Hon Peter Dunne's Keynote Address to ALAC Working Together Conference 2010
7 May 2010

Telstra Events Centre, Manukau
9.40am, Thursday, 6 May 2010

Key points:

• “… while many people drink without harming themselves or others, the misuse of alcohol by some results in considerable health, social and economic costs”.
• “…the Government’s focus will be on workable, rather than feel-good, solutions, and will uphold the balance I spoke of last year between the rights of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who enjoy a drink without any prospect of personal or social harm, and dealing with the specific problems associated with problem drinking by a minority.
• “Our history …has been riddled with alcohol laws that New Zealanders have scoffed at as unworkable, and therefore have honoured more in the breach, than reality. There is no point putting our country in this position yet again.”
• “When the law is an ass, people will ignore it.”
• “The common thread to all of the (alcohol law) debates that I can recall has been the conscience vote which has often produced perverse, unworkable results, on occasion, completely contrary to what Parliament thought it was doing.”
• “It is little wonder our liquor laws were often seen as incoherent and unworkable – because they were. A large part of the blame for this in my view lies with the conscience vote system we have traditionally applied to liquor legislation. “

Full text of speech:

Tena koutou katoa, and good morning.

Thank you, Len, for your kind introduction.

It is a real pleasure to join you today for the opening of ALAC’s 12th Working Together Conference.

At the outset I would like to acknowledge all of you for the commitment you are demonstrating by attending this conference.

It is great to see representatives from a range of agencies and sectors coming together to discuss how they can work together to create real and sustainable change in the way New Zealanders think about and use alcohol.

I would also like to thank and congratulate ALAC for creating this opportunity.

Over the course of the next two days you will hear from a number of prominent speakers from a range of sectors.

As the first keynote speaker, I will set the scene from my perspective as Associate Minister of Health, for what I am sure will be a very interesting and useful conference by providing an overview of some of the key things happening in the alcohol policy space, both internationally and nationally.

The main areas I will briefly highlight today are the progress of the Global Alcohol Strategy, ALAC’s new marketing campaign, the Law Commission’s review of alcohol legislation, the new Road Safety Strategy, and the Government’s Drivers of Crime alcohol workstream.

Global Alcohol Strategy

Reducing the harms from alcohol misuse is currently high on the political agenda in a number of countries.

It is not only New Zealand that has been debating the impacts of the way alcohol is currently used and misused by particular populations, and the most effective strategies to address those concerns.

So it is, therefore, timely that the World Health Organisation is nearing the final stages of developing a Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol.

In January, its Executive Board approved the draft strategy to be put to the World Health Assembly in May for their endorsement.

While the global strategy will not be a binding convention, it will provide countries with guidance on the types of intervention they should consider implementing.

Its purpose is to help build awareness of alcohol misuse as a major public health problem and create an environment that fosters greater international co-operation to address the problem.

New Zealand has had an important role in the development of this strategy and will continue to support it at the World Health Assembly this month.

Beyond that, I have asked officials to monitor policy developments in similar jurisdictions so we might have the benefit of learning any lessons about what works, and what does not.

New Zealand Overview

When I spoke to your conference last year, it was in the context of the review of the Sale of Liquor Act by the Law Commission that was then underway.

My message then was that “while many people drink without harming themselves or others, the misuse of alcohol by some results in considerable health, social and economic costs”.

I further said that “these costs are borne by individuals, families and the wider community”.

I urged that in dealing with the problems caused by the excessive use of alcohol in our community “we need to be careful, however, that we do not fall into the trap of letting a so-called broad brush approach become a synonym for a once-over lightly approach that has little impact on problem drinkers, and just antagonises and irritates the majority.”

Today, just on a year later, these words still hold true.

I fully stand by them.

The Law Commission has completed its review, its report is public, and its recommendations are currently under consideration by Ministers.

The Government will announce its detailed response soon, and I am not going to pre-empt that this morning, although some of the more extreme proposals have already been properly ruled out.

You can rest assured, however, that the Government’s focus will be on workable, rather than feel-good, solutions, and will uphold the balance I spoke of last year between the rights of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who enjoy a drink without any prospect of personal or social harm, and dealing with the specific problems associated with problem drinking by a minority.

There is an essential truth about alcohol’s place in our society that cannot be overlooked.

It is here to stay.

It is not going to vanish overnight, or be reclassified as a dangerous drug, or disappear from social functions, as some fancifully hope.

It is an ingrained reality, which poses no problem for the overwhelming majority, and we should not be afraid to acknowledge the positive role alcohol can play as a social lubricant.

But as a compassionate society, we do have responsibilities to honour.

There will always be those for whom the experience with alcohol will never be positive.

So we must do all we can to curb the economic and social consequences of its misuse on those individuals and families across the spectrum through policies that are both credible and publicly acceptable.

Recently I visited the Wellington Hospital Emergency Department and downtown area during the early hours of a typical Sunday morning.

During the visit I was able to spend time talking with Emergency Department and Police staff about the significant pressure alcohol misuse is putting on health services and Police resources.

