Reforming alcohol laws - Rt Hon John Key

31 Comments
27 August 2010
Reforming alcohol laws

In this issue of Key Notes I talk about our new reforms to alcohol laws, measures underway to grow the economy, lifting standards in education - and my recent trips to Dunedin and Christchurch.

Click here - or on the image - to watch my policy briefing on our reforms to alcohol laws.

Reforming alcohol laws

This week Justice Minister Simon Power announced our alcohol reform package. It focuses on minimising alcohol-related harm, particularly among young people.

We know there are a lot of responsible drinkers in New Zealand and we don't want to unduly affect them, so we have been careful to get the balance right.

We have adopted in full, or in part, 126 of the Law Commission's 153 recommendations, including:

Empowering communities to decide the concentration, location, and hours of their local alcohol outlets.
Putting forward a split alcohol purchase age of 18 for on-licence venues such as bars, and 20 for off-licence venues such as liquor stores. The National caucus will have a conscience vote on this issue.
Restricting RTDs to 5 per cent alcohol content, and no more than 1.5 standard drinks per container.

Click here for a one-page summary.

Click here to read my speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust conference.

Growing the economy

National is working hard to lift the long-term performance of the economy. Click here to read a one-page summary of our six-point economic growth plan.

This week Finance Minister Bill English set up an independent working group to report to the Government on how New Zealand can improve its national savings.

As a country, we need to save more money and turn our economy around, because we are relying too heavily on high debt to the rest of the world.

We will consider all of the working group's ideas. But I want to assure you that there will be no changes to either the age of entitlement or payment levels of New Zealand Superannuation.

Improving savings is just one part of our economic growth plan. On 1 October our changes to the tax system from Budget 2010 come into effect, which will leave the average household about $25 a week better off. Click here to visit our tax calculator and find out how the tax changes will affect you.

Better healthcare, sooner

National is delivering on its promise to provide better frontline healthcare for patients. We are investing more money into health than ever before and it's paying off.

Yesterday Health Minister Tony Ryall announced the progress District Health Boards have made against our health targets.

Click here to find out the results for your District Health Board.

Highlights include:

Emergency departments seeing more patients faster.
More patients than ever before getting the elective surgery they need (such as hip replacements, cataract removals, and ear, nose, and throat surgery).
Shorter waits for cancer patients.
More kids getting immunised.

Lifting achievement in education

Education is a great liberator, and I believe it is the most important rung on the ladder of opportunity. National is working hard to make sure all young New Zealanders have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Last week Education Minister Anne Tolley announced nine trades academies will open next year.

The trades academies will offer free vocational programmes for 16- and 17-year-olds in areas such as agriculture, mechanics, or hospitality. They're for students who are ready to move beyond secondary school, but who want to keep learning and gain work experience.

Click here to find out where the trades academies will be.

From my diary

I really enjoyed spending the day in Dunedin yesterday. I visited Larnach Castle, the Royal Albatross Centre, the Nature's Wonders eco-farm, and I went to the Otago Daily Times Class Act Awards ceremony. Today I've had a busy day in Christchurch, including opening the Hellers factory expansion in Kaiapoi.

Click here to see a few photos of my trip.

Best wishes,

John Key
Prime Minister

I welcome your comments on this newsletter.

Click here to follow me on Twitter.
Click here to support me on Facebook.
Click here to check out our photos on Flickr.

Click here to read Bill English's Focus on Finance.
Click here to subscribe to newsletters from Ministers.

Social Media

Posted by admin in Newsletter Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - carl scott 2010-08-27 21:56 - (Reply)

thursday through saturday we listen to drag racing, donuts,drifting through the local supermarket carparks and people in the early hours doing obviously twice the speed limit on our local roads.each weekend another few drunk people are stabbed, killed written off, raped,or some innocent person is beaten to death. all by drunk people.you cant walk the streets at all in any town in this country on your own.because of drunk people.sorry but the govts answer to this problem is ZZZZZILCH.

#2 - R Mackenzie 2010-08-27 22:26 - (Reply)

I congratulate your government on the common sense approach to the alcohol problem, the only criticism I have is the split minimum age for drinking, I believe 20 years for both on and off licensed premises would be more effective.

#2.1 - marie 2010-08-28 12:21 - (Reply)

Agree - take drinking age on and off premises back to twenty years of age. Is there any reason to tolerate a higher level of blood alcohol in drivers when a lower level has been seen to be effective in Australia?

