Kiwiblog

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.

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 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 Herald reports:

Kevin Rudd would like to see the drinking age in Australia raised from 18 to 21 years.

The Prime Minister said he would prefer an increase, given a recent series of tragic accidents involving P-plate drivers.

Since the start of the year 12 teenagers have been killed in cars driven by P-plate drivers in New South Wales and Victoria.

In one crash that killed five teenagers in Melbourne the 19-year-old driver had a blood alcohol level almost four times the legal limit.

I love the logic here. Because some young Australians break the very serious laws about drink driving, Kevin Rudd thinks the solution is to lower the drinking age, as if that would make a difference.

The sort of people who drive pissed, are not going to change their behaviour because it is technically illegal to purchase the alcohol, as well as drive after drinking it. It won’t affect the problem drink drivers, but will criminalise a million or so young Australians.

The HoS reports:

His son was killed by a teen driver who broke every rule. Now a grieving dad wants the drinking age raised – and his plea comes as the Government gives its strongest signal yet of major changes to driving and liquor laws.

Gerald Fluerty lost his son Ezra, 19, in an accident that “had all the ingredients for disaster”.

“I think these young people, at 18, just don’t have the ability to make the right decision on their own.”

Driver Maia Thorby, 18, struck a power pole while speeding on a learner licence in a car with no warrant or registration. He was four times the legal alcohol limit and had been smoking cannabis. …

Donald said she wanted to see the drinking age increased and for young drivers to get more education before they took to the roads on their own.

“They also need to be taught how to drink in moderation.”

One can only have the deepest sympathy for any parent who loses their child in a road accident – especially one caused by a young drunk and stoned driver.

But that does not mean that their identification of the alcohol purchase age is logical.

Let us look at what the the 18 year old driver did that night:

• He broke the law by driving at night on a learners licence
• He broke the law by driving with passengers on a learners licence
• He broke the law by driving a car with no warrant
• He broke the law by driving a car with no registration
• He broke the law by speeding
• He broke the law by smoking cannabis
• He broke the law by driving with a blood alcohol four times the legal limit
• He broke the law by driving stoned

Now I’m sorry but does anyone rationally think that making it illegal to purchase alcohol at 18 or 19 would have in anyway affected what happened? I mean you can’t even buy cannabis legally at any age, and they managed to get some.

If an 18 year old has absolutely no regard for the law, for basic safety, and is the sort to drive while stoned and pissed, then the age of alcohol purchase is not what needs to change.

The vast majority of 18 and 19 year olds appreciate being able to have a wine with dinner, go out nightclubbing or buy some beers at the supermarket to take home for the rugby. Turning all of them into criminals is not the answer to the problems caused by the minority. Especially when a law change would probably have made absolutely no difference to the outcome in this tragic case.

The Herald reports:

The sexual history of rape-case complainants may no longer be able to be raked over by defence lawyers in potentially far-reaching reforms proposed by Justice Minister Simon Power.

He is considering making evidence about a complainant’s previous sexual relationships inadmissible without the agreement of the trial judge.

I am broadly supportive of such a move, but have to admit I thought there already were restrictions on such details being detailed in court? One of our friendly defence lawyers want to clarify.

There are some occasions where past relationships could be material. If for example a complainant said she did not consent as it was their first date, and she would never sleep with someone the day she met them – then evidence that she is lying and has had a one night stand before would be relevant. But only because it is contradicting a claim she made. If she made no such claim, then I would say it is not relevant how many one night stands a complainant may have had.

Mr Power said rather than the complainant being ambushed in court with cross-examination about her past, a judge should first rule on its relevancy.

Which seems sensible.

He also proposes changing the definition of consent so someone would have to say “yes”, rather than the current law where a defendant is able to argue the woman did not say “no”.

Here I have to say, the proposal is impractical. Power isn’t exactly proposing this change – more just floating the possibility. But I think consent is often implicit, not explicit, based on how someone responds to you. I think Canada may have gone down this path, but to me it reeks of almost having to sign a statutory declaration of consent before sex.

Mr Power has also asked the Law Commission to investigate introducing a European-style inquisitorial justice system in sexual offending cases.

