show.
    Nobody debates about the price of cigarettes or the damage they do. Alcohol problems are getting worse. 67% of road deaths are non Indigenous and alcohol related.
    We can’t stop drinking but we can ask all drinkers to pay towards the health problems caused by alcohol.

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*