#2.2 - James 2010-08-28 16:23 - (Reply)

R Mackenzie. I Take it that you are well above 20. How foolish of you to think that by raising the age to 20 for bars and clubs will help this problem. By us (yes iam 19) going to bars at 18,19 we are in an environment were we cant drink to excess as we are refused any more drinks and if are to intoxicated will be removed by bouncers or police. Iam not saying the police and bouncers are mums and dads and need to care for 18 to 19 year olds but what happens when we are at flats or at partys because we cannot go to town and are drinking and keep drinking and get highly intoxicated, whos their to force us to stop or make us consume some food ect. no one sober thats for sure. The change has to be in the way we thin kof alchol not what age we are when we consume it. by limiting peoples amount of alchol consumption people learn when enough is enough. people will still continue to drink at 18 19, im sure you did at even younger ages in your youth, we all did. Well still get our hands on it, its not going to change anything. A better option would to alter the split to a 18 for beers and wine along with entry into bars and clubs. 20 for spirits. simple

#2.3 - Ann Wickham 2010-08-28 17:43 - (Reply)

I'd like to add a suggestion that you think carefully about any action that reduces the use of RTDs. Consider that they are a safe drink, unlikely to be spiked, and easy to handle in a crowded situation. They are not only drunk by young people.

#2.4 - Shayne Moore said:
2010-08-30 20:40 - (Reply)

I would have to disagree with you here I am 28 years old so I am not biased but the bars already have laws in place not to serve intoxicated people so there should no no issue serving 18 and 19yo's in bars. If they are getting intoxicated then its the bar owners fault and they should be punished. I fully support lowering buying alcohol in bottle stores though.

#3 - Murray Lauer 2010-08-27 23:33 - (Reply)

Mr Key, I generally go along with most of what you include in your 'Key Notes.' However, to date I have not come across any comment/rebuttal or whatever that you have provided in reply to the claims that you are in the process of engineering a takeover of the Country's foreshore and seabeds by NZ Maori. The issue concerns me greatly and, in the event that such were to come to pass, it would leave probably 84% of all NZ citizen gutted. I would like to see a statement as to Government policy in respect to such claims

#4 - Ajay Nath 2010-08-28 02:45 - (Reply)

Hello Mr.Key. It is sad to see that neither your governement nor the previous Labour governement wants to look into the logical solution to this alcohol problem. Pick up the local supermarket flyers. 1. countdown advertises between 20 to 30 percent off on beer. bottle stores make only a maximum of 15% then how can a supermaket lose 20 to 30% on a product. 2. making the RTD to 5% will start closing down bottle stores because customers will start purchasing beer over RTD and again supermarkets will become stronger. solution: 1.Take alcohols away from the supermaket or regulate the price across the board like cigarette 2. No advertising. 3. supermaket should have a designated area for alcohol not every where in the store. 4. Alcohol should not be used as a loss leader. Any store caught doing this will lose there license. 5. All off premises sites should close by 9pm and supermarkets should stop selling alcohol from 9pm 6. Regulation on how many bottle stores should a area have. 7. breweries should only have 10 RTD skus per company on their portfolio and any new introdution the company should remove one of the 10 to replace that. Its the colourful packaging that attracts younger audience. New Zealand is one of the most expensive countries to go grocery shopping WHY? because supermaket lose money on alcohol and make it up on food items. Rich is getting richer and poor is getting poorer. Those who have vision move out of the country and those who lack it cling on to DPB. Is this the future we want for our kids. Why is the goverment scared of the supermarkets You have the power to make the future of everyone or ruien them. make the right decission. By changing the age is not going to solve anything. Its not even a quick fix.

#4.1 - Margaret Ward said:
2010-08-28 15:43 - (Reply)

Agree fully with all comments made by Ajay Nath. If all advertising of alcohol was stopped it may make the product less appealing to young people particularly. Having worked for in the past with people struggling financially mainly because of their reliance on alcohol, I can see the need to make the product less accesable to those who cannot prioritise their responsabilities, namely their families. So often I have seen children starving because of the parents neglect all in the name of alcohol,drugs and cigarettes. Why in the past was the advertising of tobacco products stopped when alcohol does as much damage if not more to the health and well being of our country.

