Eating, Drinking And Politics
act-new-zealand
Thu Sep 30 2010 13:00:00 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)
Eating, Drinking And Politics
Thursday, 30 September 2010, 10:22 am
Speech: ACT New Zealand
Eating, Drinking And Politics
Hon Heather Roy MP speech to the Hospitality Association of New Zealand Hospitality Showcase 2010; SkyCity, Auckland; Wednesday, September 29 2010.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
‘Eating, Drinking and Politics’ it summons a scene in one’s mind – sitting in the late afternoon sun on a riverbank somewhere, far from the New Zealand winter. Good food and wine being brought out by attentive hospitality staff while we sit around and chew the fat with good friends and amiable opponents on issues that deserve a rigorous debate. Not so heated that it spoils the atmosphere, but issues of importance.
Politics isn’t often like that – I can tell you from experience. And I’d prefer to leave the politics of ‘Eating and Drinking’ to you all and your organisation and merely be a consumer – much more pleasurable. However, at the moment, we have a smorgasbord that we are all partaking of. Alcohol Law Reform, a GST increase, a suggestion to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables, another gambling Bill to contend with.
It seems that every industry is beset by politics of one sort or another, whether we like it or not. We all know, to our cost, that politics too often equals legislation. Regulation to put the age up, put the age down, split the ages, ban RTDs, cut the number of liquor outlets, blame parents, blame youth, blame TV – on and on it goes.
Many of the issues the hospitality industry is currently confronted with are not things that should be thought about in isolation. They go to the heart of the sort of society we want to be; the essence of the communities we want to live in. In order to manage today’s attitudes towards drinking we must challenge the traditions and cultures that we have grown up with.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
We may have to step back and ask ourselves whether legislation is so good at creating an orderly hospitality industry. Do our laws serve us well, and do we need change? If we do, what should the role of government be and what should be left to individuals and communities? Does ever more restrictive and stringent regulation really help – or does it, in fact, take away the self-responsibility that is inherent in society and result in the statute books replacing commonsense and good behaviour?
The issue that is most consuming our time at the moment is that of Alcohol Law Reform. The Law Commission made its 153 recommendations to Parliament, Government has issued its response accepting 113, and now we go through the process of passing and implementing law.
The Government response is comprehensive and covers many areas: the licensing framework and enforcement of this, the management of alcohol in public places through liquor bans, parental consent and supervision, advertising and – where much of the public focus lies – the alcohol purchase age. All done with the best of intentions.
There are specific proposals to solve a much broader and poorly articulated problem – that of problem drinking. Binge drinking. Irresponsible drinking by those of all ages. Drinking that ends in illness or violence, or both.
But there’s a quandary, isn’t there? People enjoy drinking, and the majority do so in moderation. There are benefits. It can be fun and people forget this when, every week, they vote with their feet and go out to drink and socialise with their friends. There is no denying that there are real harms, but it is important to weigh the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis. It is clear that there is a cost, but the size of the cost is very material to determining the correct policy course.
So, when considering reform, it is important to examine the facts. Often forgotten is the fact that when liquor laws were liberalised in the late 1980’s alcohol consumption per head of population fell. Although it has increased recently along with incomes, it is still significantly lower than it was 30 years ago. New Zealand has the 13th lowest level of alcohol consumption in the OECD (out of 30 countries – Social Report, Ministry of Social Development).
We must beware the unintended consequences of regulation. Many of the proposed ‘reforms’ will not have the intended effect. It’s fair to say that the old laws caused problems. Six o’clock pub closing created the 6 o’clock swill – the culture was to swill as much alcohol as possible before the bar closed, and the sawdust on the floors of bars wasn’t to add to the rustic charm. Thankfully those days are gone and we now have in a lively and diverse drinking scene, one that is not heavily regulated. Because of this change of scene we have some of the top bars and restaurants in the world.
My critics will be apoplectic by now. I can hear them shouting ‘what about Courtney Place at 2am?’ And the unseemly Viaduct sights? Am I underestimating the harms? Personally I think the answers lie elsewhere, not in rigid legislation that provides the wrong incentives and therefore the wrong behaviours.
