Liquor traders feel left out of policy bill

While government authorities are ready to implement the new Liquor Bill, local liquor traders around the Kathorus area, told Kathorus MAIL they feel their recommendation to the proposed bill discussions have been left out. This despite their strong submissions to the Gauteng Liquor Board.

Speaking about the dissatisfaction of members, the chairman of the Gauteng Liquor Traders Association, Linda Madida, described the new Liquor Policy Bill as “unfavourable” towards townships traders. “We feel we are being deliberately squashed out of business with all the new rules the Liquor Board is proposing to implement,” explained an unhappy Madida.

According to Madida, there are five aspects of the new Liquor Bill which liquor traders feel will have a negative impact on their businesses and the liquor industry in the townships. The Liquor Board has submitted the following proposals that liquor traders will have to comply with:

· Not to trade within 500 metres away of a school or a church

· Not to sell alcohol to any one under the age 18

· Not to market and advertise alcohol

· Not to trade unless their business is “zoned” or licensed

· To accept the “vicarious liability” clause.

“We feel that this whole process is unfair and flawed because we were left out,” said Madida. He claimed certain parts of the proposed bill are “unconstitutional”. “The attempt to bypass the ruling of the Constitutional Court by calling what is proposed ‘norms and standards’ is an insult to the Constitutional Court,” he said.

The traders feel that whoever was responsible for the drawing up of the draft bill, and whoever drafted it, displayed a shocking disregard for submissions on the original policy proposal. “The proposed amendments clearly target black businesses and the areas they operate in. They prevent fair competition and market entry for black SMMEs and will force black communities and consumers into the hands of rich white businesses,” Madida explained.

Liquor traders say they are not convinced that raising the new alcohol age restriction from 18 to 21 will make it easy for authorities to deal with the alcohol problem for people over 18. They argue that the authorities have not conclusively proved that they are able to deal with problem of alcohol abuse among people below the age of 18.

“Changing the laws instead of dealing with the problems underlying alcohol abuse is definitely not a solution to the problem. Eighteen is the age at which teenagers in South Africa are considered adults. At the age of 18, a young person is eligible to drive a vehicle, obtain an ID and even get married,” added Madida.

On the issue of a 500 metre radius for a liquor trader to operate, the law is regarded as a part of the old apartheid laws governing liquor trade in black areas prior to 1994. “The author of this draft bill, seems to be ignorant of our past, or has not learnt from it,” Madida said, adding that this is another way of removing taverns and liquor traders from the townships.

Madida also argued that with so many informal churches sprouting up on almost every corner of every township and informal settlement, liquor traders will eventually be pushed out of residential areas. “Does his mean that people now have to travel long distances to find a place where they can enjoy themselves?” asked Madida. He added that recreational places such as pubs, bars and clubs are often a sensible distance away from most residential areas.

Traders have also rejected the zoning call for their liquor businesses and point out that the condition is unacceptable. They have likened the bill to the old apartheid laws. “During apartheid, black residential areas were viewed as ‘dormitory areas’ and had no legal business zoning. How are these small businesses supposed to trade if a municipality has not assigned zoning status to it?” said Madida.

They also argue over the so-called “vicarious liability” clause, which they say is totally out of place in a democratic South Africa. How are they going to monitor this bill? “If someone moves from one tavern to another and then gets injured or commits a crime in the process, why must a trader be held liable? These provisions make no sense at all,” said Madida.

Meanwhile, Cabinet has approved the publication of the National Liquor Amendment Bill of 2016 for wider public consultation, Minister in the Presidency for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Jeff Radebe, was reported to have said last Thursday, November 17.

Briefing media following Cabinet’s fortnightly meeting, Minister Radebe told reporters the new bill amends the National Liquor Act of 2003.

“This was approved together with the final National Liquor Policy which addresses challenges hampering the effectiveness of the Act and facilitated the drafting of the bill,” he told reporters.

Madida, pointed out that the next debate on the new bill will be a public debate in which stakeholders will be able to voice their objections to the proposed bill.