Government accused of alcohol review cover-up

Print

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 6:01p.m.

The Government has been accused of covering up findings relating to alcohol

The Government has been accused of covering up findings relating to alcohol

By Brook Sabin

The Government is tonight being accused of a cover-up - burying major research that shows overwhelming public support for alcohol reform.

The research, which was most comprehensive ever conducted of New Zealanders' attitudes towards alcohol, was undertaken to inform the review of liquor laws but it was never made available to the politicians involved in that process because Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne put a stop to it.

After a request was made under the Official Information Act, the report has been made official.

The results of the survey showed:

82 percent support or strongly support increased restrictions on alcohol advertising.

56 percent felt the same about raising the price of cheap alcohol.

78 percent wanted the purchase age raised to 20.

The survey began last year when the Ministry of Health asked the government-owned Health Sponsorship Council to include - as part of a major study surveying 1700 New Zealanders - a range of questions about alcohol.

The Ministry of Health sent the draft results to Peter Dunne saying it would cost $10,000 for the report to be finalised and peer reviewed.

But the associate minister's office put a stop to it -- saying the $10,000 could be better spent elsewhere - and so the report was never published.

“Very serious questions need to be asked about why this information wan’t put forward,” says Rebecca Willliams of Alcohol Healthwatch.

$10,000 is absolutely trivial, particularly on a critical report like this, which would inform a once in a generation alcohol reform process,” says Professor Doug Sellman, Director of the National Addiction Centre of Otago University.

Labour and the Greens are furious the 45 page research was not available to the select committee reviewing the alcohol reforms, and claim it's a cover-up.

“The law commission certainly from its findings believe that the public were ready for significant change – and this report confirms it. This should have been presented to the select committee,” says Lianne Dalziel, Associate Spokesperson for Justice.

“I think the public are going to be astonished, and extremely angry about the fact that the government has chosen to suppress this really important evidence,” says Green MP Kevin Hagu.

Peter Dunne would not front for an interview but a spokesperson released a statement saying:

“…given that the preliminary survey data was essentially consistent with the range of public views readily available from other sources it was decided that the public money being sought for further analysis could be better spent elsewhere in the health sector.”

But Professor Sellman dismisses that, saying it is the most comprehensive survey on alcohol attitudes in New Zealand he has ever seen.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

13 Dec 2011 11:09p.m.

Old man in a hat wrote:

I believe it was actually a conscience vote, so cannot be attributed to either party:

"Following a Review in 1996, a Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament in 1998. The Justice and Law Select Committee heard public submissions and drafted 10 Options which were voted on by MPs in late July. The changes voted for were then incorporated into the Bill which was returned to Parliament for the final vote in August 1999."

As a matter of interest, the two main parties voted as follows:

National: 26 For, 22 Against
Labour: 20 For, 19 Against

So, rather than bickering about which party was responsible for lowering the age, shouldn't we be asking why NEITHER party seems to be interested in raising it?

13 Dec 2011 08:01p.m.

Alex wrote:

Cathy, no you are wrong. When Labour were elected (ousting National) on November 21st 1999, the bill to lower the purchase age was already passed but did not come into effect until December 1st 1999.

13 Dec 2011 11:23a.m.

Cathy wrote:

Sorry Ivan. You are misinformed. The lowering of the drinking age was one of the earliest pieces of legislation Labour introduced within a month of winning power in 1999. This was the first of the many social institutionalisations the Clark administration set in place without a mandate to do so, during their unfortunate time in control.

13 Dec 2011 07:11a.m.

Alex wrote:

@Ricardo. Incorrect, it happened under the National lead government of Jenny Shipley, it was also a conscience vote. @Dan, Labour adopted a private members bill to return the purchase age to 20 but it was defeated. I tend to agree with those who supported the status quo too, there are better ways to reform alcohol and the purchase age is the most counterproductive of them all.

12 Dec 2011 10:54p.m.

Paora wrote:

'Ivan' Best check your facts. Dave was right. Lowering the drinking age was one of the first legislative changes the Clark Government made only one month after being elected in 1999. This was only the first of many ill conceived social engineering changes made by Labour that we will all live to regret for years to come.

12 Dec 2011 10:23p.m.

Dave wrote:

'Dan' Binge drinking is more often with spirits than beer and the drinking culture is the issue rather than the price whatever it is, because Wowzers will pay what they need to get their dubious kicks. I say again, raising the prices will punish the wrong people. But by raising the drinking age, early age education, peer pressure and time as has worked with smoking may help improve the situation.

12 Dec 2011 07:14p.m.

liberte wrote:

Alcohol reform is an urgent necessity for NZ Govt needs to stop pussy footing around and take firm corrective action liberte

12 Dec 2011 04:27p.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Dave: would you support a minimum purchase price for beer, wine and spirits instead? That way the bottom of the barrel alcohol is not encouraging more binge drinking but at the same time those who wish to enjoy a quiet drink will not be punished by an increase in the price of their liquor (assuming they don't buy bottom of the barrel).

12 Dec 2011 03:49p.m.

ivan wrote:

for your information is was the national party that lowered the drinking age to 18 in 1999 it was jenny shipleys idea

12 Dec 2011 01:43p.m.

Dave wrote:

The last Labour government lowered the drinking age against all commonsense advice and had 9 years in power to rectify their stupid mistake. It should be raised back to 21 where it once was. Raising prices however, is an idiotic idea that punishes the majority because of a few wowzers which is unfair and totally wrong.