I have an acquaintance who has reinforced my thinking. He’s an alcoholic, has been ‘dry’ for close to 20 years, and knows firsthand what works and what doesn’t. He told me recently that he has always been embarrassed and frustrated that ordinary people, who have no problem with alcohol, are forced to put up with restrictions because of people like him – especially given that those restrictions are, at best, of very limited value. It is a common human failing to hope for ‘legislative fixes’ to problems like excessive drinking.
Different societies have different attitudes towards alcohol and different ways of trying to cope with problem drinking. Scandinavian countries tax alcohol very highly, yet alcoholism is no less a problem than when alcohol was cheaper.
In Russia, where chronic drunkenness has been a problem for centuries, imperial and Soviet legislators tried a vast array of solutions and failed. In the 90s, public drunkenness was punished by being taken to a drunk station and hosed down with cold water before being turfed back on the street. In a cold climate that was close to a death sentence. But – at the same time – there was a great number of drunks visible at, or just coming away from, work. Periodic attempts by party ideologues to do something about it always failed beyond an initial impact – and this in a dictatorship.
The truth seems to be that society's attitude toward alcohol and bad behaviour is what determines how serious a problem alcohol consumption is.
In most of Italy, as in many societies, public drunkenness is simply not tolerated – especially, but not only, in smaller towns. A man seen drunk just once in his home village reputedly will never marry a woman from that town. Italians seen drunk in cities are often chased and beaten by passers-by.
Drunks on public transport will be forcibly removed by other passengers at a stop. Yet Italians consume a lot of alcohol – close to twice as much as New Zealanders per head of population. Alcohol is sold in virtually any outlet, and pure alcohol can be purchased cheaply in supermarkets – Italians put fruit in it and eat the result.
Some Italians start their drinking day with ‘elevenses’, when they might have a liqueur. About 1pm they might have a glass of wine with lunch, and a second liqueur later in the afternoon. With dinner they might have another glass or two of wine and, before bed, perhaps another spirit.
So, all in all, they might drink rather a lot in the course of the day but not be ‘drunk’ as we know it. This drinking profile is hardly universal, but it is far from uncommon. How unlike the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Scandinavian and Japanese drinking cultures.
What all this says to me is that no laws relating to alcohol consumption will really have their desired effect. Laws can try to modify behaviour but, ultimately, it is social attitudes that matter. Laws won't change those attitudes. Education campaigns may. When we refuse to tolerate drunken behaviour, people will stop behaving that way in public.
So what is the answer? There is, of course, no silver bullet. Changing societal attitudes to drunkenness is a very good start. We must never get to the stage of assuming that it is only the police who can deal with bad behaviour. Parents accepting responsibility for their children is a huge factor.
Recent academic studies show that parental modelling of drinking is a large determinant of their children’s behaviour. Young problem drinkers are usually the product of parents who are problem drinkers. The studies also show that provision of alcohol by parents is a determinant of drinking behaviour. Our kids learn from us.
Age controls are a red-herring. The 18 vs 20 debate merely detracts from the real issue. Inappropriate consumption is inappropriate at 14, at 18, at 20, 35, 60 or 95. That’s why I’m supporting 18 and have been very impressed with the ‘Keep it 18’ campaign. They are a group of cross-Party youth wings of Labour, National, the Greens and ACT. The maturity of their arguments, and joint approach, should be a lesson to us all in the corridors of power.
I’ll say it again – to turn this debate into an attack on the young only serves to ignore the real issues with alcohol consumption in New Zealand.
We politicians are responsible for writing the law. It is not unreasonable that we should be able to answer a few basic questions about any new measures being put in place. Questions like: what is the problem this law is attempting to fix? What will the cost be, both financially and to people in the wider sense? Will there be any unintended consequences? Do the benefits outweigh the costs of compliance?
Like any good politician given a platform I’m getting across my Party’s view – this is the basis of ACT's Regulatory Responsibility initiative. It applies to Alcohol Law Reform, as it does to all law-making.
And let me finish with my personal yardstick.
Good law should be clear, enforceable and routinely enforced. If the proposals don’t meet these criteria we should go straight back to the drawing board. Why? Because the outcome is the most important thing. We need real solutions – the outcome is not just being seen to be taking a serious problem seriously.
It’s about diagnosing the problem accurately, looking at what will work. Then – once we have the right plan – enforcement, enforcement, enforcement with a large dollop of education in the mix to show we are serious. What we mustn’t do is get in the way of people helping themselves, because that’s when we will see real change.
ENDS
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from ACT New Zealand on InfoPages.