#5 - Mrs Rae Henelius 2010-08-28 05:40 - (Reply)

Good newsletter but I am perturbed that the rate of alcohol content level is not the same as that of Australia, and Scandinavia. The lowering of the rate has resulted in fewer deaths on the road through persons driving over the limit. This pings into my other bug bear and that is why Third Party Insurance is not a legal requirement when persons register their cars in NZ. I know there is an ACC factor in the re-registration of cars, but how many times does this cover the person whose car has been hit, totalled, and the repair to that car. Presumably it covers only any hospital or other bodily care to anyone hurt in the car hit by the offending vehicle. The recent terrible death in Christchurch begs the case. Australia,the UK, Chile, Germany, all of Scandinavia, South Africa, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and many other countries in Europe all require by law that one must have TPI before a vehicle can be registered, why not NZ? Could this not be included in the WOF, no TPI, no WOF and then it is in NZTA data bank that the road worthy vehicle and thus driver(s) have no cover. After one notice from NZTA, registration should be cancelled and a demerit point(s) on the driver(s) licence. Regards, you are doing a good job and as a National Party member will always have my vote. Rae Henelius

#6 - Bob and Pam Lewis 2010-08-28 08:24 - (Reply)

We are National supportors but we are bitterly disappointed that you have backed away from the option of lowering the blood alcohol driving level.It will have the reverse affect on drinkers like ourselves who previously thought we shouldn't drive after more than two or three drinks - now will have no concerns after having much more. This decision was made at a time NZ was receptive to and expecting radical change after some very tragic alcohol related deaths. Those deaths meant the hard work was done. You have only pandered to the commercial sector by saying there isn't enough support for lowering the level. What there is is anger from National supporters that you have let the country down. Please reconsider - it would do you ratings more good than harm. You cannot back away from the hard decisions and try to be everyone's friend all the time.

#7 - david e g white said:
2010-08-28 08:57 - (Reply)

mr prime minister i have not digested all the e mail as yet but ironacly i was thinking along simila lines last night my grand father mr george turley was a elder at the auckland baptist tab along with willie kendon who was a partener o kendon muldoon and mills the object of this is the fact that my cousin mrs p graham was the teachers wife in the schoolat avarua in rarotonga an brought up the missionares daughter when bob challis first fife died he told mr savage that they would com and indeed they have and you are about to have another lot of island kids come here on the pretense of being holiday makers the should be welcomed in the same way bob went down to the moana roa and welcomed his peoplethey will if prosesed properly make good nz citizens in our haspitals or in the police force like george philemanao when i was a civil defense cop for 6 years i feel that tony gibbs can put some to work in the market gardens like harvy turner did i can still see a family who lived on the gardens collie hats and 3 little boys going past our kitchen windo 3 doctors of medicen one was my late gp if they are processed righr they will make good and do well that is where you come in prime minister to ensure that this does happen i know these peoplr th mt albert baptist as did sir robert so lets do it and make it well thanks for reading this david white auckland7HQV

#8 - Roy 2010-08-28 09:19 - (Reply)

What about the foreshore and seabed you are about to give away to one section of society? Where is the discussion on this controversal subject? What will be left of New Zealand for the rest of us to generate a living, after most of the land and raw materials have been disposed of?

#9 - Pete Fowler 2010-08-28 13:05 - (Reply)

Dear Mr. Key, I grew up in the UK and during the school holidays I used to go on cycling and hitch-hiking trips to Europe and Ireland. The first time I ordered a beer in a pub I was 11 years old. I was only ever asked my age about three times in the 7 years until I reached the legal drinking age of 18. In most Continental countries it's even lower than this. Kiwis are a nation of wowsers. This is why some of us drink irresponsibly. In Europe, moderate drinking is part of a civilised lifestyle. It's significant that the only European country with a serious alcohol problem is Russia, where attitudes are similar to here.

#10 - Ray Craig 2010-08-28 14:17 - (Reply)

Liquor Reform. 1. Leave driving limit as it stands. 2. Make it an offence to be drunk and disorderly in a public place. We used to require this standard in NZ. Let's go forward as a civilised society and bring it back. Urgently. 3. Make it an offence for an under - age person to be in possession of alcohol. Make it an offence for an under-age person to consume alcohol in a public place. Under age potential drinkers need to be held responsible for their own conduct. Increasing regulations, compliance and controls on alcohol retailers etc will not improve the drinking behaviour of youth. Such a regime simply creates a REGIME across all of society. Please make youth and their parents responsible and answerable for bad drinking. Leave the rest of us alone.

#11 - Tony 2010-08-28 16:31 - (Reply)

One of the biggest and simplest ways to continually distract youth from obtaining alcohol is to hurt them in the pocket (or parents pocket!). For too long, the onus on ensuring that underage are not getting served is on the poor person trying to earn a basic wage behind the counter of a liquor store or market. What doesn't the Govt increase the fine for misuse of false ID, or trying to obtain on behalf? The fine for the retailer is $2000 for serving to a minor, why not make the stupid kid trying to buy it pay the same fine??? That's what a true sting should be doing!!!!

