Time for tough decision-making on youth drinking

30 March 2006

Martin Gallagher Labour Party MP for Hamilton WestMatt Robson Progressive Party Deputy-Leader

29thMarch 2006

Time for tough decision-making on youth bingedrinking

Deputy Leader of the Progressive Party, MattRobson and Labour MP for Hamilton West, Martin Gallagheropened the public hearings for the Sale of Liquor (YouthHarm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Martin Gallagher has pickedup Matt Robson's private member's bill to return thepurchasing age of alcohol to 20 years and they will bejointly presenting the key issues they want the SelectCommittee to consider.

"The simple message we made to thecommittee is that the 1999 decision by Parliament to lowerthe alcohol purchasing age was a mistake.

"This bill wasintroduced not only because the decision in 1999 did notreverse the negative social indicators, as many had hoped atthe time, but, in fact added to them. "Now MPs have themeans to rectify the mistake that was made in 1999, and wehave urged the committee to have the courage to doso.

"They will need courage because the liquor industry isa powerful force but the evidence will back the committee ifit acts to reverse the current situation that leads tosignificant underage drinking.

"The evidence alsosupports the changes to alcohol advertising in this bill.These small steps will hopefully be added to by review ofalcohol advertising recently announced by the government.

"But it really is time to put a brake on an industryintent on presenting drinking as harmless fun to ouryoung.

"Basically it is time for tough decision-making onthese issues, and that is what we have said to thecommittee. The bill is due to be returned back toParliament on 30th June 2006 and progress of the bill willbe dependent on the individual conscience votes of 121 MPs.

*********

SUBMISSION OF HON MATTROBSON

TO THE LAW AND ORDER SELECT COMMITTEE

AMENDMENTBILL

29th March 2006 Introduction

Alcohol, like anydrug, could be consumed safely if the directions on theprescription were followed. Usually the directions fordrugs prescribed by doctors contain instructions suchas:

Take only once a day -- don t exceed this dose Takewith food Don t give to minors Don t drive aftertaking

And so forth.

That doesn t happen with the drugalcohol. It is sold like an ordinary commodity.

In settingthe parameters for prescribed drugs, law and regulationcomply with expert advice not the advice of those who sellthe drug.

In this bill before it the Committee will beable to draw on the evidence of public health experts andothers associated professionals who can provide impartialand objective advice.

That the harm from alcohol has risensharply since the amended Sale of Liquor Act in 1999 withits reduction of the purchase age and greatly liberalizedaccess and outlet provisions is not in question.

What isin question is whether Parliamentarians will set aside anypreconceived notions or personal opinions on this importantpublic health issue and carefully weigh up the evidence thathas been and will come before it.

I introduced this billinto Parliament in 2004 after reading two key reports on theeffects of the reduction of the purchase age. One report wasthat of the Ministry of Justice and one was prepared for theMinisterial Committee on Drug Policy. These reports led meto study many others. All the news was bad -- particularlyfor young people.

Both of the ministerial reports providedalarming evidence of significant rises in harm to those inthe 18-20 year age groups and those as young as 7 and 8.Under the 1999 law it was clear that minors were gainingsignificantly increased access to alcohol.

Both reportsrevealed that a significantly new public health problemcaused by alcohol harm and access to alcohol affecting ayounger and younger age group was in our midst.

Parents,police, health workers, educators and social agencies didnot need the statistics to tell them that something was verywrong. However, the growing number of reports verifying thatthe 1999 law had not reduced alcohol harm and that thestatistics were overwhelmingly negative confirmed thegrowing public unease.

Parliamentarians were forced tolisten.

THE BILL

The bill before you covers 3 areas forreform:

a. Returning the purchase age to 20

b.Replacing the self-regulating Advertising StandardsAuthority with the Broadcasting Standards Authority tocontrol the marketing of alcohol and restricting broadcastof liquor advertising before 10p.m. on any day.

c.Strengthening the provisions to prevent the sale and supplyof liquor to minors.

PURCHASE AGE TO 20

This is not aprovision to punish young people as some have suggested. Itis a provision to diminish the harm that is occurring tothose under 20 and is one of the steps recommended bynational and international experts to reduce thatharm.

Protection and nurturing is not the equivalent ofpunishment. Parliamentarians should not ignore, in allconscience, the following statistics that have appearedsince the law change of 1999:

-more hazardous patterns ofalcohol use by young people -increased prosecutions fordrinking and driving -increased road traffic injuries-increased accident and emergency department attendances-increased alcohol -- related hospitalizations -increasedsexual health problems related to alcoholharm

Internationally public health experts are inagreement that the longer that it takes for a person to takeup alcohol the lower the national percentage of harm. Ahigher purchase age is one of the factors that help toachieve lower harm.

There is growing neurological evidencethat brain development can continue as late as the earlytwenties and that immoderate drinking of alcohol in thoseyears is potentially very damaging to that development. Someresearch suggests the late teens. But on the precautionaryapproach, the normal practice in sound science, the safestpractice is to ensure that only moderate drinking of alcoholoccurs in the late teenage years. Unfortunately the bingedrinking years in New Zealand are these very sameyears.

