Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

A test in which a Weekend Herald staff member knocked back nine beers before hitting the legal limit has brought accusations from health groups that the Government is condoning drink-driving. …

The two staff members who took part in the session, a female reporter and a male photographer, were shocked at how drunk they became before being over the limit. Both said they would not consider driving in that state.

Good. A limit is not a target. The limit is saying you are so impaired it is a criminal offence to drive your car. But that doesn’t mean it is safe to drive under that limit.

For example a speed limit may be 100 km/hr but in certain conditions it is dangerous to go more than 50 km/hr on an open speed road. Limits are not targets.

Photographer Richie Robinson, weighing 85kg, drank nine bottles of lager amounting to 11.7 standard drinks in just under four hours before reaching the limit of 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

Now that is a lot. But what they also report beyond the headline is

Reporter Beck Vass, at 59kg, remained slightly within the existing limit after drinking five glasses of wine in just under two hours. She would have passed 250mcg on her third glass.

So if the limit was dropped to 0.05, a 59 kg woman would be not able to drive if they have a third glass of wine.

So if a a guy and a girl go out on a dinner date and share a bottle of wine, the girl will be risking a criminal record if she drives afterwards, if the limit is lowered.

If the research shows that there are numerous accidents caused by drivers who are between 0.05 and 0.08, then there could well be a good case for lowering the limit. But at present, the only stat we have is that only one over over 25 driver killed last year had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

I’d definitely attend this if I was in Wellington. I encourage those interested in this issue to go along and hear the debate and have their say also:

Responsible Drinking: Who’s Responsible?

Responding to the Law Commission’s paper
Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm

Trinity Group invites you to attend a public forum to discuss the Law Commission’s recommended alcohol reforms
Trinity is a specialist hospitality company based in Wellington. It owns and operates bars, restaurants, bottle stores, and hotels and motels in the lower half of the North Island.

Trinity Group wants the government to:
• Retain the current alcohol purchase age at 18, and to establish a drinking age of 18 years old
• Encourage people to take personal responsibility for their drinking, and to
• Encourage people to drink more in regulated environments, such as bars.

Featuring the Hon Peter Dunne, United Future Leader and Associate Minister of Health and Gerard Vaughan, CEO, Alcohol Advisory Council of NZ

Chaired by Jeremy Smith, Managing Director, Trinity Group

6-7pm, Tuesday 27 July 2010
at the St Johns Bar, 5 Cable Street, Wellington
We will be serving complimentary nibbles and non-alcoholic drinks

www.trinitygroup.co.nz

Good on Trinity for arranging a forum, with balanced speakers. I find it interesting that they promote a drinking age, as well as a purchase age. This is where I tend to be also.

Yay. The main floor of the National Party conference just voted (around 60% in favour) to support a remit calling for the purchase age of alcohol to remain 18, but to enforce current law more effectively.

That’s a huge victory, and big ups to the Young Nationals who spoke well in favour of it. To win over the majority of delegates who are almost all aged over 40 is a great testament to the power of logical argument.

The vote is not binding on MPs (the only MPs I saw with their hands up were David Bennett and Nikki Kaye, but I couldn’t see them all) but it will be of some influence that their own party conference basically said that raising the purchase age was the wrong response to the right problem. There was good discussion that a better course of action is to target supply of alcohol to those aged under 18.

They also after the remit announced the results of the board election, The three candidates elected (in order) were Peter Goodfellow, Roger Bridge and Malcolm Plimmer.

The Herald reports:

One in 10 licensed premises sold alcohol to 15-year-olds in a sting in the Auckland City police district.

Three boys and three girls were instructed not to dress to look older or wear make-up when they entered 162 businesses armed with $20 cash and no ID.

Seventeen outlets were busted breaking the law and will be referred to the Liquor Licensing Authority for suspension or cancellation of their licences.

Excellent – there is no excuse for serving 15 year olds. You are meant to ask for ID if they look under 25 (in some outlets under 30).

Before one even considers changes to the purchase age, the current purchase age should be enforced.

Mr Loye said police ran stings such as last week’s throughout the country every few months.

That’s the problem. Why only every few months? I’d have a dedicated team that does this pretty much every week. If you did that, I reckon within six months you’d have 100% compliance.

If the Police can find the time to lobby almost every individual MP on their desired alcohol law changes, then they should find the time to enforce the current laws properly.

Likewise in another story:

Teenage forgers have sold dozens of fake driver’s licences for up to $60 each in a sophisticated operation that has astounded police.

Two 17-year-olds in Hamilton face charges over their part in a forged licence ring.

Their arrests on Friday and Monday follow a similar Hamilton bust two years ago when 10 teenagers appeared in court over altering or using forged documents to enter bars or buy cigarettes.

City tactical co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Greg Dunn said the operation was “of a degree not encountered in the Waikato before” and an array of computers, laminators, scanners and printers had been seized.

Again congrats to Police for taking action. But why only one bust? A huge number of under 18 year olds have fake IDs. If you don’t crack down on them, then the purchase age becomes meaningless.

Richard Long writes:

Sir Paul Reeves, our new campaigner for tougher drinking laws, should have learnt a lesson from the ill-fated Citizens for Rowling campaign. Sir Paul was a leading member of that gathering of the great and the good who coalesced in 1975 with the aim of trying to keep Labour prime minister Bill Rowling in office by blocking the rabble-rousing National Party leader Rob Muldoon.

Mr Muldoon was indicating the combative style he would bring to Kiwi politics when he said of Rowling on the hustings: ”I can see the cold shivers moving around his body looking for a spine to run up.”

As for Labour’s Maori affairs minister, Matt Rata, Mr Muldoon declared: ”The five happiest years of Mr Rata’s life were those he spent in standard two.”

Heh.

But in spite of such raw provocations from Mr Muldoon, the Citizens for Rowling group sank in the mire of Kiwi egalitarianism.

Even though the list included such national heroes as Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary, the overall view was that a bunch of elitists were presuming to tell average Kiwis how to vote.

Citizens for Rowling ended up probably doing more harm than good to Labour’s cause. As Mr Muldoon said at the time: ”The average chap doesn’t want to be told how to vote.”

I agree it did backfire. Likewise the efforts to have an Australian Republic backfired because it was seen as the elite telling the commoners what to do.

