The unfinished alcohol debate

In 2010 the Law Commission made an impassioned call for a broad-based cultural change saying that ‘strenuous efforts need to be made to change the pervasive binge-drinking culture that afflicts New Zealand’.[1] This plea emerged from a review the Commission undertook of New Zealand’s liquor laws. The Commission understood that law changes could only go so far in addressing the personal and social harm caused by alcohol—a harm that one estimate puts at over $5 billion each year. The Commission accepted that law changes could only nudge our society in the right direction towards changing our attitudes to, and behaviours with, alcohol, but argued that leadership was required to bring about this essential cultural change. There is little evidence that this leadership is coming from Parliament.

Perhaps at the heart of the debate around how alcohol is promoted and sold in New Zealand is a philosophical question around the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and those of the community. Do we, for example, see the regulation of alcohol simply as a question of individuals’ behaviour as suppliers or consumers of alcohol, or do we see such supply and consumption as part of a bigger picture around the social environment we want for our families and in our neighbourhoods?

It is one thing to have laws that penalise people who drink and commit crime in the hope that these laws will act as a deterrent, but it is altogether another thing to undo the violence and abuse that occurs when these laws don’t prevent such offending. Using a narrow cost-benefit approach to decide what is an optimal level of regulation, takes no account of the human suffering on the cost side. Much of this suffering, on any account, involves people who don’t deserve it.

In its report to Parliament, the Law Commission made extensive recommendations on how our liquor laws might be changed as a first step to the broader cultural change it believed was necessary. Among these recommendations were:

• maximum opening hours across the county for the sale of alcohol; with a suggestion that off-licences be open 9am to 10pm
• an increase in the minimum purchase age back to 20
• an increase in the price of alcohol through increased taxation or minimum price regulations
• greater restrictions on how alcohol is advertised and promoted
• a greater focus on providing counselling and treatment for those people with alcohol problems

Parliament considered these recommendations and decided, in its wisdom, to introduce a watered-down set of changes that finally came back as the Alcohol Reform Bill, in August 2011. This Bill will probably be voted on by the Parliament elected in the November elections.

Some of the changes proposed in the Alcohol Reform Bill are in the right direction, but the Bill itself and the people supporting it, have not been nearly brave enough to provide the leadership that the Law Commission and many others believe is necessary if we are to reduce alcohol related harm.

The proposed changes include:

• the introduction of a split minimum purchase age which would permit an 18-year-old to buy alcohol from an on-licence premises, such as a bar or club, but a minimum age of 20 for off-licence purchases
• tighter regulation on the sale of alcohol from grocery stores and supermarkets
• greater input by local residents into the issue and renewal of licenses
• the introduction of ‘national maximum trading hours’ of 7 am to 11 pm for off-licences, and 8 am to 4 am for on-licences

Missing from the proposed changes to our liquor laws are any credible attempts to limit advertising, to raise prices and taxes, and to offer greater support for counselling and addiction treatment services. In its recommendations supporting the revised Bill, Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Committee made a telling comment that illustrates clearly the lack of any political vision or courage in this whole exercise. The Committee’s report included a dissenting view from Labour MPs that ‘despite the growing evidence that alcohol advertising increases the likelihood young people will start drinking or that they will drink more if they already drink, the Government has decided as with minimum pricing and the legal alcohol level for driving to kick this issue into touch and to refer it to an “expert forum.” ’   

While opposition parties may be prepared to grab the moral high ground in a Parliamentary debate over such a critical public health issue as liquor law reform, it remains to be seen if they will be courageous enough to highlight their reforming ambitions during the election campaign. It is easy to gain the impression that the alcohol law reform debate is over for another generation, even though the law has not yet been passed by Parliament, and even though elections are great times to debate such critical questions.

¹ Law Commission (2010)  Alcohol in Our Lives:  Curbing the Harm—A Report on the Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor p.9

Questions to think about before you vote:

• Is the supply and consumption of alcohol simply a question of individual behaviour, or is it a critical public health issue of concern to the whole community?
• How does the regulation of the supply and consumption of alcohol relate to the kind of society we want for our families and our neighbourhood? 

Printable PDF version

> download The unfinished alcohol debate (PDF, 88KB)