Not only do Emergency Services and Police have more incidents to deal with because of the large number of intoxicated people getting into fights and hurting themselves, but these same individuals often require more time and energy because they are unable to be left alone downtown or in the Emergency Department.

As a result the Police and Emergency Services end up having to play a babysitting role on top of trying to do their actual jobs.

The Emergency Services and Police, and all the other agencies that have to deal with intoxicated individuals, and the harms that result, do a fantastic job, and I salute them.

Their call for a legal framework that prevents many of the problems they have to deal with, day in and day out, is perfectly logical and understandable.

At the same time, though, that law has to be seen as fair and reasonable, if it is to be accepted by New Zealanders as worth upholding.

That is the balance that we must seek, and strike, and that I have as my fundamental position.

And, yes, that does lay me open to claim and counter-claim from those who choose to reside on the extremes of this issue.

I can live with that.

Our history – particularly since the abortive attempts to introduce prohibition in the early part of the 20th century, through to the restrictive licensing arrangements that persisted through to the 1960s and 1980s – has been riddled with alcohol laws that New Zealanders have scoffed at as unworkable, and therefore have honoured more in the breach, than reality.

There is no point putting our country in this position yet again.

When the law is an ass, people will ignore it.

We need to get the balance right and come up with law that the average New Zealander knows to be just and fair.

And all the while, per capita consumption of alcohol rose steadily, although it is interesting to note the fall in consumption that has occurred since the passage of the 1989 legislation, apparently now held by its author to have been too liberal.

But those who argue that the alleged “greater good” should prevail when it comes to dealing with alcohol fail to understand, or perhaps are unwilling to acknowledge, that what is the “greater good” is determined ultimately not by the politicians, nor the lobby groups or vested interests, but by the general public – those we often refer to as the silent majority.

The silent majority determines whether a policy response is reasonable, or whether it is just more “nanny state” intervention to be derided and resisted.

And those who claim the Government should be bold and decisive, or whatever pejorative term takes their fancy, also fail to appreciate that governments are ultimately constrained by public consent.

That is why this Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report will focus on what is practical and achievable, within the bounds of public tolerance and acceptability.

All of this raises an important issue about the tenor of the public debate that will occur over the next few months, once the Government’s proposals have been released.

That debate will need to focus on the real issues and the most practical ways to address those, but if past history is any guide it will quickly degenerate into a silly, polarised argument where one side will be portrayed as rich, powerful and uncaring – so-called “Big Alcohol” – motivated solely by a desire to callously increase profits at the expense of suffering, vulnerable people, and the other as hand-wringing puritanical do-gooders, hell bent on restoring wowserism to our community.

Both are extreme stereotypes, and while there have already been examples of those who live up to the stereotypes, and will inevitably be more as the debate unfolds over the next few months, the blunt reality is that they are largely irrelevant, because this is not an issue to be resolved at the extremes.

The issue will be resolved in the middle, where there is a large group of New Zealanders in neither particular camp, who enjoy a drink and see nothing wrong at all with that, who like to be able to pick up a bottle of wine, or a few beers from the supermarket, when it suits them, or to have a night out on the town every now and then.

While they are wary of the influence of big industries, they do not like being lectured as to how they should behave, yet they have some general concerns about aspects of our current drinking culture.

They just want to get on with their lives, with as little interference as possible, and do not see why the excesses of a minority should prevent them from doing so.

For its part, Parliament will have to pick its way carefully through these competing prejudices, and attempt to arrive at solutions that will actually work.

All of which brings me to the way in which Parliament presently considers alcohol legislation.

I speak from the perspective of someone has been involved in every major change to our alcohol laws over more than the last 20 years, and when my time with ALAC is included, has been involved in this field now for more than 30 years.

I am not someone, therefore, who just discovered the issue, or suddenly developed a passion to “save the world”, but rather a very long time student of alcohol politics and the alcohol-related issues generally.

The common thread to all of the debates that I can recall has been the conscience vote which has often produced perverse, unworkable results, on occasion, completely contrary to what Parliament thought it was doing.

In 1981, for example, the then contentious issue of the sale of alcohol on domestic air services was lost narrowly, not because of any noble sense that it would have been an unacceptable proliferation of drinking opportunities by the standards of the time, but simply because two MPs who were in favour of the change voted in the wrong lobby, and did not realise until it was too late what had happened.

There have been occasions too where Parliament passed, within the same piece of legislation, provisions that were inconsistent with each other.

The creation many years ago of “family lounge bars” was a nice concept, hurriedly introduced as a floor of the House amendment many years ago, and passed by a well-meaning conscience vote, essentially to stave off a move to lower the minimum age at that time.

But it proved to be utterly impractical and was totally out of step with the rest of the Sale of Liquor Act as it then stood.

And much of the confusion that previously applied to club licences and the circumstances under which persons under the age of 18 could drink in restaurants, or licensed premises generally arose from this type of muddle headed approach.

It is little wonder our liquor laws were often seen as incoherent and unworkable – because they were.