Now Sir Paul has been named as a leading member of another 15-strong group presuming to tell us what is good for us – or more precisely what is bad for us – in terms of laws governing the demon drink.

The eminent persons group is an eclectic mix, ranging from churchmen to Maori and Pacific Island spokesmen to sports stars, including the wonderful Evers-Swindell twins.

They back higher alcohol prices, reduced outlets, more restrictions on advertising, tougher drink driving limits, and an increase in the purchase age from 18 to 20 – in effect the prescription written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission.

And yes, you do recall correctly: Sir Geoffrey was also a member of Citizens for Rowling.

Maybe it should be called “The Wowsers Strike Back”

Some of the most tragic cases of liquor-induced deaths have been among under 18-year-olds. They were able to obtain and misuse hard liquor in spite of the legal purchase age. In some cases accompanying friends did nothing while they drank themselves to death.

We have heard heart-tugging pleas from relatives seeking action as a result of these tragedies, but penalising the entire community with higher prices and other restrictions will not relieve the underage drinking problem.

At some stage it has to be acknowledged that there are parental responsibilities in this as well as community responsibilities.

There are problems with alcohol abuse in NZ. Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.

The Dom Post reports:

A binge-drinker who started drinking when he was four is an example of why New Zealand’s drinking culture needs attention, a district court judge says. …

Hakaraia, who was an alcohol and drug addict by the age of 12, was an example of why Parliament was trying to tackle the youth binge-drinking culture, Judge Oke Blaikie said.

“There is a photo of you on files drinking a can of alcohol when you were just age four.

“From 13 to 18, you would drink four bottles of straight bourbon or gin with a few mates on a Friday and Saturday alone,” Judge Blaikie said.

When he was 12, Hakaraia was smoking cannabis twice a day. During his teenage years, it was costing $400 a week to feed his addictions, which led to a life of crime and years spent behind bars.

This is an awful tale, and is a sterling example of the harm that can be caused.

However I note that very few of the Law Commission proposals will have any impact on what happened, so that a four year old is drinking alcohol.

Certainly lowering the purchase age from 20 to 18 will have zero impact on this situation.

Neither will forcing bars to have a one way policy.

What will have an impact is making it an offence for youth to be supplied alcohol irresponsibly.

What would have an impact is having a drinking age, not just a purchase age.

The Herald reports:

The Government is considering making it unlawful for adults to give alcohol to young people without their parents’ consent.

At present, under-18s can be given liquor without consent if they are in private homes or at private functions.

Justice Minister Simon Power says parental consent is one of the liquor issues he is looking at but stresses that a change is not a certainty.

“This is a really delicate balance because National is not in the business of getting into people’s homes on issues like this and telling them how to run their lives,” he said last night.

“But the sheer proliferation of outlets and the time that liquor is now available definitely changes the framing of this debate.”

Mr Power said parents had asked for such a move to help deal with teenage drinking. “I do think there is starting to emerge a view from parents that they would like some more assistance from the law to be able to have a firmer view on how their children are supplied with alcohol.”

At present it is totally legal for an adult to give a 14 year old a bottle of vodka. It is also totally legal for that 14 year old to share it with his or her friends. And they can drink that bottle of vodka in public view on the front lawn of a private residence, and the Police can do nothing about it.

I am supportive of the Government bringing in law changes to make it illegal to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds. The tougher issue is how to define the exceptions. Most people would support a parental exception- you can argue about whether it should be a total exception, or only for kids over a certain age (say 14) and also whether there should be a requirement for any alcohol supplied to be done so in a “responsible” manner.

The other issue is whether parents can authorise another adult (ie parents of a friend) to legally supply alcohol, and does such consent need to be in writing, or implied. In this case one would also expect any supply to be done responsibly, which probably means an adult must supervise – and that adult can be held legally liable for any irresponsible drinking (such as that which has led to 10 teenagers drinking themselves to death).

A law which makes it illegal to supply alcohol to 14 year olds will be far more effective, than making it illegal for  19 year olds to have a glass of wine in a restaurant over dinner.

To that end it was pleasing to see Simon Power state on Q+A that if there was a conscience vote on the purchase age, he would vote to keep it 18.

A mixture of priests, rowers, former Governor-Generals and the like assembled yesterday to demand that the Government adopt every single recommendation made by the Law Commission on alcohol.

I wonder how many of the group of 14 have actually read the report and recommendations? There’s 512 pages to read and around 100 recommendations. If you are going to lend your name to such a report, I hope you have had the decency to read the whole thing – not just the executive summary.

Did media ask any of the “celebrities” if they had read the full report? Did they ask them if they can cite the major recommendations?

The NZ Herald focuses on the topical Afghanistan:

Tensions between generals in the field and their civilian masters are a fact of life. Armed forces chiefs are able to focus solely on battlefield strategy and having the necessary manpower and resources.

The purview of politicians must be wider, not least in considering the popular appetite for war.

Not surprisingly, generals often become impatient at what they consider interference in the prosecution of a war. In moments of candour, they might convey their annoyance to well-trusted aides. Otherwise, they keep their counsel.

They know that if such sentiments become public knowledge, their position becomes untenable. Such is now the case with General Stanley McChrystal, the United States commander in Afghanistan.

And he has paid the price.

General McChrystal’s blunder is the more unfortunate in that his strategy is the best chance of achieving a stability in Afghanistan that will pave the way for an orderly exit.

His approach has eschewed lofty goals, such as embedding a model democracy, and concentrated on “Afghanising” the conflict through the rapid training and arming of Kabul’s forces.

He also understands the importance of gaining a settlement with more pragmatic elements of the Taleban, thereby creating a political consensus. The present “surge”, which has achieved mixed results, is an attempt to accelerate that outcome.

The eminent sense in General McChrystal’s strategy means he has not been without his defenders. One of the more interesting was the much-maligned Afghan President.

A spokesman for Hamid Karzai said he believes General McChrystal is “the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years”.

A sad end to a fine career.

The Press looks at the breath testing of spectators for a school by rugby match:

The scene outside the front gate of Christ’s College on Tuesday was extraordinary.