#11.1 - Denise 2010-09-03 19:11 - (Reply)

I totally agree with you. Make the fines for the underage person purchasing the alcohol at least the same as that for the person selling the alcohol. The seller is quite often unable to ascertain the age of the purchaser, but the purchaser is well aware of the fact that he/she is underage and therefore breaking the law. Make the purchaser take responsibility for a change.

#11.1.1 - Chris Knight 2010-09-06 19:34 - (Reply)

Unfortunately, teenaged brains are not yet wired up to make great decisions in all cases- this is why the onus is on adults, and those seeking to profit by selling restricted substances to make sure they are not breaking the law. It is easy enough to ask for identification- but a lot of retailers don't ask.

#12 - Shane Kennedy 2010-08-28 20:37 - (Reply)

Way to go John and love what you are doing, I know it wont happen over night but its good to see Crime, Boy racers, underage drinking and binge drinking as well as sensible sentenceing are being addressed. Love ya style. Shane

#13 - fjc 2010-08-29 08:10 - (Reply)

If at 18 you are old enough to fight for your country you should be old enough to drink.

#14 - Sheila 2010-08-29 10:54 - (Reply)

You missed a great oppurtunity to lower the drink-drive alcohol levals, more shame to you. I don't want anyone to be a victim, but I bet if MPs families were struck by drunken driversd there would be a change of heart. It's all New Zealand that suffers. Cut out alcohol advertising. Savings - don't tax our bank accounts and we might put more money in the bank.

#15 - James Cameron 2010-08-29 11:54 - (Reply)

Mr Key ,I support your efforts in trying to alter the drinking habits of the young people in our country ,however I thing you will find the areas you have targeted will be ineffectual .My opinion is that the answer is in early family education

#16 - Ian McIntosh 2010-08-29 19:56 - (Reply)

Mr. Key I cannot understand why more notice is not taken of the views of those who pick up the fall-out from alcohol laws. Parlimentarians made laws based on what they thought would be OK despite comprehensive input from those who work in this field, and it has been a disaster. Shame on all those MP's who rejected such good advice. It is now happening again. 21 yrs of age is the recommended legal age by those who work in this field so why are we still gambling on such a crucial matter. To say that at 18 people can fight for their country so the same applies to the drinking age. The big difference is that our troops are supervised by those in authority. That frequently isn't the case with young poeple and alcohol.

#17 - Peter Graham 2010-08-29 20:02 - (Reply)

I fully agree with the proposed changes to our drinking laws. Hopefully they will make a difference because we do have a problem especially with some (but not all by any means) younger people drinking in an uncivilised way. I hope you will get around to lowering the drink/drive limit to 50mg as soon as possible.

#18 - David Montgomerie 2010-08-29 22:46 - (Reply)

I believe that your governments responce to our growing alcohol problem is weak. The Law Commissions report was comprehensive and conclusive. It is important for responsible adults to accept some minor restrictions to help this problem. Raising the age to 20 for all outlets and greater restriction on opening hours than is proposed. The timeline for passing the legislation is pathetic. The Blood alcohol level for driving should be reduced to .50 on a trial basis and see if that works. Prime Minister I support you on most issues but on this I think you are being very weak especially as the public were looking for strong messures and leadership

#19 - David Lloyd 2010-08-30 09:57 - (Reply)

John, you mentioned 'Growing the Economy'with a link to a Tax Calc. While the gst increase with tax savings is great and long over due, where is the impact of ETS, the new tax announced with the budget. It will add thousands of dollars to every families outgoings each year and in many cases completely wipe out any savings from the gst/ income tax changes.

#20 - Peter Graham 2010-08-30 15:07 - (Reply)

In the item in your newsletter you refer to the changes to the tax system to apply from 1 Ocober 2010, including reductions in Income Tax. As a NZ superannuitant I will benefit from the 2% offset for the increase in GST and also, as NZ Super is taxed, from the reductions in income tax. I am also a Government Superannuitant. The 2% offset for the GST increase will also be applied to our Govt Super payments. However, as Govt Super payments are as you know made tax free we will, unlike most other income receivers, get no benefit whatsoever from the income tax reductions. This is grossly unfair, and singles out a group of people who will get no benefit from the tax cuts and will therefore suffer a reduction in their standard of living. And there are about 75,000 of us. Of course this is not the first time we have not received any benefit from a tax reduction - this happened under the last Government but surely the present Government can do better. Your response would be appreciated.

