If you decide to stick these posters up anywhere, make sure you stick an authorisation statement on them, as they would then be an election advertisement. While they are on my blog, they represent my personal political view online and are exempt.

They would look very good on university and polytechnic campuses, and in supermarkets and bottle stories I reckon!

If people thought Labour’s 1958 “black budget” was bad, wait until their 2012 budget if they win. The black budget only doubled the tax on alcohol which put prices up around 30%. Labour’s policy would see the price of many forms of alcohol actually double in price!!

So this is a sure sign that Labour, if Government, will legislate to ensure wine costs at least $16 a bottle.

But an Auckland University study of 9,000 high school students has found the following changes from 2001 to 2007:

• Students who have never drunk alcohol increased from 18% to 28%
• Students who do not currently drink alcohol increased from 30% to 39%
• Of students who currently drink alcohol, those who have not had a drink in the last four weeks went from 22% to 24%
• Of students who drink alcohol, the proportion saying friends gave it to them dropped from 62% to 53%
• Those asked for ID when purchasing rose from 44% to 61%
• Those who were a passenger with a driver who has had over two drinks dropped from 29% to 24%

So remind me again why MPs are lining up like lemmings to increase the purchase age to 20?

The survey does show some negative increases, such as the proportion who binge drink, but that reinforces why the approach should be to target problem drinkers, not criminalise every 18 and 19 year old in the country.

Another key area of controversy is advertising. Some advocate that alcohol advertising and sponsorship should be totally banned. This would mean that Tui billboards would be illegal, and that Brancott Estate would no longer be able to sponsor the World of Wearable Arts show in Wellington. The Government has said it will not ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship, but this decision may change depending on the makeup of Parliament after the election. Do you think an advertising ban would result in young people not drinking, and if so would be worthwhile? Or do you think banning Tui billboards is a step too far?

The full blog is at Stuff, and you can comment there.

Got sent this graph by a reader in the alcohol industry. As people will know liquor advertising is blamed for a lot of things. In fact the Law Commission recommended banning all alcohol advertising and sponsorship – even Tui billboards.

While I do think breaches of the advertising standards for alcohol should carry penalties (at present you just get told to withdraw the ad), I am not convinced there is any case for an overall ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

Having said that, I think there are some issues around price advertising (as opposed to brand advertising) and loss leading that are worth considering changes to.

I had two classmates die in a car accident in Year 11. It took a long time to get over that, and even today I think of them several times a year.

The James Webster death was due to alcohol, and few would disagree that the ease of supply of alcohol to under 18s needs to be changed – and there are law changes proposed around that.

In relation to the death of David Gaynor, Labour have said:

Labour is calling on the Government to implement all of the Law Commission’s recommendations on alcohol reform in the wake of the death of a King’s College student following his school ball.

I have to be very careful here as there are strict legal restrictions on what I can and can not publish. However what I can say is that I do not believe alcohol was a major, or arguably even minor, contributor to this awful tragedy. To the best of my knowledge this is not a James Webster case, or even particularly similiar.

So politicians who use the death to demand particular alcohol law changes are, I will be charitable, potentially misguided.

My sympathy goes out to the family and friends of David.

A reader has sent me a report by the Foundation for Advertising Research, which has the latest data from ALAC in it. A couple of stats readers may be interested in.

Average age of initiation of drinking by youth aged 12 – 17

• 2006/07 – 13.8 years
• 2007/08 – 14.1 years
• 2008/09 – 14.3 years
• 2009/10 – 14.6 years

A pretty clear trend there, and what most would say is a good one.

Prevalance of 12 – 17 year olds who are drinkers

• 2006/07 – 52%
• 2007/08 – 52%
• 2008/09 – 50%
• 2009/10 – 32%

And that’s a dramatic drop in the prevalance of young people drinking.

Percentage of all 12 – 17 olds who drink more than once a week

• 2006/07 – 9%
• 2007/08 – 9%
• 2008/09 – 7%
• 2009/10 – 3.5%

Again a good trend.

Percentage of all youth 12-17 that consumed 5 drinks or more on the last occasion

• 2006/07 – 21.3%
• 2007/08 – 22.9%
• 2008/09 – 19.5%
• 2009/10 – 15.0%

Again a nice downwards trend.

Again all these stats come from ALAC – the Alcohol Advisory Council.

