I will post some more detail on the Alcohol Reform Bill over coming weeks as there is a lot to be considered. To get the debate started I think it is important that we look at the Law Commission’s report on Alcohol: Curbing the Harm and ask whether this Bill will be effective in doing that – curbing the harm. My view is that it doesn’t go far enough and in a way it’s prioritised the wrong issues. The Minister cited age as the most important measure in the Bill, when that is one of the many diversionary tactics they are using to avoid being held accountable for what is missing from the Bill. And to cap it all off the government has managed to trample on Bill of Rights Act obligations – I predict the offending clauses will not survive the select committee process in their current form. In my press release I said National had squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to curb the alcohol-related harm evidenced by the Law Commission’s report into alcohol. Only people power through submissions to the committee and demanding answers from MPs will get that turned around. I spoke in Parliament on the First Reading - unfortunately the tape ends before my final comments which were that we the politicians have lacked courage and that hopefully the Bill will be strengthened by the Select Committee process and that we will have the courage to make a difference. I have attached the notes I took to the House. Let the debate begin!
See you at SC Lianne
“The Minister cited age as the most important measure in the Bill” Popular to dump it all as a youth problem – Have the politicians figured out that the youth don’t vote much?
Dom post seemed to have a lot of letters today wanting to ban it at sport stadiums. I would point out to anyone suggesting price (tax) will solve problems don’t seem to realise that stadiums are our most expensive spots to buy (and someone does). Supermarkets are the lowest price, and the strictest on asking for ID.
Not at all sure what this post means re doesn’t go far enough? What were you thinking about?
I really don’t see why this is a “once in a generation” chance.
Are you saying that if they stuff it up, then Labour will wait 25 years before doing something about it?
I admit I did not have time to read thru all the links in your post so maybe I’m just repeating something that’s there. My real-life observation tells me that availability is a big deal. Very often people, especially when they do not have much money, buy a moderate amount of alcohol. After they drink it, they feel like having more (and it is easier now to decide to spend more money) and hey, the supermarket is open 24/7 or there’s a liquor shop within walking distance. So they go for a top-up and that’s where trouble starts. Sure, for a big party you have the supplies ready, but the end-of-week drinking pattern is often as above. From the 4 countries where I spent enough time to drink there, New Zealand has the highest density of places where you can buy alcohol, and at the same time it has the smallest population density.
Supermarkets are paranoid, I mean do I look like I go to highschool and should be refused by this 15 year old serving me?
I’m drunk ATM so may be a little blunt here.
I suspect NZ has the highest density of being able to buy alcohol because the older countries are more built up already, we have more vacant realestate in which to park new booze shops. (I told you I was drunk, hic
).
Lianne you have your heart in the right place, I don’t agree, but you are a good woman
Changing the age at all is unfair and misses the point completely.
The single most important thing to do is get alcohol out of dairies and corner stores. Once people stop seeing alcohol as something that is to be treated casually like milk, bread, and eggs, attitudes will begin to change.
I’m really iffy about raising prices though. It seems like those most negatively affected are those with serious addictions to alcohol, who sadly more often than not tend to be in extreme hardship. People with serious addictions won’t change their behaviour in reponse to price rises – they’ll just forgoe other things they need, like decent food for school lunches, in order to keep feeding the addiction. Personally I think Labour should think very carefully about the effect that policies are going to have on those they need to stick up for, and make sure any unfair outcomes are fixed.
Apologies in advance for the length, and probably substance
Im English, and grew up back home with 18 being the legal drinking age.
and none of this roaming the streets until dawn. Nightclubs existed at weekends, but even then, from memory, were closed at 2am. Seriously, this talk of closed doors at 3 in the morning as a response to bar hopping is assinine.
Throughout the whole binge drinking/heavy drinking culture debate, I have yet to see a reason why age should be a driving factor for law change.
As has already been stated, it is the over supply, artificially low competetive pricing, irresponsible advertising and a general lax Kiwi attitude to alcohol that are the main points of issue.
