The minor issue of social supply

The Law Commission says its latest report proides government with a bluprint for reducing both the short - and long-term effects of alcohol misuse on society. The Commission's review has been comprehensive and its recommendations numerous at 153. It has encouraged the government to institute its recommendations a package, but how many will actually make it into law? Proposed changes to social supply laws, for example, are a little bit 'touch and go' - and for many, this is a concern.

-----

If implemented, the 153 recommendations in Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm would amount to a sweeping and radical overhaul of New Zealand’s liquor laws.

Always with its finger on what it believes to be the nation’s pulse, the popular National government was initially quick to reassure ordinary New Zealanders who like a drink. Prime Minister John Key said he didn’t believe the public was in the mood for wholesale change, and the Commission’s report had barely been released before Justice Minister Simon Power said it was “extremely unlikely” the government would act on the proposal to raise the excise tax on alcohol.

One recommendation down; 152 to go.

While the government has indicated there will be legislative change in response to the report, it has been a little non-committal in the face of widespread calls for law reform from the public and from numerous health experts. When an organised coterie of 14 prominent New Zealanders, led by former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves, publicly backed the Law Commission’s recommendations, Power said he would “respect their views along with the views of other New Zealanders”.

This guarded approach, and the probability that the alcohol industry is vigorously asserting itself behind the scenes, leaves one wondering just how many of the remaining recommendations have a chance.

The Law Commission’s suggested changes to social supply laws, for example, have received a mixed response from government.

On the one hand, Power told the New Zealand Herald, “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.”

But later he told the Dominion Post he was having a “hard look” at present laws governing supply of alcohol to minors, especially in the light of media attention around after-ball parties for high school students.

This apparent softening of National’s non-interference stance will be welcomed by those who argue that, by failing to act on the Law Commission’s recommendations around social supply, the government would be failing to protect parents’ sole rights – in their own homes – to decide when and how their children are introduced to alcohol.

Under the current Sale of Liquor Act, it is an offence to purchase alcohol with the intent to supply it to a person under 18 years of age. Clearly, then, one can’t go into a bottle store and buy alcohol at the request of the under-age wags hanging around outside. But apart from a clearcut situation like that, what ‘intent to supply’ means becomes a little murky, and the Act fails to provide a definition.

Of course, there are exemptions: if the supplier is the parent or guardian of the minor or if the minor is attending a private social gathering. Again, the Act fails to define at what sorts of private social gatherings one can give minors alcohol. In fact, it fails to define private social gatherings at all.

Currently, there are no restrictions on supplying alcohol to minors at private functions, in private homes or on unlicensed premises. What that means is that anyone at all at any non-public ‘get-together’, such as a party or a sleepover, can give your child alcohol. As things stand, the right of parents to choose how their children are introduced to alcohol is poorly protected in law.

This is a tad troubling. The Ministry of Health’s Alcohol and Drug Use Survey 2007/08 reported that a majority of 16–17-year-olds say they have consumed large amounts of alcohol at someone else’s home; away from parents who, you would expect, would implement rules around drinking and help shape responsible attitudes towards alcohol in their children.

Surprisingly, however, it would appear that, for some parents, alcohol has become the new babysitter.

According to Paul Radich, a Liquor Licensing Inspector with the Manukau District Licensing Agency, parents acting as a restraining influence on their children’s drinking is no longer the norm.

He describes a series of recent events in Manukau involving large public gatherings of drunk 15–17-year-olds where, in 90 percent of cases, the kids were given the alcohol by their parents.At one recent event, up to 500 young people had gathered at a car park where Radich described the scene as absolute chaos, with fights and kids passing out in alcoholic stupors. Nevertheless, a steady stream of parents drove in and dropped their kids off with RTDs in hand.

At another, police had to close a street after an end-of-term party got completely out of hand. Again, there was violence including throwing bottles at Police cars.

“For some reason, we’ve got it into our heads as a society that this is now a ‘rite of passage’ for young people. Once you turn 16, you have the right to drink and get completely off your face in an uncontrolled environment,” he says.

He’d like to see the introduction of a legal drinking age, rather than just a purchasing age.

“If kids are going to drink, then they need to be that certain age – whatever parliament decides that age to be.”

Currently, it is an infringement offence for anyone under 18 to drink in public unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. The Law Commission is recommending that it should become a full offence for anyone under the age of 20 to drink or possess alcohol in a public place, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian.

This may remove some of the grey areas for authorities who have to deal with young people drinking in public and help force the problem back into the home – or at least out of the car parks.

One cannot write about social supply laws in New Zealand in 2010 without mentioning student after-ball parties. These have featured heavily in the news this year because the school ball season started just weeks after a 16-year-old King’s College student downed a bottle of vodka and subsequently died in his sleep.

A number of after-ball parties were shut down or cancelled after a Manukau District Licensing Authority and Police crackdown in Auckland. Their legality is questionable because they only loosely fit the definition of a private social gathering, and the fact that students pay to get in and then drink for free means they may technically be selling alcohol to minors.

A group of King’s College parents came under heavy fire in the media for attempting to organise a supervised after-ball party for the school’s students. To gain entry, kids under 18 would have had to front up with a parent. If over 18, a signed permission slip from parents would have been required.

It is not hard to understand what these people were thinking. Many parents are probably resigned to the fact their kids are going to go out and get trashed after their school ball and there’s little they can do to stop it. Surely it’s better to provide them with a venue where they can drink with supervising adults present, including bouncers to keep the gate crashers out and paramedics to revive the ones who managed not to be so well supervised. The alternative is to have them heading into town where all sorts of trouble awaits in the early hours of the morning.

But Radich says this sort of thinking is a mistake and that parents should not see after-balls, at which alcohol is served to minors, as the ‘lesser of two evils’.

“After-balls have been a real eye-opener for me. I didn’t understand the extent of the problem until I became involved with them over the last three years.”

He told the Howick and Pakuranga Times, “When you get a large group of people together, not just teenagers, who are consuming alcohol, the risk always increases in terms of those alcoholrelated harms. Students are at more risk with these after-balls. It’s a pointless argument to say, ‘Well, if we don’t get booze at after-balls, we’ll go to town’.”

He described a statement by two Auckland teenagers that having alcohol banned at their after-ball party had “crushed everybody’s dreams” as deeply worrying.

“It’s a real concern when underage kids feel it’s the end of their dreams if they’re denied alcohol. By organising parties for them where they can drink, we’re sending them all the wrong messages and reinforcing their belief that you can’t have a good time without alcohol.”

Auckland Mayor John Banks has also weighed in with similar sentiments. In a New Zealand Herald article, he wrote that organising after-balls with alcohol for students sends all the wrong signals around moderation and responsible parenting and that he couldn’t understand why kids need to be out drinking early in the morning.

Well, here’s why, perhaps.

Anna Kenna is a Kapiti Coast writer and mother to two daughters who have only recently left school.

She says parents have a real battle fighting the normalisation of alcohol to teenagers and that she’s blown away by the wide range of alcoholic products that seem to have been developed just for them.

“What says ‘normal’ to our kids more than a range of products all their own? There’s even pastel pink cranberry stuff that seems especially for the girls,” she says.

“On the one hand, we’re putting this stuff out there for them and then we’re turning around and trying to tell them not to drink too much. This sort of pressure wasn’t around when we were their age.”

She says it’s hard for parents to compete with the way alcohol is glamorised and describes a full page advertisement in a women’s magazine featuring a slim and seductive woman and associating a pre-mixed alcohol product with female empowerment.

“I immediately thought what a contrast this image is from the reality of where a lot of young girls who see it will end up – spread-eagled and unconscious on Courtenay Place, lying in their own vomit, or locked up in a police van. There’s a real contrast between the glamour and the reality for many young people who drink.

“Somehow we need to get the message out that drunkenness isn’t cool, but you feel helpless against the power of marketing. It’s so incredibly pervasive: magazines, television, the internet, alcohol-sponsored ads and events popping up on Facebook. Everywhere they look, alcohol is waved in front of them like some sort of ticket to a good time.

“How do we tell our kids this is wrong when we do the same thing? As adults, we speak with a forked tongue.”

Through its consultation with parents, principals and young people, the Law Commission has been made well aware of the extreme pressure there is on young people to drink. In May, Cate Brett, a Senior Researcher and Policy Adviser with the Law Commission, told the New Zealand Herald parents were looking to the law to help relieve this pressure and to re-establish some parameters around their kids’ use of alcohol.

The Law Commission is proposing a raft of changes to help address problematic youth drinking including raising the purchase age back to 20 and banning advertising that especially appeals to people under 20.

In terms of social supply, it is recommending “it become an offence for any person to supply alcohol to a minor on private property unless that person is the minor’s parent or guardian or is a responsible adult who has the approval of the minor’s parent or guardian.”

But it would also go one step further by requiring both parents and those to whom they give their approval to ensure alcohol is supplied in a responsible manner. Its proposed test for ‘responsible supply’ would include adequacy of adult supervision, quantity supplied, duration of supply, presence of intoxication and availability of food.

