8 Indicators of age-verification practices
8.1 Requests for 'evidence of age' documents
8.2 The use of age signage
8.3 Summary
As mentioned in the introduction, the 1999 amendment of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 introduced a definition of 'evidence of age documents'. A person who is charged with selling or supplying liquor to a person under 18 years or permitting a person under 18 to be in restricted or supervised areas of licensed premises has a defence if, at the time of the offence, they sighted a recognised 'evidence of age document' that indicated that the person was at least 18 years old. The three recognised 'evidence of age documents' are a passport, a photo driver licence, or a Hospitality Association of New Zealand 18+ card.
8.1 Requests for 'evidence of age' documents
The first Auckland Pseudo Patrons Project (Woolgrove et al. 2002) was conducted by the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit to monitor the age-verification practices of personnel at off-licensed premises in the greater Auckland region. The project was repeated in 2003 and 2004 (Huckle et al. 2003, and Huckle et al. 2004) by the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation. While these studies are limited to Auckland only, and the results may not be applicable to other areas, the information is of interest.
The surveys did not measure whether personnel at off-licensed premises were breaking the law by selling alcohol to those under 18, as all pseudo patrons were 18 and allowed to purchase alcohol. However, as it can be hard to distinguish 18 year olds from those just under 18, sales made to 18 year olds without 'evidence of age documents' may indicate that sales to those under 18 are likely to be occurring.
In each survey, on three successive weekends, some 18 year old pseudo patrons visited approximately 250 randomly-selected off-licensed premises (bottle shops, supermarkets, and grocery stores) on two different occasions (one visit by a male, one visit by a female) and attempted to buy alcohol without providing age verification. The pseudo patrons recorded if ID was requested, and if a sale took place.
Table 8.1 Percentage of sales made to 18 year olds without sighting 'evidence of age documents' in Auckland region by type of premise, 2002-2004
| Type of premise | Sale made (%) | Difference Significant? 1 | |||
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2002-2003 | 2003-2004 | |
| Bottle shop | 59 | 43 | 61 | Yes | Yes |
| Supermarket | 53 | 28 | 21 | Yes | No |
| Grocery outlets | 80 | 71 | 71 | No | No |
| All premises | 61 | 46 | 56 | Yes | Yes |
Notes:
1 Differences were reported as significant when they were
statistically significant at the 0.05 level and there were at least 14
observations in each comparison group.
2 Sources: Woolgrove et al. 2002,
Huckle et al. 2003, and Huckle et al. 2004.
The results show that in 2004 just over half (56%) of the off-licensed premises surveyed sold alcohol to the pseudo patrons without ID, a significant increase from 2003 where the proportion was just under half (46%). Between the previous surveys (2002 and 2003) there had been a significant decrease from 61% to 46%.
In each year staff at grocery shops were the most likely to sell alcohol to 18 year olds without ID, as 80% of the visits in 2002 and 71% of the visits in 2003 and 2004 resulted in sales. (The reduction between the years was not statistically significant.) For supermarkets the proportion of visits that resulted in sales decreased significantly from 53% to 28% between the 2002 and 2003 survey, and remained at the lower level of 21% in 2004. The proportion of sales in bottle shops decreased significantly from 59% to 43% between 2002 and 2003 before increasing significantly in 2004 to 61%.
The anecdotal evidence collected by the pseudo patrons in 2002 showed that some outlets asked for ID, but made the sale anyway when the ID was not available. Other outlets asked the pseudo patrons to state their age or date of birth as proof of age in lieu of an 'evidence of age document'. The 2004 anecdotal evidence includes some of the following comments:
Seller asked for my date of birth but couldn't work it out.
Asked for ID and I said No. Then she said just bring some next time.
She embarrassed me. Announced to the whole shop that I didn't have ID.
Kept enforcing 'no card no service' and said 'how am I supposed to know you're 18 with no card?'
The Auckland Pseudo Patrons Project also collected information on the use of age signage in off-licensed premises. Age signage is of two types: signage that alcohol cannot be sold to those under 18 years old, and signage that ID may be requested from those who look under 25 years old.[13] Information on age signage was analysed in three categories: the signage was present and easily visible, the signage was present but not easily visible, and the signage was not present. The results showed that the use and visibility of signage varied between districts. Overall, the proportion with signage present and easily visible was 62% in 2004, similar to the 66% in 2003. The proportion in 2003 was a significant increase from the 50% in 2002.
Results from the three Auckland Pseudo Patrons Projects show that in 2004 just over half (56%) of the off-licensed premises surveyed sold alcohol to the pseudo patrons without ID, a significant increase from 2003 where the proportion was just under half (46%). Between the previous surveys (2002 and 2003) there had been a significant decrease from 61% to 46%. In each year staff at grocery shops were the most likely to sell alcohol to 18 year olds without ID, as 80% of the visits in 2002 and 71% of the visits in 2003 and 2004 resulted in sales.
In 2004, the use of signage that alcohol cannot be sold to those under 18 years old, and signage that ID may be requested from those who look under 25 years old, was approximately the same as in 2003. The proportion of off-licensed premises surveyed in Auckland with signage present and easily visible was 62% in 2004, similar to the 66% in 2003. The proportion in 2003 was a significant increase from the 50% in 2002.
Footnote
13 In 2003, the pseudo patrons were asked to collect information on each of these types of signs separately. The information on these two types of signs were combined for comparison with the 2002 results, as in 2002 separate information on the two types of signs was not collected.