Of course government will scapegoat the youth and use any new legislation as ‘proof’ they are making progress, but those that see further than headlines know that isn’t the case.
If they want to crack this tough nut, then it really does need the ‘nanny state nutcrackers’ to take control, but of course, who’s going to do that with votes at stake? Best to pay lip service and hope the spin gets swallowed along with the next rtd.
Booze out of food shops, reducing the amount of outlets per area are common sence approaches and are probably universally accepted in the debate (chamber of commerce members aside), as are tougher regulations on advertising and marketing, but the real work has to be done at the coal face, and how the nation views drunks, with all the associated problems, has to be ammended from ‘part of who we are’ to ‘not how we want to be’.
Long ago, when still a ‘youth’, the pubs usually shut at 11pm, so it was home in bed by 11.30 (if lucky)
When I first started working here, I assumed my first friday out would follow along my UK experience – Get home, have tea, spend an hour tarting myself up and head out for a few hours with friends for a social drink in a social setting. How wrong was I?
Drinks started at work, for crying out loud. Beer o’clock the guys called it. Then it was to a collegues house to fill up on cheap booze, and finally, after midnight, into town for the last few hours. Never again I vowed. I thought to myself, looking at the messes that stumbled before me out into the early hours that morning, my traditions, culture and self respect are too superior to accept this as normal.
I’m not a saint, far from it, but stupid is what stupid does. I just called it as I saw it.
Change the culture to change the results. Simple.
@Jeremy – Age is a red herring; will post more later, but essentially the failure to go far enough relates to the government tackling the hard issues of price, commercialisation, marketing and drink driving counter-measures. These are all included in the Law Commission report.
@GE – I believe that if enough people submit, we will get change now – but in case we don’t Labour will have a package ready to introduce after the next election.
@Melusina – Yes that is one of the problems – and the government has started to address the issue of availability – as we did 2 years ago when introduced a bill to provide Local Alcohol Plans to give communities some say about when, where and how alcohol could be sold in their neighbourhoods.
@Spud – very sweet – cheers!
@Nicola – not on the select committee – haven’t argued for across the board increases in alcohol price – just lift the bottom rate with minimum price – affects quantity the price sensitive group will buy – e.g. 5 bottles of wine at $5.99 a bottle becomes 2 bottles for a similar price. Those that judge the quality of the night out by how little they can remember in the morning do a cost/trash analysis before they buy – this will change with the increase at the bottom end. A minimum price of $2 per standard drink does nothing to a $15 bottle of wine with 7.1 standard drinks. It slightly more than doubles the price of the cheap stuff.
“If they want to crack this tough nut, then it really does need the ‘nanny state nutcrackers’ to take control” – Just thinking about that painful image makes me want to drink
“but of course, who’s going to do that with votes at stake?” That’s right, Joe Public doesn’t want to be clamped on.
“Best to pay lip service and hope the spin gets swallowed along with the next rtd.” Or better still, fight a worthy cause, like dairying in Canterbury!
“Drinks started at work, for crying out loud. Beer o’clock the guys called it.”
Where is this place and how can I apply to work there? 
“Drinks started at work, for crying out loud. Beer o’clock the guys called it.”
Where is this place and how can I apply to work there?
LOL
“but of course, who’s going to do that with votes at stake?” That’s right, Joe Public doesn’t want to be clamped on.
Indeed. Look what happened when the profoundly sensible idea of getting rid of the vastly inefficent lightbulb was first floated.
The streets almost jangled to the sound of a million energy saving flourescents being broken in union.
Problem drinking (and the causes) either needs to be sorted, and quickly, or it isn’t a problem and the debate should move on.
Maybe p in kindies would get some traction???
@Al1ens – I have just returned to NZ after living in London for 6 years. Believe me, drinking culture is way worse over there than it is here. The standard work day is a pub lunch with patrons spilling out onto the pavement, then knock off a beer o’clock (yes they call it that in england as well), trying to down as many pints as you possibly can and get the last tube home at 12. Every bar in London (and that is a hell of a lot) is packed to the rafters every night from 5. I drank a hell of a lot more in england than i do here.