Such regulations would make it an offence for parents (or other authorised adults) to supply under-age high school students with alcohol at parties, including after-balls where there is not adequate supervision of its consumption. Anyone who supplied alcohol to under-age high school students would commit an offence unless they had the clear authority of each student’s parent or guardian.

Changes the Law Commission is proposing to licensing laws would clarify the illegality of after-ball parties. Attendees having to produce a ticket or voucher to gain entry would mean these were public events requiring a special licence.

Its proposals also address the concerns the Law Commission says it heard from parents who were angry about their inability to prevent other people supplying their child with alcohol without their permission and often with little or no adult supervision.

Parents may also find that stricter and clearer laws around supplying alcohol to minors would alleviate a lot of the pressure they feel from their children to supply them – or their friends – with alcohol.

There are three states in Australia that have introduced social supply laws akin to what the Law Commission is recommending here: New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. Examining the differences in each state’s laws helps illustrate how important it will be for New Zealand to get its legal wording right.

Section 117 of the New South Wales Liquor Act states a person cannot sell or supply liquor to anyone under 18 years of age unless they are that person’s parent, guardian or spouse. There is, however, no requirement for that parent, guardian or spouse to supply the alcohol in a responsible manner and no clear definition of what constitutes a guardian. The regulation has been in force since 1982, but Sarah Jaggard, the Australian Drug Foundation’s Community Mobilisation Policy Officer, says not many people know about it, and no studies have been done into its effectiveness in preventing harm.

In Queensland and Tasmania, the introduction of social supply legislation has been more recent, with both states bringing in new regulations in 2009.

The Queensland Liquor Act requires that an adult not supply alcohol to a minor at a private place unless the adult is the “responsible adult for the minor”. As Jaggard points out, however, the law doesn’t address whether approval can be transferred to someone else by the responsible party. It would be reasonable to assume that any an adult who has formal charge over a young person on a specific occasion is acting in loco parentis. So when your child ‘stays over’ at the home of a friend, he or she is subject to supervision by the parent (or equivalent) of the friend and may be given alcohol by that person.

Queensland does have a second offence of irresponsible supply, which occurs when an adult, including a parent or guardian, does not ensure minors consume alcohol safely and in reasonable quantities.

Tasmania’s laws are similar but have the added requirement that a person supplying alcohol to a minor must also have the permission of the responsible adult.

The host of a private party would therefore have to gain prior approval from the responsible adult of each young person who attends the event before they could be supplied with alcohol. The approval may be in verbal, written or electronic in form, but the onus is on the host to ensure the approval is legitimate.

Jaggard says that, while these laws are too new for there to have been any significant studies into their effectiveness, the Tasmanian version is the best legislative model of the three, providing the greatest clarity in terms of how and by whom kids are introduced to alcohol. Clearly, New Zealand’s Law Commission would agree.

However, parents wanting a set of laws such as these to help protect their sole right to introduce their children to alcohol may face another dilemma – whether they should be doing so at all.

The Australian Drug Foundation recommends that not only should parents and their equivalents be required to introduce alcohol responsibly, they should also be required to do so in accordance with the guidelines of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council. These guidelines say that, due to alcohol’s harmful effects upon the young, the best option for people under 18 is not to drink at all.

Jaggard says 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 popular but not well supported in reality.

“Recent evidence is pretty clear that drinking with your children in adolescence actually increases the likelihood that they will also drink outside the home.”

She cites a recent Dutch study of 428 families that found that teenagers who drank with their parents were at greater risk of developing alcohol-related problems including trouble with school work, missed school days and getting into fights with others.

A recent Australian study, which tracked young people and their drinking patterns from 14–21 years, showed drinking is linked to higher risks of alcohol-related problems in young adulthood, even when at low-risk levels.

“Of most concern,” she says, “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 attention spans.” For Jaggard, there is an upside to these findings.

“This body of research now supports parents and other adults who don’t want to encourage under-age drinking and gives them concrete reasons to deny their children alcohol.”

But for many, this will only be one more cause for worry. Parents like Anna Kenna will tell you that encouraging your children not to drink is an uphill battle when alcohol is associated with sophistication and joy everywhere young people look. For 20 years, New Zealand has enjoyed some of the most liberal liquor laws in the world, and the moderation horse has long since bolted.

And if we have a significant number of parents who aren’t concerned about their kids’ drinking, or don’t yet understand that they should be – and it appears we do – then strengthening social supply laws will do little on its own.

But as Cate Brett says, while the law can’t stop people drinking harmfully by itself, it can help wake society up to the risks associated with alcohol, particularly for adolescents.

The Law Commission has warned each of its recommendations must be taken seriously for they will only be truly effective if implemented as a whole.

Its four recommendations around social supply may help curb some of the harms around youth drinking. Its hope is that the remaining 148 will help the rest of society take a long hard look at itself as well – and perhaps make a start on getting the genie back into the bottle.

• Rob Zorn is a Wellington-based writer.

Advice for parents

The Australian Drug Foundation says it is important parents understand the critical role they play in introducing children to alcohol. Parents are currently one of the main sources of alcohol for young people, so it is vital that they teach their children about it and how to act responsibly. When it comes to teaching children about alcohol, remember the three Rs:

 

Relationships
Having to compete with peer pressure and popularity is no easy task for any parent, but it is important that children learn about alcohol from you rather than from their friends.

The best way to influence your child’s use of alcohol is to maintain a good relationship with them. Research shows that teenagers are much more likely to delay drinking when they feel they have a close, supportive tie with a parent or guardian.

It is also important to set a good example to your children about where, how and why you use alcohol. Young people are very good at identifying double standards, so being aware of how you use alcohol may help establish your credibility.

 

Restrictions
Setting restrictions and boundaries when it comes to children and alcohol is important, but never easy, so here are some important tips to remember:

• Make your limits and restrictions as clear as possible. The smallest bit of ambiguity can be all that is needed to tempt your teenager to push the boundaries.
• Set and clarify the consequences of breaking the boundaries, what the punishment will be and how it will be carried out. If boundaries are broken, make sure you follow through with the action.
• Address the 3 Ws (when, where, and what). Your child should know at what age they are permitted to drink, where they are permitted to drink (at home, parties etc) and what they may drink, ranging from types of alcohol to quantities.

 

Risks
It is important children know why they should act responsibly when it comes to alcohol. Identify these risks:

• Behavioural – accidents and injuries, sex, violence and embarrassing behaviour.
• Physical – liver damage, heart and blood disorders and brain damage, as well as physical appearance.

Teenagers are usually very conscious of their image and reputation, so making them aware of these risks may act as a deterrent to drinking alcohol.

Brooke - a view from a young person

Brooke, a 16-year-old and student at MacLeans College in Buckland’s Beach, provides a young person’s perspective – something she says is almost always missing from the debate.

Brooke confirms that a lot of young people get their alcohol from friends who are 18 but that a lot of 16-year-olds also have fake IDs. She says her parents will sometimes buy her alcohol for special occasions, but they always do it (usually a four-pack of RTDs) so they know how much she is drinking.

She reckons she has pretty responsible attitudes towards alcohol.

“They have come from my parents. They know young people are going to drink, but they have chosen to trust me, and I don’t want to lose that trust. I know if I come home wasted they will not buy me more. Alcohol’s not something I want to abuse anyway. I’ve seen guys getting carried away in ambulances and having their stomachs pumped, and it’s really gross.”

Brooke has had one bad experience with alcohol that freaked her out.

“I couldn’t remember what had happened to me, and that was really scary. Sometimes it takes a bad experience to know where your limit is.”

She says most of her friends’ parents are also responsible when buying alcohol for their kids. But sometimes, when parents say no, kids just go to other places, and parents end up not knowing what they are drinking.

“If after-ball parties are cancelled, kids will go off and drink where they aren’t supervised. It’s far better for them to drink in an environment where they can be supervised and where limits are put on what can be drunk and you can’t leave without parental permission. If you’re out drinking and walking the streets, it’s easy to get into trouble, especially if you lose your friends.

“Parents don’t realise there are going to be far worse outcomes if kids drink at other places and Police are going to have more on their hands than at a controlled after-ball.”

When it comes to one day introducing her own kids to alcohol, Brooke says she will let them drink under her supervision on family occasions.

“I plan to teach them about the effects of alcohol and the dangers around getting drunk. I think the best way parents can give their kids good attitudes towards alcohol is by setting them a good example, not drinking a lot themselves. I think they should set really clear but strict rules for them and then trust them to keep to the rules but not give them very many chances if they stuff up.”

Brooke thinks it’s really important that adults understand kids’ point of view.

“We understand theirs. We do get it that alcohol can be dangerous, but adults have to understand that kids can also enjoy alcohol, and why shouldn’t we be allowed to if we can do it responsibly?

Rhett - a view from a parent

Rhett, a Manager at the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, is a former secondary school teacher who lives in Raumati Beach. His 17-year-old daughter is in year 13 at Kapiti College.

Rhett doesn’t really think kids are drinking any younger now than they used to, but he does think the situation has changed.

“What kids are drinking today is a lot different to what we were drinking at their age. Beer was 4 percent alcohol, and you got bloated if you drank too much. Now, a lot of what the kids are drinking is spirit-based and around 8 percent. It’s twice the strength and much easier to drink.

