• Full Story

Peter Dunne, booze lobbyists and Facebook

Print

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 7:30p.m.

Peter Dunne's Facebook profile image

Peter Dunne's Facebook profile image

By Eugene Bingham - 60 Minutes Producer

In the immediate aftermath of a 60 Minutes interview, people react in different ways. It’s an odd time – the interview proper is over, but everyone has to stay put while the camera operator finishes off some shots.

Sometimes there are tears, many times there are laughs, other times people want to clarify what they’ve said during the interview.

Following our interview with Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne last week there was stone cold silence.

It had been a tense interview, so what was he thinking, reporter Paula Penfold and I wondered.

Turns out he may have been silently composing his next Facebook update. Funny, I never picked Peter Dunne as a social network kind of guy.

But the next morning, there it was on his wall – a shot across the bow of 60 Minutes, a post titled “A test of TV3’s integrity”.

This was followed up with an email from his office clarifying his position about his dealings with the liquor industry, but, after checks of what he had to say, we’re left puzzled.

Just what could possibly have got Dunne - leader of the one-MP party United Future, known as the middle man of New Zealand politics – so wound up? If you saw our programme, Big Booze, you’ll have an idea.

Click here to watch the 60 Minutes piece Big Booze from Wednesday night's programme.

One of the areas we wanted to look at in the story was the lobbying going on around the Law Commission review of our liquor laws. Who is advocating what? And who are they talking to?

Last year, a group calling itself Alcohol Action formed to fight for changes. They’re advocating a “5+ Solution” of things like changes to the purchase age, outlet locations, and how booze can be advertised. The solution has some pretty hefty backers – 450 of the country’s most senior doctors and nurses for a start. That’s some lobby.

Alcohol Action was happy to talk to us for the story and we interviewed one of its medical advisers, Professor Doug Sellman, an addiction specialist.

As for the liquor industry, our two largest companies, DB and Lion refused to be interviewed. DB’s head is also chairman of the Brewers Association.

We did talk to the association’s medical adviser, an Auckland University associate dean. But as for anyone who works fulltime for either of those liquor giants or the chairman of the association, there was no one.

At the end of last year, we sent Official Information Act requests to Justice Minister Simon Power and Dunne asking who they’d talked to about alcohol during 2009 (when the Law Commission review was underway).

Power sent us a list of 13 meetings (and two conferences).

Power’s list boils down to four meetings with officials/bureaucrats/Government appointees, seven meetings with the liquor industry or retailers, and two meetings with what could be called groups which want change.

It should be pointed out that the original question asked for details of any meetings with “representatives of the industry, either companies, lobbyists, or other agents or representatives of interests” during 2009.

Power’s response said he’d interpreted the question to include not just the commercial arm of the industry, but wider stakeholder groups.

Dunne’s initial response listed just three functions he had attended with the industry – a Brewers Association reception, a Bledisloe Cup test courtesy of Lion Nathan, and the Hospitality Association awards dinner in Taupo.

Dunne’s response noted that he also met various parts of the sector including the Alcohol Advisory Council, Non-Government Organisations and various industry representatives.

We went back and asked him for details of those meetings.

He supplied a list of four – two with the Brewers Association, DB and Lion Nathan; one with spirits manufacturer Diageo Australasia; and one with the breweries, NZ distillers and NZ winegrowers.

The second response also said he had met with ministry officials, the Law Commission, and held regular meetings with the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC), which reports to him and comprises a board appointed by the Government.

So, four meetings and three functions with the industry, in addition to the meetings with officials and other state entities. According to his office, topics included the setting of the ALAC levy and the Law Commission review.

We checked with Sellman, from Alcohol Action, to see if he had sought a meeting with Dunne. Surely the lobby group backed by senior doctors and nurses would want to talk to the associate Minister of Health about its “Five+” solution?

In actual fact, Sellman had asked for an appointment last year but was knocked back, told in an email from Dunne’s staff on August 4: “…he is aware of your thoughts in the areas of alcohol and addiction and the planned focus for the alcohol campaign”.

When we interviewed Sellman, we asked whether he was offended by the fact he could not get a meeting with the minister in a year when the industry had engaged with him seven times. He was conciliatory towards Dunne saying, “these are busy people and that needs to be remembered”.

With regards to the industry, he said: “I do know just how clever and how polished the alcohol industry is at their lobbying activity. I just take my hat off to the alcohol industry. I think they’re true professionals.

“What intrigued me was that [Dunne] through his secretary told me that he already knew my views about alcohol so he didn’t need to meet me,” said Sellman. “But I would’ve thought that he probably knew the views on alcohol by the alcohol industry.”

You’ll have seen in the programme what Dunne had to say about Sellman when asked about his refusal to meet him. Needless to say he didn’t believe it was worth his time.

But what really seemed to annoy Dunne was any inference that he had taken the time to meet with the liquor industry when, according to the response we’d had from him, there had not been any meetings with the other side of the debate.