Had around 15 minutes, and thought it was a good discussion. The MPs engaged well and are obviously over the many issues in the bill. Everyone agrees we want less harm from alcohol. The trick is isolating the measures that will do that, and not have consequences which may lead to more harm. Plus also not overly penalising responsible drinkers.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ALCOHOL REFORM BILL 

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
   
   Executive Summary
   
2. The Government’s alcohol reform bill is an improvement on the status quo. However in some areas it does not go far enough, and in other areas it unfairly penalizes all New Zealanders, rather than more precisely targeting drinkers that cause harm to themselves or others.
3. In this submission I have mainly focused on the areas where I think change is desirable, rather than list every clause I agree with.

   A drinking age
   

4. I believe that .the culture of youth drinking will not change unless we have a drinking age, as well as a purchase age. This may not be popular, but I believe it is necessary.
5. At present it is totally legal for an adult (any adult) to supply a bottle of vodka to a 13 year old. It is only illegal to purchase it with the intent of supply, but it is not illegal to supply it. And intent is very difficult to prove.
6. The proposed new requirements around supply of alcohol to minors are a good step in the right direction, and are arguably one of the most important parts of the bill. However I do not think they go far enough.
7. I think parents need to be given assistance and tools in dealing with youth alcohol issues, and a drinking age is one way to do this. It allows parents to say “No it’s illegal to drink at your age”.
8. Some will argue a drinking age is ineffective and can’t be policed. But by that argument we would not have a legal age for sex either. The idea isn’t to arrest lots of parents and young people for under-age drinking – but to send a clear message about appropriate ages. A comparison could be made to the age at which children can be legally left alone – 14. Now parents do not get arrested because they pop down to the dairy for 30 minutes while leaving a 12 year old at home. But it does mean most parents know that you generally should not leave under 14 year olds unsupervised.
9. The ages I would propose for a drinking age are:
   1. 14 with parental supervision
   2. 16 with parental approval and adult supervision
   3. 18 otherwise
10. Effectively this would say that no one under the age of 14 should be drinking alcohol at all, that 14 and 15 year olds can only drink with their parents (a wine with dinner type scenario) and that 16 and 17 year olds can only drink with parental permission and adult supervision (a birthday party supervised by other parents etc)
11. A breach of the drinking age law should be an offence for the young person involved, as well as for whomever may have supplied the alcohol.
12. It could be worth considering that only certain types of alcohol (ie not spirits) be legal at the younger ages.

    The purchase age
    

13. A drinking age will be far more effective in changing the culture of youth drinking than criminalizing 18 and 19 year olds for drinking.
14. I am aware the purchase age will come to a conscience vote at committee of the whole stage, regardless of decisions by this select committee, so I don’t plan to spend too many words on this issue.
15. A purchase age of 20 is impossible to justify as a principled position. At 18 one can even be elected to Parliament or a local Council. I note the future MP for Botany was elected to the Manukau City Council at 18 and the Mayor of Porirua was elected to his Council at the age of 19. This bill would give 18 and 19 year old Councillors a major say in local alcohol policies, but make it illegal to purchase a bottle of wine.
16. The proposed 18/20 split age is better than a 20/20 age, but will seriously undermine the move to make it unacceptable to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds. This is because it will be legal for a 20 year old to supply alcohol to an 18 year old but not to a 17 year old. We want a law which says it is unacceptable to supply alcohol to anyone underage.

    Excise Duty/Minimum Prices
    

17. I support the level of excise duty being set as a level which will cover the external costs of alcohol consumption.
18. There is credible research that the current level of excise duty does cover the external costs. There has been other research done which has concluded that the level of excise duty is not high enough. However that research has been shown to be totally flawed, containing the most basic errors such as counting private costs as external costs, yet not counting private benefits. The Government and Parliament should be very wary of decision making on such flawed research.
19. The current excise regime is not consistent by strength of alcohol. Wine has a much lower excise for its volume of alcohol than other products, for example.
20. I believe there is merit looking at either revising the excise tax to be less discriminatory or a minimum price scheme based on alcohol volume.

    Local Alcohol Policies
    

21. I generally support the ability of local communities to set alcohol policies for their area. What is appropriate for Cannons Creek may not be appropriate for Courtney Place.