“When we were young, parties finished at midnight and you went home to bed. Now kids just seem go out after parties and drink into the early hours. Why do bars need to be open at 3 or 4am?”

He thinks there’s also been a real shift in attitudes to kids drinking and drunkenness, even amongst adults.

“At one Kapiti College ball a couple years back, a take-home memento given to the kids was a shot glass with the school logo on it. What sort of message does that send?”

Rhett says his daughter drinks but doesn’t have a problem with alcohol and neither do the kids of his friends because they have been taught to drink sensibly in the home.

“It’s about having open conversations with them from an early age. Good parenting starts when kids are very young. You can’t expect to suddenly be able to teach your kids good things if you haven’t done so all along.”

Rhett would far rather see kids go to a supervised after-ball party than be left to their own devices.

“You can’t take alcohol away from kids now; it’s too late for that, so the best you can do is impart strategies to them to drink sensibly, to say no when someone encourages them to be stupid with alcohol.”

He says changes to social supply laws would give parents a little more support. Parents could argue that they can’t supply alcohol at parties because it’s against the law.

“But at the end of the day, you don’t need legislation to be a good parent.”

Youth are part of the solution

The Law Commission’s report Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm makes 153 recommendations spanning a broad range of areas. However, none has featured in the news more prominently than the recommendation to raise the drinking age. Sarah Helm explains why discussion and debate about youth drinking is a good thing.

-----

At ALAC’s Working Together Conference in May, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said the law couldn’t fix everything, but it could help nudge New Zealand towards a more moderate drinking culture. The rest is up to us.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the age at which young people can purchase alcohol is one aspect of our drinking culture that has dominated media discussion.

Firstly, some high-profile tragedies involving young people and alcohol have shaken the nation and forced us all – adults and youth – to take stock. After the tragic King’s College incident, we were left collectively reeling. Many of us who work in the sector have been inundated with calls from concerned parents and teachers wanting to prevent something similar happening to their teenagers.

Another reason why the drinking age dominates discussion about law change is that, as adults, it gives us an out – i.e. it’s all a youth problem. Yet whenever something impacts on children and young people, adults should probably take a look in the mirror first. Young people and children live in the environment we have collectively developed for them and over which they have very little say. Was this the dream we had when we passed our current alcohol laws? If we believe that alcohol is doing so much damage to ourselves and the lives of our children, then as a nation, as communities or as families, we are responsible for making change.

There is some truth behind the common assumption that the drinking problem is a youth problem. Young people suffer disproportionately high levels of harm from alcohol, particularly in the group aged 18–24 years. This harm is significant and causes scars that last for young people: violence, sexual violence, suicides, road crashes, injuries, and the list goes on. This generation, like none before it, has experienced the most deregulated alcohol environment and exposure to high levels of advertising and alcohol access. If the far-reaching proposals suggested by the Law Commission were adopted, there would be a safer environment that supports a more moderate drinking culture – not just for young people, but for all of us.

Youth are also a vital part of the equation in transforming our society. At ALAC, we believe young people are positive agents of change who can help reduce the harms of alcohol for themselves and their communities. Young people want and need a healthy family and neighbourhood to grow up in. Their whole lives depend on it so they have an investment in helping to be a part of the solution.

Young people are also great at asking questions and are less afraid of doing things differently, which is exactly what we need right now. It was young people’s candid statements to the Law Commission that helped convince Sir Geoffrey that it was time to change the law.

From 22–30 May, there were over 200 events held nationally for Youth Week. More than 50 events and activities addressed alcohol harm. Young people led or helped lead most of these projects (see a profile of these projects in our feature ‘Youth leadership on alcohol’, page 19). This leadership has helped grow ALAC’s faith that the youth of today can help us become a healthier nation.

• Sarah Helm is ALAC’s Youth Action Plan National Manager.

Campus crackdown

It once marketed itself as the party university, but now the University of Otago’s academic reputation is under threat internationally because of the binge-drinking and bacchanalian revelry of its students. The university is trying to reverse its drinking culture, but how much can it achieve when, across society, drinking to excess has become the norm for the young?

-----

Alcohol abuse by students has been an ongoing problem for the University of Otago. In the past few years, the media has had a field day reporting instances of drunken riots and out-ofcontrol street parties all involving inebriated students. Activities such as the ‘Undie 500’, where students drive a convoy of decorated vehicles from Christchurch to Otago, and the annual toga parade, where first-year students make togas from bed sheets and parade through the main streets of Dunedin, are guaranteed to make headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The future of the ‘Undie 500’ is in doubt after the last four ended in riots, street fires and numerous arrests. There have also been calls from Dunedin residents for the toga parade to be cancelled after the 2009 event involving over 2,000 students left chaos in themain streets, with smashed windows and walls covered in blood, vomit and faeces.

However, the University of Otago is determined not to let the irresponsible actions of some of its students tarnish its academic record. While the public and the media are only just starting to see changes, alcohol abuse has been at the forefront of the university’s agenda for the last decade, culminating in a number of policies that Vice-Chancellor Professor David Skegg says will help address the “grim and chronic national problem” of binge-drinking.

In October last year, the University Council agreed to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship on all campuses and at all events after orientation celebrations turned disorderly. Director of Student Services David Richardson said the advertising ban was a “high-level statement” intended to visibly articulate the university’s position against binge-drinking and alcohol abuse.

Another way the university tries to battle binge-drinking is by offering students the assistance of trained nurses, counsellors and psychologists who provide advice on all aspects of student life. In the past few years, an emphasis has been placed on alcohol-related issues to better equip these health professionals to combat alcohol abuse.

A recent change that came under scrutiny from OUSA (the Otago University Student Association) was the 2007 implementation of the Student Code of Conduct. All students are expected to comply with these rules and regulations, and the university uses them to monitor and punish ‘anti-social’ behaviour both on and off campus. While the legality of the university’s jurisdiction is still being debated, the results point in favour of the code. David Richardson says that, while it’s still too early for tangible results, “fewer riots and street fires point in the right direction”.

With the Code of Conduct came the appointment of Campus Watch, a 24/7 service where trained people monitor all student activities, both on and off campus, offering advice and counselling, but also reporting any breaches of the code to the university.

The university has also been researching the problems of alcohol abuse and binge-drinking and pin-points the source of the problem as the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. In an attempt to make New Zealand a more desirable location for overseas tourists, the Act and subsequent amendments completely opened up the rules and regulations surrounding the sale and purchase of alcohol. This has meant licences are more easily given to sell cheaper alcohol to younger customers.

At the time, Richardson was a high school principal and well aware of the implications these changes would have on the way young New Zealanders drink.

“What we are seeing now is the result of a drinking social culture that begins in the mid-teens. Because alcohol is advertised so cheaply and often specifically targeted at students, many are coming to the university already acclimatised to believe binge-drinking is a social norm.”

The media and some members of the New Zealand public may point their fingers at the University of Otago demanding that either students start behaving or that the university deals with them swiftly, but Professor Skegg urges critics to see the bigger picture.

A recent study of student drinking habits conducted at five universities throughout the country found a distinct trend towards heavy drinking. Eightyone percent of students reported having consumed alcohol in the preceding four weeks, while 37 percent said they’d had one or more binge-drinking sessions in the preceding week.

“These facts about the wider environment need to be acknowledged by critics who demand that the University of Otago should instantly solve its student behaviour problems, which cannot be solved until the culture of binge-drinking among New Zealand youth is radically altered,” Professor Skegg says.

Youth leadership on alcohol

In recent months, alcohol and young people have featured prominently in the news. There have been a number of liquorrelated deaths and injuries, controversies over afterball parties and much debate about drinking and purchasing ages.

-----

But what hasn’t made the news is the significant number of young people around the country who have become active in their communities, working towards change and greater awareness about excessive drinking.

During Youth Week (22–30 May), more than 50 activities took place around New Zealand addressing alcohol harm. Young people of all ages participated in these activities, with many taking on leadership roles. They were sponsored by ALAC and coordinated by New Zealand Aotearoa Adolescent Health and Development (NZAAHD).

Here are profiles of just a few.

Tairawhiti youth masquerade ball
Youth worker Jimi Hills organised an official masquerade school ball in Ruatoria for students from all over the Central East Coast. He spent more than 12 months putting it together, but reckons it was a great success.

“Young people here don’t really get much formal stuff like this, so the idea was to bring the party to the rural kids. We had a swanky four-course meal with a band and a DJ. But it was more than just an evening of fine dining. There was some fine information, too.

“We had a performance from ‘2.0’, one of New Zealand’s best and youngest hip-hop groups, who then spoke to us about their personal experience as young performers when it came to drugs and alcohol. It was good for the kids to hear from role models who were not much older than themselves.

“After the dinner, a number of guests spoke to the kids about their personal experience growing up in New Zealand and about alcohol. We had Monty Soutar, who served in New Zealand’s 28th Mäori Battalion during World War II, and Rua Tipoki, who used to play rugby for the Canterbury Crusaders and the New Zealand Mäori.

“We had more than 200 kids come, and they all stayed the night, so the next day we put on a breakfast for everyone. We ran a few workshops on health and youth attitudes and heard from other speakers about methamphetamine, addiction and gang culture.

