The commercials show people making poor and dangerous choices after excessive drinking and illustrate realistic transformations – when good times turn bad. They continue the message It’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking.

ALAC CEO Gerard Vaughan says he makes no excuses for the hard-hitting nature of the campaign, as it takes an honest approach to what is a serious problem for many people.

“The commercials mirror the serious effects of alcohol misuse and do not exaggerate what is happening every week around New Zealand.

“They aim to get New Zealanders thinking about the personal costs of binge drinking – to them, and their friends and family.”

ALAC’s drinking culture campaign is part of a programme of work designed to change the current environment of tolerance of drunkenness, binge drinking and intoxication.

“We must increase the number of drinkers who think about the effects of getting drunk and who agree it is never okay to get drunk. We want people to reflect on the messages from their own perspective and experiences, and consider changing harmful drinking habits,” Mr Vaughan says.

Each of the three commercials follows one person from when they start drinking to a shocking conclusion. We see ‘Uncle Mark’ having a few beers at a barbeque, ‘Lisa’ having drinks after work, and ‘Danny’ drinking at the local pub or sports club. Uncle Mark is a show off drinker, Lisa is drinking to boost her confidence, and Danny is a team drinker.

As they continue to drink, there is a ‘tipping point’ when their harmless behaviour becomes harmful – to themselves and others. We follow them along their drinking pathway as they continue to make poor choices due to the volume of alcohol consumed.

The commercials include information about how to get help if you are concerned about your drinking, or the drinking of others. An 0800 number (0800 787 797) directs callers to the Alcohol Drug Helpline, while the campaign website – www.hadenough.org.nz – has information about binge drinking, where to go for help, being a responsible host, managing your drinking, and campaign material.

Mr Vaughan says binge drinking causes a lot of harm to New Zealanders and their families.

“Consquences of binge drinking include injury and crime, domestic violence, neglect of family responsibilities like providing basic necessities of life to children of food and adequate clothing, lost productivity at work, hospital admissions, memory loss and embarrassment, depression and more.”

He says while the campaign targets problems caused by excessive drinking it does not target drinking per se.

“Campaign advertisements are not aimed at drinkers who use alcohol only in moderation.

“But it is time to mature as a nation about the degree of binge drinking happening our communities and the effects it has.

“When there are figures, for example, showing some 70 percent of accident and emergency hospital admissions and 75 to 90 percent of weekend crime is alcohol-related; any glamorising of binge drinking and intoxication should stop.”

ALAC research carried out in 2007 found that 25 percent of those surveyed were binge drinkers, 62 percent were moderate drinkers and 12 were non-drinkers.

Gerard Vaughan says the cost of the advertising campaign – about $3 million per year – can be compared to the costs of alcohol-related harm – thought be between $1 billion and $4 billion a year.

“There are personal, family and community costs as well that are not included in this figure. It will be money well spent if this campaign reduces, even by a small amount, the effects of binge drinking.

“Despite the success of previous advertising, the message has yet to get through to many people about the harms caused by excessive drinking.

“Previous advertising has focused on ‘softer’ consequences such as embarrassment and regret. The new campaign focuses on more serious stark realities.”

He says the campaign, which also features print advertising, is not about simply delivering a social message by mass media.

“We know that advertising alone will not change behaviour, which is why this campaign is just one part of a multi-faceted programme to tackle increase moderation and reduce alcohol-related harm. However, advertising – in conjunction with a whole range of other strategies – can influence behaviour.

“These other strategies include policy work, education, service provision and enforcement.

“For example, ALAC is committed to strengthening its links to communities which are most affected by alcohol, such as, Maori, young people between the ages of 12 and 24, and Pacific Island groups. These links and other less high profile and local programmes will augment the new campaign.”

Awareness of ‘drinking culture’ advertising

Research undertaken between July and September 2007(1)  found that:

• almost all adults are aware of the discussion about New Zealand’s drinking culture. Three-quarters of adults had unprompted awareness of ALAC’s drinking culture campaign, and 99 percent were aware of the campaign when prompted
• one-third of all adults who were aware of any drinking habits-related advertising said they had discussed this advertising with other people
• one quarter of adults who said they were now drinking less indicated that their decision to drink less had been influenced in some way by the alcohol-related publicity they had seen. This represents 10 percent of all drinkers
• there are high levels of awareness of the campaign message “It’s not the drinking, it’s how we are drinking”, with one third of all adults having unprompted awareness of this message and 97 percent being aware of it when prompted
• well over half of adult New Zealanders (65 percent) were thinking about the harms to themselves and others that resulted from their drinking
• almost three-quarters of adult New Zealanders agreed they were more likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others when they got drunk.