Eight police officers were lined up administering breath tests to spectators arriving to watch the annual Christ’s College-Christchurch Boys’ High School rugby match. The police were required to enforce a zero alcohol policy imposed by Christ’s College for the match in an attempt to stop the drunken yahoo off-field brawling that has, over the last decade or so, become a feature of the encounter.

The policy seems to have been a success. For the first time in years, the game passed off without an outbreak of violence or indeed any untoward incidents at all. No-one was arrested or ejected from the ground, in a striking contrast with last year’s event which was, as Inspector Derek Erasmus observed, notable for “baton charges and multiple arrests”.

Something we have seen recently is that a huge amount can be done within the current Sale of Liquor Act.

The Dom Post opines on the departure of Sean Plunket from Radio NZ:

Broadcaster Sean Plunket has finally made good on his threats to quit Radio New Zealand National to seek fresh fields. Though his willingness to ask hard questions will be missed, his decision – a long time coming, given his testy relationship with his masters – will be good for him and might even be good for the company. …

Plunket’s departure, alongside suggestions that Robinson will retire within two years, gifts RNZ’s chief executive, Peter Cavanagh, and the board a rare opportunity. Does today’s three-hour mix of hard news and the odd joker work as well now, in a multi-media environment, as when the hour-long programme launched 35 years ago?

And the ODT finally comments on the China protest:

According to the police, a number of witnesses were spoken to after Green Party co-leader Russel Norman complained of assault by Chinese security agents attending the visit to Parliament by China’s Vice-president, Xi Jiping, last week.

Presumably, these included members of the force stationed at Parliament Buildings.

Police also studied film footage and photographs of the incident, and had sought, to no avail, to speak to the Chinese alleged to be involved.

It was concluded – quite swiftly in the circumstances – there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a prosecution.

This should be no surprise.

The prospect of the police mounting a sufficiently strong case was weakened as soon as it became clear that Dr Norman had apparently moved from his initial location at the foot of the steps to Parliament’s main building to the entrance of the Beehive to be very much closer to the point at which the vice-president passed, thus himself contributing to a degree to the predictable response by Chinese security guards charged with protecting their leader. …

The fact remains that he was allowed to have his protest – his “free speech” action was not suppressed and could be heard loud and clear, although it must be considered a certainty the Chinese security guards had not the faintest notion who he was.

Successive New Zealand governments have in the past decade or more routinely expressed concern – on behalf of Dr Norman and other protesters – to Chinese visitors about the infringements of human rights in China, while successfully maintaining a relationship that has resulted in China becoming our second largest trading partner.

That relationship is hardly to be jeopardised on the strength of one MP’s needless behaviour.

Working out rules for MPs (or others) protesting should not be difficult.

Should they be allowed in an area where they can be seen? Yes.

Should they be allowed in an area where the target of their protest can hear them? Yes.

Should they be allowed close enough to a VIP that they could seriously humiliate them by grabbing them, spitting on them, throwing or squiriting something at them – no.

So the question is merely how wide should the corridor be, which they can’t cross into. I’d say around 10 – 12 metres. You can protest very effectively still at that range.

Dom Post reports:

Twin backing from Wellington’s mayor and police was not enough to see a city-wide liquor ban in the city, with strong public opposition prevailing.

Instead, the city council’s strategy and policy committee voted 9-6 yesterday to extend the booze ban – already in place in central Wellington, Aro Valley and the Mt Victoria lookout – only to Mt Cook and Newtown.

The council had considered the city-wide ban to curb drinking in public places, which can lead to aggressive and intimidatory behaviour.

The proposal sparked fears it was draconian and could see people arrested for enjoying a glass of wine at a picnic.

Exactly. It would have been illegal to crack open a bottle of bubbles in the picnic area at Otari Wilton Bush. The proposed ban was just the latest in draconian over-reach over alcohol.

A targeted ban in areas where there are problems is far more sensible.

Wellington police had backed it as being easier for the public to grasp.

“Police have indicated the focus of enforcement is on anti-social behaviour, and will largely be complaint-driven in suburban areas,” a council report said. ‘Although a possibility, it is unlikely that someone having a glass of wine with a picnic will be arrested.”

Possible but unlikely is not an acceptable threshold for me.

HOW THEY VOTED

For: Stephanie Cook, Jo Coughlan, Rob Goulden, John Morrison, Mayor Kerry Prendergast, Helene Ritchie.

Against: Ray Ahipene-Mercer, Ngaire Best, Andy Foster, Leonie Gill, Ian McKinnon, Iona Pannett, Bryan Pepperell, Celia Wade- Brown, Hayley Wain.

What unusual voting combinations.

AP reports:

A judge has ordered Lindsay Lohan to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet and refused to ease restrictions involving drug and alcohol testing so the actress can film a movie in Texas. …

She spent more than two hours after the hearing waiting for a bracelet to be placed on her ankle. The device gets a signal through the skin if a person has been drinking and sends the signal to the company that monitors it, court spokesman Alan Parachini said.

I didn’t know this technology exists. I wonder how long before Sir Geoffrey Palmer proposes that such bracelets be made compulsory for anyone aged under 25?

The Herald is on the new state sector rules:

One of the important principles of any liberal democracy is the political neutrality of the state service. For our system to function smoothly it is necessary for the public and political parties of all persuasions to have rock-solid confidence that the state service will behave professionally and impartially, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

This is so basic that it almost goes without saying, and yet the State Services Commission has felt it necessary to take steps to clarify just what public servants’ obligations are under their code of conduct. Much of its 33 pages of guidelines for interpreting the code is good, common sense, but in one respect it seems to have broken new ground.

It now seems public servants need to be careful not just about their own political and pecuniary interests but also those of close family members as well. Not surprisingly, this has caused some raised eyebrows because, in political terms at least, it seems fundamentally unfair to judge a person by someone else’s allegiances.

I agree you should not be judged by a family member’s activities.

To apply such a standard generally would lead to endless and pointless complications, especially in a small country. What, for instance, would it make of a pair of brothers one of whom was the most senior public servant in the land and the other a leader of a political party?

In most cases a public servant will take a common sense approach and tell their boss that they have a family member politically engaged if it is relevant to their job. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but to protect themselves. However there is no need to codify it.

The Press looks at Tuhoe:

Speaking at a National Party conference on Sunday, Prime Minister John Key presented an optimistic scenario of improved race relations and he praised the contribution to his Government of the Maori Party.