“It was all about giving these kids a chance. They were inspired by some pretty important and influential people. Some of them were a bit surprised because they turned up expecting a dance, but they all had a pretty good time.”

Northland youth health expo
Rina Hudson is a Whangarei careers consultant with a passion for guiding young people to success within their communities. During Youth Week, she facilitated a mini expo where public health and social services professionals spoke to youth and members of the community about education, health and social support services available in Whangarei.

“The purpose of the expo was to get older and younger people communicating on these important issues. It was an opportunity for the young people to hear about the harm alcohol can do to individuals, to families and to our entire community.

“The motivation behind the expo was the losses caused by alcohol, including loss of lives through alcohol-related diseases and car accidents, but also the repercussions on our community and whänau of alcohol-related crime and violence.

“About 35 young people from the community organised the whole event. They were handing out flyers weeks before and spent ages advertising the expo. They provided the morning and afternoon tea, coordinated the speakers, acted as MCs and even helped people in the car park!

“You always read negative stuff in the papers about our teenagers, so it was really nice to finally hear some positive things being said.

“They all really enjoyed organising and coordinating everything, so they’re planning to continue by holding some after-school health workshops. But I think their next plan is to have a disco. Watch this space!”

Tauranga photography workshop
Lizzie Macrae, a Community Youth Worker at the Merivale Community Centre in Tauranga, organised a photography workshop for young people in the area.

“Every night over Youth Week, we got a professional photographer to come and teach the youth the basics of photography and about lighting and angles. We only had about six kids, but they were all really keen to learn.

“After the lessons, we sent the students out into the community and told them to use their new skills to create photos that were related to alcohol and the harm it does to families and the community.

“We are just a small community; we only have one set of shops and one place that sells liquor, but, unfortunately, there are lots of people in our community that use alcohol for selfmedication.

“All of the young people had been affected by alcohol-related harm, and some have family who struggle with alcohol, so it’s something that has had a significant impact on their lives and something that we really wanted to address.

“They took some great photos. They all symbolised the problems people and communities face when alcohol is abused. There were photos of money falling from a bottle down a drain, a family seated around a table with nothing but bottles on their plates and a glass bottle gradually smashing as it got emptier.

“The photos are all exhibited at our community centre so the community can see and experience the great work of our young people.”

Coming together in Invercargill
Rhonda Hoffman, a Child Advocate for children affected by family violence, wanted to organise an event that would allow both young and old to share their thoughts and experiences regarding alcohol.

“We ran a discussion group at our local marae. The event was called Whänau Ora – Coming Together – Connecting Youth and Family. The idea was to get young people talking about their opinions and experiences with alcohol, and about 25 people from the community came, as well as people from Barnados, Family Violence focus groups, the Southern District Health Board, Adventure Development and the YMCA.

“We started by presenting scenarios to do with alcohol, and people ranked them either low, medium or high, depending on the amount of risk they felt in each situation. For example, in one scenario, we asked how people would feel if someone they didn’t know was pouring and mixing their drinks. The discussions really showed how different attitudes can be between younger and older people.

“We then started four main areas of discussion led by Adventure Development. The first was advice for the adults given by the youth, who asked that their parents communicate better instead of hassling them when it came to alcohol. They felt this would promote honesty.

“Then the adults gave advice to the youth. They also asked for better communication and honesty but also for the youth to take responsibility for their actions and to question themselves as to the motivation behind their drinking.

“We moved on to discussing the self-harm that drinking does and also the harm to others. Nearly everyone present had a friend or family member who had been injured or killed in an alcohol-related incident.

“Lastly, we talked about our responsibility as a community to take action against alcohol misuse. It’s not just a family issue anymore; it’s to do with our whole community.”

Have your say on the Alcohol Reform Bill: Background

How did the new liquor bill come about?

• In 2007, the Government tasked the Law Commission, an independent advisory body headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, to review our liquor laws. This followed increasing concerns among ordinary New Zealanders about alcohol-related harms in our society.
• During the review, the Law Commission met and talked with various people and organisations throughout the country and received nearly 3,000 submissions. “Alcohol is destroying our community. I work with families, and we can see the damage to them, to their children and to the wider community. I see it in the courts, the hospitals, family violence.” – A community worker in Otara speaks out at a consultation meeting with the Law Commission.
• In May 2010, the Law Commission released its final report to the Government. This contained 153 recommendations that are intended to work together as a mutually reinforcing package.
• In response, the Government has proposed adopting many, but not all, of these recommendations. Among those it has left out are some of the most effective policy levers to reduce alcohol-related harms, particularly around price and marketing.
• The Alcohol Reform Bill currently before Parliament must go through a Select Committee process. This is your chance to be heard by making a written submission to the Select Committee. If you make a written submission, you should also ask to make an oral presentation.

Why do we need to change our liquor laws?

• We have been relaxing our liquor laws for the last 20 years.
• The number of outlets licensed to sell alcohol has more than doubled from 6,296 in 1990 to 14,424 in 2010.
• Alcohol has become more affordable over the last decade.
• Existing laws are failing to control alcohol advertising, which continues to blatantly associate alcohol with social, sporting and sexual success.
• The Law Commission described the current situation as “the unbridled commercialisation of alcohol”. This has contributed to an environment that promotes a binge-drinking culture and has led to an increase in alcohol-related harms.

How are we drinking?

• Total alcohol consumption rose by 9% between 1998 and 2008.
• 700,000 New Zealanders have been categorised as binge drinkers (consuming seven or more standard drinks per session).
• Binge drinking among teenagers is increasing. Between 1995 and 2004, the proportion of young people drinking more than six drinks on a typical occasion increased from:
  • 14% to 25% in 14 –15 year olds
  • 25% to 36% in 16 –17 year olds
  • 31% to 40% in 18 –19 year olds.

What are some of the alcohol-related harms to our communities?

• Each year, about 1,000 people die due to alcohol. Half of these deaths are from chronic alcohol-related diseases such as cancer. The other half are from injuries.
• Alcohol is responsible for a net loss of 12,000 years of life each year.
• In 2005/06:
  • harmful alcohol use cost an estimated $4.4 billion of diverted resources and lost welfare
  • there were 280,429 alcohol-related injury claims to ACC.
• Alcohol is a factor in one in three of all recorded crimes.

What should the Government do?

• The Law Commission’s recommendations were designed to be a ‘mutually supportive package’. The Government should accept all 153 recommendations instead of ‘cherry picking’ the least politically risky options, as Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer warned it not to do.
• Most importantly, the Government needs to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations for raising prices and restricting marketing. It should also lower the blood alcohol content limits for driving.
• These issues are all addressed in more detail in separate factsheets.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 18 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

Have your say on Alcohol Pricing

What did the Law Commission recommend?

• Raising the excise tax on alcohol by 50% to achieve a 10% average increase in retail prices. They advised that this would be the most effective pricing policy to reduce harms.
• Government fully investigates a minimum pricing scheme and makes it a legal requirement for retailers and producers to provide sales and price data.
• Excise tax on low-alcohol products (up to 2.5% alcohol by volume) should be reduced to encourage the production and availability of these products.

What was the Government’s response?

• Very weak. The Government rejected all three of the Law Commission’s recommendations on pricing. It has ruled out raising excise tax and stalled for time on the idea of minimum pricing. Instead, it prefers to ‘monitor international developments’ and ‘review the information available on alcohol sales and price after one year’.
• It has rejected the Law Commission’s recommendation to make it a legal requirement for retailers to provide price and sales data.
• It has rejected the idea of reducing excise tax on low-alcohol products.

Overall grade awarded

D Fail, has shown no understanding of the issue and failed to recognise any of the requirements . Complete rewrite needed.

Research and experience shows:

• Alcohol has become more affordable over the last decade.
• Cheap products are favoured by heavy, harmful and young drinkers.
• Widespread availability of cheap alcohol products encourages excessive and harmful consumption.
• Raising alcohol prices:
  
  • is one of the best ways to reduce alcohol-related harms such as motor vehicle accidents, violence, sexually transmitted diseases and cirrhosis
  • reduces consumption in high-risk groups such as heavy drinkers and the young
  • reduces the likelihood of young or moderate drinkers becoming heavy drinkers.
• People who enjoy alcohol in moderation will have only minor cost increases if the Government accepts the Law Commission’s proposals. The average price of a 330ml beer would rise by just 17 cents and an $11 bottle of wine would increase by just 96 cents.
• A rise in excise tax will have net economic benefits via the reduced costs to our Police, health services and prisons – a national saving of $72 million each year.

What should the Government do?

• The Government should accept the Law Commission’s main recommendations on pricing, including:
  
  • increasing excise tax by 50% to achieve a 10% average increase in retail prices
  • fully investigating minimum pricing schemes and making it a legal requirement for retailers and producers to provide sales and price data
  • reducing excise tax on low-alcohol products.
• All revenue from excise tax on alcohol should be used to pay for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services.
• We believe there is a strong case for minimum pricing in addition to a rise in excise tax.
• The Law Commission’s recommendations were designed to be a ‘mutually supportive package’. We believe the Government should accept the Law Commission’s entire suite of recommendations instead of ‘cherry picking’ the least politically risky options.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views
  on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

Have your say on Alcohol Marketing

What did the Law Commission recommend?