(1) Research New Zealand. ALAC Alcohol Monitor – Adults and Youth 2006-07 Drinking Behaviours Report.

After extensive debate in the media, polls, lobbying and many arguments for and against, the die was cast when, on 8 November, 2007, politicians voted against the amendment.

It was the 56th time politicians had debated an issue relating to alcohol and voted as a matter of conscience.

Under our parliamentary system, most votes in Parliament are determined largely by the collective decisions of the parties.

However, on a range of moral or social legislation they are able to cast a personal vote, otherwise known as a “conscience” vote.

In recent times issues that have been the subject of conscience votes, other than the sale and consumption of alcohol, have included capital punishment, homosexual law reform, prostitution, gambling, adoption, abortion, pornography, and smoking in public places (see table).

David Lindsey, a doctoral candidate, University of Auckland*, said conscience voting was an indirect consequence of New Zealand’s long tradition of government by party. While there have always been groups of politicians who form themselves into voting alliances, prior to the development of the party system these loyalties were usually informal and flexible.“

“Following the development of the party system, it became increasingly difficult to get elected to Parliament without first becoming a member of a political party,” Mr Lindsey said.

“Decisions about how to vote in Parliament were largely controlled by the party rather than the individual member. As a result, MPs who had strong convictions on an issue, or who wished to represent the views of their constituents as opposed to those of their party, often found themselves at odds with their party’s parliamentary leadership.”

The first time conscience voting was used was in the 1870s, to legislate the sale and consumption of alcohol.

Although most MPs at the time agreed that alcohol was a disruptive influence on society, they disagreed on what to do about it, Mr Lindsey said.

To a considerable extent, the debate reflected differing opinions about the role of the state, with some MPs arguing that government had no role in regulating what was considered a private matter, while others took the view that it must intervene for the protection of vulnerable citizens and the greater good of the whole community.

“As you might expect, given the controversy surrounding alcohol consumption in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the lines of dispute were drawn between the prohibitionists, the moderates, and those opposed to any form of restriction,” Mr Lindsey said.

“Conscience voting was restricted to issues surrounding the use of alcohol for the next 60 years, until the 1930s, when its scope began to widen slowly.

“At this time tensions were beginning to develop between the policies of the two major parties and the personal moral values of some individual MPs. For the most controversial matters there was a need for a safety valve and following the Second World War it increasingly took the form of the conscience vote.“During this period there was also a decline in the relative authority of institutional religion, allowing both social mores to shift and creating a moral vacuum that Parliament was increasingly called upon to fill,” Mr Lindsey said.

These trends led to the use of more conscience votes across a wider range of issues, to the extent that between 1873 and 2007, 131 conscience votes were held – all but eight conducted since 1945.

Mr Lindsey said that these days parties usually allowed conscience voting for four reasons:

• the issue at hand is not one the party has, or can be expected to have, a policy on
• an issue is so sensitive to the electorate that it is desirable that it be divorced from party politics
• the consciences of a proportion of MPs would be affronted if party whips were applied
• it is an issue that is traditionally treated as a conscience matter

“Parties may, however, also find its use convenient for political reasons. For example, a party may wish to avoid the appearance of disunity among their members, or they may see benefit in appearing to take the high moral ground on an issue by treating it as a conscience matter.

“A government may also perceive it as a way of garnering support from across the House over pieces of legislation it may not be sure it will win. The decision about whether to grant their MPs a free or conscience vote will vary from party to party and issue to issue. The Smoke-Free Environment Amendment Bill 2003, for
example, was a conscience vote for some parties, notably New Zealand First and United Future, but not for others.”

Ross Bell, Executive Director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, said it was important to note that there is no parliamentary rule that the conscience vote needs to be used for any legislation. “All parties are too timid to come up with decent alcohol policy and take a full party position. Parties are hiding behind the conscience vote.

“It is true to say, however, that in the recent past there have been cases where minor parties have been brave enough to make a party policy decision.”

So does the conscience vote do us more harm than good?

Certainly the New Zealand Drug Foundation believes the approach is very harmful and it has a stated policy calling for the abolition of conscience votes on alcohol related policies. “Parties should be forming policies based on evidence, instead of hiding behind the conscience vote as an excuse to not show leadership,” Mr Bell said.