The harm caused by alcohol is of course notconfined to the young. But the negative trends since the1999 law in regard to young people are deeply, or should be,disturbing.

Alcohol Healthwatch (Fact Sheet: Young Peopleand Alcohol www.ahw.co.nz) reported the following:

Shortterm consequences from episodic heavy drinking includeinjury or death from drink driving crashes; risk of injuryfrom assaults and falls while intoxicated; violence; highrisk sexual activity; alcohol poisoning; increased risk ofsuicide; substance abuse; and decreased scholastic and workperformance.

Longer- term harms associated with drinkinginclude future dependence; liver diseases, increased risk ofsome cancers; heart arrhythmias; hypertension; cirrhosis;and pancreatitis.

None of the above consequences aretagged with "Yeah Right" or any of the other clevermarketing tools of the liquor industry.

Confirmation ofincreasing harm since the lowering of the purchase age isgiven in the study done at the Auckland Accident andEmergency Department (Everitt and Jones 2002) which found a52 percent increase or 18 and 19 year olds presenting withalcohol-related problems in the twelve months after loweringthe purchase age from 20 to 18 years of age. There was a 37percent increase in the number of under 18 year olds overthe same period.

Similar results have been reported from aChristchurch study.

In studied concentrating on theeffects of binge drinking among students the following wasfound (Alcohol Healthwatch Fact Sheet on Alcohol andUniversity Students):

Of the Waikato drinkers surveyed,during the past academic year:

22% got into a car with adriver who had too much to drink or drove a car themselveswhen they had too much to drink 16% had ended up in a sexualsituation they were not happy about 12% had unprotected sexwith a new partner 12% had upset a new family member due todrinking 69% spent more than they intended on alcohol

InDunedin the following was reported:

10% of male drinkersand 9% of female drinkers had unsafe sex 16% of males gotinto fights

The association of alcohol with crime is wellunderstood. The studies show that there has been a largeincrease in youth offending, including serious crime, sincethe 1999 law change.

ADVERTISING

Evidence will bepresented to the Committee that the advertising andmarketing of alcohol is associated with making alcohol aproduct that is glamorous, sexy and leads to socialsuccess.

A counter opinion will be that advertising andmarketing of alcohol does not increase the volume of salesbut only the market share. You might well say -- YeahRight!

The counter evidence will be that the marketing ofalcohol is part of expanding sales, introducing younger andyounger people to harmful patterns of drinking alcohol anddownplaying any harmful use of this drug in favour of thesupposed glamour and social success that it will bring tothe consumer.

Parliamentarians will need to assess thisevidence and decide whether the limitations proposed by thisbill on advertising will assist the aim of decreasing theharmful use of alcohol consumption.

Internationally thedetrimental effect of advertising and marketing of alcoholis being recognized.

WHO Director-General Dr GroBrundtland reported in 2001 that:

Over the past 10-15years, we have seen that the young have become an importanttarget for marketing of alcoholic products. When largemarketing resources are directed towards influencing youthbehaviour, creating a balanced and healthy attitude toalcohol becomes increasingly difficult. Based on theseconcerns, I am calling for a concerted review byinternational experts of marketing and promotion of alcoholto young people.

Both the American Academy of Pediatricsand the American Medical Association have publicly advocateda ban on alcohol advertising, especially on television. Youwill remember that once the advertising of cigarettes waspermitted anywhere. Seeing Good Night and Good Luck broughtthis home to me. Then we woke up to the health consequence.Banning advertising was not the silver bullet. But it hasbeen an essential part of the strategy to combat tobaccosmoking.

Many countries that provide useful benchmarks forNew Zealand have greatly restricted the advertising andmarketing of the drug alcohol. In some cases there is even atotal ban.

The proposal in the Bill is for broadcastadvertising to be allowed only after 10p.m. and that thetask be taken out of the hands of the ineffectiveself-regulating body the Advertising Standards Authority andgiven to the Broadcast Standards Authority.

In other wordsthe fox will not guard the hen house.

SUPPLYING TOMINORS

Survey after survey has shown that minors areaccessing alcohol either by purchasing themselves or throughthose of legal age.

The police dread the weekend callswhere they arrive at parties where there are numerousintoxicated minors.

The examples of the increase inunder-age drinking and the numerous harms that arise fromthat are well known to Parliamentarians.

It is an issuethat has to be dealt with to protect those young people andsociety in general.

Young lives are being ruined now bythe harmful use of alcohol.

There are a number ofdifficulties that the Select Committee will have to grapplewith in regard to repealing 2 160 (3) (d).

However theCommittee has to keep its eye on the main mischief that itshould be aiming to remedy: the supplying of alcohol in anuncontrolled environment without the authority andsupervision of parents or guardians. Every responsibleparent or guardian, police officer and others in thefrontline of concern for our youth want this mischiefremedied.

