Government's alcohol law reform announcement - related documents and media releases

• Drug Foundation - Drug Foundation scores government liquor review
• Alcohol Healthwatch - Govt avoids effective measures on alcohol harm
• NZ Govt - Government outlines balanced alcohol reform plan
• Supporting Documents [PDF] - Q & A - Scenarios - Cabinet Paper - Regulatory Impact Statement - Proposed decision-making process
• Labour - Alcohol changes “just the beginning”
• Greens - No justification for casino exemption
• Greens - Show some spine, say Greens
• Progressive Party - Government response predictable – but won’t cut it
• Public Health Association - Government response on alcohol missing the changes that work best
• Family First - Govt Adopts ‘We Know Better’ On Alcohol
• Trinity Group - Proposed Reforms Very Tepid Says Hospitality Group
• Hospitality Association - Liquor reforms a mixed bag
• Len Brown - New liquor laws needed urgently
• Food and Grocery Council - Pragmatic Approach to Alcohol Welcomed
• NZ Business Roundtable - Government’s Liquor Decisions Sensible
• Salvation Army - Government’s alcohol law reform misses the mark.
• Keep It 18 Campaign - MPs urged not to change alcohol purchase age
• Alcohol Action NZ - Reforms will make no substantial difference
• Cancer Society - Thumbs up to a healthier drinking culture
• ACT On Campus - The Return Of The Nanny State
• NZ Retailers Association - Balanced Response to Alcohol Law Reforms
• TVNZ - Q+A's Paul Holmes interviews Justice Minister
• TVNZ - Q+A Panel Discussions 21-08-10
• TVNZ - Q+A's Christchurch Mayoral Debate
• Labour - Dalziel Concerned Alcohol Package Will Be Timid
• Dr Sue Bagshaw - Stop Scapegoating Young People
• Mayor John Banks - Banks Backs Greater Community Say On Alcohol
• Dr Doug Sellman - Govt’s imminent alcohol decisions are predictable
• TV3 Video - Liquor law reform: Purchase age expected to go up - Experts: Liquor reform policy watered down

Hundreds shout for alcohol law reform

Manukau Alcohol Action Group media release, 15 August 2010

Hundreds of people braved today's weather to attend a public march/rally calling for alcohol law reform in Manukau City – with hundreds marching from three locations across the city.

The march/rally called upon the Government to adopt the full package of recommendations put forward by the Law Commission in its report entitled Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm.

Guest speakers at the rally included Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army, Professor Doug Sellman of the National Addictions Centre and Alcohol Action NZ, Labour leader Hon Phil Goff, Greens MP David Clendon and National MP Dr Paul Hutchinson.

Manukau Alcohol Action Group co-ordinator Rebecca Williams said the march/rally demonstrated the concern over alcohol-related harm that families and communities experience every day.

"We simply cannot continue with how things are – today we ask the Government to adopt the Law Commission’s well considered recommendations and show some leadership on this issue.

"We simply do not need more research or more reviews, we need action and we need it now."

Salvation Army representative Major Campbell Roberts said politicians need to be courageous and stand up for the victims of alcohol abuse in this country.

"We are here today because we support and want political support for the blueprint that Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the Law Commission have given the nation. A sensible, sane agenda which, when implemented in its entirety, will drastically alter the negative impacts of alcohol in New Zealand."

Professor Doug Sellman of the National Addictions Centre said if the Government’s recent performance on drink driving is anything to go by, the signs are not good.

"They appear to be framing the heavy drinking culture as a youth problem, and they are calling for more research to delay measures that would actually make a significant difference."

Manukau Alcohol Action Group member and Otara resident Poutoa Papali'i said he hopes our politicians will grasp the community sentiment shown today in Manukau. “There really needs to be significant changes to our current liberal liquor laws if we are to see positive changes in our society."

Participants of the march/rally have called upon the Government to implement the entire package of Law Commission proposals. These include increasing alcohol prices, restoring the purchase age to 20, restricting liquor marketing and promotion, reducing alcohol availability and lowering the adult blood alcohol limit for driving to 0.05 – all recommendations that are backed by strong evidence to show they reduce harm.

Alcohol Law Reform Rally 15 August 2010, Manukau

Several thousand marchers calling for urgent alcohol law changes are expected to converge on Manukau on Sunday.

Organisers are hoping for a big turnout to send the government a clear message that it should adopt the whole package of Law Commission recommendations for changing the Sale of Liquor Act.

Manukau Alcohol Action Group co-ordinator Rebecca Williams says the recommendations offer a once-in-a-lifetime chance to roll back the harm caused by two decades of liberal liquor laws.

Raising alcohol prices and the purchase age to 20, restricting alcohol availability, marketing and promotion, and lowering the adult blood alcohol limit are all proven to reduce harm, she says.

"These proposals will help us get on top of our drinking culture and provide care and protection for our communities."

But Ms Williams, who's also director of Alcohol Healthwatch, says there are worrying signs the government isn't committed to the major law changes the community clearly wants.