“There is a ton of research and examples to show what good policies around alcohol should look like. This issue is so important parties need to form policies based on the evidence and these policies should go through rigorous policy review.” Professor Doug Sellman, Director of the National Addictions Centre, University of Otago, Christchurch, agreed: “At best conscience voting on issues relating to alcohol and other drugs is a way for parties to abrogate their responsibilities. At worst it could reflect the fear Parliament has of the big corporations. If the latter is so, it is something we should all be worried about,” he said.

“When a government resorts to conscience voting it is not governing. Alcohol is New Zealanders’ favourite drug, yet governments haven’t yet been able to deliver policies to deal with its harms effectively. It is even worse with other drugs. Tobacco is the only substance that is beginning to be managed in a rational way, to good effect.

“Without rational public discussion about drugs, including the various political parties clearly stating their positions, we are not going to get rational drug policy. Conscience voting hasn’t delivered good public policy to date on what is a very serious issue for this country,” Professor Sellman said.

Bruce Robertson, Chief Executive of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand, didn’t disagree. He said he had concerns about the much higher propensity for quirky and impractical amendments that can occur on the floor of the House. “When you have Members of Parliament moving changes to wording or policy in the House and if it is popular it can win the vote without any rigorous analysis. There is no ability to put it in front of a select committee. “Conscience votes can be fraught in terms of making consistent, quality legislation. This applies outside of alcohol-related issues as well, a recent example being the shop trading hours legislation.”

However, on a more positive note, Mr Robertson said that with the 1999 Sale of Liquor Act there was significant cross-party work done to create consistency. “The select committee did an excellent job in looking at the options and scenarios available and providing the House with pathways for consistent legislation for the option chosen. They did a good job in helping Parliament produce some legislation that was consistent and practicable.”

Gerard Vaughan, CEO of ALAC, said there was always a tension in debates about alcohol use between individual choice, and the extent to which people were prepared to have laws that restricted their freedoms around when, where and how much they could drink.

“There is a level of openness around the debate in a conscience vote because the view of each MP is declared. On the other hand, the final decision rests on individuals which means that wider social impacts may or may not be considered.

“Our drinking culture means that there is significant harm to our society from the way we drink and whatever procedure Parliament decides to follow, our law making processes need to produce a cohesive alcohol policy and legislation that works together to reduce the social impact of alcohol use.

“Our policies and our legislation have to deliver a comprehensive framework that enables all aspects to work in a supportive and coordinated way towards less social harm. “What is useful is vigorous cross-party debate around what is good policy to have about alcohol issues. “As it currently stands with the conscience voting on issues relating to alcohol, the decisions are heavily influenced by the norms and standards that are currently prevalent within society. Therefore it is even more important to raise New Zealanders’ awareness of our drinking culture and the issues it presents us with, so that society itself will demand change. He believes the challenge for ALAC in this environment is to have a voice in the alcohol debate to increase the chances that laws are made based on evidence of what reduces alcohol related harm.

Despite valid arguments on both sides of the debate over the benefits of conscience voting, an intangible benefit is that it heightens interest in Parliament and in the issue being debated, Mr Lindsey said.

“The sense that the outcome of a legislative vote is not a foregone conclusion, and an intuitive belief that the range of public opinion is somehow better represented during conscience votes, ensures that citizens, organisations and lobbyists, not to mention the media, retain a heightened interest in proceedings when conscience votes are held.”

Certainly the issue of increasing the purchasing age and the arguments for and against were debated by the public and in the media. The debate helped achieve widespread recognition of the problem, and went some way to promoting the fact that raising the purchasing age was not the sole answer to the problems of youth drinking.

A result of the keenness of the debate on the issues surrounding young people drinking is the review, which will look specifically at the effectiveness of current restrictions on the sale and supply of liquor to people under 18.

Mr Lindsey said conscience voting was somewhat unique among parliamentary procedures, in that it is maintained and shaped by expectations rather than regulations. While its basis is political, its operation is heavily influenced by the norms, debates, and standards prevalent within society at any given point in time. As such, it is subject to evolution and development as society itself evolves, and over the past half-century the subjects receiving conscience votes have gradually widened. It is therefore to be expected that over the next 50 years the subjects of conscience voting will change further.

“The unpredictability of the outcome always provides an incentive for parliamentarians to weigh up the importance of their own personal views compared to those of their constituents, however that might be defined in this era of list and electorate MPs, and the members of the party they have been elected to serve.”