He took extreme offence at a question from Penfold about whether he had a responsibility to give equal airtime to both sides of the debate, saying “that’s a very silly way of looking at it”.

In any event he insisted that, despite the information he had previously given us, he had met with “the other side”. We pointed out we had asked him for details of those meetings. He said it was no secret and he would send them.

And so it was a bit of a surprise when he went on Facebook. Here is a test for the credibility and integrity of TV3 - 60 Minutes… We will today provide TV3 with my diary records showing that I also had had 50 meetings with alcohol groups not associated with the industry - including the Ministry of Health, the Law Commission, the Police, the Salvation Army, addictions workers and treatment providers,” he posted.

Read the full text of Peter Dunne's Facebook post here.

The list of 50 included three yet to happen. Last year, which is the period we originally asked about, there were 40 meetings.

Of those 40, 23 were with Ministry of Health officials or ALAC – both of whom report to him – three were with the Law Commission, two were with the police.

Four meetings were with other official groups of various types: the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, the WHO, a ministerial council on drug strategies in Brisbane, and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Three were speeches he gave at conferences.

That leaves five meetings which could be construed as possibly anti-industry lobbying. We decided to find out about those meetings.

First we call the Downtown Community Ministry which met with him on December 2: no, they told us, it was not a meeting specifically about alcohol. Dunne had come along with other community leaders to see the issues facing the ministry’s clients. Yes, for some alcohol is an issue, but mostly it’s about homelessness.

Next check, the NGO Provider Forum, October 19: the agenda for that meeting, on the Ministry of Health’s website, shows that Dunne spoke on the topic of “NGO Challenges and Opportunities for Changing Times”. The meeting was attended by 170 NGO representatives from across many sectors. Could that be called lobbying of the minister over alcohol issues in the way an office meeting with Lion or DB is? We don’t think so.

(We query this with Dunne’s office which responds: "While the provider forum was not specifically about alcohol we have included it in the list of meetings and events due to the value of canvassing stakeholder opinion in these settings.  The Minister was able to use the opportunity to speak with a variety of people. The Minister spoke at the Forum just prior to lunch and then spent time speaking with a number of stakeholders during lunch.")

Next appointment: what about the Life Education Trust, whom he met with on May 5? No, they tell us, that was not specifically about alcohol issues. It was to present a Columbia University study on dealing with the collective social costs of drugs.

That leaves two meetings: one with the Salvation Army, which told us they had indeed talked to the minister about alcohol issues, specifically taxation of liquor; and one with respected Scottish expert Dr Peter Rice, brought to New Zealand by ALAC for its conference last year.

What does all this mean?  No one, least of all us, is suggesting anything untoward or corrupt. What we were interested in was who is talking to whom about the review of our liquor laws.

Why was Dunne so defensive?

It’s clear he does talk to a range of people, though he’s not prepared to meet Sellman and, as you’ll have seen he is “amused” by the support of some of the doctors and nurses.

Sure he had many meetings with ministry officials and ALAC, but they couldn’t be described as lobbying and that’s what we were trying to find out about. The Salvation Army lobbied him about what it wants around taxation of liquor, and he discussed the issues with a Scottish expert.

It’s also a fact Dunne had four meetings with the alcohol industry and was hosted by them at three functions, including an All Blacks test.

Then again, he doesn’t see those meetings as lobbying as you’ll have heard in the programme. Rather, his discussions with the industry about the review were “informal chats”, he said.

“It’s a reasonable conversation between people who know each other.”

Peter Dunne's list of meetings over alcohol, 2009

Simon Power's list of meetings over alcohol, 2009

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

07 Sep 2010 11:02a.m.

Chris wrote:

Peter Dunne is totally in the pocket of the drug-pushers (the alcohol lobby). Alcohol causes far more damage to our country than any other drug but Mr. Dunne doesn't care - he is dedicated to protecting his corporate beer sponsors. That's bad enough but he's also a hypocrite, as he's the guy always pushing to punish cannabis users. Yeh, right. Alcohol violence, assaults, car accidents, deaths, health issues, addiction are off the charts - and he's okay with that it seems. But if someone lights up a joint he's suddenly Zero Tolerance. Amazing duplicity.

22 Apr 2010 09:43p.m.

Steve wrote:

Dunne is quoted as saying in parliament "He said he did not need to meet Prof Sellman as his views - such as that alcohol should be treated as an illegal drug - were well known. However, Mr Dunne said he was unaware of the "five plus" idea. Prof Sellman toured the country informing the public and has spoken dozens of times on TV about this solution. Geoffrey Palmer seems to have taken it largely on board in his recommendations. How ignorant can you be and still retain the associate health portfolio?

