Government comes under fire over alcohol survey

Email
Print

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 9:43a.m.

Professor Doug Sellman

Professor Doug Sellman

The Government has been accused of a cover-up after burying research that shows public support for alcohol reform.

The survey, the most comprehensive to ever be conducted on attitudes to alcohol in New Zealand, was undertaken to inform the alcohol reform process.

The survey of 1700 New Zealanders was conducted last year and revealed eight out of 10 people support an increase in restrictions on alcohol advertising, while more than half want the price of alcohol raised.

But 3 News has discovered the findings of the survey were never released, which has angered opposition parties and alcohol reform campaigners.

The research was undertaken to inform the review of liquor laws, but was never given to the politicians involved in the process after it was stopped by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne.

The Government says the survey revealed nothing new and public money needed for further analysis could better spent elsewhere in the health sector.

Click ‘view video’ to see the head of the National Addiction Centre, Doug Sellman, speak to Firstline this morning.

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

27 Dec 2011 10:24p.m.

WhoKnew wrote:

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals. Wow who needs enemys..

15 Dec 2011 07:23a.m.

Alex wrote:

You can change the laws all you want but if you don't change New Zealander's attitude towards binge drinking then it's pointless and you might as well not have laws. New Zealander's drink a lot because currently it's considered enjoyable and normal in our society. In other countries where there are much more liberal laws towards the sale and supply of alcohol, there are fewer problems as in their society tolerance towards misuse is very low. We can learn a lot from our European counterparts

14 Dec 2011 11:51a.m.

Suzanne Pierce wrote:

I sent cards to all National, Act and Maori Party MPs prior to the election. I gave excellent reasons why the laws on alcohol needed to be changed as a close relative's life has been hugely affected by easy access to alcohol during her adolescence. I received only five replies from MP's - only two were prepared to be mildly supportive and the others were non committal. Considering the health and societal costs I would have thought that the government would make a huge effort to ensure that NZ had the best laws possible in this area but sadly the alcohol industry seems to have the clout to prevent this.

14 Dec 2011 12:05a.m.

Old man in a hat wrote:

Young people have always consumed alcohol, but at least prior to 1999 those who did so at least tried to keep a low profile, so as not to attract the attention of the law. Now the genie is out of the bottle, and it is seen as a birthright for teenagers to get $hitfaced. And since young people tend to have lots of leisure time and lots of disposable income, the liquor industry is not going to let them go without a fight.

12 Dec 2011 07:01p.m.

bukster wrote:

So this is the real reason Peter Dunne is making it his personal mission to keep cannabis illegal - it might impact on alcohol sales. The big boys pulling his strings wouldn't like that!

12 Dec 2011 12:55p.m.

Steve Russell wrote:

What Sellman was reluctant to say but is clearly obvious in this clip is that the alcohol industry lobby power is so dominating that in election year this information had to be suppressed or money and other political support for re-election would be compromised. It is more than bias they are bought lock stock and barrel. National is out of step with public opinion and had proposed an ineffectual response with a tinkering approach to alcohol reform that wouldn't compromise their election chances and alcohol industry support despite expert opinion being right behind the ordinary public. They cut public submissions short depriving verbal submissions from thousands who wanted a tougher response. Then they tinkered and procrastinated so electioneering intervened postponing further alcohol reform. The hope was they would have a mandate for weak reform. This evidence puts paid to that hope. This evidence now casts a real question over the governments collusion with the alcohol lobby and how serious they really are to tackle a heavy drinking society who have no protection from a rampant industry very similar to the tobacco lobby fifty years ago.