Yet within one day Key had outraged the Maori Party and Tuhoe by scuppering a deal to give Te Urewera National Park back to that iwi, as part of its Treaty settlement. The real mystery here is why Key suddenly lost his nerve and intervened at the very last minute after months of negotiations.

This agreement was understood to have been due to go before Cabinet on Monday. It is believed it would have vested ownership of the park in Tuhoe’s ancestors to prevent its sale. …

The Tuhoe settlement would have come after New Zealand signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted the Whanau Ora policy of the Maori Party and agreed to replace the foreshore and seabed law.

And in my minds, that is probably what led to the Tuhoe deal having a limit placed on it publicly. It would have been too far too many “wins” within a very tight timeframe.

The question for Tuhoe now is whether they still try to make a settlement with this Government, or whether they hold off and hope they can get a better deal from a future Labour Government.

The Dom Post focuses on alcohol:

Neither an increase in the tax nor lifting the drinking age would have saved James. The vodka bottle from which he was seen drinking as if its contents were water had come from his grandmother’s drinks cabinet.

However, making alcohol more expensive and reducing its availability to teenagers might just prevent another youngster from making the same mistake.

Denying those old enough to vote, to marry and to go to war the right to buy a cold beer at the end of a hot summer’s day would be a draconian measure. So would putting up the price of everyone’s favourite tipple to make alcopops less attractive. But something has to be done. The evidence is incontrovertible that New Zealand’s unhealthy attitude to alcohol is spreading downwards to those least equipped to deal with it.

Again, I think a drinking age is the best option. It would be a clear message to both adults and youth that you should not be drinking when you are at an age (and brain development) unable to handle it.

Sixteen-year-olds are in no position to assess the dangers of binge-drinking. Fifteen, 14 and 13-year-olds even less so. If the industry cannot find a way to keep alcohol out of the hands of children, society must.

The industry did not supply the bottle of vodka. But I agree alcohol should be kept out of the hands of children. Make it an offence for a young person to possess or consume alcohol except in the company of their parents. And make it an offence for anyone but a parent to supply alcohol to young persons.

New Zealand does not have a drinking age. People often confuse the purchase age with a drinking age. Many do not realise it is entirely legal for a few dozen 14 year olds to drink vodka at a party.

And it is also not illegal to supply said vodka to 14 year olds. It is only an offence if you purchase the vodka with the intent of supply – something near impossible to prove.

I believe the misguided calls to change the purchase age, party come about because there is no drinking age, and people feel something has to be done about youth drinking, such as reported in today’s Herald:

A King’s College boarder died in his sleep at the weekend after drinking at a friend’s birthday party – the second tragedy to hit the prestigious school in four months.

Students will today wear white – the school’s formal uniform – to mark the death of 16-year-old James Webster, known to mates as “Webby” and described by his headmaster as a “wonderful boy and a great all-rounder”.

“The cause of death has not been determined. What is known is that he died in his sleep during last night. I don’t know the full details yet. I understand that he was at a friend’s birthday party earlier on the Saturday evening.”

An incredibly sad occurrence. However what happened would not have been prevented by making it illegal for a 19 year old to drink wine in a restaurant, or buy a six pack at the supermarket.

The Law Commission has advocated raising the legal drinking age to 20.

The Herald story has it wrong. There is no legal drinking age. There is a purchase age only. A change to the purchase age would have had no impact on what happened.

The Law Commission does recommend a new offence which “may” have helped:

Introducing an offence for any person to supply alcohol to a minor under the age of 18 unless that person is the minor’s parent or guardian or a responsible adult authorised by the parent or guardian and unless the alcohol is supplied
in a responsible manner. This means that any person legally entitled to supply a minor who then fails to supply in a responsible manner, including providing appropriate supervision, also commits an offence.

We don’t know if there were any adults at this party, but even the Law Commission’s proposals won’t cover all situations. If the parents were out, and the kids just raided the drinks cabinet, then what happened would still have broken no law.

Hence if one is to get serious about the problems of youth drinking, I think it is time to have a drinking age, not just a purchase age. It is daft to turn 140,000 18 and 19 year olds into criminals, because of 14 year olds drinking at parties.

So what do I propose. A two step drinking age.

1. That it shall be illegal for a child under the age of 16 to consume alcohol, and for anyone to supply them with alcohol
2. That 16 and 17 year olds can drink, but only in the company and direct supervision of their parents

One could argue about whether the age should be 14, 15 or 16. I have gone for 16 because it is consistent with the age young people gain many partial rights – to have sex, to drive etc.

I am open to persuasion it could be lower, but frankly I don’t think 15 year olds should be drinking alcohol. At 15 you should be able to have heaps of fun without the need for alcohol, which as we saw few can handle at that age.

Now some will say a drinking age law is impractical, and interferes with parents rights to introduce alcohol to their kids at an earlier age.

First I would argue that having a law which says under 16 year olds should not drink, will actually help many parents in giving them a reason not to allow under 16s to drink. But if they do allow them to have some wine at dinner, no one is going to call the cops.

A drinking age would allow the Police to break up parties of drinking teens on private property. If you are under 16 and drinking, you are breaking the law. And I think it is important the law places some responsibilities on the youth that breaks the law, not just on any suppliers.

The second part is that 16 and 17 year olds can drink, but only in the company of their parents. This is in fact more restrictive than what the Law Commission proposes. I think the Law Commission proposal will be ineffective as again it only targets supply, not consumption. In the absence of proof over supply, the Police can do nothing.

I think one can debate about whether drinking of 16 and 17 olds should be restricted to in parental company, or other adults. The trouble with allowing it to be with other adults, is the lowest common denominator sets the standards.

What do others think? Should there be a drinking age, not just a purchase age? If so, what should it be, and what exceptions (if any) should there be?

If you think putting the alcohol purchase age up to 20 is discriminatory, feel free to join the over 3,700 people on the Facebook page for the campaign, and/or follow the twitter feed.

The four youth wings had a joint press conference at Parliament today on the Law Commission report. NZPA report:

Keep it 18 spokeswoman Jenna Raeburn, 22, said today it was a contradiction that 18 and 19-year-olds could work in a bar, vote, get married or become a prostitute and politicians were considering taking away their right to drink alcohol.