Well-meaning amendments dreamt up on the floor of the House, or someone’s bright idea or pet hobby-horse are seldom a solid basis on which to make law, and so it has proved on a number of occasions.

A large part of the blame for this in my view lies with the conscience vote system we have traditionally applied to liquor legislation.

The conscience vote has historically applied to moral issues like abortion and capital punishment, and alcohol and gaming matters.

I strongly support Members of Parliament being able to vote according to their consciences on important matters of principle, like, for example, the minimum purchase age – indeed, that is as it should be, but I find it hard to justify why it should also apply to more regulatory matters, such as the nature and type of licences.

The problem with the conscience vote is not that individual MPs are voting according to what they actually believe – that is arguably a good thing – but that because they are individual votes, there is no organised party whipping system in place to make sure people know precisely what they are voting for, or against.

To overcome that, the practice has developed in recent years when liquor laws have been considered on the basis of some informal organisation within the various camps – the liberals and the conservatives, for want of a better term – to ensure that MPs at least cast their votes according to what they intend.

We have even gone a step further and produced unofficial checklists of what a conservative Bill could look like, or what a liberal Bill would contain, for distribution to MPs so that whether they voted liberally or conservatively they at least voted consistently, and that we ended up with legislation that was either liberal or conservative as the case may be, but was no longer an unacceptable mish-mash of both points of view, and therefore essentially unworkable.

While this practice is better than nothing, it is still very much a second best option in my view.

For that reason I think it is now timely to restrict the application of the conscience vote to matters of principle – like the purchase age – and for a party vote to apply on all other essentially regulatory matters.

My call to the political parties as the current debate gets underway is to treat it seriously, and limit the application of the conscience vote on this issue to matters relating to the minimum purchase age only.

In the meantime, I have delayed finalising the updating of the National Alcohol Action Plan until the new legislative framework is in place, simply because I want to make sure its actions are closely aligned with that new regulatory environment.

ALAC’s New Marketing Campaign

ALAC has recently launched a new marketing campaign: Ease up on the drink.

This next stage builds off their previous work to raise awareness of the harms alcohol misuse can cause.

It is focused on providing New Zealanders with the confidence and tools to support family members and friends to take positive action with regards to their drinking.

In many ways this new campaign has a similar theme to this conference ‘Time for Action’ – but on more of an individual level.

Changing the culture requires a long term view, so it is great to see the new campaign helping New Zealand move along the next step on this path.

From my point of view, this is exactly the type of approach that ALAC should be taking, and is one that will resonate strongly with the great New Zealand majority I spoke of earlier.

I value ALAC’s work, and enjoy my interaction with the Council and staff on a regular basis, and I expect that to intensify as the year unfolds.

In this regard, I am pleased to announce that the 2010/2011 ALAC levy has recently been struck to produce an income of $12.7 million, which I know the Council will use effectively and prudently.

Road Safety Strategy

Alcohol related harm is also being considered as part of the recently developed Safer Journeys: New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2010 – 2020.

As part of implementing this Strategy, the Government will be considering:

• lowering the blood alcohol limit for drivers under 20 and repeat offenders to zero;
• reviewing the offences and penalties for causing death or injury;
• lowering the limit for adults or doing further research on this issue; and
• introducing alcohol interlocks for drink drive offenders.

Any changes to drink driving legislation will go through the normal legislative process, so there will be plenty of opportunity for you to have your say, and for your communities to have their say, about transport policies aimed at reducing the destructive influence alcohol has on our roads.

While it is often said that public attitudes have hardened against the drinking driver, and this is true to a large extent, there is no ground for complacency, or satisfaction that the problem has been overcome.

There are still too many people out there who think they can beat the system, either because they “know” they are ok, regardless of what the law might say, or because they can find the back way home, and thus avoid the checkpoints.

So long as this mentality holds sway, we will continue to have a problem, which is why the measures I have just outlined are vitally important.

Drivers of Crime

Alcohol legislation is, however, only one of the areas where change is required in order to reduce the harms caused by alcohol misuse.

The Government has also identified improving the access to and availability of treatment as a priority area.

While this has been an area of focus for the Ministry of Health for a long time, it has now been highlighted as a cross government priority as part of the Government’s Drivers of Crime work.

Initiatives within the Drivers of Crime alcohol workstream are focused on improving access to addiction assessment and treatment services at all points in the adult criminal justice system.

This includes making improvements so that alcohol and drug treatment is more accessible to, and effective for, Maori.

Conclusion

As you are no doubt fully aware, alcohol is currently a very important on political and social agendas in New Zealand.

This conference is, therefore, a timely opportunity for you, the sector, to come together to discuss all the work currently occurring and potential changes that may occur in the upcoming year.

I am sure there will be a lot of interesting and useful discussion occurring over the next two days on what changes you would like to happen to reduce levels of alcohol-related harm occurring within our communities.

The work you do is crucial, and greatly valued and appreciated by me in the first instance, and the Government as a whole.

In closing, I would like to wish all you a very interesting and a very successful conference.