He said using such as system – where the judge is involved in collecting and determining the facts of the case – instead of the adversarial system that required “harrowing” cross-examination of victims was “worth a look”.

Fairly openminded on this. Fair to say though a high level of persuasion would be needed to change from the current system.

Mr Power says alcohol – a “facilitator” for crime – has to be dealt with if the Government is to have any impact on the crime rate. He says this will be done in one package of law reform this parliamentary term and will take into account the ongoing work of the Law Commission. It has already suggested limiting the opening hours of liquor shops and bars, raising the drinking age to 19 or 20 and increasing tax on alcohol.

I hope his comments do not mean the Government will just automatically legislate whatever the Law Commission recommends. The quality and relevance of the research they have used to date in citing the need for change has been seriously lacking.

Simon also announced his views on the provocation partial defence, which I will deal with in another post. His speech is online here and is a very good read. I’m incredibly impressed by the pace of work by Simon – he has achieved a lot in six months and by the end of his first term, will have a huge amount of law reform behind him.

On a final note did anyone else see Valerie Morse on TV last night holding up a sign calling for all prisons to be abolished at Simon’s speech. I’d like to ask Valerie what she thinks should happen to Clayton Weatherston and Graeme Burton. I guess she’ll just claims they are victims of the colonialist capitalist oppressors.

Look at what fun we have to look forward to if Labour gets back into office. This is what Lianne Dalziel wants:

1. Increased tax on alcohol
2. Ban supermarkets and grocery stores from selling alcohol
3. Increase purchase age to 20 for off licenses
4. Most bars and nightclubs to be forced to close at 1 am
5. Bottle stores to close at 8 pm

Lianne forgot the one about needing your parent’s permission to be out after 9 pm if you are aged under 30.

The Herald reports some proposals from the Law Commission:

One of the issues for later discussion was the substantial gap between the taxes the country received from alcohol purchases, $795 million, and the estimated social cost of harmful misuse of alcohol of $5.296 billion.

“It does seem to me that the taxpayer should not be asked to shoulder as much of the burden as is currently being met from public funds,” Sir Geoffrey said.

“It does seem that the case for increasing the price of alcohol to ensure drinkers contribute more to the costs imposed on society is persuasive.”

He suggested increasing the excise tax would be appropriate.

The estimated social cost figure is no doubt exagerrated – they probably assume that a crime commited when drunk would never have happened if sober etc. But nevertheless there may be an economic argument to increase the excise tax. However if you increase it too much, you will just help the black market out. You also may push people away from drinking in bars (a more controlled environment) and into buying alcohol more cheaply from bottle stores, which is more likely to lead to binge drinking.

The legal drinking age should also be increased he said.

There is no such thing. Sir Geoffrey should know better. There is a purchase age and it should not be raised. A 19 year old should not be a criminal for buying a bottle of wine.

What they should do is look at whether there should in face be a drinking age, and if there should be an offence to supply alcohol to those under the drinking age.

There was an equally strong case for limiting the hours off-licences could be open.

“I do not understand why bars need to be open to 6am on a Sunday morning.”

People once said they should not be open at 7 pm. It is not for Sir Geoffrey to understand. If enough people want a drink at 6 am, then why not. Having said that, most bars now close by 5 am.

There was also a strong argument for lowering the blood alcohol from 80mg per 100ml for adult drivers to 50mg per 100ml.

No there is a very weak argument. A very small proportion of crashes involve a driver with blood alcohol between 60mg and 80mg per 100ml.

“For under 20-year-olds it should be lowered to zero regardless of licence status.”

This I agree with.

Very pleased to see balanced and sensible view from Simon Power on alcohol issues:

“But in the end we have to ask ourselves how broad an issue this is when it is such a critical part of offending and if you want to drive the crime rate down in New Zealand you can’t do that without having a discussion about alcohol,” he told Radio New Zealand.

Of course. The challenge is how you target those who can not handle alcohol, without needlessly interfering with the vast majority who can enjoy a night on the town without incidence.