There were also benefits of drinking, which were not mentioned in the Law Commission report, she said.

“The fact that people like to drink speaks for itself.

“Going out and drinking, and even going out and getting drunk, can be a lot of fun.”

Ms Raeburn said raising the alcohol purchase age would punish the majority for the actions of a few problem drinkers.

There were quite a few questions about what is meant by “getting drunk” and “binge drinking”. Jenna was differentiating between what many of us have been – tipsy type drunk, and heavily drunk, where you cause damage to yourself or others.

The Law Commission report I’m told defined binge drinking as four or more drinks in a night for a woman, and six for a man. Jenna rejected that definition, and some journalists were asserting you can’t disagree with the science quoted.

That got me thinking. If four drinks or more in a night represents binge drinking, then I would say 95% of people at the annual press gallery party are binge drinkers.

If you have six drinks in an hour, that is probably binge drinking. But six drinks over a six hour party, with plenty of food, is not – well to me anyway.

ACT on Campus president Peter McCaffrey, 22, said Members of Parliament who wanted to raise the drinking age should reject any votes they receive from 18 and 19-year-olds at the next election.

“If an 18-year-old is not rational enough to be able to have a beer after work with their workmates, how can they possibly make such an important decision as to who should represent them in Parliament?”

Heh that was a great point.

Young Labour spokeswoman Nicola Wood, 17, said the Government would do better to enforce current law rather than punishing the majority of the 140,000 18 and 19-year-olds who were responsible drinkers.

“Creating a culture of responsible drinking only comes from policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol.”

There is some clear evidence that existing laws are not enforced. Off memory only one conviction for serving an intoxicated person and 27 for serving under age.

Young Greens spokesman Zachary Dorner, 20, said many older people also drank excessively.

“Eighteen and 19-year-olds are not the problem — drinking is.”

Raising the purchase age of alcohol was a “discriminatory solution” and could not address the cultural issues around drinking in New Zealand.

The law was also likely to be flouted, he said.

Mr Dorner proposed restricting alcohol supply and advertising, increasing education and treatment accessibility and community control as the best ways to improve the drinking culture here.

Solving the cultural issues around binge drinking are not easy, but making it illegal for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine, with their parents, in a restaurant will just make things worse in my opinion.

Young Nats president Daniel Fielding, 23, said an 18-year-old has the responsibilities of adulthood so there was no justification for restricting their right to consume alcohol.

Young people were a “convenient scapegoat”, he said.

“Solutions need to focus on problem drinkers, not punish all drinkers.

“A blanket measure of raising the drinking age will not change the drinking culture.”

It says something when all four of these parties have their youth wings in agreement on the age issue.

Scoop also has a story, plus audio.

All four are on the proposed alcohol law reform. First up the Herald:

Against earlier indications and its better judgment perhaps, the Law Commission has recommended a drastic reversal of 20 years of liberal liquor regulation. …

f Parliament takes the commission’s advice, the minimum purchasing age will be restored to 20 without previous exceptions. A reasonable suggestion that 18 might remain the minimum for licensed premises, with 20 for off-licence purchases, has come to nothing.

Students and other 18 and 19-year-olds will lose the right to drink in bars and clubs unless MPs take a more realistic view. …

Communities ought to be able to decide the character and scale of their liquor supply.

That goes for inner city nightlife districts too. The commission’s proposed prohibition on all-night bars is needless. While a 4am closure would be late enough for anybody most of the time, there is self-evidently a demand for all night services in the central city and they should not be prohibited without good cause and proven benefit.

The past 20 years might not have made us more civilised but previous experience suggests the proposed regime would be a retrograde step, destined for regret.

I like the comment one journalist made to me about the proposed regime. They said they tried to thing of a single thing short on outright prohibition that Sir Geoffrey did not recommend, and they couldn’t think of any.

Next The Press:

There will be support for raising the purchase age to 20 years at all venues selling alcohol, because the experiment of lowering the age a decade ago has been a costly failure.

As critics feared, the age when teenagers begin drinking has percolated down, with many as young as 14 years heavily imbibing, and there is growing evidence of the harm alcohol does to developing brains.

Raising the age should make it harder for under-age drinkers to buy alcohol and less likely for older friends or relatives to purchase it for those as young as 14. The medical evidence also outweighs complaints from older teenagers that it is unfair to raise the liquor purchase age when they can drive or marry at a younger age.

I hate such fuzzy logic. Advocating that the solution to stopping 14 year olds getting alcohol is to make it illegal for 19 year olds to go to a bar or have wine in a restaurant. They also ignore the evidence most under age alcohol supply comes from parents.

While much attention will centre on the purchase age and the proposed increase in the alcohol excise tax, even though the latter is unlikely to be implemented, the commission’s recommendations should be regarded as a coherent package, with the focus on moderation and responsibility.

It’s a coherent package alright. Prohibition was coherent also.

The Dom Post:

The problem the commission faces is that, in seeking to deal with problem drinkers, it has also affected the majority, who believe they drink responsibly.

No-one wants drunks running amok in the capital’s party zone, but nor do they want to be told that they cannot buy a bottle of wine to take home from a supermarket after 10pm.

There are similar reservations over the proposed rise in the drinking age to 20. Whatever the science – and recent research indicates that the effects of alcohol on young brains have been underestimated – convincing the public that people old enough to vote, join the armed forces and marry are not mature enough to buy a cold beer at the end of a hot summer’s day will not be easy.

More particularly, politicians who want the age to rise will have to tell a sizeable chunk of their voters – the 18 to 20-year-olds – that a right they previously had would be taken from them. In the face of a promised organised campaign by young people, including the youth wings of major parties, to keep the age at 18, that is asking for a lot of political courage.

The talk of political courage reminds of of the Yes Minister episode when teh sure fire way to scare a Minister off doing something is to tell them doing so would be brave or courageous

And the ODT:

Our most recent experiment with liberalisation has proved to be a fatally attractive combination for our youth in the sale of wine and beer in supermarkets and the reduction of the minimum age of purchase to 18 years.