#21 - Ric 2010-09-01 15:09 - (Reply)

Alcohol Reforms are long overdue but why would you have a split age for drinking and purchasing?! Make it 20 and be done with it. At 18 you are normalising it for 15 and 16 year olds. At 20 it's more like 17 and 18 year olds. If you changed it now it will take at least 5 years to change or improve the young teen drinking culture.

#22 - G Stevenson 2010-09-11 15:10 - (Reply)

The Police are saying the drinking mentallitry of the country is deplorable yet U wont make the clear cut decision to raise the age to 20 for all drinking. Any blood alcohol level for car drivers should make them ineligable to drive. Events that have banned alcohol have had wonderful events free of negative activities. LEARN It costs the country money to support this sickness Prevent it PLEASE

#23 - Mikhael Schumacher 2010-09-14 15:27 - (Reply)

Hi John First off, thanks for your youtube channel and for the requests from us for feedback. I think it is a great way to get young people especially involved in the decision making in our country. I support the sentiment of this reform but I can only hope it is a start, not the whole package. As your video pointed out to start with, alcahol keeps our police forces very busy and is an immense cost to our country. Make it more expensive. I am 24 and I drink, so indeed this will affect me too. But I am absolutely fine paying another $20 a bottle or whatever it takes if it means that we can get on top of this problem and years down the track I have $20 less of my taxes spent cleaning up after drunks teenagers. And at least for those I know, the ammount they drink in an outing is relative to the ammount of cash they have to put towards it. Make it more expensive and less gets consumed. Thanks Mikhael

#24 - Jess 2011-05-12 23:02 - (Reply)

The point here is that you will never stop under aged drinking. The people that are the cause (note that it is the minority of drinkers who drink inappropriately) will find a way to get their alcohol no matter if they are 15 or 18. By increasing the drinking age to 20 it is still going to encourage this behavior, if not make it worse. Surely if someone is told that they are not able to have something it makes then want it more? I think a lot of people have forgotten what it is like to be a teenager. Yes, there will be a time where we make mistakes (perhaps involving alcohol) but that is the individuals fault and not the governments responsibility to handle. At 18 you can legally get married, join the army and live in your own house. These choices are more life changing than a little alcohol at a party. There needs to be a change in the way that people think of alcohol. The higher the drinking age the more "special" alcohol seems to be thought as, thus people desire it more. People need to have a more casual approach to it and think of it as a nice way to unwind and get along with friends, not to get wasted. The more "special" it seems to be the more people will look for ways to abuse it. I find the split idea quite weak. Buying drinks at bars can still get you intoxicated. You are more likely to get in a car with a stranger or drink and drive when you get drunk at a bar than at a friends house; where you can stay the night if you are incapable of getting home. When a bar closes, thats it. You get kicked into the streets where you have to find your own mode of transport back whether it be walking or driving. The people who own and work for the bar don't really take notice of how each individual gets home and surely they will not want to restrict alcohol to some who maybe should not be drinking more as it would be bad for business. Those who are 18 and cannot purchase alcohol anymore from liquor stores may then go find other means of "having a good time" for example party pills or even the illegal drugs. Both do far more damage than alcohol. By limiting the drinks to 0.5% alcohol it will perhaps encourage those to mix drinks rather than have premixed drinks. This is far worse as it is harder to keep track as to how much alcohol one is consuming with self-mixing. At least on RTDs they have the number of standard drinks they contain and what percentage so people can monitor how much they are consuming. The people that are the main problem of New Zealand's abuse of drinking will not care about how much alcohol they consume, they will drink as much as it takes to get drunk. Therefore lowering the RTD alcohol percent will not result in anything, apart from the fact that those who enjoy the taste of a higher percentage of alcohol will be unable to do so or may have to mix their own drinks. People who want to drink will drink no matter what the law is. Isn't it the same with people who do illegal drugs? If they want to, they will find a way. I feel that you are basing your decisions on the minority of those who abuse alcohol and are not looking at the bigger picture. The majority of people will be the ones suffering. Educating those on the effects of alcohol and leaving the drinking age at 18 is the best approach to this.Thus people can make better decisions about alcohol for the rest of their lives (and perhaps teach their kids the same). This will mean that it will have a much more long term effect on an individual than just putting it off for another two years. It is not fair to give someone the privilege of being able to purchase items such as alcohol and then take it away. You forget the age of the new voters as well (those who are 18 - 19 may not like your idea on raising the age - just a thought) All in all I understand that you are trying to make New Zealand a better place. And New Zealand is a wonderful place to live in. Educate people further and it will be even better. Thank you for your time, Jess

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.