It has already backed off a recommendation to lower the adult driving blood alcohol level and is "showing cold feet" around raising the tax on alcohol to push up prices.

"So discounting and cheap liquor is going to prevail and they also don't seem to have the confidence to restrict alcohol promotion," she says.

Read the full story in the Manukau Courier.

Find out more about the march/rally on our Events page.

An alcohol fuelled Rugby World Cup: tragic irony

Submission to the Select Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill by Doug Sellman, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine, University of Otago.

It is very hard to understand how anyone can support the liquor licensing aspect of this Rugby World Cup (Empowering) Bill without dissociating themselves from the harm that will inevitably result.

The Law Commission has just completed the most extensive review of alcohol use in this country's history. It concluded that New Zealand has a major problem with excessive alcohol use and that one of the key drivers of the harm is the "unbridled commercialisation of alcohol".

The Law Commission's recommendations closely follow the international evidence on how a society can reduce its alcohol-related problems, which has been summarised as the 5+ Solution:

1. Raise alcohol prices
2. Raise the purchase age
3. Reduce alcohol accessibility
4. Reduce marketing and advertising
5. Increase drink-driving countermeasures
   PLUS: Increase treatment opportunities for heavy drinkers.

It is therefore tragic irony that the first formal alcohol response of the government following the tabling of the Law Commission's final report is to introduce legislation that will liberalise alcohol supply even further and therefore enhance the country's alcohol-related problems.

Although the provisions of the Bill cover a relatively short period of time, seven and a half weeks in contemporary New Zealand produces an astounding amount of alcohol-related harm. For example during this time there is likely to be:

• over 70 serious or fatal injury traffic crashes related to alcohol
• about 150 alcohol-related deaths (half from injury representing 2,500 years of life lost)
• up to 400 children conceived who will subsequently be born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
• over 10,000 physical and sexual assaults related to alcohol.

This Bill will not only perpetuate this array of serious damage but will likely worsen it.

Not acting immediately to prevent the torrent of alcohol-related harm that currently exists will be like BP postponing the attempts to cap the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico – madness or callous disregard for the health and safety of New Zealanders in favour of the alcohol industry. The weasel words in the Bill "ensure that public health and safety are protected as far as is reasonably practicable" have a hollow and cynical ring to them.

The best way to increase alcohol damage in a society is to do the opposite of the 5+ Solution:

1. Lower alcohol prices
2. Lower the purchase age
3. Increase alcohol accessibility
4. Insrease marketing and advertising
5. Reduce drink-driving countermeasures
   PLUS: Reduce treatment opportunities for heavy drinkers.

This Bill will make alcohol a lot more accessible and enhance the marketing and advertising of alcohol. Increasing the number of outlets will increase competition and likely result in cheaper alcohol prices.

By allowing for a fast-track liquor licensing process, the government is actively supporting the heavy drinking culture and encouraging increased consumption of alcohol in New Zealand. It is going out of its way to reinforce the message of the alcohol industry that alcohol and sport go together like hand and glove. It is also taking the virulent meme currently infecting New Zealand that "social events aren't proper events without plenty of alcohol" to new international heights – "rugby world cups aren't proper events without plenty of alcohol".

Tobacco and sport used to go together like hand and glove in New Zealand until we all started waking up to the immense harm of tobacco smoking pushed along by the psychopathic greed of the tobacco industry. Thanks to the Law Commission, New Zealand is now waking up to the immense harm from our heavy drinking culture driven along by exactly the same tactics and activities of the alcohol industry.

There is still a chance that sense might prevail and the government will enact a good portion of the 5+ Solution to make New Zealand a better country to live in. However, the liquor provisions of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill seriously risk etching the heavy drinking culture even deeper into the national psyche next year, making the necessary changes required even harder to achieve at this time of historic opportunity. If the government wanted to make the heavy drinking culture worse, it couldn't do much better than enact the liquor provisions of this Bill.

It is likely that in the future we will be just as astonished at the PM's current enthusiasm for Heineken's "Party Central" as we are now that doctors used to actively promote Camel cigarettes.

Ordinary New Zealanders are not going to be empowered by this Bill, the alcohol industry will be. And at the end of the day front-line workers will be picking up the pieces, funded by the taxpayer.

Be prepared for the industry's rhetoric

In a 1992 editorial, Warning: The alcohol industry is not your friend, Professor Lawrence Wallace outlined four key tactics used by the alcohol industry to dodge any responsibility for the immense damage its products cause.

1. Portray alcohol as part of the "good life" – associate it with sex, fun, success, peer acceptance and independence.
2. Link alcohol problems with an "irresponsible" minority, losers who "can't handle" alcohol or have a genetic predisposition to experiencing problems with it.
3. Be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem – advocate responsibility, personal choice and fulfilling lifestyles.
4. Portray those who dare to question as "neo-prohibitionists" or other denigrating terms and try and marginalise them.