The message must be that it is not acceptable tosupply alcohol to under-age drinkers.

THE PROPOSAL TO HAVEDIFFERENT AGES OF PURCHASE

Always when there are harddecisions it is appealing to have a halfway house to avoidtaking that hard decision.

The problems with banning salesin off licence premises to those under 20 and allowing themat 18 in licensed premises are numerous:

The heavydrinking patterns among those under 20 are occurring onlicensed premises

It will lead to allowing 18-19 year oldsbeing on licensed premises and licencees setting up apurchasing system to get around the purchase rule of 20 onoff-licence premises

It introduces the type of complexitythat existed with the pre-1999 law that allowed many schemesto get around the minimum purchase agerequirements.

CONCLUSION Parliament is the body that needsto deal with the serious issue of alcohol harm among allsectors of our population.

But it has a particular duty inregard to the youth of New Zealand.

The statistics arestark. In almost every area of possible harm the trend hasbeen a sharp rise upwards since the 1999 law.

The agegroups presenting with serious harm are getting younger andyounger.

Meanwhile the marketing of the drug alcohol isgetting more and more sophisticated with key alcoholbecoming household names with never a mention of the serioushealth problems that occur with this drug. Fun and glamourare the associations with alcohol. More diseases, includingcancers, originate from alcohol than from tobacco.

It isnot an issue that can be swept under the carpet.

It is tothis Committee that the public is looking for a seriousinquiry and resolution of the matters that have beenaddressed in this submission and the many submissions thatare before you.

ENDS

THIS ISSUE Lead NZ News NZ Politics World News FeaturesNew Zealand Politics

POLITICAL NEWSLETTERS: Transtasman Political Letter -- 23 March Digest The Letter -- Monday, 27 March 2006 Molesworth & Featherston (Weekend) -- March 25 2006

Welfare: Super Supersized - "People receiving New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension will be better off by up to $420 extra a year," Social Development and Employment Minister David Benson-Pope and Associate Minister for Senior Citizens, Winston Peters, announced today. New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pensions will increase by 3.16% from 1 April 2006 following the increase in the cost of living for 2005, as measured by the Consumers Price Index. See... 490,000 older New Zealanders to benefit from Super increases ALSO:NZ First - New Zealand First Delivers on Super for SeniorsNZ First - Peters Speech - "Preparing For A Golden Age" Also on April 1NZ Govt - Tax Relief: Three in four families eligibleNZ Govt - 1 April marks new era for student loans

One Law for All: Microchipping debate goes to the dogs - Farmers will not give up the fight to convince the government to exempt farm dogs from an idiotic law forcing all dogs to be microchipped, said Charlie Pedersen, President of Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc). "Federated Farmers is very disappointed. Despite the federation offering many compelling reasons why farm dogs should be exempted, the government has chosen to base its policy on cliches and soundbites," Mr Pedersen said. See... Government Blows Opportunity ALSO:Scoop: PM's presser - Blair, Chipping Dogs And Rodney HideFederated Farmers - Farmers Consider OptionsFederated Farmers - Federation Supports Bids To Scrap ChippingNational - Anderton fails the test over farm dog microchippingNational - Anderton a lame duck over farm dog microchippingMaori Party - Flavell: Notice of MotionUnited Future - Copeland: Microchipping decision shortsightedUnited Future - Copeland launches bid to scrap farm dog microchippingKennel Club - Licensing dog owners the best solutionCouncil of Docked Breeds - Common sense abandoned as the chips fly!

MORE POLITICAL HEADLINES:NZ Govt - Cullen - Design in Business Academic Forum NZ Govt - PM congratulates Margaret Mahy NZ Govt - Brash supports charging patients for surgery NZ Govt - Cunliffe - National Refugee Resettlement Forum NZ Govt - Literacy standards can be raised for all students Joint Statement - Time for tough decision-making on binge drinking National - Mapp: Mallard's comments "a bit rich" Maori Party - Labour in a Whirl over Media Spin of Maori MembersMaori Party - Sharples: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill Maori Party - Flavell: Notice of Motion United Future - UF to back four Members' Bills United Future - Turner on bringing up the kids in NZ

POLITICAL COLUMNSCelebrating Families (Judith Collins): 28 March 2006Newman Weekly: Lowering the BarMarc my Words: Tax - a state sponsored muggingwww.mccully.co.nz 24 March 2006 Heather Roy's Diary - 24 March 2006Gerry: In the House - 24 March 2006Plain English - 24 March 2006The Mapp Report 17 March 2006Newsworthy: Claims by prisoners soar

SCOOP WAS IN THE HOUSE:Questions And Answers - Thursday 23 March 2006Questions And Answers - Wednesday 22 March 2006Questions And Answers - Tuesday 21 March 2006

FOR MORE POLITICS NEWS HEADLINES > CLICK HERE

Source: scoop

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.