This article first appeared in alcohol.org.nz Vol 8 No 4 April 2008

The Christchurch Central Business District Alcohol Accord was implemented from October 2006 to March 2007 in a bid to reduce alcohol-related violence and crime in the Christchurch CBD.

The initiative arose out of collaboration between representatives of the Police District Licensing Unit, Christchurch City Council, Hospitality Association, and the Canterbury District Health Board division Community and Public Health.

The aims of the policy were to:
• reduce the incidence of violence where the perpetrator and/or victim are affected by alcohol
• improve local-level responses to alcohol-related violence
• increase the safety of environments where alcohol consumption occurs
• reduce crime and violence in the CBD by 10 per cent

The key component of the accord was planned to be a 3am one-way door operating in licensed premises on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, meaning patrons couldn’t enter bars after that time.

A high level of participation in the initiative was achieved, with more than 50 licensed premises in the CBD signing the Alcohol Accord.

The intervention was implemented mostly as planned, with the key exceptions that the one-way door was delayed from the planned 3am to 4am, and was diluted somewhat by allowing licensed premises the option of operating a cover charge as an alternative to the one-way door.

The goal of a 10 per cent reduction in alcohol-related crime and violence in the inner city was not met. In fact, there was a 75 per cent increase in total offences during that time over the same period a year earlier, though the majority of that resulted from breaches of the liquor ban.

Christchurch Central Area Police Commander Inspector Gary Knowles said much of that increase was expected and was directly attributed to the increased police presence in the inner city and more effective community partnerships.
“Importantly, the number of serious offences – grievous assaults, sexual attacks and robberies – fell during the six-month trial period, by as much as 21 per cent compared with the same period in 2005-06. And since the trial period ended the number of serious offences has continued to decline.”

By targeting lower-level offences such as minor assault and disorderly conduct, there had been less serious violence being reported in the central city, he said.

“It is important to remember, police statistics are just one measure of the success of the one-way door initiative under the Alcohol Accord. Just as important are the partnerships that have formed between licensees and agencies and the joint responsibility by everyone to improve central-city crime and violence.”

Inspector Knowles said the police had made an ongoing commitment to continue with the level of central-city policing that had operated during the trial, working to further reduce central-city violence. “The Alcohol Accord is a key initiative to help achieve this goal.”

Central Business District Alcohol Accord Management Committee chairman Peter Morrison said the liquor industry was pleased with the success of the accord since it was launched.

“It has helped reduce serious central-city crime and violence and has had no negative impact on licensee turnover.”

Since the trial ended early last year licensees had endorsed the continuation of the accord, which highlighted the industry’s commitment, Mr Morrison said.

“The Alcohol Accord has not only built strong partnerships and better co-operation between licensees and agencies, it has also improved street lighting, resulted in better rubbish collection, improved taxi access and helped identify unsafe areas in the city.”

The committee has also decided to introduce new initiatives under the accord, such as working to alleviate issues associated with party buses dropping off intoxicated passengers in the central city at night, improving pedestrian access along Oxford Terrace, and working with suburban bars and sports clubs to alleviate the issues associated with intoxicated patrons arriving in the central city late at night.

It also agreed to push for further changes to the Sale of Liquor Act to provide sensible restrictions on liquor promotions, and to launch educational programmes relating to the liquor ban and personal safety.

An ALAC evaluation of the one-way trial showed there were improved perceptions of safety in the Christchurch CBD at night. There was also a unanimous view that relationships between stakeholders had been significantly improved by the intervention, and this was regarded as a key achievement of the project. However, it was noted that involving licensees earlier would have benefited the project. The one-way door solution had substantially been decided before licensees became involved in the project, and it appeared the result was that they were not fully persuaded about the policy and hence did not support the 3am proposal.

Sergeant Al Lawn, head of the Christchurch Police Liquor Licensing unit, was one of the instigators of the policy after studying successful trials in Australia. On the Gold Coast alcohol-related offences dropped by 17 per cent and sexual offences by 12 per cent after the introduction of such an accord.
However, the hour of difference between 3am and 4am is crucial to the success of such measures, Sergeant Lawn said. “Crime starts to tail off the later in the morning you go, so the later you start intervening the less opportunity you have to cut crime,” he said.

“The Christchurch experience was not as successful as it could have been if we had gone with an earlier time. All of the Australian policies had a 3am cut-off, but to get the industry on board we had to give something to get something. “But I think this is a good start. We are working with the industry to turn the corner on this problem.”

The central city can be made safer still by expanding on the initiatives undertaken so far, Sergeant Lawn said.

