Hon Peter Dunne's Keynote Address to Environment Canterbury Regional Road Safety Forum
25 June 2010

One for the road – one too many

Sudima Hotel, Memorial Drive, Christchurch
Friday 25 June 2010

Good morning.

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak at your regional road safety forum.

This is a very timely event in focusing on alcohol harms associated with road safety.

Unfortunately, in our society today, it would seem that that is always a timely conversation.

These issues are abiding and not yet resolved.

We, as a nation, still have too big a problem with alcohol and road safety.

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.

Particularly in light of the substantial harm it causes on our roads.

I would like to set the scene a little from my perspective as Associate Minister of Health, for what I am sure will be a very interesting and useful forum.

I would like to provide an overview of some 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 Law Commission’s review of alcohol legislation, the Government’s Drivers of Crime alcohol work stream, the new Global Alcohol Strategy and the new Road Safety Strategy.

Law Commission’s Review

As you will all be aware, the Law Commission reported to the Government in April on its review of the sale and supply of liquor.
The report is public, and Ministers are currently considering its recommendations.

The Commission’s report is comprehensive and its recommendations broad, with a clear theme of reducing the harms associated with alcohol misuse.

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.

We will be looking to uphold the balance between the rights of the 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 might wish.

And neither it should.

Alcohol is part of our social fabric and we should not be afraid to acknowledge the positive role it can play as a social lubricant.

But as a society, we have responsibilities to honour.

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

And, there will be those for whom bad choices when drinking result in far reaching consequences for themselves and for those around them.

In particular, the harm that alcohol exacts on us through our road toll and other injury statistics requires us to develop better and more effective ways to address drink driving.

We also need to acknowledge our tendency towards a binge drinking culture and consider ways to shift that culture.

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 the Courtenay Place nightlife 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 work because they cannot 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.

While I salute their efforts unreservedly, I do not think that is a particularly effective use of their time, especially given all the other duties we take for granted that the Police will perform on our behalf.

In 2007, the World Health Organisation conducted a study on alcohol and injury in emergency departments.

Of the ten countries sampled, New Zealand had the second highest rates, with 36% of injured patients reporting they had consumed alcohol prior to their injury.

These findings are certainly consistent with the feedback I received during my visit.

The call by Emergency Services and Police staff, for a legal framework that prevents many of the problems they have to deal with, day in and day out, is perfectly 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.

They were often unworkable, and therefore 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.

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.

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.

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

I speak from the perspective of someone who 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.

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.

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 work stream 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.

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.

In May, The World Health Organisation endorsed the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol.

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.

With regard to how alcohol issues are managed globally, 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.

Road Safety Strategy

I am sure all of you here today are familiar with the Ministry of Transport’s recently released Road safety Strategy Safer Journeys

This strategy provides a clear direction for the next 10 years to improve road safety including reducing the impact of alcohol or drug impaired driving.

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 blood alcohol 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.

In fact “Safer Journeys” notes that while substantial progress was made throughout the 1990s to reduce alcohol and drug related deaths and injuries, since the year 2000 we have made no further progress.

In 2008 there were 119 deaths and 582 serious injuries from vehicle crashes where driver alcohol or drugs was a contributing factor.

In 2007, drivers involved in fatal crashes who were affected by alcohol were most likely between the ages of 20 and 29.

These are depressing statistics and demonstrate there is indeed no time for complacency.

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.

However, these measures will not be the sole solution – the responsibility for addressing the social and economic costs of alcohol related harm lies with us all.

At best, regulation, however benign, can only ever be one of a package of responses addressing alcohol-related problems.

It is generally on the frontline that change is instigated and enacted, therefore, it is essential that communities are encouraged and empowered to identify and respond to issues at the local level.

One area I am particularly keen to see a fresh focus upon is the responsibility of parents.

In my view, parents have to accept a greater responsibility for the behaviour of their children, where this is practicable, in areas such as the supply of alcohol, and the supervision of parties.

Other areas I would like to see explored in more detail are host responsibility policies and encouraging work places to develop policies that support employees to moderate their drinking behaviour.

Working across sectors always poses challenges; some would say it seems especially so for central government.

This is why the Government is developing a National Alcohol Action Plan which will ensure a co-ordinated whole-of-government response to alcohol-related harm.

I have delayed finalising the updating of the National Alcohol Action Plan until we have a new legislative framework in place.

This is simply because I want to make sure its actions are closely aligned with that new regulatory environment.

The Action Plan will outline the Government’s plans to reduce alcohol-related harm, both in terms of legislative and non-legislative actions.

Conclusion

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

It therefore makes sense that the theme for today is “one for the road – one too many?”

This forum provide a wonderful opportunity for the Canterbury region to come together to discuss all the work occurring around alcohol policy in New Zealand currently and how this can contribute to improving road safety in Canterbury.

Finally, in closing, I would like to simply congratulate Environment Canterbury for organising an event that promises to be diverse and thought provoking and I wish you well for a successful forum.