No doubt mature and sensible drinkers have welcomed both innovations – supermarket sales statistics would seem to bear out that presumption – and the State has certainly benefited from taxes on alcohol, for excise tax alone produced more than $900 million in 2008. …

To some extent, the additional recommendations of the commission – restrictions on who can supply alcohol to minors and in what circumstances; increasing the ability of local people to influence how and where alcohol is sold in their communities; a civil cost recovery regime for those taken into custody when grossly intoxicated – may have a greater long-term impact than simply increasing the purchase age. …

The way I count it is one editorial pretty hostile to the thrust of the Law Commission’s recommendations, one very supportive and two somewhat cautiously in the middle – pro doing something, but not everything.

YOUTH WINGS CALL ON PARLIAMENT TO KEEP IT 18

The youth wings of the National, Labour, Green and ACT parties have joined forces in the Keep It 18 campaign, to tell their MPs that increasing the purchase age for alcohol to 20 is the wrong thing to do.

“Parliament has twice voted for the purchase age to be 18, and it is disappointing that the Law Commission is trying to turn the clock back again,” said group spokesperson Jenna Raeburn.

In 1999 Parliament voted to change the age of purchase from 20 to 18 by 59 votes to 55. The previous law had numerous exemptions to it, so in fact 18 year olds had been able to legally drink alcohol in licensed premises for many decades.

In 2006 a move to change it back to 18 was defeated 49 votes to 72. The members of Keep It 18 urge MPs to not spend time on trying to reverse history, but instead to focus on measures that target problem drinkers, rather than seek to punish all 140,000 18 and 19 year olds.

“While primarily focused on the purchase age, we also are concerned over the proposed nationwide setting of closing times, and mandating a one way policy for bars after 2 am. In our opinion, these also fail to target problem drinkers, and again will disadvantage the many responsible young people who enjoy a night out dancing and drinking with friends.”

Young Nationals President Daniel Fielding said “Let’s not have a return to nanny state policies, a blanket measure of raising the drinking age will not change the drinking culture. This can only be achieved by introducing measures that places responsibility back onto the individual“

Nicola Wood, Young Labour spokesperson for Keep It 18 said “Young Labour feel a higher drinking age would serve only to exacerbate the harms caused by alcohol. If we want to create a culture of responsible drinking, we need policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol, while at the same time acknowledging that this broad problem cannot be pinned on one sector of society. We will oppose any change to the law which discriminates unfairly against young people “

Zachary Dorner, Young Greens spokesperson said “Raising the drinking age has more to do with pointing the finger at young people than solving the real issues. What we need to do is to take a look at ourselves and start treating alcohol as the harmful drug that it is”

ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said “Politicians have no right to tell New Zealanders what they can consume and when they can consume it. The government’s role is to protect you from others not from yourself. The government should focus on targeting people who are causing harm to others rather than act as a nanny-state, telling everyone how much fun they can have “

Jenna Raeburn continued “All our political parties have 18 and 19 year old members who are allowed to vote, allowed to marry, allowed to have sex, and trusted enough to go out and do volunteer work for their parties. Saying that these same members can not be trusted to purchase a bottle of wine from a supermarket or a pint of beer at a bar is hypocritical and insulting, and we urge all MPs in Parliament to reject an age change.”

“We accept the problems caused by alcohol abuse in our society, and are happy to work with MPs in identifying which proposals put forward by the Law Commission are worth supporting. But increasing the purchase age is not one of them. Criminalising 140,000 18 and 19 year olds is the wrong answer,” concluded Miss Raeburn.

Their report is here. There are 153 recommendations. They include:

• A 50% increase in average excise tax on alcohol
• Purchase age from 18 to 20
• No exemptions for 18 and 19 year olds, even if with parents at a on-license (illegal for someone the day before their 20th birthday to have a glass of wine with their parents at a restaurant – madness)
• 10 pm close time for off licenses
• 4 am close time for on licenses
• no entry policy after 2 am
• ultimate aim should be to arrive at a point where no alcohol advertising is permitted in any media other than that which simply gives straight product information (certain sports codes will hate this one – also bans Tui billboards)
• A $250 “notice of debt” on anyone who is held overnight for intoxication (I like that one)
• drop drive drive limit from 0.08 to 0.05
• consideration of alcohol ignition locking devices on cars for all convicted drink-drivers (that one also worthwhile IMO)
• new offence of supplying alcohol to a minor under 18 (worth considering IMO)

There are some worthwhile recommendations, but the ones around a huge tax increase, the drinking age and a nationwide closing time are far too nanny state for me.

The report comes over as very wowserish in places, such as:

A familiar refrain we heard in our consultations and the submissions is that moderate drinkers should not be punished for the abuses of a minority.

The statistics in New Zealand tend to give lie to the bald assertion that the “vast majority of New Zealanders drink responsibly”. Instead they suggest that the majority of drinkers get drunk occasionally …

Oh my God. Call the Police. The majority of drinkers have occasionally got drunk. So effing what. Do they bash people up? Do they commit crime?

The SST reports:

Tough new alcohol laws would make New Zealand an “international laughing stock” during the Rugby World Cup – but it is understood the government is secretly planning to override any attempt to spoil the party.

Auckland mayor John Banks says the Law Commission’s proposal to ban entry to bars after 2am would damage New Zealand’s interests as host of next year’s tournament.

The proposal, just one of the commission’s recommendations to toughen liquor laws, “doesn’t fit with Auckland’s role as host city for the cup”, Banks told the Sunday Star-Times.

Can you just imagine the scenes. NZ has won the Rugby World Cup. A million Kiwis are celebrating in town, and then suddenly nanny state says you can’t walk down the street and enter another bar to catch up with your friends.

World Cup Minister Murray McCully is also understood to be concerned at the effect on the cup of the commission’s proposals. Sources told the Star-Times he is preparing a World Cup Empowering Bill which will make it easier to obtain liquor licences at cup venues.

One source claimed that under the bill a temporary commissioner would grant special world cup liquor licences. It was not clear what premises would be eligible – while “fanzones” such as at Auckland’s Aotea Square, where matches will be broadcast on huge screens, would be included, normal bars may not.

Rather than have special laws for the Rugby World Cup, surely we should have laws that are fit for purpose all year long. Is the Government really going to impose nanny state laws on us in advance of the Rugby World Cup, but lift them just for the Cup?

The owner of Auckland’s Sale Street and Chapel Bar and Bistro, Luke Dallow, slammed the proposed restrictions as “pathetic” and warned they would make New Zealand the laughing stock of the world.

“We have to grow up. We’re an international city. In the great cities of the world they don’t have these restrictions. It is bizarre and archaic… we’re all adults here and we have to make our own decisions.”

This is the problem with a one size fits all approach. I’m not against certain communities being able to have restrictions in their area, if they have problems. But imposing a nationwide closing time and entry time is lowest common denominator thinking.

Banks said it was “absolutely important that we front-foot Auckland as a premier host city and as an internationally competitive metropolis, which means that we have to have sensible liquor licensing laws. If you close all licensed premises at an arbitrary hour of 1 or 2am you simply move the problem from bad licensed premises on to streets that become bad”.

I suspect violence will increase if bars are forced to adopt a no entry policy. You’ll need heaps more bouncers if people can see a bar is still open, but they can’t go inside to rejoin their mates.

Also I wonder how it will work in areas where bars have outside seating? Will they put barbed wire up to keep people from sitting down?

Great release from Rodney and Heather:

“The Law Commission’s reported proposals on alcohol are frankly ludicrous”, ACT Deputy Leader Heather Roy said today.

“They cannot possibly pass the government’s tests for good regulatory and tax policy.”

“It seems the Commission wants to take New Zealand back to the days of punitive excise taxation and nanny state regulation of shop trading hours, closing times for bars and the purchase age.

“We have been there and done that with alcohol policy and it didn’t work,” Mrs Roy said.

Since liberalisation that commenced in 1989, consumption per head has declined significantly and there has been no increase in hazardous drinking. The vast majority of New Zealanders have a responsible attitude to alcohol.

“The tourism, hospitality and entertainment industries, and New Zealanders at large, have hugely benefited from less repressive policies on alcohol over the past 20 years. Imagine overseas visitors coming to New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup and finding it closed.”

Any law changes will be passed before the RWC. It will be interesting to see how that contrasts with plans for the RWC to be hosted by 4 million kiwis, and venues like party central.

ACT Leader Rodney Hide said “The Government needs strategies that target the small percentage of drinkers who cause the problems. This could include better enforcement of existing laws, greater penalties for drunken and disorderly behaviour, banning orders and public naming and shaming of serious offenders, stricter welfare policies for alcohol and drug abusers and less access to services such as ACC.”

This is the key. I’ll support measures that target problem drinkers, rather than those that target everyone who likes to have a drink.

As one example, I think introducing a drinking age of 18 (with an exception for direct parental supervision) would do far more in targeting the problem, than raising the purchase age to 20, making it illegal for a 19 year odl to buy a bottle of wine.

At present it is totally legal for 14 year olds to get pissed on spirits, if done on private property.

In my weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg at NBR 24/7 I write:

The anti-alcohol industry (and it is an industry – mainly taxpayer funded) will be delighted by the Law Commission’s report when it is released on Tuesday. They have succeeded in convincing the Law Commission that alcohol should be treated in the same way as tobacco – an evil to be heavily discouraged, if not prevented.

I focus on how the role of the Law Commission has changed from quiet diligent updating of laws to:

Sir Geoffrey Palmer has morphed back into his former role of a crusading politician, and has spent months talking about the evils of alcohol. He even went out to Courtenay Place with a Police escort, and said he saw scenes that “no civilized society can relish”.

I end up at Courtenay Place around once a month on average. Often until well past 2 am. Sometimes there to dance and party with friends, but often just to carry on chatting politics and life over a few drinks. I’ve never seen these scenes “no civilised society can relish”.

The crusading was not restricted to New Zealand. Sir Geoffrey even went to Australia, and spoke at an Australian Drug Foundation conference. Not the Minister., ot the Director-General of Health, but the Law Commission President. The 68 year old Sir Geoffrey decried the fact that people put photos from parties up on Facebook. He wants an end to people getting drunk – an endeavour that would be as likely to succeed as prohibition succeeded in the 1930s.

I await the proposal to ban photos from Facebook which show alcohol.

The full article is subscriber content at NBR.

The Government is releasing a 500 page report next Tuesday from the Law Commission which makes scores of recommendations of changes to alcohol laws and policy.

The report was commissioned by the former Labour Government, and the primary author is former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer – who is also the Law Commission President.

Details of the report have leaked out, and I can exclusively reveal some of these. They represent a nanny state mindset which I doubt even the last Government would have ever gone along with. It stops short of prohibition and six o’clock closing, but represents a huge step backwards. Fundamentally the report fails to propose measures that target the minority of people who cause problems of crime and violence when under the influence of alcohol, and instead it has gone for a one size fits all approach which punishes millions of responsible drinkers, and especially 130,000 18 and 19 year olds.

I understand the Palmer Report proposes:

1. A massive 50% increase in the excise tax on alcohol. This would result in an extra $500 million of revenue to the Crown at the expense of everyone who drinks.
2. Banning the sale of liquor at off licenses after 10 pm. So if you pop into New World at 10.30 pm to do your shopping (which I often do), you won’t be able to buy a bottle of wine.
3. Forcing bars and nightclubs to refuse to allow people to enter after 2 am.
4. A nationwide closing time for all outlets, probably at 4 am.
5. An increase in the purchase age for alcohol from 18 to 20, criminalising 130,000 18 and 19 year olds if they buy alcohol.

As I said, this is nanny state unleashed. What is most disappointing is the failure to come up with measures that might actually target those causing the problems such as a drinking age (instead of a purchase age), increased penalties for alcohol related crime, and a one size fit all approach.

I would not necessarily be against allowing local communities through local Government able to (for example) set a closing time for their local neighbourhood.  But a nationwide closing time that treats Ponsonby and Courtney Place as the same as (say) Wainuiomata is a bad thing.

I am sure there are some useful recommendations in the Palmer Report, but its main recommendations represent the worst excesses of nanny state and punishes all New Zealanders, rather than targeting problem drinkers and the associated violence and crime they cause.

I hope the Government, and in fact all parties in Parliament, reject any wholesale adoption of the report’s recommendations.