Every off-license (dairy) sells cans of beer for £1, or cans of white lightening (strong cider that the drunks buy) for £2.
This whole debate is stupid. in order to stop the boozing culture you have to change attitudes and minds and educate people. it doesn’t matter how much you charge, what you set the legal age, people will always get cheep booze from somewhere.
it’s illegal to speed and people still do, you make it harder to buy booze, people will get it from somewhere else.
educate people how to drink responsibly, punish severely those that break the law and drive drunk. hell, take peoples cars away if they repeat offend. get tough with those who break the law and leave the rest of us alone to go about our daily lives in peace.
More authoritarianism…
These baby steps towars prohibition won’t work in the same prohibition never does…
Also I find it a little bit on the nose MPs with large salaries are looking to restrict supply (and therefore increase costs which again will impact those in the lowest socio-economic group who like a drink the most) when the drinking habits of many MPs are far from puritanical…
I’m a tee totaler so I don’t really have any skin in the game, but if you really want to solve the alcohol problem remove the tax on it and make people pay for the damage they cause to themselves and society (namely bills from the Police and Hospitals)…
It sure did prioritise the wrong issues. Commercialisation and price are biggies. Forget dependence on Law Commissions analyses – it’s best to go to direct sources. I was involved in researching submissions to the other bill and to the review. What is clear is that a lower limit does zip to reduce alcohol consumption so they got that right.
So the Machiavellian deal was made with Booze Barons to handle the limit drop in return for other favours like not attacking price got delayed till after the Cup, while they engineer consent(fomenting a Public demand while playing hard to get). Unlike the myth big bottle likes 0.05 as it doesn’t impact gross consumption – unchanged and on par with NZ in Denmark, Australia and higher than here in France if I recall – all 3 booze guzzlers sit @ 0.05.
Brewers and distillers therefore have no worries (only small food businesses). Which might explain why Booze Barons are reputedly in the background supporting the Heralds “do drink and drive” campaign (says a girl-friend ex LTSA who works in marketing at Lion), as 2 drinks is a good start which most high risk personalities will then progress beyond. The bottom line may be that those staying home so that they can drink enough will be in uncontrolled environments with cheaper liquor, and drink more. 0.05 tickets good for barons and for the consolidated fund, a windfall. Poor recession restaurants.
Onto the important omissions – why the heck are they only proposing to ban alcohol containers in the cars of youth in public places (if intended for consumption by occupants there-at, or on the road) BUT not in cars of 50 year old drunkards? Queer as a 2 bob watch, AGEIST, and this is utterly inconsistent with overseas open container drills.
Next on the order paper – commercialisation and specifically advertising. They continue to give liquor stickers a free rein and only prohibit targeting minors, yet the bulk of road safety and other issues lie with “majors” struggling with addiction. The ad industry targets alcohol addicts (or their demographic), and our submissions it should not do this were snubbed. Drats and pity of the less sophisticated and able fostered into a “drinking bloke” identification.
Indeed Extensive submissions were made about the laissez faire environment here, and like many ours’ rabbited on with case study and global evidence pertaining to ads and cost. ASA is lacking uindependence, review all alcohol ad complaints and then compare to standards upheld overseas for a shock. It’s plain limp wristed in judgments rendered. The King-pin is PRICE for youth and then some. Untouchable – we need Elliot Ness. Antabuse for all (.
Andrew S – What is going on now in the UK probably has alot to do with the relatively recent move to 24hr licencing and the proliferation of retail stores engaging in booze price wars. Lessons to be learnt.
Of course binge drinking isn’t only just a kiwi problem, or new, but even taking off the halcyon days tinted spectacles, the problem here is huge.
A theory I’ve had for a while involves the bars themselves. There are very few ‘locals’ in cities, and this makes going out into town an event. Perhaps the unavailability of a place to have a couple of pints on the way home in familiar surroundings with staff that recognise and therefore have better, more responsible relationships with customers.