The Law Commission recommended a three-stage plan to control alcohol promotions, advertising and sponsorship. The process would take five years and phase out all forms of alcohol advertising.

Stage One makes it an offence for off-licences to promote any event or activity that encourages excessive alcohol consumption. Promotions that specifically target young drinkers will also become an offence.

Stage Two creates a joint committee run by the Ministers of Health and Justice. This will oversee a programme to reduce exposure to alcohol advertising and increase control of advertising content.

Stage Three restricts the advertising and promotion of alcohol in all media. Eventually, no alcohol advertising will be allowed, except that which gives factual product information only.

 

What was the Government’s response?

• Weak. The Government accepted stage one of the Law Commission’s recommendations but rejected stages two and three. Instead, it is asking its officials to ‘continue to monitor the national and overseas research on the effects of exposure to advertising’.

Overall grade awarded
D Fail , has shown no understanding of the issue and failed to recognise any of the requirements. Complete rewrite needed .

Research and experience shows:

• There are clear and compelling links between alcohol advertising and its influence on young people. Advertising:
  • encourages people to start drinking at a younger age
  • leads young people who already drink to drink more.
• There are links between sponsorship by sportspeople and hazardous drinking.
• Sponsorship of sporting or cultural events reinforces images and messages about alcohol into culture.
• Voluntary self-regulation of alcohol advertising is not working.

What should the Government do?

• At a very minimum, the Government should accept the Law Commission’s three-stage plan to control alcohol promotions, advertising and sponsorship.
• The eventual goal should be an end to all forms of alcohol advertising.
• The Government should place external controls over the industry’s ability to advertise.
• According to the current voluntary code for advertising liquor:
  • advertisements shall not be sexually provocative
  • liquor advertisements shall neither conflict with nor detract from the need for responsibility and moderation in liquor consumption.
• The Government should restrict new forms of marketing that target young people using social media such as Facebook or viral text messaging.
• Alcohol sponsorship of sporting or cultural events across New Zealand should end.

What does the liquor industry sponsor in your community?
A snapshot of alcohol-sponsored cultural and sporting events, summer of 2010:

Event	Sponsors
Big Day Out Auckland	Smirnoff, Jim Beam, Speights Summit, Lindauer
Laneways Festival auckland	Becks, Smirnoff
Jim Beam Home Grown wellington	Jim Beam
NZI Wellington Sevens	Speights Summit
Rhythm and Vines gisborne	Speights Summit, Yellowglen, Harvest Cider
Heineken Tennis Open	Heineken, Deutz Marlborough Cuvee
Bay of Island Sailing Week	Heineken, Mt Gay Rum
Wellington Cup Racing Carnival	Stella Artois
Phat 10 New Year’s Festival inangahua	Jagermeister, Speights Summit
Small Town Big Sounds mangitinoka	Tui, Montana
Super 14 pre-season game blues and hurricanes, at mangitinoka	Tui
Auckland Seafood Festival	Macs Brewery, Glengarry, 42 Below
2010 Michael Hill New Zealand Open golf	Allan Scott, Amisfield Wine Company, Heineken
Export Gold Series surfing	Export Gold
Splore Festival tapapakanga regional park	Tiger, Cointreau, Jagermeister

 

• The Law Commission’s recommendations were designed to be a ‘mutually supportive package’. We believe the Government should accept the Law Commission’s entire suite of recommendations instead of ‘cherry picking’ the least politically risky options.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

Have your say on Alcohol in your Community

What did the Law Commission recommend?

• Communities should have more input into local licensing decisions.
• Increased community say should be achieved by requiring every local authority to adopt a local alcohol policy. Local alcohol policies would be required to take into account:
  • the number, type and hours of licensed premises
  • the social and economic make-up of the community
  • the level of alcohol-related problems in the area
  • ways to manage intoxicated people in public, working with Police, ambulance and health services
  • permitted areas for licensed premises and areas to be covered by a liquor ban.
• Local alcohol policies should also include a plan for reducing alcohol-related harm, local restrictions on opening hours and a list of areas where outlet density is high and no new licence applications should be accepted.
• Communities should be meaningfully involved on proposed local alcohol policies.
• Councils should involve local iwi and hapu-, Police, licensing inspectors, medical officers of health and other appropriate people when developing local alcohol policies.
• At the moment, decisions about liquor licensing are based only on how suitable the applicant is. Decision makers should also take other factors into account such as the local alcohol policy, the aim of the law to reduce alcohol harms, the impacts of an outlet on a neighbourhood and whether an applicant can handle the responsibilities that come with running a licensed liquor outlet.
• The Law Commission also recommended reducing the hours that liquor can be sold across the country so that:
  • all off-licences (e.g. supermarkets and bottle stores) have to close by 10pm and not reopen until 9am
  • all on-licences (e.g. nightclubs and bars) have to close by 4am and not reopen until 9am, with a compulsory one-way door policy from 2am. This means that people cannot enter after 2am but don’t have to leave until closing time.

What was the Government’s response?

• Fair. The Government largely accepted all the Law Commission’s recommendations around local alcohol policies with one important exception – they will remain voluntary. Local authorities who adopt a local alcohol policy would also need to follow guidelines suggested by the Law Commission.
• The Government accepted the Law Commission’s proposals to require licensing decision makers to consider a range of factors other than just the applicant’s suitability when processing applications.
• The Government also accepted the need to restrict trading hours but suggested different hours to what the Law Commission recommended. It suggests maximum trading hours of:
  
  • 7am to 11pm for off-licences
  • 8am to 4am for on-licences, with a one-way door policy left up to decision makers rather than be compulsory.

Overall grade awarded
B Sufficient, an achievement that demonstrates satisfactory understanding of the issue but is only beginning to meet the requirements . A watered-do n response.

Research and experience shows:

• High density of liquor outlets leads to increased competition, lower prices and greater availability. When alcohol availability is high, so are rates of harm. Communities have had no power to stop increasing numbers of liquor outlets in their neighbourhoods.
• High liquor outlet density is associated with increased total Police events, including:
  • anti-social behaviour
  • sexual offences
  • dishonesty offences
  • violent crime
  • drug and alcohol offences
  • traffic offences
  • family violence
  • motor vehicle accidents
  • property damage

• If local alcohol policies are voluntary, not all local authorities will develop one. Without a local alcohol policy, communities are denied the level of input needed to influence licence application decisions and the ability to retake control of alcohol
  harms in their neighbourhoods.
• Restricting trading hours reduces excessive drinking, targets the heaviest drinkers and has the least impact on low to moderate drinkers. It reduces alcohol-related crime, violence and road accidents.

What should the Government do?

• The Government should make local alcohol policies mandatory for all local authorities. This would:
  
  • ensure all communities have a say about alcohol in their neighbourhoods
  • encourage all local authorities to consider the nature of alcohol use in their district
  • ensure the licensing process is consistent nationwide.
• The Government’s decision to broaden the factors to be considered by licensing authorities when reviewing applications is a good one.
• Taking into account the impact of any new licensed premises on the surrounding community will help prevent the clustering of alcohol outlets, reduce the availability of alcohol and reduce alcohol harms.
• The Government should accept the restricted trading hours recommended by the Law Commission and make a one-way door policy compulsory.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

Have your say on Drink Driving

What did the Law Commission recommend?

• Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for driving should be reduced from 80 to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood for adult drivers.
• The limit should be zero for drivers under 20 years of age.
• Alcohol interlock devices should be considered for all convicted drink drivers. These devices require the driver to provide an alcohol-free breath sample before the vehicle can be started.

What was the Government’s response?

• Poor. The Government opted not to change the adult BAC limit, leaving it at 80mg for adult drivers. Instead, it has requested two years of research on crash-involved drivers with BAC levels between 50 and 80mg. It says New Zealand-specific research is required before any changes are made.
• The Government has adopted a zero BAC limit for drivers under 20 years of age. They have also adopted the recommendation for alcohol interlock devices.

Overall grade awarded
C Not achieved, demonstrates a limited understanding of the issue and the corresponding requirements . More effort required.

Research and experience shows:

• Lowering the adult BAC limit to 50mg would save between 15 and 30 lives and prevent between 320 and 686 injuries every year.
• There are nearly 300 international studies examining BAC levels and driving ability. They overwhelmingly show that the more alcohol a driver has consumed, the higher their crash risk.
• Every 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood is associated with a near doubling of crash risk. At the current rate of 80mg, a driver is twice as likely to crash as a driver at 50mg.
• Young people are more susceptible to the effects of alcohol and are less experienced drivers. They are at significantly increased risk of crash even at very low BAC concentrations.
• It is easier to keep track of how many drinks you’ve had when keeping below 50mg. This is about two cans of beer drunk by an average-sized adult male in one hour. People intending to keep below a limit of 80mg are more likely to lose count of their drinks.
• Most New Zealanders support a legal BAC limit of 50mg. When asked how much alcohol should be safe to drink before driving, 85% of those surveyed answered two drinks or less. This is equivalent to a BAC limit of 50mg.
• A BAC limit of 50mg or less is standard in most other developed countries including Australia. Places that have lowered the BAC limit have experienced reductions in drinking and driving and alcohol-related deaths and injuries.
• Alcohol interlocks can be an effective tool for managing recidivist drink drivers, but they are only effective in the long term if the underlying alcohol problem is addressed. Otherwise, they only work for the duration they are installed in the offender’s vehicle.