Number 1 is obvious and easily demonstrated by watching any Tui ad or by the amount of money spent to associate alcohol branding with sporting success. Think of Steinlager's association with the All Blacks or look at the logos emblazoned on the jerseys of just about any high-profile sporting team.

We will be hearing more and more of numbers 2-4 in the coming months as debate over proposed alcohol legislation heats up. We'll hear it from plenty of alcohol industry mouthpieces, but also from politicians and pundits who may actually have swallowed the industry line.

Again and again we'll hear the rhetoric that changes to the law shouldn’t be too drastic lest it punish those of us who drink responsibly (and no doubt that's how many of New Zealand's 700,000 problem drinkers would classify themselves). Rather we should just target the problem drinkers, they'll say.

But what the alcohol industry won't tell us is that it spends about $200,000 a day on marketing and advertising targeted at those irresponsible drinkers because more than half its revenue comes from drinking to excess.

On that basis we should reject any claim by the industry to be part of the solution. Like its brother in harms, the tobacco industry, we can expect it to advocate for policies that it knows will not work so it can distract us from interfering with its profits while it dons the mantle of responsible corporate citizen.

For more, see Doug Sellman’s excellent 2009 article: "Time to look at alcohol ads and where they're to blame".

Teaching children to drink: sensible or not?

by Sarah Jaggard
Community Mobilisation Policy Officer
Australian Drug Foundation

The idea that parents can prevent alcohol misuse and related problems in their children by teaching them to drink responsibly at home – the so-called European model – is a popular one.

However, a new study joins a growing body of evidence that speaks to the contrary.

In a study of 428 Dutch families, researchers found that the more teenagers were allowed to drink at home, the more they drank outside of home as well. In addition to this, teenagers who drank under their parents’ watch or on their own had an elevated risk of developing alcohol-related problems. Drinking problems included trouble with school work, missed school days and getting into fights with other people, amongst other issues.

This research joins a recent Australian study, which tracked young people and their drinking patterns from 14-21 years. The study showed that drinking in teenage years is linked to higher risks of alcohol related problems in young adulthood, even when drinking was at low-risk levels.

The researchers say that the findings put into question the advice of some experts who recommend that parents drink with their teenage children to teach them how to drink responsibly - with the aim of limiting their drinking outside of the home.

The research findings add force to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines, which propose that not drinking alcohol is the safest option for children and young people under 18 years of age. The NHMRC claims that alcohol use by young people is of concern for a number of reasons, including increased likelihood of negative physical and mental health conditions, social problems and alcohol dependence.

Of most concern is that the brain is likely to be more sensitive to damage from alcohol in childhood and adolescence as it is still developing, leading to learning difficulties, memory problems and reduced performance on attention-based testing.

Parents often struggle with the dilemma of whether or not to provide their children with alcohol. This body of research now supports parents and other adults who do not want to encourage underage drinking, and gives them concrete reasons to deny their children alcohol.

Busting alcohol policy myths 3

As with any complex health and social issue, debate around effective alcohol policy has been characterised by the frequent brandishing of half-truths, scare mongering and, at times, deliberate misinformation. At stake after all are the profits of an industry worth tens of millions of dollars each year.

We think it timely, therefore, to draw attention to some of the myths around alcohol policy. We have identified several spurious claims often made by those opposed to making alcohol more expensive and less available.

Myth 3: It is important to work with Industry when formulating alcohol policy

This is a call often made by the liquor industry and its allies. Variants include the much touted lines that ‘we are all in this together’ or ‘we need to involve all stakeholders when formulating policy’. Unfortunately, this argument does not stand up against closer scrutiny.

Any potential common interest between public health and the alcohol industry is difficult to reconcile with the fact that "good business" means selling as much product as possible. The majority of alcohol consumed in New Zealand is done so in the context of excessive or harmful drinking, but it is naïve to believe the industry would voluntarily support measures to reduce overall consumption. This would clearly undermine profits.

Recognising this fundamental conflict of interests between public health and pursuit of profits, a WHO Expert Committee has recommended that the global public health body continues its practice of no collaboration with the alcohol industry. Governments should take a similar stance when it comes to formulating policy.

Alcohol producers are well organised and effective lobbyists for industry-friendly policies. There are many parallels between their strategies and tactics and those of the tobacco industry. One major focus of these industries is to campaign against effective control strategies and to campaign for ineffective strategies, all the while making very loud noises about what good corporate citizens they are for doing so.

Another industry tactic is to instil doubt about non-industry research. A recent disclosure of hitherto unpublished documents shows that industry holds grave concerns that alcohol will be viewed through a public health lens in the same way as tobacco, and has invested in coordinated strategies to divert attention away from programmes they perceive will do the most damage to their interests.

Among the measures they have opposed most strongly are tax increases, controls in advertising and sponsorship, health warnings and tough policing, especially on drink driving – all things proposed by the Law Commission and countless medical and health experts.

According to the lead author of this paper, "although they [the alcohol industry] don't want to be seen in the same way as big tobacco, they're going down exactly the same path."