Yes, “diversionary tactics” indeed. It seems to me the government has nicely wedged this issue and there’s not a lot of room for the opposition. Is the opposition capable of dealing with the politics? Lianne is clearly across the public policy issues. But can she turn the politics into votes?
Temperance votes
Thanks Lianne, don’t give up!! This issue can and will be adressed and won at grassroots level. I agree with the 4 action points you identify, and will certainly be encouraging others to join the many people submitting to the Select Committee on this Bill.
Die hard temperance submitters
I didn’t realise Derry was a name!
This is a tremendous waste of time and money. It does not matter what the law is. Bicker over such trivial things all you like but young teenagers will always drink. Raise the prices they will still drink, raise the age ban the advertisement they will still drink this is foolish.
Only way to stop it is to design a beer made for children and make it cheap so all children will drink it then they will grow up to respect alcohol and not think its some exciting rebellious thing they want to go overboard on. The drinking age and the mood that young people shouldn’t drink is what causes the drinking problem. Lesson #1 of teenagers – tell them to do something they probably won’t do it in fact they may be inclined to do the opposite because they want to think they are making their own decisions and go against their parents coz it’s exciting.
Yeah, I agree, in fact for every PC comment I read on booze here, I’m gunna have a drink!
They more I look at this the more I see price and advertising as the two largest issues and neither are dealt with properly.
The idea of separating alcohol from supermarkets is really misguided I feel out of the suggestions. We have an issue with how we are drinking not that we drink in the first place. Alcohol should be something you have with food not something you go to get from a bottlestore to get wasted on. Actually promoting alcohol as an intoxicant over an addition to food is silly even if it does reduce use it reduces positive use. I am supporting of the others though although some like limiting RTDs to 5% will have no effect because that is already standard practice.
Please don’t let them turn this into a debate just about youth drinkers and get some changes made at select committee.
I have posted on this subject on the ALAC video thread.
“Once in a generation chance?” Generations must be getting shorter these days, the last vote was in 2005.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition by price is still prohibition. Instead, ask yourself how youths become part of a culture. My suggestion would be by following examples. Those of their parents, their peers and to no small degree by watching TV. So teach them to drink responsibly. Don’t put ads on TV and endless news-reports about drunken teenagers and the “culture” we have of it, that
only encourages them, especially since any other “culture” is not readily identifiable in New Zealand (apart from perhaps boyracers). Maybe read this from the US on the subject: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/20091216160349.html . There are other ways.
Raising prices will damage your constituents more than it will National’s. Wowsers span all parties. I won’t vote for anyone proposing xfold price rises on alcohol.
““Once in a generation chance?” Generations must be getting shorter these days, the last vote was in 2005.” LOL
“Raising prices will damage your constituents more than it will National’s. Wowsers span all parties. I won’t vote for anyone proposing xfold price rises on alcohol.” Strongly agreed!
‘Alcohol should be something you have with food not something you go to get from a bottlestore to get wasted on’ I second that Rob, I drink alot of beer not to get wasted but just because I love it and often take it with food. It’s best with fish and chips
and maybe a glass of red wine with a steak.
We need to give children beer so they acquire a taste for it so they drink it properly, while simultaneously removing the rebellious aspect.
Wow. Our friend, and Chair of the Justice & Electoral Select Committee, Chester Borrows has set the submission due date of Tuesday 1 February 2011.
That means you either get your written submission in before Christmas, or write it at the beach on your summer holidays!
I think Simon Power is genuine in his announcement that he will listen to public submissions. SO it’s up to people to write a submission and ask to present an oral submission.
And now for some shameless self promotion (sorry!) – next week we’ll be publishing some advice on key issues for submitters on our website – http://drugfoundation.org.nz/your-turn-to-shout (you may have already seen our video on cheap booze – http://bit.ly/bAnEEa.)