“There are a number of influences that need to be turned around to help create a better perception in the city. One is to get people in town earlier. Currently they are not coming into the central city until 12.30am, after already consuming three-quarters of the alcohol they will drink during the night, bought cheaply at off-licences.

“These are people who are predominantly price-sensitive – young people with only a certain amount of disposable income. “If we can change the price structure and availability of alcohol, and get people into the city earlier, it would even be possible to have a 1am one-way door policy and have an even greater impact on crime.”

That has already started happening voluntarily in some outlets in Christchurch, with some bar managers deciding to implement the one-way door policy an hour or two before 4am, Sergeant Lawn said.

“That is just brilliant, because the managers are seeing the policy as a tool and most people understand the policy and just accept it.”

The next step will be extending the accord to smaller off-licences, encouraging them to stop selling alcohol at 11pm, and working with alcohol outlets in the suburbs, where many people drink before heading to the inner city, Sergeant Lawn said.

In addition, police are introducing a Responsible Server programme, under which all staff involved with selling alcohol will be trained to a certain level.

“We are doing that with the Casino at the moment, in conjunction with their training staff, and it makes a big difference,” Sergeant Lawn said.

Christchurch City Council has been thrilled with the take-up of the policy by the licensees, council Community Adviser Robyn Steel said.

“The licensees are in the process of re-signing the accord, and it was their decision to do that, which is great. That will take it through to July 2009, and it will be re-evaluated after that.” There were also plenty of positives to take out of the crime statistics from the trial period, Ms Steel said.

“There were pockets of times when serious crime was reduced by 22 per cent, and that is really significant in times when violent crime statistics all around are rising,” she said.

“Also, the police have been fantastic, and put a lot of energy into supporting the policy. Statistics for breaches of the liquor ban and disorder offences went through the roof over that trial period, and that was purely the result of increased police presence.”

Improved perceptions of safety in the inner city were encouraging but Christchurch still had some way to go in that area, with a quality of life report last year rating the city last among New Zealand’s 12 largest in that area, Ms Steel said.

“There is still only 38 per cent of our population that thinks the Christchurch inner-city is safe after dark. So we are not great, and need to do more yet.”

Further initiatives include support for training of bar and security staff, and improving late-night public transport from the inner city, she said.

“For taxi drivers it is not too appealing to pick up someone who is incredibly drunk at four o’clock in the morning. We have an alternative transport committee looking at that. “There are always things you can do.”

The promise shown by the Christchurch one-way door policy has been picked up on elsewhere, with Nelson and Dunedin among a number of communities considering adopting similar one-way door measures at certain times of the night.

This article first appeared in alcohol.org.nz Vol 8 No 4 April 2008

Colloquially, the minimum legal purchase age is often referred to as the “drinking age”. Those of us who work with alcohol policy know there’s a big difference between a “drinking age” and a “purchase age”. We will gladly point out that we have a purchase age in New Zealand so there is nothing illegal about anyone supplying any young person with alcohol, nor is it illegal for people of any age to drink. Except in a public place. This last provision is tucked away in the Summary Offences Act, whereas the Sale of Liquor Act is strictly about commercial sale and supply.

For a long time in New Zealand, and for very good reasons, the lowering and raising of the minimum legal purchase age has been a key focus of efforts to influence youth access to alcohol. However, Parliament’s decision last year not to pursue raising the purchase age, followed by the Government’s anti-climactic Review of the Sale and Supply of Liquor to Under-18s, has led to some of us taking a fresh look at alternative options.

Before reading on, it’s important to grasp that the concepts we call “purchase age” versus “drinking age” are not black and white but are different points along a continuum. Moreover, a drinking age law can mean more than one thing because of various exceptions, exemptions and provisions that could be included. Put simply, a minimum legal drinking age severely restricts legal avenues both for the supply of alcohol to, and the consumption by young people.

At first, the suggestion of a drinking age law for New Zealand can seem rather radical. But stop and think ­ why do we have a purchase age? Is it because the act of purchasing liquor is bad for young ones? No. Obviously, it has to do with the commonly held belief that children and adolescents shouldn’t be drinking the stuff ­ at least not in the way that adults do. Ponder too, the following finding by a survey of New Zealand college students. When the non-drinking students were asked for the primary reason why they don’t drink, 41 percent said, “it’s illegal”.(1) Based on that, a change to a drinking age law wouldn’t necessarily require a radical altering of perceptions, at least for some.

