Oh my God – they wrote letters
August 25th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Liquor companies lobbied the Government furiously in the weeks before a reform package was announced.
They pressed Justice Minister Simon Power with claims he was being served up biased and flawed recommendations by the Law Commission.
Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show a procession of companies and industry groups wrote directly to Mr Power, but he insists they had no influence over his recommendations to the Cabinet.
On Monday, Mr Power announced changes that will affect bar hours, off-licence trading, liquor advertising and the purchase age. He declared a moratorium on meeting advocates on either side of the debate after the Law Commission tabled its report on alcohol law reform in April.
I’m sorry, but what is the purpose of this story?
The Minister refused to meet with lobbyists from either side. How could criticise him for that? So the story is about the fact is about that some industry groups wrote him a letter? Even worse, they wrote “directly” to him. Well how else do you write? Should they have sent letters to Mrs Smith of Taihape and asked her to pass them onto the Minister?
But that did not stop more than 150 people writing with concerns about liquor and a further six industry groups or companies sending their views.
As people and groups should. In fact it would be unthinkable for such groups to not write to the Minister with their views.
If there is a proposal to regulate the medical profession, would one expect the Medical Association to not offer its views? Of course not. So why is it newsworthy in this case? Because certain lobby groups are trying to push a theme that the “liquor industry” has too much influence. I can only imagine they wish them to be banned from writing letters.
On May 10, Hospitality Association chief executive Bruce Robertson wrote to Mr Power expressing “real concerns with the interpretation of some of the data … and inconsistencies with the [Law] Commission’s advocacy”.
The Law Commission seemed to have chosen data which supported the advocacy of the public health sector, he wrote. Then, on June 14, Mr Robertson wrote to Mr Power with a full commentary on 146 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations.
Bruce would be sacked if he did not offer a commentary on the recommendations. That is his job. Again – why is this a new story?
Where are the stories about how Alcohol Action is funded, and the massive amount of lobbying they have done?
Tags: alcohol, Media
August 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Surely the bigger scandal here is that Power just received the letters, claims to have read them, and then just sent back a form letter. He says that none of the submissions changed his view on anything (which suggests he didn’t in fact read the letters properly). Whoever they are, people and organisations who write to ministers with detailed submissions on issues that affect them deserve better than that. Ministers are meant to engage intellectually on the issues within their portfolios.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:10 am
» In protest, there is already a Facebook group of people declaring they will never drink Veuve Clicquot again
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:17 am
K. Jones – I believe that group refers to the NBR’s shocking decision to stiff Busted Blonde on her well deserved payout of her weight in Veuve. Poor form. Unless of course, you are suggesting that Mr Power received a letter from Veuve explaining their decision and that he simply replied with a form letter, which may well be the case.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:17 am
shit and I thought they were “our” servants.
Vote:That he didn’t really read them shows he isn’t fit for purpose.
fail!
August 25th, 2010 at 11:30 am
a waste of good drinking time
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Indie – i knew there had to be a good reason for it. Krug plays hell with my reflux.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Yet another example of Lamestream Media bias on an issue they decided to target.
And the reporter ( young Hart-whatshisname) named as the author of the piece is obviously still wet behind the ears.
Would their editors had the courage to print their names, home addresses and day time telephone numbers.
They demand that from all correspondents, but have a different standard for themselves.
We probably should expect no more from the doctrinaire mob at Fairfax
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Paralleling the beer barons on alcohol laws to doctors on medical issues stretches things, IMHO.
Alcohol is a drug, an enjoyable one for most, but devastating to a minority and to those around them, and highly costly for taxpayers. Ironically, the alcohol industry is the supplier and medical and health professionals pick up the pieces.
Of course the liquor industry is entitled to submit its views, and these are relevant. Healthy scepticism about them is in order, too. The liquor industry has been a big funder of political parties through the decades. When beer was king, they were probably the biggest political funders.
Since the gin craze of 300 years ago, opinion has swung between open swill and puritanical bans. Undoubtedly, hostility to booze will rise again – for a time.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:45 am
What I think is interesting is why the media buys into the silly conspiracy theories of the wowsers. Is it because newspaper editors have sympathy with their position? I doubt it. Presumably it is because that is the news angle that sells. Now – is it wowserism per se that sells newspaper, or is it anyone who argues for change and against the status quo?