“I don’t think that you can have a serious discussion about reducing offending in New Zealand without asking yourself some serious questions about the proliferation of liquor licensing in New Zealand.”

One has to be careful to generalise. I don’t think the fact that many cafes now serve wine, or you can have a beer at Downstage is creating problems.

Mr Power said he did not personally believe raising the drinking age is the answer to the problems.

The issues of parental responsibility and education were important and raising the purchasing age did not deal with the issue of drinking in homes.

Absolutely. I tend to favour a law change that targets irresponsible supply of alcohol to minors. It would be hard to word, but worth doing in my opinion.

“I can’t be convinced that you need to walk into a bar for the first time at 3 o’clock in the morning to have a drink. It just seems to me that the range of hours that we’re making alcohol available are very very wide.

I don’t think many people get their first drink at 3 am. However if one is having a night out dancing in Courtenay Place, then you are still going at 3 am. Maybe you could have bars remain open, but not serve alcohol – but realistically they won’t stay open if they are not making enough money to pay wages and costs.

A few minutes ago I saw the headline “Drinking age back on MPs’ agenda“.

My initial reaction was a flurry of swear words directed towards the Government as I read “The National Government will look again at raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 20 this year”.

But luckily I carried on reading the article before I fired off venom, and it is not quite what the headline and first sentence suggest:

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill was introduced by the former Labour Government last August and has been picked up without change by the new Government. It is due to have its first reading when Parliament resumes and will then go to a select committee for public submissions.

Although the bill does not refer to the drinking age, Mr Power said he was sure there would be submissions asking for the age to be raised.

“You can’t have a discussion about the sale and supply of liquor without the drinking age being factored in,” he said.

So it is not the Government saying it wants to raise the drinking age, just the Minister saying that as we consider this bill, people will want to debate the age issue also. Power goes on to say:

Mr Power said he himself voted to keep the age at 18 because he believed the drinking age should not be dealt with in isolation.

“I sat on the select committee that heard submissions, and two things struck me,” he said.

“First, when the police came before that committee they said that in 51 per cent of cases [of under-age drinking] the last drink had been taken at home. That has stuck in my mind.

Simon gets to the nub of the issue – it is one of supply, not age of purchase.

The problem is not 19 year olds having a drink in a pub. It is 14 year olds getting wasted at parties. And the way to deal with that is to make it an offence to supply alcohol to minors in an irresponsible manner.

Criminalising every 18 and 19 year old in NZ (or the 95% who like to have a drink) would be a retrograde step.

However it looks like it may be an issue again, so might be time to reassemble the Keep it 18 campaign team!

Family First has rated every party leader for their “family friendliness” as they see it. This is a great idea, as those who agree with Family First’s values can use it as a positive guide, and those who disagree can use it as a negative guide. More lobby groups should do this sort of stuff.

The overall ratings (in order) for each Leader is:

1. Winston Peters 77%
2. Peter Dunne 69%
3. Pita Sharples 57%
4. Tariana Turia 54%
5. John Key 54%
6. Jim Anderton 38%
7. Rodney Hide 31%
8. Jeanette Fitzsimons 15%
9. Helen Clark 8%

Winston is the poster boy for social conservatism which is why it is so hilarious that so many on the left are doing everything possible to defend him.

There were 13 issues or votes they judged the Leaders on. I list them below, along with how I would have voted on it if I was an MP.

1. Prostitution Bill- DPF support – 0
2. Civil Unions – DPF support – 0
3. Relationships Bill – DPF support – 0
4. Parental Notification for under 16 abortions – DPF support – 1 (I support notification, not approval)
5. Euthanasia – DPF support – 0
6. Care of Children – DPF oppose – 1
7. Marriage Amendment (define as man/woman only) – DPF oppose – 0
8. Anti-Smacking – DPF oppose – 1
9. Easter Trading – DPF support – 0
10. Easter Sunday Trading – DPF support – 0
11. Drinking Age to 20 – DPF oppose – 0
12. Street Prostitution (Manukau) – DPF oppose – 0
13. Electoral Finance – DPF oppose – 1

So if I was a party leader I would be scored 4/13 or 31% – the same as Rodney Hide.