22 Apr 2010 02:59p.m.

Stan wrote:

Peter was in the pocket of smoking lobby, then fishing and now he's in the pocket of the alcohol industry. Is there no one he won't get in bed with? Look at how uncomfortable he is during the interview, he obviously has something to hide and you can see he's almost been caught out. If you watch Lie To Me, then you will probably be reconising it more than usual. He's as corrupt as they come, will do anything to keep his nice associate minister position in whatever goverment comes in. The sooner his constituents wake up and they kick him out of his seat the better; for cannabis users, victims of alcohol abusers and society as a whole.

22 Apr 2010 01:07p.m.

Mark wrote:

If you look into the history of comments and speeches by Peter Dunne it is clear he is deep in the pockets of the booze and fag industries, so deep he can't get out. Why are politicians such as him with such a biased opinion in a position such as associate of health? He is quite adamant that much less harmful substances such as cannabis must remain illegal but appears our current alcohol laws are sufficient. I honestly think his position on cannabis isn't his own, it's what he is being payed to say by his booze and fag mates.

22 Apr 2010 10:30a.m.

James wrote:

I think the angle is pretty clear here. As a politician Dunne should be beyond reproach in his dealings with lobbyists. It is clear that he has spent more time at "functions" put on by the alcohol industry than listening to the other side of the story. To claim he already knows what they have to say is just arrogant. He then claims to have had numerous meetings with anti-industry lobbyists - these claims turn out to be either untrue, exaggerated, not strictly lobbying or meetings that he would have to be involved with due to being chair of the council he was meeting with. Following that, he questions a reporter and television channel's integrity asking them to report what he describes as the real facts?

22 Apr 2010 10:02a.m.

Neal wrote:

Peter Dunne doesn't like being 'lectured' on the facts of alcohol and the damage it does to NZ society. He'd rather sweep the 62,000 cases of violent crime and 12,000 sexual attacks linked to alcohol use under the carpet. He is probably too arrogant to acknowledge the scientific fact that acohol as a substance is far more damaging to both society and individuals than cannabis. His defence of his position is based entirely on his ignorance and prejudice, the man should be made to resign from his position as Associate Minister of Health, he is far too compromised by his association with alcohol industry to best represent the people who elected. The people of Johnsonville should be embarressed by this class clown.

22 Apr 2010 08:07a.m.

Monique Watson wrote:

I am confused as to the angle of this. Is it: 1.) Peter Dunne was a bit abrasive and made some rude marks about us on Facebook, or: 2.) That naughty Peter Dunne hasn't given any time to that nice Mr Sellman. Unless you are insinuating that Mr Dunne is in the pockets of the liquor industry (you disclaimed otherwise) then neither if these positions are a sin or newsworthy. As one who has found Mr Dunne approachable and other MP's difficult to access and like all the rest of us Mr Sellman has to suck it back and get on and keep trying to make the world a better place. I am sure we are all working towards the best solution whether lobbyist or MP.

22 Apr 2010 07:06a.m.

James wrote:

Well done Bingham and Penfold - excellent piece of work that showed the true colours of one our most arrogant politicians. New Zealand will clearly struggle to introduce effective legislation to address alcohol related harm while people like Dunne have any say in the matter.

21 Apr 2010 10:09p.m.

Richard wrote:

why should he have to meet with an addiction specialist, he probably knows humans are screwed as a race, so might as well get some tax out of them through liquor, or whatever addicted people want to blame for thier demise, you take alcohol, drugs/gambling or sex away from addicted people, they will find something else to get addicted to..doesnt take a specialist to figure that out, thats probably why he doesnt need to hear the opinion of the specialist involved, this "addicted" game has been happening since the dawn of civilisation and will continue until this planet explodes, i think the arrogance belongs to these so called specialists, who think that they can heal everyone, bit like telling a cat it will be a dog one day if it eats dog food instead of cat food, specialists get paid extremely well, if not much much more than politicans for thier scams too and they will argue and fight to keep those salaries.....

21 Apr 2010 09:48p.m.

Peter wrote:

It should be good news that Dunne is responsible somehow for assessing alcohol regulations, given his strong stance against the liberalising of cannabis laws reform since he split from the Labour Party way back when. I have no proof, but I suspect he has pretty much vetoed the serious discussion of decriminalising cannabis- for that he is my most disliked figure in NZ politics. I am prepared to forgive Dunne all that though if he manages to wind back the clock on the liquor corporations. Oddly both these issues, alcohol and cannabis law reform require opposite strategies to achieve the same ends- minimising public harm. Cannabis misuse will never be seriously tackled by the public health services for its physiological or psychological ill-effects until it is properly analysed statistically and that just isn't going to happen while people are afraid of prosecution for admitting they have a problem. (Has there ever been a public health TV campaign telling people to cut down or stop smoking cannabis?) Until cannabis is decriminalised it will continue to be swept under the carpet. Alcohol is a much nastier drug than cannabis, which is being actively promoted to youth. The day we start doing that with cannabis is the day I get on side with its prohibitionists. Really we need our sporting institutions to take the lead by uncoupling from their financial dependence on alcohol sponsorship and sales for there to be a sea-change in our culture.