Alcohol Reform & Other Stuff

I've only had a brief chance to look at the law commissions report on alcohol reform and there are some aspects to it that intrigue me, and others which are just things what will happen over time. But there are some things which it does not address at all that I have seen.

Part of the alcohol problem is culture. It is far to ingrained as a part of the New Zealand psyche. Sports = Booze. Parties = Booze. Social gatherings = Booze. Weddings = Booze. Birthdays = Booze. Funerals = Booze. Having gone to every one of these events I have found it difficult to not see booze involved, and in some cases, massive quantities. One wedding I attended had 25 kegs, 18 boxes of wine and a vast array of spirits on offer. On returning from the USA, before departing the Air New Zealand crew had offered me 7 different drinks before offering me something that was not alcohol related at all.

Its become such a part of our lives in New Zealand that we haven't realised that it has become the overwhelming part of it. Prohibition is not the answer. Massive taxes will in the end reduce its affordability but in the end it comes down to access, enforcement and consequence.

Access:
When did you notice your corner dairy was becoming a place where you could buy porn and booze from? For years I went to the dairy around my home to play video games. I was bombarded by Coke ads, chips and so on to promote their products. A few months back now on a reminiscing trip I became aware that I could buy beer from the same shop. It was sad that across the road from homes and just down from the Kindy I went to as a child was essentially a mini-bottle store.

The same with the old shop across from my high school. Eventually the same shelves that once stocked over priced yogurt, flavoured milks and other small dairy products, now had wine, beer and other assorted drinks on sale. Bottle stores popped out of the woodwork. Within a small two kilometre grid in a suberb here in Hamilton there are six bottle stores and an additional five stores where alcohol is accessable (including major chain supermarkets or convenience stores).

That to me is one of the biggest reforms required is around access to the stuff. It's to easy to shop hop for your booze. Make it harder to get and it becomes easier to control. There is no reason a corner dairy should be selling booze.

Raising the age.
Who knows why it was dropped anyway. The hospitality association of course would defend younger drinkers because they are their biggest buyer I'm sure. But the fact is, the education campaign is not working and hasn't worked, because there is still a problem.

So...do you punish all for the sake of a few? I think in this instance yes is appropriate. Young and old drinkers cannot be responsible. Take the gentleman who was recently sent to prison for his 21st drink driving conviction. Young people create hazards on the road when they drive as much as older drivers do.

Everyone who drinks needs to be subject to rules around drinking and acceptable behaviour.

The only thing with raising the age is I see it as being as effective as disqualifying a driver. When you DQ the license you do not remove the skill (or lack there of) of the driver. They can still drive even though they are doing so illegally. Some other cracker-jack will buy the booze for the under 20 year old, as the same thing that happens with smokes.

It does take a level of maturity to be able to drink responsibly. Is it nanny state? Very likely, but I see it like this in a way. People will moan about the damage caused by alcohol and there will be those who will moan about the over regulation of alcohol, much like Rodney Hide and his argument about the changes to tobacco taxes this week. Regardless of the actual numbers, the cost to the health or other social systems of smokers and alcohol related injuries is massive and something needs to be done. You can't please everyone and you can go nuts in trying. Make a call, and stand by it.

This indigenous declaration business

I've spent some time recently listening to all the hype about New Zealand now supporting the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. I've even printed it off and started to read through it. When I copied it to a word document its 10 pages long.

The thing I have about it is that it is a non-binding resolution that binds the government to absolutely nothing in terms of changing the way indigenous peoples are treated in any country, let along New Zealand.

Some and probably a lot more when I fully read the document already apply in New Zealand. Jim Anderton the other day in parliament made some statements which I must agree with. New Zealand has done a lot more for its indigenous people than most others who, prior to our affirming this document, had done.

There is no doubt that there is and always will be in my mind differences in opportunities for indigenous peoples and that historically there has been mistreatment and downright offensive behaviour. New Zealand is not alone in that regard. Indigenous ethnic minorities have had unspeakable horrors imposed on them in the past and that of course cannot be repeated.

I have to question what the impact of this affirmation will have in New Zealand.

I do not believe that Maori will be given the opportunity to self-govern and this country is too small to have multiple law making bodies. I personally do not see the point of having a Maori parliament.

I do not see is the point of signing up to this declaration beyond it being a symbolic gesture. Due process will still have to be gone through when settling treaty claims. Tuhoe will not become a separate nation nor will it, I believe, be able to govern the Uruwera's.

It is being hailed as some sort of significant victory. I think the victory in this instance is the same kind of victory as the referendum on smacking last year was in forcing the government to take an action.

The principles of the declaration are wonderful and empowering only in the power given it by the signatory states. But much like the President of the United States has limited power over the individual states themselves, the UN has no power of the member nations. That's why I question it's validity other than that of a statement with a UN letter head.

This cannot be claimed as a victory. Nothing has been won. There is an irony behind some of the members of the international forum on indigenous people. Iran, Bolivia, Congo.

Anyway, I've added Jim Anderton's parliament speech below for your own viewing. I've bolded the sections I agree with.

"We are told that there was a standing ovation for Pita Sharples’ speech from members of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. I wonder whether the following countries stood up, and whether Pita Sharples noticed: Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Fiji, Iran, Israel, Burma, Rwanda, and Somalia. We do not need in this country any lessons from countries like those on how to treat indigenous peoples. We need no lessons whatever. It is egregious for the Prime Minister and others to crawl to the likes of that forum with that membership and to tell us that things will change. Nothing will change. These are just idle words that mean nothing whatsoever. New Zealand has done more for the indigenous peoples of this country than all of those countries have done put together twice over. We did not need any lessons from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to do that. New Zealand is honoured around the world for the way in which it introduced Waitangi Tribunal resolutions, and the way in which we have settled grievances with the indigenous people of this country. For us to seek the solace of countries like those on that list, and many more, makes me ashamed of the Parliament of this country. It makes me ashamed that we would debate with some kind of glee the fact that we received a standing ovation at the UN from countries like those.

Let me say that New Zealand is already widely acknowledged as a world leader in recognising such rights and it has a longstanding process through the Waitangi Tribunal for putting that recognition into practical effect to the very real advantage of righting past injustices of the Māori indigenous people of this country. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on the other hand, is simply an expression of pious hopes without any necessary practical effect whatever. It has no practical effect; it is not binding. In fact, Mr Power, the Minister of Justice, told Parliament that the Government is considering the different meanings of the aspirational text. Well, which meaning did the Government sign up to? Did it not know? Has the Government read it? Does it know what it means? The answer to all those questions is no. It has nothing to do with it. It is to do with the deal between National and the Māori Party to get the Māori Party to run alongside the Government.

It is idle for the Māori Party to claim some kind of great triumph for getting the countries I mentioned earlier to stand up. The Māori Party should be ashamed of itself for thinking that this declaration is some kind of triumph. It is part of the agony that we have to watch and see this take place". (Ref: Hansard transcript, 20 April 2010).

The Treaty of Waitangi process is far from perfect but this declaration does not add anything to make the process easier or better.

So again...whats the point.