    RTDs
    

22. The Government has announced a policy intention of limiting RTDs to 5% strength and 1.5 standard drinks. This is not directly in the bill, but provision has been made to enable the Government to regulate this at a later date.
23. As a market research company, my company (Curia) was engaged by Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd to do quantitative and qualitative research on this issue, including the likely impact of any change. This research has been cited in their submission on the bill.
24. Based on this research, and also research in Australia, I have no doubt that a law change to restrict RTDs to 5% strength would in fact lead to more alcohol induced harm, rather than less. Around half of RTD drinkers buy 6% to 8% RTDs, and if these were legislated out of the market, many of them would then purchase spirits instead so they can self-mix drinks.
25. The Law Commission itself warned of the dangers of targeting just one sort of alcohol, due to substitution issues. I would urge the Government and Parliament to take heed of the Law Commission advice on this issue.

Again, in summary, I would urge the committee to apply a filter to all proposed measures, measuring how effective it will be in reducing harmful drinking, and how much it will impact people undertaking non harmful drinking. We want measures that maximize the former and minimize the latter.

A ONE News investigation into a study that claims alcohol is cheaper than water has found that’s not always the case.

The report by the University of Otago, based on Department of Statistics figures, found a glass of water costs 67c, while a standard drink of beer costs 64c and a standard drink of cask wine costs 62c.

At the supermarket, the cheapest water ONE News could find came in a three litre container, which cost $2.57.

The cheapest wines in the same quantity on the other hand were priced at $22 and the cheapest beer, in a 12 pack and about five litres in quantity, was $18.40.

Applying the same calculations used in the Otago study, the glass of water cost less at only 21c, while the beer pack cost $1.10 for a glass and the cask of wine cost 71c for a standard drink.

The Otago study author, Associate Professor Nick Wilson, blamed price fluctuations for the difference.

“When you look at some specials, [alcohol] is actually cheaper than bottled water in some cases and at other times it may not be.”

Wilson is also sticking to his call for increased taxes to push the price of alcohol up.

I’m really pleased that TVNZ, unlike most media, didn’t just report the so called study as gospel and repeat it unthinkingly. They went out and tested the results and found they are bunkum.

The study seems to have cherry picked data so it could compare the most expensive bottled water to the cheapest ever alcohol, and come up with a conclusion that alcohol is now cheaper than water.

TVNZ have shown this is crap – that bottled water is under a third the price of the cheapest wine. Will other media report this as they reported the original study?

Also they are not comparing apples and apples. Water is in fact almost free as a product. when people buy bottled water they are buying it for the convenience. The correct comparison to bottled water would be the cost of alcohol in an on license – where you are also not paying so much for the alcohol, but for the convenience also.

Alcohol has become so affordable that it is cheaper than bottled water and approaching the price of milk, says a study made public today.

Silly comparisons. Tap water is still near zero. Bottled water is a premium product – comparing it to discounted alcohol is misleading. One should compare it to the more expensive alcohol products. And milk is outraegously expensive – but that is no reason to make alcohol the same.

A $2 minimum price per standard drink would reduce binge drinking without affecting social drinkers, Professor Sellman said.

First of all a minimum price would be the wet dreams for the liquor industry. Their profits would go up massively. Nothing wrong with that – just a surprise that someone who equates them to drug dealers wants them to make so much more money.

So what would $2/standard drink mean for certain items. A standard drink is 10g or 12.7 ml of alcohol.

• a 350 ml bottle of 4% beer could not cost less than $2.20. 5% beer would cost $2.76 or $33.07 for a dozen – not sure if GST would be on top of that
• a 750 ml bottle of 12% wine could not sell for under $14.17
• A 1l bottle of Baileys could not sell for under $26.77
• A 1125ml bottle of vodka could not sell for under $65.55

Supermarkets are drug “pushers” who are selling high quantities of discounted wine and should be viewed the same as dealers dishing out Ecstasy pills or morphine.

It may seem extreme but it’s a view that Professor Doug Sellman, director of the National Addiction Centre and spokesman for the Alcohol Action Group, is taking quite seriously.

Need more be said. Alcohol Action are not the voice of a balanced group. It is an extreme voice, pushing policies that few New Zealanders would agree with. Sadly, it seems to be the group that the Law Commission gave the most weight to.