What is truly, starkly depressing is how little attention is given to the fact that Sellman and the other lobby groups are paid by government to push a message. They are an interested party in precisely the same way as the Hospitality Association. So is the Ministry of Health. It is no coincidence that the very people given a budget to deal with alcohol harm in the Ministry are the very same people spending some of that money commissioning shonky reports by shonky outfits that say alcohol is a really big problem. That is textbook empire building in the public bureaucracy. Yet Sellman and the Ministry of Health are somehow given a free pass to make up all sorts of rubbish and watch the media lap it up, while the Hospitality Association can’t write a letter to the Minister without a news story slating them.
Who’s fighting for the little guy who wants a quiet beer after work?
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:46 am
It’s straightforward enough:
1. The liquor industry lobbyists are working in the interests of their businesses. This = “Bad.”
2. The anti-liquor lobbyists are working in the interests of busybodying other people for their own good because people can’t be trusted to make choices the busybodies agree with. This = “Good.”
See – all you need’s a moral compass…
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Bruce Robertson and HANZ are such thoughtful people that always care about the health and wellbeing of NZers. Yeah Right. If the Government won’t listen however, it appears their tactic is to get supporters elected to councils like Adam Cunningham in Wellington so they can influence licensing and drinking law decisions that way.
Here’s Bruce’s intelligent thoughts on smoking in bars. Let’s hope his submissions on drinking were a little less self interested. http://www.uow.otago.ac.nz/academic/dph/Publicationsreports/TobaccoMonograph.pdf
- HANZ has recently been partly funded by the tobacco industry in its efforts to resist laws protecting hospitality staff from second-hand smoke. Mr Robertson has been reported as saying: “Certainly, I have sought funding to assist with publication costs of informational brochures”… “If we can get some funding from the Tobacco Institute to improve the environment, that seems to be a sensible thing to do”… “Our position has got absolutely nothing to do with the tobacco industry’s position, although on this occasion it does coincide”. (Maling 2000) -
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Jack5
and highly costly for taxpayers
Nope. Alcohol excise covers far more than the costs alcohol imposes on the health system. See the Treasury 2002 report by Felicity Barker.
Ironically, the alcohol industry is the supplier and medical and health professionals pick up the pieces.
That isn’t remotely ironic. Their job is to make sick people well.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Deborah Coddington May 2010: “As a former MP, I know how powerful the alcohol lobby can be – the fridge in my office was constantly full of free beer”
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“Oh my God – they wrote letters Add this story to Scoopit!.”
Yes, but in this debate it has all been about the consumer – it’s a consumer problem, it’s a consumer’s responsibility for their behaviour, how wowsers want to curtail people’s choises – nothing about how companies supply a mind altering, addictive drug to the public for the sole reason of making a profit.
The alcohol sellers/producers aren’t just sitting around being beneficious, they are working as hard as possible to get as much alcohol sold as possible, no matter what. That view is often lost in this debate, showing producers/sellers as advocates redresses that balance.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Re Ben at 11.58.
I reject your belief that the economic effect of boozing net of excise is neutral.
That’s an interesting paper by Felicity Barker, but it’s fall of guesses, such as one drink per day being health beneficial, and there are miles of hidden costs she won’t have covered such as the huge amount of work and costs by charities from the Salvation Army to AA.
Ask people in our grossly underfunded mental health system and you will get an idea of the impact of alcohol.
How do you measure the damage to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of teenagers near comatose on Friday and Saturday nights? How do you measure the damage to families through break-ups etc, from alcohol? How do you measure the lost economic effects of those killed in road accidents involving booze?
Regarding your put-down of health workers:
Extending your view, perhaps the job of the booze industry is to make people sick.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Those arguing the rights and wrongs of alcohol – and trying to drag smoking into it – need to realise that DPF’s point isn’t that HANZ are right, it’s that they have a right to lobby the Minister. As does any private or corporate citizen in a democracy.
Personally I think Bruce (whom I worked alongside for several years) was unwise to seemingly accept the tobacco industry’s spin as valid, and to ally HANZ with them by accepting funding.
But then again, when the MSM demonstrate that the anti-alcohol wowsers can just call up their trained (but clearly uneducated) lapdogs in a newsroom and get this sort of shoddy character assassination run as “news”, they’re closing the door to genuine debate and forcing the other side of the issue to resort to questionable alliances just to get their point across.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Unaccustomed as I am to defending the MSM….
Rex Winderstrom talks of wowsers ringing their tame reporters in news rooms. Wowsers in news rooms? What happened to all those wrinkly reporters chain smoking, “Press” signs in their hats, and well, really thirsty?