What should the Government do?

• The Government should immediately lower the adult BAC limit to 50mg per 100ml. There is ample research evidence, applicable to New Zealand, to support this change.
• The Drug Foundation fully supports the Government’s decision to reduce youth BAC limits to zero. This sends a clear message to young people that, if you drink any alcohol, you should not drive.
• We also support the Government on the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink drivers. However, repeat drink driving offences are often a sign of an underlying drinking problem. Ensuring that treatment is available to recidivist drink drivers should be a priority.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

Have your say on Social Supply

What did the Law Commission recommend?

Many parents do not want to lose their right to introduce their child to alcohol in a responsible manner but are frustrated at being unable to prevent others from supplying alcohol to their children, often with no adult supervision.

• The Law Commission recognised the rights and responsibilities of parents with respect to the supply of alcohol to minors.
• The Law Commission recommended that it be an offence for any person who is not the parent or guardian to supply alcohol to someone under the age of 18, UNLESS:
  • they have got consent (orally or in writing) from a parent or guardian, AND
  • the alcohol is supplied in a responsible manner.
• Supplying alcohol in a responsible manner means taking into account factors such as:
  • adequacy of adult supervision
  • age of minors present
  • quantity and duration of alcohol supplied
  • presence of intoxication
  • availability of food.
• A parent or guardian would not be responsible if a minor had acted without their knowledge or against their instructions.
• The Law Commission acknowledges concerns about how consent and supervision will be enforced.
• If the purchase age is raised to 20, these recommendations will apply only to those under 18 because the legal responsibilities of parents and guardians end once children turn 18.

What was the Government’s response?

• Very good. The Government accepted the Law Commission’s proposals for strengthening controls on supply of alcohol to minors. It noted that Police would have discretion not to prosecute and believes this will give protection to low-level, low-harm supply and avoid over-interference in people’s private lives.

Overall grade awarded
A Good, an achievement that demonstrates substantial knowledge of the issue and has responded to a significant proportion of requirements . Nearly there – good work.

Research and experience shows:

• Parents, other family members and friends are the main sources of alcohol supply to minors.
• The risk of harm for minors is reduced when parents are involved and there is adult supervision.
• Young people drink more when alcohol is supplied by friends than by parents.
  • Minors are more likely to consume larger amounts of alcohol at someone else’s home (61%) than in their own home (21%).
  • Parents were the most common source of supply to minors who drank less than two standard drinks, while friends were the most common source of supply to minors who drank six or more drinks, on a single occasion.
• Parents have a great influence on young people’s drinking. This influence is more positive when communication channels are clear, there is positive role modelling in the home and alcohol-specific boundaries are put in place.
• Delaying the age of alcohol initiation helps reduce harmful drinking.
• Police often respond to out-of-control parties where alcohol has been supplied by adults to other people’s children, yet find it difficult to investigate or prosecute the supplier under existing law.

What should the Government do?

• Follow through on its decision to accept the Law Commission’s proposals for strengthening the controls on supply of alcohol to minors by including this in the new alcohol law. This will give parents and other adults more support and clarity about their rights and responsibilities around supplying alcohol to their own and other children.
• Invest adequate resources to ensure parents understand the critical role they play in introducing their children to alcohol, including the importance of role modelling and responsible supply.
• Enforce the new laws in a way that Police discretion is not used to unfairly target particular socio-economic or ethnic groups.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views
  on alcohol law change.

Read the PDf version here

Have your say on Purchase Age

What did the Law Commission recommend?

• The purchase age for alcohol be raised to 20 years with no exceptions.

What was the Government’s response?

• Not quite there. The Government recommend introducing a split purchase age of 18 years for on-licences (e.g. bars and nightclubs) and 20 years for off-licences (e.g. bottle stores and supermarkets). It considers this would reduce alcohol-related harms associated with drinking off-premises, especially the practice of ‘pre-loading’. It also points to the reduced opportunity for supply by 18 and 19 year olds to younger peers.

Overall grade awarded
B Sufficient, an achievement that demonstrates satisfactory understanding of the issue but is only beginning to meet the requirements . A wat ered-down response.

Research and experience shows:

• Drinking at a young age is a risk factor for alcohol-related harms as a young adult and later in life.
• Since the purchase age was lowered from 20 to 18 in 1999:
  • there has been a significant increase in intoxicated people under 20 presenting
    to hospital
  • there has been an increase in alcohol-related crashes among 15 to 19 year olds
  • young people are starting to drink at an even earlier age.
• In a recent survey, eight in 10 people aged 16–17 years had consumed alcohol in the past year, with 71% of these consuming a large amount at least once and 36% drinking at least weekly.
• International evidence shows that raising the purchase age reduces adolescent access to alcohol, reduces harmful youth drinking and raises the age at which young people start drinking.
• The Law Commission considered the idea of a split purchase age but rejected it, as there is no evidence that on-licences provide a lower-risk drinking environment.
  
  • A significant proportion of serious assaults occur in and around on-licensed premises.
  • A split purchase age is difficult to enforce and sends out conflicting messages.
• Since 1999, new research has shown that the brain continues to develop until well into a person’s 20s. Drinking alcohol at a young age harms the developing brain.

What should the Government do?

• Listen to the evidence and accept the Law Commission’s recommendation to return the purchase age back to 20, with no exceptions.
• Treat purchase age as a health and social policy issue rather than a conscience issue when voting in the House.
• Make alcohol policy on the basis of the evidence and experience rather than on what might be popular.
• Not allow its concern for the drinking and voting rights of young people to over-ride the real and significant harms that have occurred since the lowering of the purchase age.
• The Law Commission’s recommendations were designed to be a ‘mutually supportive package’. We believe the Government should accept the Law Commission’s entire suite of recommendations instead of ‘cherry picking’ the least politically risky options.

What should you do?

• Have your say in creating better alcohol laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee before Tuesday 1 February 2011. This can be as short or long as you like, and you can use this toolkit to help you.
• Tell the Government that it should accept all 153 of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
• If you make a written submission, you should also make an oral presentation. You can be as creative as you like. This is your chance to tell your story about the impact of alcohol on your family and community and to tell our politicians about the changes that you want to see.
• Encourage your friends, family and community to get involved. The more New Zealanders who speak out, the more likely it is that the Government will listen.
• Ask to meet with or write to your local MP and let them know your views on alcohol law change.

Read the PDF version here

The Social Worker - Barbara Te Kare

Social worker at Tamaki College and member of the Glen Innes Drug and Alcohol Group.

Barbara Te Kare says those opposed to alcohol price rises need to stop thinking about having to pay a little more for a glass of wine and start considering the positive impact a price rise could have in a household where alcohol is abused.

“That’s what I’d like people to think more about. In the end, we’ll have a better quality of life, especially for our kids.”

Te Kare is a social worker at Tamaki College. She says Glen Innes, where she has worked in various community roles over the last 33 years, is a decile 1 location with much state housing, but it’s also a community blessed with positivity and a vibrant collection of community agencies.

“There are a small number of people that cause the majority of the harm because of alcohol-related issues.”

She says alcohol instigates or accentuates a variety of social problems in Glen Innes. Te Kare says alcohol-fuelled domestic violence is a big problem, as are the drinking habits of parents whose hangovers render them incapable of getting up in the morning to get their primary-aged children off to school.

“In homes where there’s a lot of alcohol, young people get very confused. They see it every day, and they need to know there’s another way.”

There are many parks and green spaces in Glen Innes but parents do not let their children play in them because they have become too dangerous. Often, there will be groups of young people in their late teens binge drinking in the parks, and broken glass is commonly littered around playgrounds.

When a local stream was recently cleaned up, half the litter pulled out of it was alcohol debris – empty cartons and bottles.

Te Kare is concerned about the proliferation of outlets selling alcohol in her suburb and their proximity to schools.

“It becomes the norm.”

The Glen Innes Drug and Alcohol Group, which Te Kare has belonged to for about 18 months, relayed to the Law Commission its concerns about the ready availability of alcohol. The group also called for a liquor ban in public parks in community neighbourhoods and a rise in both the purchase age and the price of alcohol.

Te Kare says New Zealanders who are not living in an environment where heavy drinking is a concern may be opposed to a price rise for alcohol, but she hopes they will reconsider that stance because they can appreciate the potential benefits of making it harder for heavy-drinking parents and young people to abuse alcohol.

“People are worrying too much about themselves.”

The Rugby League Club President - Tagaloa Taima Fagaloa

Porirua City Councillor, Pacific Health Director, Capital & Coast District Health Board.

Taima Fagaloa wants young people to know that Saturday sport and an after-match beer are not unquestionably woven together. The Porirua City Councillor is chair of St George Rugby League Club, the board of which has decided to ban alcohol at its home ground, Cannons Creek Park, before and during club games.