I’ve summarised the results, by party. They are:

So MPs for 18 are slightly ahead of 20, but a third of the Parliament favours a split age. What will be important is if a split age is defeated, will those MPs then vote for 18 or 20.

THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEBATE on “What should we do about our drinking problem?” one very important issue has been consistently overlooked.

The constitutional, political and moral objections to “down-sizing” the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds.

Eighteen and nineteen-year-olds have the right to vote in local and general elections, perform jury service, join the armed forces, make a will, sign a contract, and purchase alcohol. …

When it comes to the other rights, responsibilities and duties of citizenship, however, 18 and 19-year-old New Zealanders are legally recognised as responsible adults.

This raises a couple of very serious question. Having admitted 18 and 19-year-olds to the ranks of adult New Zealanders, is it constitutionally, politically and morally justifiable to cast them back into the ranks of non-adults when it comes to purchasing alcohol?

How can prohibiting their participation in a social activity in which all other New Zealand adults are free to engage without legal sanction possibly be right?

I would argue that it is neither right nor justifiable. Once specific political and social rights (like the right to vote or the right to purchase alcohol) have been given to a group of citizens they cannot be taken back without placing the rights of every other citizen in jeopardy.

Were the White Americans living in the Deep South justified in stripping their Black neighbours of their civil and political rights in the latter half of the 19th Century? Did the Nazi Government of Germany have the right to strip German Jews of their citizenship in the 1930s?

Both of these cases involved the persecution of a politically friendless minority whose morals, capabilities and behaviour were openly despised and derided by the majority.

1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?
(0) Never [Skip to Qs 9-10]
(1) Monthly or less
(2) 2 to 4 times a month
(3) 2 to 3 times a week
(4) 4 or more times a week

2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?
(0) 1 or 2
(1) 3 or 4
(2) 5 or 6
(3) 7, 8, or 9
(4) 10 or more

3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

4. How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

5. How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

6. How often during the last year have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

7. How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

8. How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily

9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year

10. Has a relative or friend or a doctor or another health worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year

[DPF: Update: WHO states:

Total scores of 8 or more are recommended as indicators of hazardous and
harmful alcohol use, as well as possible alcohol dependence.

This is how Alcohol Action come up with their stat that 700,000 NZers are problem drinkers.  But it is even worse than that:

In general, a score of 1 or more on Question 2 or Question 3 indicates consumption at a hazardous level.

So if you have ever had more than two standard drinks in a session, this indicates hazardous consumption!]

You can also follow the campaign on Twitter.

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?

Several changes announced yesterday included a law that will clarify that dairies and convenience stores cannot be off-licences, therefore cannot sell alcohol.

Ashok Darji, who owns Ash’s Wine and Lotto Superette in Mission Bay, says the move unfairly targets and punishes dairies.

“It basically contradicts. People who want to get a lot of cheap alcohol will go to the supermarket. And a little superette – that’s mostly a customer coming home from work and just wants to pick up a bottle of wine.

“It’s not really our core business, but it’s more a convenience thing. They’re not coming here to buy a dozen beers, they’re going to supermarkets, so why [punish] us?”

Mr Darji has been selling wine at his superette for more than 10 years.

He said during that time, he had never had any problems regarding his selling alcohol, and was upset that he – with many others around the country – would be punished.

It would be interesting to see some solid research on how much alcohol is sold where, to try and ascertain if dairies are a problem.

In this story, my dreams come true. Labour is campaigning for the entire Palmer report to be adopted:

Labour leader Phil Goff said he wanted the commission’s full set of recommendations, including an increase in alcohol excise and tougher rules on advertising.

A vote for Labour means a vote for a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, a ban on Tui billboards, sports teams losing tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship, outlawing the Speights Southern Men ads, a compulsory one way policy at 2 am, and making it an offence for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine in a restaurant with their parents.

This story reports on the impact on RTD makers:

Independent Liquor Group has been given a serve in liquor law reforms announced yesterday.

The South Auckland-based firm dominates the market for “Ready To Drink” products popular with the young – the segment most directly affected by the changes.

The company, owned by private equity group Pacific Equity Partners, got sobering news with the Government limiting the maximum alcohol in RTDs to just 5 per cent.

Many RTDs are 7 per cent and above. In particular, Independent’s bourbon and coke brand Woodstock is a market leader in the RTD market. Its alcohol content is 8 per cent.

I’ve never had an RTD myself. From what I can tell, the intent of the package is to make it hard for people to get hammered on RTDs. What we don’t know is whether this means people will stick with RTDs if they are the same strength as beer, or will they move onto hard spirits?

Derek Cheng reports that the Government did not agree to the recommendations to ban Tui billboards:

Tui billboards, alcohol-sponsored music festivals and sexy television advertisements depicting euphoric parties will not be affected by the Government’s alcohol reform package, despite evidence that a crackdown on marketing would reduce youth drinking.

If you do want Tui billboards banned, Labour is promising to do so.

Having said that I don’t think the current ASA self-regulatory model is effective. There needs to be a sanction for ads which breach the code beyond no longer displaying the ad. I think there needs to be actual penalties for advertisements that breach the code.

The Auckland Mayoral contenders support the 4 am closing.

The NZ Herald editorial says the package is a solid start:

Anything less than a full-scale embrace of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations on reducing the harm caused by alcohol was always going to lead to accusations of Government tinkering and timidity.

But the plans announced yesterday amount to a reasonably practical and coherent response to the problems that have arisen from two decades of liberal liquor laws.

Sensibly, the temptation to return to a time when access to liquor was strictly constrained, but drinking habits were in many ways worse, has been resisted. Instead, there is to be a targeted assault on the excesses encouraged by the current regime.

Vernon Small reports those who wanted more:

The Salvation Army, Alcohol Action and the Drug Foundation said the Government should have raised excise on alcohol to make drinking more expensive – a key recommendation from the Law Commission, which reviewed all the alcohol laws.

The Drug Foundation said it was “deeply disappointed that two vital areas of reform have been ignored: the proliferation of cheap booze and the intense marketing, advertising and promotion of liquor”. …

Professor Jennie Connor, head of preventive and social medicine at Otago University, said the changes would make no substantial difference to the heavy drinking culture, or to the scale of harm caused. They were a small step in the right direction, but were like “fighting a bushfire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years. The Government has seriously misread public concern about heavy drinking and needs to rethink its policies”.

If Professor Cooper thinks the public were demanding a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, she is seriously wrong.

John Hartevelt reports another critic:

The director of Christchurch’s National Addiction Centre, Professor Doug Sellman, said the Government was wrong to see alcohol abuse as essentially a youth problem.

Research found that 92 per cent of New Zealand’s heavy drinkers were 20 years and over, and 70 per cent were 25 and over.

“Aiming measures primarily at youth while avoiding anything substantial that would reduce heavy drinking among adults is scapegoating young people for the country’s heavy drinking culture and fails to address the main issue,” he said.

The Government had avoided the big policy decisions, such as increasing prices and restricting advertising, and ended up with a package that was “like treating cancer with a couple of aspirin”.

So does that mean banning Tui billboards would be like chemotherapy?

The Press reports Bob Parker supports the package:

Liquor-law reforms will enable Christchurch communities to “write their own futures”, Mayor Bob Parker says.

The Government yesterday announced a package of alcohol measures.

The reforms feature a proposal allowing communities to decide their own “alcohol plan”, including the concentration, location, and opening hours of liquor outlets.

Parker said he felt “very positive” about the proposed reforms.

“We’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time.”

Finally The Press editorial says they are a step in the right direction but a lost opportunity:

The package of Government policies to reduce problem drinking is a step in the right direction but it is still a relatively modest step.

While the measures it will introduce are welcome, in several areas, including the adult drink-driving limit and the price of alcohol, the Government has resisted calls for more decisive action. …

Overall, therefore, although the Government package will assist in the battle against excessive drinking, it also represents a lost opportunity to make more serious progress in our society’s goal of ending the binge drinking culture.

The zealots have already slammed the report because the Government did not implement everything the Law Commission recommended. I say thank God for that. The previous Labour Government commissioned that report, from a body headed up by a former Labour Prime Minister.  Why on earth a National Government would be expected to do everything they say, I don’t know.

We have elections in this country to decide policies, and I am glad the Government has not gone down the total nanny state path. In some areas they have gone done that path, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

If Labour want to campaign at the next election to ban Tui billboards, outlaw alcohol sponsorship of sports, hike the alcohol excise tax by 50%, make it a crime for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine with his/her parents in a restaurant and force bars to have a one way policy at 2 am, then that would make my day. The alcohol zealots should encourage Labour to promise that, and then the people can decide at the election.