There are drinking age laws overseas, with variable levels of enforcement. A drinking age policy approach is applied in the United States (US), Canada and New South Wales with several variations and exceptions. In the US, it is illegal for anyone to supply alcohol to those under the legal drinking age of 21, although there are various exceptions for supply in private establishments or by parents, which vary from state to state. Some states require `alcohol permits’ (the equivalent of a special license) if alcohol is to be supplied to minors at a private event. In 19 states, it is not specifically illegal for a minor to drink (they do not commit any offence when they consume alcohol), just illegal for others to buy for them (with some exceptions).

Canada has a drinking age of 18 or 19, which varies from province to province. It is illegal for anyone to buy alcohol for those under the legal drinking age, with some exceptions ­ minors may drink in certain settings in most provinces.

In Australia the laws vary between states and territories, and depend on whether the alcohol is being supplied and/or consumed. In New South Wales the drinking age is 18, but the law allows parents and guardians to give their under-age children alcohol with dinner at home. Any other person commits an offence if they supply alcohol to a minor without being authorised to do so by the minor’s parents or guardian.

There is little doubt that minimum legal age limits for consumption or purchase of alcohol decrease harms and contribute to delaying the initiation of drinking.(2) However, while drinking age laws deter under-age drinking, they do not prevent it altogether, nor are they without risks. In the US there are concerns that their abstinence-based policy framework for alcohol, with a drinking age set at age 21 and heavy enforcement, has produced mixed results. Total consumption of alcohol by youth in the US has dropped steadily over the last decade but under-age drinking remains a prevalent problem. Under-age drinking accounts for 20 percent of all alcohol consumed in the US. In 2004, 51 percent of 15 year-olds in the US had consumed alcohol and 40 percent of 15-20 year-olds had binged in the past month.(3) Concerns have been expressed that simply conveying negative attitudes towards alcohol may prevent some young people from experimenting with alcohol, but when they do violate the prohibition by using alcohol, they have no guidance by which to control their behaviour and are thus at increased risk of heavy use.(4)

Another issue is the practical workability of a drinking age law. The more exceptions there are, the more complicated enforcement may become. Simple and clear-cut laws are preferable for ease of administration and enforcement, but it may be difficult to achieve simplicity when legislation deals with complex social behaviours.

The table sets out a framework for thinking about drinking age policy options.

Option A

Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA)
of 18 ­ illegal for any person to
supply alcohol to a minor with the
exception of supply by parents and
guardians while accompanying them
in a private social setting. Also an
infringement offence for possession/
consumption by a minor, and supply
by a minor to a minor.

Option B

MLDA with additional exceptions/exemptions
according to the setting/circumstances of supply, for
example:
Other adults may supply and accompany in private
social settings with the consent of a parent or
guardian and
The issuing of permits for supply at events and large
private gatherings such as wedding receptions.

Option C

Graduated MLDA and purchase
age ­ a drinking age of 16 and a
purchase age of 18. An exception
could be added to the drinking age
for parents/guardians supplying
and accompanying in private
settings.

To any of the above could be added an additional requirement for supervision. This requirement would be that minors who have
legally been supplied alcohol by an adult must also be supervised by an adult while drinking that alcohol with a view to preventing intoxication. This approach would require defining `reasonable supervision’.

You’ll notice that each option includes an exemption for parents and guardians, in recognition of parental authority. Even with this exemption, and even if there is no requirement to supervise, the raised expectation generated by a change to a drinking age law should encourage parental monitoring and supervision. It’s not always easy for an individual parent to maintain a firm stance on alcohol in the face of pressure from clever teenagers. A drinking age law may strengthen parents’ resolve to maintain their standards, and increase their receptiveness to educational approaches that encourage supervision and harm minimisation approaches. The aim is to maintain, and in some cases raise, the norm.

What impact would a drinking age law have on Maori and Pacific peoples? There are important differences in the culture of supply across population groups. Pakeha kids are most likely to obtain alcohol from their parents. Maori and Pacific youth are less likely to obtain alcohol from their parents. For Maori, the role of adult whanau is imperative in bringing about change. Pacific youth are most likely to obtain alcohol from older friends.(5) This knowledge flags the need to examine how a drinking age law could be made relevant to Maori and Pacific.
We at ALAC hope to see the subject debated in the future. In the meantime, we’ve anticipated some likely questions and objections, along with responses:

Q: Would a drinking age law criminalise people who supply to minors, or the minors for drinking?