I thought MSM reporters were among the most serious guzzlers of the brown stuff. I bet you breweries have supplied truckloads of crates of beer to news rooms over the decades, and may be still doing it, or is the MSM now wine-sipping? That wouldn’t surprise me from its drift to the chardonnay-socialist Left.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I have no objection to evidence of an active civil society.
However whether what is occurring is public health advocacy or political advocacy in the context of proposed law changes is an interesting question at the moment.
Some of those groups advocating for a tightening up of the Sale of Liquor Act are not part of civil society (classically non Government). While many have charitable status many are either completely funded by the Ministry of Health or associated with another part of central Government (specialist centres in Universities) or are local Councils.
For example Alcohol Action NZ is being administered through the John Dobson Memorial Foundation, a charitable trust, registered under the Charities Act 2005. Being “administered” is tricky – it’s hard to know what that means. Is Alcohol Action NZ part of the charitable activities of the Trust or merely incidental and secondary too them. Or is it a separate organisation and the JDMF only acts as banker and depending on structuring may or may not provide tax deductibility for donations.
John Dobson Memorial Foundation is associated with the National Addition Centre which is associated with Dept of Physiological Medicine, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences which is part of Otago University. The major part of the activities of the JDMF (other than AANZ) appears to be to give out prizes to academics.
Alcohol Heathwatch is another organisation rallying public opinion for a law change. It’s a charitable trust that gets up to 750K p.a. from the Ministry of Health (aside from interest on the money) the MoH is only source of money – its biggest expense is staff at 450k. The next biggest cost is its newsletters and comms and “projects” unspecified.
Just as I am sure its an interesting question to ponder how much the beer barons put into political advocacy (all of which I am sure comes out of tax paid profits none of which is taxpayer money) it would be interesting to see know much of the hubbub of political advocacy is paid for directly and indirectly by the taxpayer often through organisations that have charitable status.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Who’s fighting for the little guy who wants a quiet beer after work?
Don’t think the alcohol industry is. They want you to have many more than one beer after work and at a pub if possible.
The medical profession might think it is a good idea for you to have a beer after work – if you are male, over 50 and you were already consuming alcohol, that is. (Last I heard) A very moderate amount of alcohol is meant to be good for the heart health of older males who already drink.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Re Chris Diack at 12.44…
“National Addition Centre” and “Alcohol Heathwatch”…. well, bit early in the day, eh Chris???
Seriously, though, Chris, your:
I don’t know whether booze given away in promotions is duty free. If, say beer is given to say, reporters at a brewery, will it have incurred excise? Perhaps that comes when the grog leaves the brewery. And it would be interesting to know whether it is practical and possible for breweries and wineries to use their product for promotion without paying excise on it.
However, I reckon your comment that political advocacy costs such as lobbying etc are out of tax-paid profits is wrong. Profits come after costs have been deducted from income.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Ben – “Who’s fighting for the little guy who wants a quiet beer after work?”
How are the proposed changes going to affect this situation?
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@Jack5: “I reject your belief that the economic effect of boozing net of excise is neutral.
That’s an interesting paper by Felicity Barker, but it’s fall of guesses, such as one drink per day being health beneficial, and there are miles of hidden costs she won’t have covered such as the huge amount of work and costs by charities from the Salvation Army to AA.”
Anything to back up your view other than anecdotal emoting? What you’ve stated essentially comes down to “ZOMFG, I don’t like the conclusions they’ve drawn from the evidence. Because this is so, they can’t have included all or even most of the costs in their analysis.”
Also, ben didn’t state it was neutral. He stated the excise covered more than the costs.
You’re right though, it’s probably closer to two standard drinks a day.
I’ll give you “Offsetting Behaviour” links because the readability and comprehensibility is very good: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/08/saying-it-again-louder.html
Vote:http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/08/j-curve-science-versus-politics.html
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/07/j-curve.html
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/03/moderate-drinking-and-health.html
August 25th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
@MikeG: Well, interestingly, not everybody works a 8.30am to 5pm, so the proposed changes in hours of sale are likely to impact on the ability of a person who does shift work to say, go and buy a beverage after their shift if it finishes late.
Those between 18 and 20 years old, who I note are legally considered adults, who work, will be affected in their choice of where they can get the alcoholic beverage of their choice. I don’t like what’s on offer at the majority of pubs in terms of quality and I often prefer not to pay the price of somewhere like Hashigo Zake or the Malthouse. If I was between the ages of 18 and 20 then I would be affected.