So what is in the Government’s proposals.

1. More powers for local authorities to set a local alcohol policy which will determine locations for licenses premises, trading hours etc. This is sensible in my opinion as the needs of Wainuiomata (for example) may be very different to Courtenay Place.
2. Tighter criteria for off-licenses so only eligible are retailers where alcohol is 85% of sales or grocery stores where food is 50% of sales, or hotels/taverns – unless there are a lack of premises in the area. Again, no real issues with this.
3. Provision of free drinking water a requirement for premises which sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. At present this is a custom, not a requirement.
4. A maximum trading hours for off-licenses of 7 am to 11 pm. I don’t support this, but am glad they at least changed it from 10 pm to 11 pm. I often am doing supermarket shopping at 10 pm, so will be able to grab a bottle of wine still.
5. Maximum trading hours for on-licenses from 8 am to 4 pm. Again I don’t support this, but it is only an hour earlier than the de facto 5 am close most places have. It isn’t true nothing good happens after 4 am – ironically by that time of the night you are normally on non alcohol drinks sobering up. So forcing a closure at 4 am may in fact make things worse.
6. Rejected the proposed one way policy from 2 am. Thank goodness for that. It would have destroyed Courtenay Place as you wouldn’t be able to have outside drinking areas under such a policy.  It would also have led to all sorts of problems as people can’t catch up with their friends etc.
7. Local authorities can vary the national trading hours (both shorter or longer) if they wish. So Queenstown for example might set a time beyond 4 am. However their decision can be appealed for reasonableness. I think this is good flexibility.
8. Parliament loses it exemption from liquor licensing laws.
9. Split purchase age of 18 for on-license and 20 for off-license. This will be a conscience vote. This is better than a 20/20 age but is quite deeply flawed. As one looks at the details one will still be able to supply alcohol to 18 and 19 year olds (just not sell it directly) so it will create a culture of supplying alcohol to those who can not legally buying it. You will hear more on this point.
10. Ironically 19 year olds will be able to sell alcohol in supermarkets and bottlestores, but not buy it! To be fair, currently a 17 year old can sell alcohol also.
11. Parents can continue to supply alcohol to their own children at home, or in any private setting or at certain licenses premises such as restaurants.
12. Under 18 year olds can not possess or drink alcohol in public, unless with a parent. This will be a $200 infringement.
13. Consent of a parent is needed to supply alcohol to an under 18 year old, and supply without consent can be a $2,000 fine. Long overdue – finally it is an offence to give a 14 year old a bottle of vodka.
14. The adult who supplies alcohol (with consent) to under 18 year olds must do so responsibly and supervise the consumption. Again – long overdue. This is what may have made a difference to the Kings College case.
15. The 50% increase in excise tax is rejected. Yay. I have yet to see a compelling economic analysis that the current excise tax does not cover the external costs of alcohol.
16. A minimum price regime will be considered in a year’s time once they gather data from retailers. I have some sympathy for a minimum price regime, as loss-leading on alcohol isn’t that desirable. It is a better response than an across the board excise tax increase.
17. Will be an offence to promote excessive consumption of alcohol or to advertise in a way that appeals to those under the purchase age. Also can not promote free alcohol or make purchase of alcohol mandatory for other goods and services.
18. The recommendation to have a total ban on all alcohol advertising and sponsorship has been rejected and sent back to Russia. Having said that I do think the current ASA code on alcohol advertising is ineffective and do actually support there being some sort of penalties for advertisements that breach the code. At present the only penalty is the advert gets withdrawn.
19. Makes it an offence with a fine of up to $2,000 to make a false representation of age. So having a fake ID could not be very expensive. Also an offence to lend someone your ID so they appear 20.
20. They have rejected the proposed $200 fine for people who spend the night in the cells detoxing. I like this proposal but the argument against is it would cost more to set up the fine system, than it would bring in, and also it may discourage drunk people from approaching the Police for assistance – which could lead them to more harm.
21. The Ministers of Justice and Health can ban certain products deemed undesirable such as alcoholic milk, or alcoholic iceblocks. I never knew one could get alcoholic milk!
22. RTDs to be a maximum 5% and also a maximum 1.5 standard drinks. This is also a good move, as it was the RTDs that had four or five standard drinks in them which were plastering people. At 1.5 standard drinks they actually become difficult to get too drunk off.

Overall, it could have been a lot worse – some stuff I don’t like, but they have rejected the worst excesses of the zealots. There are a lot of things there that will help – especially banning supply to under 18 year olds without consent or supervision.

I’ll blog more on this over time. But I think Simon Power has done a pretty good job with this one. As I said at the beginning, Labour will make my day if they campaign on implementing the entire Law Commission report.

There is compelling international evidence that increasing the legal alcohol purchasing age reduces harm and saves lives, a United States professor and alcohol expert has told MPs.

Yes it does. Putting the purchase age up to 30 would save lives. So would putting it up to 40. Banning spirits would save live. Bannign motor cars would reduce the road toll.

Any moron can come up with a list of measures to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. A group of seven year olds could probably do so as a class exercise. But they all miss the point.

The point they all miss, is what impact does this have on adult New Zealanders and their ability to have a drink without causing harm.

The arrogance of some of these experts is best characterised by this quote from Professor Doug Sellman:

“So, even though the science points strongly to the four key actions described above, our leaders could very well allow ideology to trump science. This brings to mind political regimes we tend to look down on with great disapproval.”

Sellman’s taxpayer funded lobby group has demanded that everything they recommend must be implemented by the Government, without question. f not, then it means we are some sort of third world country or dictatorship.

What fucking arrogance.

I encourage Professor Sellman to go form a political party, and campaign on his agenda. Once he wins  general election, he can lecture us on what the Government must do.

Sellman is like many zealots in this field. They think it is only about the “science”, They don’t realise it is also about rights of New Zealanders.

Personally I am glad we have a Government that doesn’t give the zealots a veto on policy. That actually thinks adult New Zealanders have certain rights.

MPs given a conscience vote on the legal drinking age would probably allow 18-year-olds into bars and pubs but return the off-licence purchase age to 20. …

Asked how they intended to vote on the alcohol purchase age, many MPs, including Mr Key and Opposition leader Phil Goff, said they were likely to vote for a split age which would keep the purchase age on licensed premises at 18, but raise the purchase age at liquor stores, supermarkets and other off-licence premises to 20.

This would be a better outcome that having the age for both at 20, but it would still be a flawed decision which will be not just ineffective, but possibly counter-productive.

Mr Goff also said it would be up to each Labour MP how they voted on the drinking age, but he supported a split age because it was better to have 18 and 19-year-olds drinking under supervision rather “than out of the back of a car in a reserve somewhere”.

The reality is this is not the choice for 18 and 19 year olds. The ones who drink in the backs of cars are the 16 and 17 year old, or even younger.

What 18 and 19 year olds do is they have a few drinks at home, before heading into the bars around midnight. And it is naive to think that they will not access alcohol to drink at home, and only drink when out in bars.

Even worse, a split age may actually work against engendering the culture change we need to change drinking habits amongst under 18 year olds.

Culture change is difficult, but not impossible. An example of a successful one is around youth drink driving. 30 years ago people would boast about driving smashed. Today the response from most young people to a revelation that a mate drove while pissed is to abuse the crap out of them for being a moron and risking lives. Drink driving has largely become uncool.

Now what we need is to make it uncool to supply alcohol to minors uner the age of 18. At present this is not even illegal. We need to both make it an offence to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds, but also make it very uncool to do so – to point out all the deaths that have occured from 16 and 17 year olds etc who drink themselves to death.

But this is where the problem occurs if you have a split age, with an age of 20 needed for off licenses. You see while I think you can get a culture change to make it uncool to supply alcohol to 16 and 17 year olds, there is no way NZers will buy into a culture of not allowing a 19 year old to buy a bottle of wine or a sixpack of beer. There is no way 20 year olds will feel some sort of moral obligation not to pass on alcohol to a 19 year old who has been voting, working etc for a couple of years.

However if you keep the age at 18, I think one can work towards a culture where 18, 19 and 20 year olds can be taught it is wrong to allow 16 and 17 year olds alcohol, and start to make it “uncool” as has happened with drink driving.

So I would urge those MPs who think 18/20 split age is a smart compromise, to consider what messages it will be sending out to young people.