The ban has yet to be put to a full club meeting but initial feedback suggests the club’s 120 adult members support the effort to curb the drinking culture around their sport.

Until now, there has been a tendency for some spectators to bring alcohol to the grounds and for players to drink in the changing rooms or on the fields after the game. Recently, children’s Sunday league games had to be postponed until the changing rooms could be cleared of broken glass from the previous day’s drinking.

“We have 150 kids registered with us,” Fagaloa says. “Why on earth would we want to reinforce that this is okay?”

Assuming the motion gets member backing, opposing teams will be informed not to bring alcohol with them to St George home games.

The club has also broken the tradition of hosting a rowdy after-match function in its local bar following every game. Instead, it promotes selected social events throughout the season. Some individuals may still go for a drink after each game, but regular post-match drinking no longer has the club’s stamp of approval.

In 2008, Fagaloa successfully lobbied against a liquor licence application for a bottle store opposite Cannons Creek School. The shop was to be located between a fruit shop and a library. Community meetings drew up to 60 people (many of them representing other concerned community groups), and about 800 people signed a petition opposing the store. On the day of the application hearing, Fagaloa led about 150 noisy protestors from Porirua’s shopping centre to the District Court.

While the group’s submission to the hearing was argued primarily on the grounds of hours of trade, Fagaloa and others were concerned about the ease with which people could buy alcohol, the “normalisation” of putting bottle stores next to everyday conveniences such as libraries and takeaway bars, the advertising for “lolly-type” drinks, which children could plainly see as they came and went from school, and the density of alcohol outlets in a small community.

At one count, Fagaloa says, there were 15 liquor outlets to service a community of 20,000.

“It has been a gloomy picture for us in East Porirua.”

The Law Commission President - Sir Geoffrey Palmer

Law Commission President and former Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer is usually in bed by 10pm, but in the course of researching the reality of how alcohol is used and abused in New Zealand, the Law Commission President went out on night patrols with Police around the country until 4am. It was “carnage by night” he says.

“I understood the alcohol law. What I didn’t understand was the reality out there and how it has changed.”

In Hamilton, a group of students showed him a trio of bars known as “the Chlamydia Triangle”. They explained that patrons would drink until intoxicated in the first two bars, then have sex with random strangers in the toilets at the third bar. The next day they would have no memory of who they had slept with.

In Queenstown, Sir Geoffrey saw the council’s desperate efforts to clean vomit off the footpaths each morning to try and salvage the town’s pristine image for tourists.

“I don’t think that sort of thing enhances our civilisation. It certainly doesn’t enhance our tourism.”

Sir Geoffrey says the Police protect the masses from the reality of New Zealand’s drinking culture. Before he went out on the beat, he was as unaware as many other New Zealanders of alcohol’s true impact on society.

“I can’t tell you it was a pleasant experience. I felt, is this what New Zealand has come to?”

On-the-ground research, such as the Police patrols, complemented the extensive work the Law Commission undertook over an 18-month review of New Zealand’s liquor laws. The commission’s report features 1,300 footnotes, 153 recommendations and draws on the sentiments of 50 public meetings and 3,000 submissions. The recommendations, which will be considered by Parliament, are intended to be bedded in over a 10-year timeframe.

“The whole experience we went through was very chastening. I don’t drink as much as I did when we started this project.”

Sir Geoffrey now drinks one glass of wine, three or four evenings a week. He says all of the researchers working on the liquor laws project have been similarly affected by what they’ve learnt and seen.

“It’s the drinking culture you’ve got to change. We have got here [in New Zealand] a very unfortunate situation, and we seem to have convinced ourselves there’s nothing we can do about it.”

At an ALAC conference in May, Sir Geoffrey said 83 people had been known to drink themselves to death in New Zealand since July 2007, 1,000 more had died from alcohol-related causes and many thousands had been injured as a result of their own or someone else’s drinking.

Sir Geoffrey was Justice Minister when this country’s liquor legislation was last overhauled in 1989. Changes at that time included the liberalisation of laws to help develop New Zealand’s café and restaurant scene.

“I thought it would help make New Zealand a more sophisticated society.”

Those changes were appropriate and addressed vital issues for that era, but Sir Geoffrey says New Zealand is now a different country and significant social change in the interim has gone unchecked.

The Addiction Programme Manager - Major Lynette Hutson

Salvation Army’s National Manager for Addictions and Supportive Accommodation.

Lynette Hutson’s job encompasses all the Salvation Army’s work in mental health, homelessness and addictions such as to alcohol, drugs and gambling. While alcohol is an area of concern on its own, it also flows through each of these other areas of social need, exacerbating problems for those already struggling, Hutson says.

And it’s been a problem New Zealand has battled since the days of early European settlement, when alcohol surfaced as one of this country’s first social problems.

“We really haven’t made progress.”

Hutson says there is a double standard in New Zealand around how alcohol is used. “There’s one drink between being the hero and being the failure, the one everyone looks down on.”

Although it’s not a very Kiwi trait to confront friends over their problem drinking, it’s a cultural shift that this country needs, she says. As a strategy, minding your own business doesn’t work.

“People withdraw from that person, isolate them, and the problem gets worse.”

The Salvation Army estimates a person’s drinking problem has a significant negative impact on 20 others around them, from family to employers to friends. Hutson says it upsets her to meet the young people whose parents are using Salvation Army services for drinking-related problems. Most appear haunted and startled.

Everybody has a level of vulnerability, she says, and if too many risk factors collide at one time, people who have never shown any predisposition to problem drinking can suddenly develop severe alcohol addictions. She has met successful, happy people, some of them holding positions of very high standing in society, whose lives have been shattered by an unfortunate set of circumstances and the alcoholism that grew out of their despair.

“There but for the grace of God go I,” she says.

Hutson would like to see an increase in taxes on alcohol, restraints around the number of liquor outlets in a community and alcohol taken off the shelves of supermarkets.

“It should never be so entwined with food and the necessities of life.”

She says, in New Zealand culture, there is a worry that you’ll be viewed as a “wowser” if you speak out against the easy availability of alcohol.

She takes heart in the recent rise in tobacco prices and the determination for significant change that this illustrated, but, she says, alcohol reform will be a much bigger fight.

“It’s more culturally entrenched.”

The Party-town Mayor - Clive Geddes

Mayor of Queenstown

Queenstown is world-renowned as New Zealand’s party town, but the daily hangover can wear pretty thin for locals whose shopfronts are routinely fouled by vomit, whose windows are smashed in random acts of violence and whose early-morning sleep is shattered by the incessant, repetitive, gnawing screech of Australians chanting, “Oi, oi, oi!”

It was the need to balance the lifestyle of long-term residents, the expectations of tourists and the habits of party-hard seasonal workers that led Queenstown Lakes District Council through a tough period of small-town liquor licensing reform.

Clive Geddes has been mayor 9 years, but says the need to take a hard look at liquor licensing first arose around 12–15 years ago. The council’s district plan allowed 24-hour licences, and there were often inebriated people stumbling around the picturesque lakeside town at 8am or 9am on a weekday. Workers in the CBD would be greeted with urine or vomit in their shop doorways. Assaults and offences against property were on the rise.

There are 90 liquor licences for premises within a 500m radius of central Queenstown.

“By the turn of the century, it was becoming apparent that this high concentration of licensed premises… created a whole range of social and community problems in the CBD.”

The decision to tackle liquor licensing was a controversial and long road. The mayor drove through changes that took effect 2 years ago. Now, every liquor licence that comes up for renewal will be subject to new closing hours. Last drinks will be served at 4am, and all punters must be out by 4.30am – although exceptions have been made for well run, host-responsible, ticketed, one-off events.

So far, only five or six licences have come up for renewal, and Geddes says it is difficult to gauge a tangible change in terms of antisocial behaviour. (There were always only a handful of bars open 24 hours; the majority close between midnight and 3am.)

But the debate and resulting change in policy has seen a sizeable shift in attitude. The licensees and the council have joined forces with Police and public health providers to form a liquor liaison group. Together, they’ve instituted council-funded community guides who patrol the CBD on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The guides intervene in about 30–40 situations a night where small incidents have the potential to blow up into assaults, fights or vandalism. The liaison group also made a submission to the Law Commission, suggesting that liquor licensing hours be dictated by the service an establishment is offering to its customers in terms of host responsibility and security.

Queenstown has another problem with the young hospitality and ski industry workers who buy cheap alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets, drink at their flats until around midnight, then wander into town to socialise in bars. If they are too drunk, they are denied entry, which creates problems on the streets of the town.

As a non-drinker, Geddes admits it is sometimes difficult to be seen vigorously pushing for liquor licensing reform. Geddes has not had a drink since 1988. “I am one of those people that alcohol doesn’t sit comfortably with.”

But he says New Zealanders’ attitudes to alcohol need to change. He is dismayed by the ease of access to alcohol, community acceptance of drunken antisocial behaviour and sport’s heavy reliance on alcohol sponsorship.

“I think, in New Zealand, we’ve had an acceptance of gross alcohol consumption and intoxication that I don’t think stands to our credit at all.”

Geddes says he does not want to see a raft of draconian measures or overregulation of liquor licensing. Rather, he’d like to see sensible regulation and a long-term view to changing Kiwi attitudes to drinking.

The Youth Addiction Service Manager - Deb Fraser

Director of Dunedin Child and Youth Drug and Alcohol Mental Health Service Mirror Services.

Deb Fraser works with young people who are tempted by ready access to alcohol that is “cheap as chips” and sold alongside everyday household items in supermarkets. Her team deal with children who, by their early teens, have already formed problematic relationships with alcohol and are facing life-long consequences. Mirror Services counsellors see young people who are facing charges of violence, have caused injury to others while drink-driving or have unwanted pregnancies as a result of drunken casual sex.

Fraser agrees with Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer who has spoken of a “sinking lid” among young people trying alcohol for the first time and developing drinking habits.

“More young people have access to alcohol younger than they would have in the past,” she says.

When the legal drinking age was 20, Fraser says young people were experimenting at 15 or 16. Now, with a legal drinking age of 18, many are drinking by 13 or 14 at the expense of other activities such as sport.

“Overall, we see kids not being so involved in other activities because they are spending more [time] drinking.”

Fraser says the earlier young people are introduced to alcohol, the more likely they are to experience problem drinking later in life. For this reason, she would support efforts to make alcohol more difficult for young people to purchase.

The biggest problem New Zealand faces in relation to alcohol is society’s acceptance – even celebration – of excessive drinking, she says.

Dunedin is particularly affected by the hard-drinking “southern man” culture and the excessive-drinking student culture.

Fraser says parental responsibility regarding teenage drinking seems to be lacking in New Zealand society. At adolescence, Kiwi parents tend to start backing off and allowing their children greater freedom when they should actually be taking a much closer interest in their children’s lives and offering more guidance.

The A&E Doctor - Dr Paul Quigley

Emergency Medicine Specialist and Clinical Toxicologist, Wellington Regional Hospital.

Paul Quigley likes a beer. In fact, he’s a qualified beer taster. “I’m definitely not into prohibition.”

But he is sick of the strain drunk Kiwis put on the country’s hospital emergency department resources every weekend. Every Friday and Saturday night, the workload at ED at Wellington Hospital doubles as a direct result of alcohol-related injury and illness. The ward is over-run with young drinkers who have wet themselves, soiled themselves, fallen over and cut their heads. Some are in danger of choking on their own vomit and have to be closely monitored all night.

“They tie up a lot of nursing staff.”

Others, who may have broken bones or smashed-up faces after an alcohol-related assault, stalk around the ward thinking they need treatment more than anyone else, intimidating those who have come in for heart attacks, asthma or with sick children. Worryingly, some patients have been known to leave ED without being seen because of the frightening atmosphere the drunk patients create.

And then there are the alcohol-related car crashes. One in five fatalities on New Zealand roads each year is in an alcohol-related crash – about 130 deaths. The Ministry of Transport says, for every 100 alcohol or drug-impaired drivers who die, about 80 passengers and sober road users die with them.

Quigley says legal requirements mean ED staff have to hold on to drunk patients – sometimes requiring physical restraint and sedation – until they sober up or can be released into the care of someone sober. Unfortunately, with the drinkers who are just 14 or 15, their parents are often too drunk themselves to come and collect their children (a family environment of heavy drinking is one of the risk factors for a teen’s early drinking).

“In that very young group, that’s often the way.”

And when they sober up (deemed to be when they get down to the drink-drive alcohol limit or pass a variety of physical tests such as putting a finger to their nose), staff are often frustrated by the distinct lack of remorse among the patients who have just monopolised their time for an entire nightshift.

“There’s no regret.” Some of the younger ones are boastful. Even the adults in their 30s and 40s, who are a noticeable presence on the weekends of events such as the Martinborough Food and Wine Festival and the Trentham Races, don’t show any embarrassment over their lack of self control.

“We don’t find it funny,” Quigley says. ED staff work tight skeleton shifts on the weekend evenings because of funding and union restrictions.

And the impact of alcohol drags into the weekend afternoons as well. Quigley says Wellington Regional Hospital is looking at collating New Zealand-based research on hangovers. Overseas research suggests hangovers have a serious economic impact on weekend and Monday productivity. Quigley says emergency departments see a lot of sports and work injuries on Saturdays and Sundays among people who are hungover.

Quigley says alcohol is no longer a treat. It is cheap and easily available. He says young people buy a bottle of Jim Beam and a very small bottle of Coke, mix it and drink it at home so they are intoxicated before they hit town.

The ED doctor says the biggest impact in changing New Zealand’s drinking habits will come from curtailing off-licence supplies, increasing prices and reducing the blood-alcohol limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood down to 50mg.

The Community Project Leader - Adele Hamilton

Community Projects Manager at Otara Health.

Adele Hamilton says Otara suffers under a proliferation of cheap alcohol outlets, even though people of all ages in the community have repeatedly called for the South Auckland suburb to go dry.

“Otara is strong about banning alcohol,” Hamilton says, quoting a survey where residents’ most popular suggestion for curbing alcohol-related crime was to close all liquor outlets in the suburb of 33,000-plus residents.

“A lot of youth come into Otara because they can get the cheap alcohol. They get intoxicated and make trouble. It exhausts our resources.”

Hamilton is in charge of community projects at Otara Health, a non-government organisation made up of community health workers, health promoters and community project teams. Hamilton estimates alcohol is a factor in up to 30 percent of the organisation’s wide-ranging work; from specific alcohol programmes, to projects aimed at neighbourhood support and Pacific health where alcohol crops up as a recurrent problem.

Hamilton says Otara Health’s survey, run to coincide with a Community Board initiative called “Alcohol is no excuse for bad behaviour”, also showed that, of all alcohol-related behaviour, Otara residents were most concerned about violence.

Casual drinking is rife in the Otara town centre, despite a council liquor ban. Hamilton says, from her central Otara workplace, she sees teenagers who have drunk themselves into a stupor when they should be at school. Many
congregate outside liquor outlets.

Youth binge drinking is a growing problem, she says. Many young people play truant from school to drink in alleyways and parks. “They get up to no good, they urinate, they vomit, they get into scuffles, and scuffles can lead to worse things.”

Hamilton says, while the liquor ban has raised awareness and helped change attitudes, Police resources are too  stretched to adequately enforce the ban and deal with the resultant trouble when it is broken.

Otara Health is a member of the Otara Gambling and Alcohol Action Group, which says alcohol is having a devastating effect on the community as it battles third-generation unemployment, domestic violence and a lack of life skills.

Hamilton would like to see the alcohol purchase age raised, the number of liquor outlets in communities reduced, a ban on alcohol advertising, licensees heavily audited to ensure they are compliant with all laws and by-laws, and a policy of strong community input into those by-laws.

The Police Officer - Sergeant Al Lawn

Officer in charge of the Canterbury Police Alcohol Strategy and Enforcement Team.

Every week, between Thursday night and Sunday morning, Al Lawn sees a theft take place. He says it’s the alcohol industry’s product stealing Police officers and hospital beds away from New Zealanders who may have had their car stolen or have a worrisome niggle in their chest.

“We’ll try to get there,” Lawn says, but it’s more than likely the Police will be too busy loading an inebriated teenager into an ambulance or clearing the road after a drink-driving fatality.

“On a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night, most incidents involve alcohol. We run from one job to another.”

With 16 years of frontline Police experience, Lawn says he has seen a shift in recent years to much higher consumption of cheap, off-licence alcohol in private homes before young people head into town. He quotes research that shows the  average person arrives at an on-licence establishment with 10–13 standard drinks under their skin. He also says 44 percent of alcohol in New Zealand is consumed in a drink-toget- drunk mentality.

“It’s nearly half the alcohol consumed. When the producers of alcohol try to minimise the problem, they are talking through a hole in their head.”

Lawn has five staff on the Canterbury Police Alcohol Strategy and Enforcement Team. They work on proactive measures, such as the successful move to a one-way door policy in Christchurch where, from 3am onwards, bars have elected to only let patrons out and not in. This has resulted in fewer people milling around the streets severely intoxicated at 6am or 7am.

Lawn’s team has also worked on a blacklisting system in the student suburb of Riccarton where on- and off-licences have joined forces to slap month-long alcohol-purchasing bans on individuals who have been, in Lawn’s words, “a dick” while drinking.

But alongside the proactive work, there is always a depressing amount of reactive alcohol-related policing.

One recent night, Lawn had to wait for an ambulance to collect a 16-year-old girl outside an after-ball function. She had an expensive dress, new shoes and spent 7 hours in hospital after she vomited raspberry-flavoured alcopops all over Lawn’s car.

“There’s a fine line between alcohol poisoning and death for a little one like her.”

The team also trawls through all fatal car accident files to assess what role, if any, alcohol played in the crash. One Canterbury hotel was found to be the scene of drinking before three fatalities in 6 months.

With the privilege of making money out of alcohol goes the responsibility of looking out for patrons, Lawn says.

Lawn would like to see the price of alcohol go up, fewer off-licences and greater restrictions on the hours supermarkets can sell alcohol. He’d also like to eliminate all advertising of alcohol product pricing so outlets cannot compete on price.

“Alcohol is not a normal commodity. It’s a drug.”