So what is Labour proposing, a keep it simple 4 point plan won’t work. As above a limit drop is no solution, actually good research will show it can up road tolls. I’d say that is a major diversion too. Rabble rousing over this will prevent informed and rational debate. Might feel good having a picket in hand but shouldn’t the moral crusaders at the Herald really be on about minimum prices and the broader cultural issues. Oh yeah – and maybe some real solutions to drink driving, like praising the Govt (both sides) for the very real progress made on recuidivist drunks with a zero limit and alcohol ignition interlocks for them. Real solutions are harder and more complex than the off topic limit drop. NY hammered it’s drunk toll with car confiscation – no excuses even if it is a Rolls. Strong clear anti homicide message in that – and it actually worked. Lowest drunk toll per capita there with a 0.08 limit. Here’s a novel idea – let’s learn from successful countries. So what is Labours plan – 0.05 and leave these people who don’t know when to say when or catch a taxi armed? Only 1 in 60 repeat drunks cars are snatched here.. and it’s going down each year. We want those checkbook point fines to keep on rolling in right, and keep the boozers hooked and able to access bottle stores and polling booths right?
“We need to give children beer so they acquire a taste for it so they drink it properly, while simultaneously removing the rebellious aspect.”
That approach, of giving kids wine at mealtimes hasn’t worked well in France, where the numbers on adult alcohol abuse are truly shocking. I would venture that is precisely the wrong road to travel down.
Spud you are asking for a ban by contining to comment about your drinking habits. You’ve been asked to stop. Clare
@Nicola – you rightly mention addiction (which seems to have been strangely absent from the debate).
That’s where treatment comes in. Responsive and accessible treatment is the key. Problem is, the government is cutting alcohol and other drug treatment services.
We need to deal with Supply, Demand and Harm. This bill only really deals with supply while the Government is quietly gutting the services that deal with the other two.
Thanks for all your comments. I am going to do separate posts on some of the major issues. But two quick responses: I am not a prohibitionist, nor is age an issue. I want to block access to dirt cheap alcohol – $5.99 for 7.1 standard drinks is too low. I have said I would only vote to take wine and beer out of supermarkets if the public said they wanted us to. It is convenient to buy wine there, but $15 for 7.1 standard drinks is still very cheap and that would not be touched by a $2 minimum price. We all agree the dairies shouldn’t have been selling wine and beer at all (because they do tend to be the ones who sell to under-agers). And the government is using age as a red herring or diversionary tactic. This debate has very little to do with age, but as I said I will post on that separately.
@Iain – this bill does not deal with supply mate nor with demand or harm. Services is the key word here. And where is our media in all this? It only goes to extremists for viewpoints. Prohibitionists and lobby groups. Everyone needs to sit down for a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath and then LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. What works and what does not get results. Stop easy supply to those most likely to experience harm, put some serious laws in place, and then creata safety net for those and the families experiencing harm.
@Ross – that timeframe certainly is tight, perhaps it will encourage tight targeted in dept submissions about particular areas of greatest import.
There has been too much waffling by self appointed know it alls dominating debate. May the MP’s find the pearls amongst the swine. Ultimately though this comes down to personal responsibility, and the necesity for god health insurance as there will be no more ACC of sufficient scope for drink &/or drug drivers victims.
@ Rachael F. I am sure Labour has got a brilliant plan up their sleeves. Original, inspired and evidence based with no consideration of populist and voting worms… sigh. Just a little common sense could go a long way here. Maybe it should run a hui in Wellington that is not dominated by the Temperance brotherhood?
$15 is a lot for a lower income person.
@aliens well all I can say is that is contrary to what I’ve heard about europe…
The closing date for submissions can only be described as cruel. Whereas the law commission travelled widely, listened and deliberated long, the public now has only until 1st February to make submissions, in effect a little longer than the Christmas holidays.
In some instances, for example, tertiary institutions may have a lot to say about a proposed ‘split age’ and the ways such a proposal could be implemented in say a hall of residence. However from now until the closing date for submissions most halls are empty, staff and students absent and debate will not occur.
The minister has indicated that he would like to see as many New Zealanders as possible get involved and give opinions on the bill but the tight time lines will prevent this from happening.