Two simple examples to support the assertion made by ben that the little guy’s situation will be affected.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Debating whether alcohol is over all good for health probably takes this thread off its core topic.
However, in response to JiveKitty – moderate amounts of grog may be good for the cardiovascular health, but there are plenty of other dangers, to the liver, the brain, and according to Wikipedia:
For those who want to drink in moderation, fine. But I think MPledger at 12.47 may be nearer the mark:
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Just this quote, Jack5: “Recall that the J-curve is defined over all-source mortality. So as nasty as all the bad stuff is, it has to be dominated by the good stuff for folks drinking moderately.”
But yes, you’re probably right about this: “Debating whether alcohol is over all good for health probably takes this thread off its core topic.”
So I’ll refrain now.
On topic, I think DPF’s thrust is right and Psycho Milt sums it up better than I can.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@JiveKitty: Well I guess that if no-one was to be affected then there would be no point in making any changes. In the examples you give a very small percentage of ‘sensible’ drinkers will be affected. If the liquor industry make less money because of the changes then tough – after all they are partly responsible for the crazy drinking culture we have at the moment.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Jack5
I reject your belief that the economic effect of boozing net of excise is neutral.
I didn’t say that and I don’t believe it. Alcohol’s economic effect is almost certainly large and positive. Otherwise people wouldn’t drink.
I am also not saying there is no cost. Of course there is. Most of it is borne by drinkers themselves. Now, when you start counting benefits and not just costs then you’ll be in a position to write some policy. Like BERL and the other various shonky outfits running around, you’re just counting costs. It does no good to destroy $10 worth of benefit and enjoyment to prevent $1 of harm, especially if it is mostly self-inflicted, as it is with drinking. In fact that does bad.
Regarding your put-down of health workers:
..Their job is to make sick people well.
Extending your view, perhaps the job of the booze industry is to make people sick.
It wasn’t a put down. Their job nursing sick and injured to health. That is what they do.
And no, the job of the booze industry is defined by what its customers ask and pay for. This entire debate is an exercise in watching socialists come up with ever more clever way of assigning responsibility to absolutely anybody except the drinker.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“I guess that if no-one was to be affected then there would be no point in making any changes.”
You asked how the little guy who wants a beer after work would be affected. I’m sure there are more effects, but I’m not really keen on exerting more effort in trying to show them, particularly as you already appear to have decided the poorly targeted imposition of further costs is worth more than the benefit it takes away from drinkers.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Jack5:
So be it: pre tax profit – assuming the activities you suggest are deductable expenses – it would depend actually.
Still much different in quality from getting the loot from the taxpayer.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
DPF – only wowsers and do gooders are allowed opinions. Shesh.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Jack5 suggests:
Yeah, and they all looked like Spencer Tracey, even the women, unless they looked like Katherine Hepburn. Newsrooms, in common with other workplaces, have been smoke free for a while now. And smoking amongst journos would be about as prevalent as in the general population, I’d say. They do like a drink, though.
But so what? That doesn’t stop them slavishly following the “big business bad, dubiously funded ‘public health’ lobby group good” meme. The only big business that never seems to be lined up for a serve is, amazingly enough, some of the biggest of all – the owners of the MSM.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
So Jack5 when you have rid us of the demon drink what shall be your next project?. I hear fatty food is bad for one, quick Jack get out the torches and pitchforks the people must be saved.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Those arguing that the state has a right to coerce us and take away our freedoms when it comes to alcohol – supposedly for our own good and in the name of society – can have no objection when the state also enforces strict Islamic morality under the same pretext. It’s exactly the same argument. It’s Saudi Morality Police here in New Zealand forcibly preventing us from freely pursuing happiness whichever way we choose.
The health effects of alcohol are not the issue. The socialised costs are not the issue (the problem there is the “socialised” bit.) The issue is people thinking they have some right to force others to behave in ways which they deem acceptable; to refuse to let everyone else weigh up the costs and benefits for their own circumstances according to their own lights.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Sideshow Bob posted at 5.29:
I’ve never suggested prohibition is the answer, nor has anyone else in these threads that I’ve read. What I want is the reining in of the open slather liquor trade that is devastating our young folk. The only way I can see of accomplishing that I can see is tighter controls on the liquor industry. I care little about the interests of the foreign beer and RTD barons who have always lobbied our politicians.
On Wat Dabney’s comments at 9.28:
Under this philosophy, Wat, you would have to decriminalise heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines too. Do you want that?
Vote: