Kiwiblog

Certain lobby groups and MPs would have you believe that since the alcohol purchase age was lowered in 1999, many more young people are drinking alcohol.

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.

The NZ Herald editorial:

When an overwhelming majority of people say they want the legal purchasing age for alcohol raised to 20, there is reason to pay attention.

Attention may be, but not deference.

It is no surprise that lost of people who are not aged 18 and 19 want to take rights away from 18 and 19 year olds. Just as once upon a time lots of men did not think women should have the vote.

God it annoys me when people go on about the purchase age for alcohol, and confuse it with a drinking age.

The latest is the Chair of Kings.

Let us be very clear. NZ has no drinking age at present. It is absolutely legal for 12 year olds to drink spirits. I think this is crazy, and why I support there being a drinking age. And at present it is also legal for an adult to give a 12 year old a bottle of spirits.

The Government’s proposals go part of the way towards having a drinking age. They make it illegal to supply alcohol to someone under 18 without parental consent. However they don’t make the actual consumption of alcohol without consent an offence.

The purchase age is the age at which you can purchase alcohol. It is currently 18. When a 16 or 17 year old gets into trouble with alcohol, it has nothing to do with the purchase age and everything to do with the lack of a drinking age – or at the least the lack of a law preventing supply to those under 18.

What happened at Kings has nothing to do with the purchase age of alcohol being 18. The dead boy is aged 17. We won’t know until the Coroner reports what happened that night, but I have heard from multiple people that this was not primarily an alcohol issue. I am amazed the Chair of Kings is raising what is arguably a red herring.

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

A report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser says raising the drinking age to 21 and increasing alcohol prices are two of the most effective ways to address youth drinking problems.

Professor Sir Peter Gluckman yesterday released a paper on social problems facing young people, which Prime Minister John Key requested after the death from alcohol poisoning of King’s College student James Webster in May last year.

Si Peter’s report is here.

I’d make the initial point that the tragic death of James Webster would not have been affected by a change in the alcohol purchase age. That is very clear.

Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.

Likewise if you really wanted to lower the road toll, you’d engineer all cars so they can not go faster than say 40 kms/hr.

So why don’t we do these things? Because while it reduces harm for some people, it also imposes costs and removes choice from other people.

The 318 report from Sir Peter is a very useful piece of work. You need good science to tell you what may and may not work. But the science is only an input.

Science could tell you that if we banned fast food outlets from New Zealand, we might be a healthier country. If we passed a law making it mandatory for people who weigh over 95 kgs to go to the gym twice a week, then we might also be a healthier country.

But most people don’t want to live in a country like that. They want a country where responsible people are not punished for the decisions of irresponsible people.

Belinda McCammon in the SST reports:

A TRANS-TASMAN alcohol blitz has left police disappointed at the number of liquor outlets that continue to break the law despite an extensive campaign warning retailers not to sell alcohol to minors.

Operation Unite, which started throughout Australia and New Zealand on Friday night, is the fourth time the nations’ police have worked together in a weekend of action targeting alcohol harm.

I’m all in favour of Police operations where they crack down on outlets selling liquor to under 18 year olds. In fact I think they should be doing it far far more often.

But why is it a Trans-Tasman operation? The issues are a purely local one. Is there some belief that we should only crack down, if Australia is also? Trans-tasman operations make sense for crimes which involve our borders, or criminals working together from both countries. But why for a simple under-age drinking sting?

The New Zealand side of the operation, which lasted from 6pm on Friday and finished at 6am yesterday, involved 1069 police officers.

Sales practices were tested by controlled purchase operations at 208 off-licence liquor outlets, and there were 46 incidents of alcohol being sold to minors. …

121 controlled purchase operations were run at licensed liquor outlets to test whether minors were being sold alcohol.

46 incidents when alcohol was sold to minors on these occasions.

It seems around 35% of outlets sold liquor to an under 18 year old. That is a massively high figure and to me suggests the Police should be doing these crackdowns monthly or even fortnightly. It also reinforces my belief that better enforcement of the current law is preferable to changing the law.

One of the justifications for raising the purchase age to 20 is the argument that youth drinking is worse now than in the past.

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.

The Keep it 18 campaign is appearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee at 5.20 pm today in Select Committee Room 2 in Bowen House, to do an oral submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill.

The Presidents (or nominees) of Young Labour, Young Nationals, Young Greens and Act on Campus will appear together to talk to their submission, on why 18 and 19 year olds should be able to continue to buy a bottle of wine or a six pack of beer when they do the shopping.

It is the first time the four youth wings have done a formal joint submission to a select committee. Most or all the youth wings have also done individual submissions on the wider issues in the bill.

Their Facebook page has around 17,500 fans.

What strikes me as pertinent as that the voters of Botany have just elected 25 year old Jami-Lee Ross as the MP for Botany. And it is the fourth time he has been elected to office. He was elected to Manukau City Council at the age of 18, and did a good enough job that he got elected twice more – and then to Parliament.

This law would say that Jami-Lee, as an 18 year old, can not be trusted to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket. However he can be trusted to sit on a City Council, where he would vote on Council spending, by-laws and policies – including the local alcohol policy for a district.

Appeared this morning before the Justice & Electoral Committee (well technically Sub-Committee A of the said Committee) to speak to my submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill which is below. I’ve appeared so often before that Committee, that I’ve now been labelled a groupie

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.

The Herald updates:

The Green Party caucus last week decided to have a conscience vote on the alcohol purchasing age and their positions are not all undecided as reported yesterday in a poll of MPs.

Seven of the nine MPs support the purchasing age being 18 for on- and off-licensed premises.

They are Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty, David Clendon and Gareth Hughes.

Yay. Go the Greens!

Labour MPs Jacinda Ardern and Charles Chauvel support the age of 18 for both.

Good. I was surprised when yesterday it was reported Labour’s Youth Affairs Spokesperson was effectively favouring 19 year olds being banned from being able to buy a bottle of wine, but good to see Jacinda (and Charles) are  in fact supporting 18.

This now means twice as many MPs are supporting 18 over 20 – 27 MPs to 14 MPs. The split age still has the most support with 37 MPs leaning that way.

The Herald has surveyed MPs on where they stand on the drinking age. They have a story, and full results.

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.

An excellent column by Chris Trotter:

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.

The Keep it 18 page on Facebook has been gaining members at a massive rate. It hit 10,000 overnight and is now at 10,550. Join up, if you support the cause.

You can also follow the campaign on Twitter.

The dairy owners are not too happy:

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.

Have been in the lockup for the Government’s response to the Law Commission report on alcohol. It is one of the largest cabinet papers on record, with a huge 202 recommendations. The Minister has obviously spent a lot of time going through the issues.

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.

NZPA 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.

The Herald reports:

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.

National has just announced:

As a caucus they agreed to:

• A party vote on the alcohol law reform package, which is due for its first reading before the end of the year.
• A conscience vote on the alcohol purchase age.
• A party vote on all transport legislation designed to reduce the impact of drink driving on our roads.

I am glad National will allow MPs to debate and vote on the issue of the purchase age based on their genuine views of what will be best for New Zealand.

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.

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.

The Herald reports:

A doctor and mother of a King’s College student – spurred by the death of 16-year-old James Webster – has written to fellow school parent John Key to demand action from the Government over New Zealand’s youth drinking culture.

“Today my son (and yours) dresses in formal uniform to go to school and remember another student who has died this year,” Margaret Abercrombie said in her letter to Mr Key yesterday.

At first I thought it was the dead boy’s mother, but it is another mother at the school.

Dr Abercrombie told the Herald she had a teenage son at King’s and was aware of the pressures he faced at school.

“His mates drink and he’s 13. They drink seven shots in half an hour of neat vodka. And they drink until they vomit, and that actually probably saves their lives sometimes.

And this is totally legal under both the current law, and the law proposed by the Law Commission. The Law Commission only targets purchase age and supply. They do nothing about whether it should be legal for a 13 year old to drink vodka.

I am happy to say I support a law where it is illegal to drink under a certain age. One can debate what the age should be but it is definitely above 13.

One could even have a graduated age like Germany had or has. At 14 you can legally drink beer, and at 16 wine and spirits. Again this can be debated.

But again changes to the purchase age for alcohol will do nothing to stop what happened. Neither will the new proposed law about supply, because no one supplied the dead 16 year old. He swiped a bottle of vodka from his home. And kids will always be able to swipe alcohol, unless families lock it up like they do with firearms.

Hence there needs to be some responsibility on the young drinkers. At the moment the law says you can get pissed on vodka at 13. If the law had a minimum drinking age, then parents could use it as a reason not to allow youth drinking, and Police could intervene at parties where 13 and 14 year olds are drinking spirits without adult supervision. At present they can do nothing.

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?

Tracy Watkins writes:

Parliament should treat the drinking age as a conscience vote and here is the reason. MPs deserve to have the best brought out in them occasionally and conscience votes do that. They even have the power to remind us why it matters who we send to Parliament.

I agree. By far the best debates I have witnessed in Parliament, have been those as conscience votes. When an MP is free to speak their mind on an issue, without having to worry about whether this is the party line, is when you get the best debate.

So conscience votes are not unique in producing ad hocery, botched law-making and poor compromises (three strikes anyone?). It’s just that in the normal course of events, governments can dress it all up as something else by throwing the weight of their spin machine behind it.

Conscience votes, on the other hand, are policy-making stripped bare.

It comes down to what the MP believes. Some will take the easy option of voting according to the wishes of their electorate. But even that tells us something about them.

It tells us they are not fans of Edmund Burke who said in 1774:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

If there is to be a vote on the purchase age for alcohol, then it should be one of MPs voting as they see best, not whipped by their parties.