The NZ Herald slams the latest stunt by the anti-whaling activists:

Peter Bethune knew precisely what he was doing, and the consequences, when he boarded the whaling vessel Shonan Maru 2 to make what fellow-protesters described as a citizen’s arrest of its captain. …

Mr Bethune was intent simply on grabbing publicity. He, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, wanted to prompt a diplomatic incident, thereby putting further pressure on the Japanese to end whaling. …

The Dominion Post argues against a city wide liquor ban:

On one of Wellington’s rare balmy nights there is little to compare to a quiet picnic on the south coast, watching the sun go down and the kids paddle in the surf as you enjoy some cold roast chicken, a nice green salad , and a glass of Martinborough’s best sauvignon blanc.

Soon that pleasure may come with the dubious frisson of being a law-breaker, and the prospect of a visit from police to tell you you are breaching a Wellington City Council bylaw. Under the proposed liquor ban, the wine has to be tipped out on the sand, or the picnic packed up and moved to a non-public place. If you refuse, you will be arrested. If you wait till police go away and then carry on enjoying your picnic, you will be arrested should they return.

That is the future that could face Wellingtonians should the city council go ahead and pass its city-wide booze ban.

It’s a daft idea that should be shot down. Have outdoors liquor bans in areas where there is a problem.

The Press talks about the future of their regional council:

Environment Canterbury chairman Alec Neill managed to put on a brave face after the damning report into his institution’s performance and governance yesterday. The reality is that if the Government adopts the recommendations in the report, ECan as we know it today will be gone. …

The report will provide vindication for the region’s mayors, business figures and farmers, who have been queuing up to slate ECan for some years.

They would also agree with the comment of review leader Wyatt Creech that ECan had a “fortress” and “we know best” culture. …

I predict it will be gone.

The ODT talks about electoral issues:

It will be recalled that, in 2005, the Exclusive Brethren attempted to influence the outcome of the poll by mounting a covert and costly campaign against the Greens and Labour.

Labour had also been concerned about the extent to which campaign finance was both anonymous and uncapped, raising the spectre, it claimed, of “big money” interests tilting the odds against a fair contest: the even playing field argument.

In an attempt to close loopholes in the campaign finance rules, and to prevent parties “jumping the gun” and subverting the spending caps, it also created a controversial regulated campaign period of three months prior to polling day.

Ummn, no. That was the old regulated period. Labour extended the period to be all of election year.

The ODT reports:

Speight’s, a long-time sponsor of the Otago University Students Association Orientation Week, will no longer be associated with the annual event on campus, following a move by the University of Otago to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

This is heresy. O Week without the Speights posters will not be the same. People will still drink just as much Speights I predict.

The headline band this year is United States-based Health, described as a “fluid, spiky maelstrom of blood and neon, mirrorball and icepick”, which “mashes together disco and punk into a noisy, spastic tribal inhalation of sound”.

See you need to be under the influence of Speights to be able to cope with that music!

On Monday night, we had a rare meeting of Presidents and leading representatives from Young Labour, Young Nationals, Young Greens and Act on Campus.

It was to discuss some of the options canvassed in the Law Commission’s review of alcohol law, and on top of 15 or so youth reps, we also had executives from the Drug Foundation, Hospitality Association, Lion Nathan and the Law Commission (to observe and provide info).

The four youth sections came together three years ago to (successfully) fight against Parliament’s move to raise the purchase age of alcohol to 20. The idea of the meeting was not just to focus on the purchase age, but consider many of the wider issues and see if there was a consensus on what options they agreed with, and what options they did not think would be effective.

I was involved with the original Keep It 18 campaign, so facilitated the meeting and to a certain degree played Devil’s Advocate on some of the issues. Issues discussed included the purchase age, should there be a drinking age, a split purchase age for on and off licenses, supply of alcohol to minors, restricted hours for off and on licenses, other access issues, excise tax levels, price issues, advertising restrictions, loss leading, blood alcohol limits for driving, open alcohol in cars, should cars have mandatory alcohol ignition locking devices, fake IDs, should drinking or being drunk in public be an offence etc.

I thought the meeting was really good, Not that I agreed with them on all issues, and not that they agreed with each other all the time. But it was a very practical discussion from a group of young people with first hand experience of youth drinking. It was around 50/50 guys and gals, but I didn’t pick up any huge difference in perspectives between the genders. There were some issues where there were differences between “left” and “right” but a surprisingly large number of issues where there was widespread agreement. The result is the four youth sections are going to do a joint submission (which may be a first) on the stuff they agree on, and individual submissions (or minority reports to the main submission) on the issues they have different perspectives on.

Not going to get into details of all the discussion, but there were three parts that stood out to me. They were:

1. When the current code of practice for alcohol advertising was summarised as banning ads that imply drinking can lead to sexual, sporting or social sucess, there was fairly widespread laughter as an automatic reaction. That was a very instinctive judgement that the current code is not working, or not being rigorously applied by all players. In fact many in the room cited ads that seem to quite specifically imply sexual, sporting or social sucess from drinking.
2. The discussion on the excise tax and price levels was very economically literate. There was a reasonable consensus that if alcohol use generates external costs (which it does), then there should be an excise tax set to cover the cost of that externality. However they rejected the notion that the tax be increased beyond covering the externality as a way to decrease demand, pointing out that would probably just send people into buying cheaper alcohol per volume (such as spirits). There was of course also reference to the considerable divergence in economists views of what the external costs of alcohol are, and the point was made that any figure used as justification for an increase should be very robust or bulletproof.
3. Very amusing in the discussion on price and excise tax was the points made by AoC that the real problem is people don’t pay for their own health care and a no faults ACC scheme which caused much merriment. Now to be fair to AoC their points are absolutely valid, but I did have to say I think we can assume that the Government is unlikely to privatise the health system and abolish ACC, so if we taken these as a given, then what is the best way to cover the externalities.

As I said, despite differences on a fair number of issues, it was a very mature and constructive discussion. I was really impressed with those who took part.

Also thanks are due to Labour’s Trevor Mallard (and his secretary) and Iain Lees-Galloway for providing a meeting room at Parliament, and attending (with useful contributions). When it became clear Parliament would be the best place to hold the meeting I considered the easiest way to get an MP to sponsor the meeting. I figured if I approached a National MP they might get worried about any perception of doing me a favour so I e-mailed Trevor on the rationale that no one could ever criticise him for helping me secure a room

As I said, was a really good meeting, and who knows there might be other issues in future they come together on.