A: No, under a drinking age law, offences could be subject to infringement notices for either possession/consumption and
supply to another minor. An infringement notice is not a criminal offence. It usually involves a financial penalty. A comparable example is a speeding fine.

Q: Would it mean adult family members who give a drink to their niece or nephew at a family picnic or wedding would be breaking the law?

A: Yes or no, depending on the exemptions. Under option A in the table above, it would be illegal.

Q: Shouldn’t such decisions be left in the private domain, free from `nanny state’ interference?

A: Should other drugs be left to the `private domain’? What about family violence? The reality is, we have all sorts of regulations that affect what happens in the home. The question should be whether a particular proposal to curb a private freedom is warranted.

Q: Would a drinking age law give the police powers to enter properties to check who’s drinking?

A: No. A drinking age law of the type discussed here would not allow the police such powers. However, in a situation where police were called to a party that was getting rowdy, the police could enter the premises and try to move people on, break up the party, confiscate alcohol from the young people and issue infringement notices. The police would likely adopt a graduated response system. Depending on the situation and the mix of exceptions and enforcement powers under the legislation, they may also identify the supplier of alcohol to minors and issue an infringement notice, or begin investigations.

Q: Wouldn’t it be difficult for the police to enforce a drinking age law?

A: That’s a valid issue. Enforceability is a key consideration and would need to be explored fully.

Q: Would there need to be an exception for supply by spouses and de facto partners?

A: No. Not many under-18s in New Zealand are married or living in a de facto arrangement. Creating such an exception would only increase the number of 17 year-olds claiming to police that their 18 year-old companion is their de facto spouse.

References

1. Youth 2000
2. Research NZ report, page 110.
3. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
4. “Reducing Harms from Youth Drinking”, Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, Vol. 50(4), Dec 2006, pp.67-87, http://www.peele.net/lib/reducing.html
5. ALAC surveys (as cited in Research NZ’s report)

This article first appeared in the December 2007 edition of alcohol.org.nz.

Why not comment on this article - post a comment below:

By Guest Columnist Christine Rogan, Health Promotion Advisor for Alcohol Healthwatch who has advocated for alcohol health advisory statements for pregnant women since 1996.

The other day I came across a premix vodka beverage with an alcohol content of 7% that was sporting a health advisory statement which said, “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT OR LACTATING WOMEN AND INDIVIDUALS SENSITIVE TO CAFFEINE.  Caffeine?  The message about the significant risk that alcohol posed to such consumers was simply absent.

How could such a situation come about?  In 2001, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ mandated what it called “rigorous labelling” for caffeinated drinks.  A FSANZ spokesperson interviewed at the time by the New Zealand Herald (01/08/01) said, “We are sure that this will protect the health and safety of people who drink these products”.  There had at that point been three deaths linked internationally to the consumption of caffeinated drinks, two ironically where the caffeine had been mixed with alcohol. 

Despite the fact no caffeine-associated deaths to my knowledge were reported in New Zealand and Australia, FSANZ moved quickly to regulate with this health warning.  However, just one year prior, the food standards organisation, summarily dismissed such a move for alcohol, an altogether more significant and proven risk to human health.  Why?  Among the number of questionable arguments put forward at that time, was that a health warnings on alcohol containers would be ineffective at achieving desirable behaviour change and could even increase undesirable behaviour in some ‘at risk’ groups. 

Why then would a health warning label be effective for caffeine one year hence?  There is no rational explanation as to why a level of proof of effectiveness should be so different for alcohol. 

Alcohol is categorised as a food under Government regulations because it is ingested like other types of manufactured food.  However unlike other food products, alcohol has never been required to display nutritional or other health information even though consumption can pose a significant risk to health, beverages can contain preservatives and alcohol produces calories. 

Alcohol manufacturers are required by law to display the alcohol content of every beverage as well as the number of standard drinks this represents.  For instance the 250ml caffeinated vodka product I referred to earlier bears a label stating that it contains 1.4 standard alcohol drinks.  In essence that means that a pregnant woman could ascertain the quantity of alcohol she consumes, but not know that it may pose a risk to her unborn child.  That important information she is obliged to seek from sources elsewhere.  Irrespective of the ‘effectiveness’ argument, leaving alcohol without such a health advisory statements severely limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed consumer choice. 

Ascertaining effectiveness is a bit like asking ‘how long is a piece of string’.  The answer is as always, it depends.  It depends what it is that you require an advisory statement to achieve all on its own. It depends on its visibility and legibility and it depends on whether it exists in isolation of other measures to prevent harm.  Arguments that warning labels are ineffective are not convincing.  They are a cost-effective means of raising awareness, the first step needed for behaviour change to occur. They are and never should be seen as the whole behaviour change package.

Advisory statements like all educational information are passive – designed to inform or instruct.  With any passive information the onus is on the person to engage with its message.  There is clear evidence based on the introduction of alcohol advisory statements initiated in the USA in 1989 that the Government warning increased public awareness – effectively doing the job that was intended and even reached ‘at risk’ populations. 

There is no doubt that their effectiveness as a public health measure would be amplified if product health warnings were supported by a comprehensive package of measures. Those for example used for smoking e.g. social marketing, health advice and resources, quit programmes, tax increases have all played a part in bringing down the rate of smoking alongside health warnings on packets.  It would be a foolish argument to suggest that warnings on packets played no part in that overall strategy.  Increasing awareness of and desirable behaviour change to reduce the risk of drinking during pregnancy is likely to require a similar package of measures. 

For ‘high risk’ drinkers this clearly will be more difficult to achieve, as it is with every public health issue, but why would you set out to attempt that without the key platform - information on the actual product.

Front line health professionals often express their incredulity over the current situation.  They tell me that an advisory statement on alcohol would strengthen their ability to provide advice to women of reproductive age about alcohol.  As it stands they hear the argument that if there was any real harm from drinking alcohol during pregnancy then the Government would say so on the product!  In other words, not having this basic foundational information displayed on the product sends a signal to women that alcohol mustn’t be that much of a problem during pregnancy – a message contrary to Government aims and official Ministry of Health advice to avoid alcohol during that time.

The status quo on this subject may be about to change.  A public petition submitted to the New Zealand Parliament in 2000 met with Government support in 2003 resulting in a further application to FSANZ this time submitted by the Alcohol Advisory Council.  Application A576 - Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages with a Pregnancy Health Advisory Label – was submitted in 2006. 

Earlier this year, FSANZ advised that the release of their Initial Assessment Report on this application would be delayed pending the review of the National Health & Medical Research Council’s review of the Australian Alcohol Guidelines. The NHMRC have since reviewed and altered their advice on alcohol and pregnancy to now advise women to avoid consuming any alcohol during pregnancy. Previously the guidelines were ambivalent suggesting that one standard drink a day was acceptable.  Also gone is the suggestion that alcohol conveys a health benefit, something that FSANZ relied on heavily to dismiss the case for a warning label previously.

The NHMRC released the revised draft Australian Alcohol Guidelines in October and FSANZ advises that their Initial Assessment Report will be released for public consultation in December 2007.  These stronger and much clearer guidelines, pave the way to having a pregnancy warning accepted for alcohol products in Australia and New Zealand in the near future. 

Also supporting the case for this to finally happen here is that, since rejecting this in 2000, other western nations such as France, Ireland and South Africa have mandated pregnancy health advisory statements for alcohol.  Even some European-based manufactures such as Heineken see this as inevitable and to avoid the risk of litigation have already moved to voluntarily label their products accordingly. 

To their credit, the manufacturer of the particular RTD discussed in this article Diageo, voluntarily label the product with the message, “Drink responsibly” and even back that up with a further reinforcing message, “Drink intelligently”. However, industry groups have generally fought hard to resist regulation requiring them to display the very information that consumers needs in order to be responsible.

Here’s hoping that such opposition will soon be a thing of the past and we can all get on with the business of reducing alcohol related harm by as many means as we can possibly achieve.  The ongoing nature and the level of alcohol related harm together with the vulnerability of children requires this of us all.

If you would like further information about this topic you can download a Briefing Paper entitled “Health and Safety Advisory Statements for Alcohol” from the Alcohol Healthwatch website www.ahw.co.nz or by contacting 09 520 7037 or email christine@ahw.co.nz.

This article first appeared in the December 2007 edition of alcohol.org.nz

The woman who was not named said she was “accosted” and repeatedly questioned about her choice when she ordered a low-alcohol beer. She thought it “patronising and rude”.She is reported as saying “The barman asked me whether I was sure I wanted to have an alcoholic drink, then pointed at my stomach,” she said. “I was fuming.”The woman said she drank light beer and wine during her previous pregnancy, as her four sisters had during theirs. She said she had “glares from people in the past and it does seem that while you have this huge stomach and you are waddling around, everyone has something to say about it, but nothing like this. This was incredibly insulting.”

Was the bartender right to raise the issue?

This article was first published in the December 2007 edition of alcohol.org.nz.