SPEECH NOTES

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill
10 March 2009

I support this Bill.

But I am under no illusions that it needs to go much further if we are to reduce seriously the harm caused by alcohol.

Alcohol causes between one and a half and two and a half billion dollars worth of economic and social harm every year.

It is by far the most damaging drug in this country.

It is the most damaging not because it is the most intrinsically dangerous drug - far from it.

It is the most damaging because it is the most available drug.

And in the recent years when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has risen as well.

In recent years we have lowered the drinking age - and more young people are being harmed much more often.

We have allowed more widespread alcohol advertising.

We have allowed the sale of liquor in more places for longer hours.

The resulting harm is there to be seen by anyone who cares to look - in the carnage on streets and in an alcohol-fuelled crime wave.

Nothing makes it more obvious that this government has its priorities wrong than its casual attitude to alcohol.

If the government truly wanted to reduce crime, it would make alcohol less available.

If the government truly wanted to reduce the health bill and make New Zealand more productive, it would reduce the availability of alcohol.

The government is so cynical that it comes in here and pronounces grimly about the toll alcohol causes.

But government members are the first to sneer about nanny state when someone tries to fix the problems.

They claim to be anti-crime, but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the ‘fun police.’

So let’s look at what they mean by fun.

In 1999, 500 people were killed on our roads.

By 2007, total road deaths declined to 410.

But the number of road deaths among 15-29 year olds did not fall anywhere near as much.

Last year, if the toll among 15-29 year olds had fallen by the same amount as the general population, there would have been twenty fewer deaths of young New Zealanders.

Twenty.

Twenty people. Twenty young lives.

So why would the toll not have fallen among young people the way it fell among the rest of the population?

It’s because the drinking age was lowered.

In the years prior to 1999 the number of dead drivers who had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit had been tracking down.

Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers has stopped tracking down.

Because we reduced the age, more young people are being killed and injured.

In 2000 there were 4,079 fifteen to 29 year old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes.

In 2007, there were 6,538 - an increase of sixty percent.

The number of injuries among young people is far greater than the number among the general population.

The research in New Zealand and around the world is clear: There is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by alcohol.

Alcohol is an enormous factor in crime.

Between half and three quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse.

Two out of three people the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed.

So I support the measures in this Bill to reduce access to alcohol.

And I condemn the people who call it nanny state, or who call anyone voting for this the ‘fun police.’

I condemn anyone who says that a vote for mild restrictions on this dangerous drug is for prohibition.

Sensible control is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is irresponsible and distorted.

Restricting availability makes a huge difference.

Five or six years ago some members who are now in government bitterly attacked me because I took steps to increase the excise rate charged on alcoholic drinks in the range 14-23% alcohol by volume.

These were drinks euphemistically known as ‘light spirits.’

They were strong drinks that kids were buying and getting smashed on. It was a huge factor in binge drinking.

What did the National Party say then?

Oh boy. I was the fun police. I was the nanny state. It wouldn’t work, they said.

But what happened?

One of the principal manufacturers immediately reduced the alcoholic content of his product from 23% to 13.9%.

There was a decline in the quantities of ‘light alcohol’ drinks released for sale of around 80 percent.

Overall alcohol consumption went down by half a million litres after the excise duty was increased.

What that shows is that we can make a difference.

I support the objectives of this Bill.

I support reducing the availability of alcohol for young people and I support more restrictions on alcohol advertising and availability in the community.

If the government wants to keep the wild promises it has made to seriously reduce crime in New Zealand it had better come back into this House with more measures.

I am not confident it will.

But I support the start being made here.

ENDS

© Scoop Media