Kept it 18

Parliament has just voted 68 - 53 to keep the alcohol purchase age at 18. We won! Still, 53 votes for pedophobia is far too high, and I think a few MPs will need to be reminded of who waves their signs, delivers their flyers, and mans their phones. After all, why should young volunteers campaign for someone who doesn't support their rights?

Keep it 18

This afternoon, Parliament will have an unusual three-way vote on the drinking age, choosing between 18, 20, or a split purchasing age via a run-off system. I was going to post on why I think the drinking age should stay at 18, but it turns out that I already did back in 2010. My core arguments haven't changed, so I'll simply repeat what I said then:

I oppose this change, and any attempt to increase the drinking age, for a simple reason: it is discriminatory. While the default age of majority in New Zealand is still technically 20, the Human Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of age, and for the past twenty years (since ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defined childhood and therefore adulthood) we have operated a de facto policy that adulthood begins at 18. Where specific age limits have been put in place, they have been set at 18 or younger; it is very hard to find a law enacted in the last twenty years which sets an age limit at a higher age.

(I can find one obvious one: the Gambling Act 2003, which bars under-20s from entering casinos, though ironically they can still buy lotto tickets and scratch cards and play pokies. The BORA report on that is not available, so I have no idea if the matter was even considered, but I'm not sure such an age limit would pass muster today).

In our society, 18 year-olds are adults. They pay taxes. They get paid full wages (discriminatory youth rates were repealed some years ago). They can get married or civilised, serve on juries, vote. They can even sell their bodies for sex. The remaining age limits - forbidding 18 year-olds from driving trains or holding office in a building society - are legacy code, which is gradually being expunged.

Advocates of a split age or a higher drinking age argue that there is strong evidence that alcohol causes significant social harm. I agree, it does. But policies to combat that harm must be non-discriminatory. A harm-reduction policy which discriminates against 18 year-olds is as morally untenable as one which discriminates against women or Maori. And that applies no matter how strong the evidence is. No amount of evidence can outweigh the fundamental right to be free of discrimination, and if society would benefit from infringing that right, then society can go burn. These people are adults, full citizens, and they must be treated as such. If 50 year-olds can drink, then 18 year-olds must also be allowed to. Anything else is just bigoted pedophobia.

Yes, that's right, its bigotry. Age discrimination is every bit as pernicious as discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, and those advocating it are in the same boat as the racists, sexists and bigots. And if people don't like that comparison, then perhaps they should be a little less bigoted in their behaviour.

Inconsistent

Yesterday, the government introduced its Alcohol Reform Bill to Parliament. The bill will repeal and replace the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 to implement some of the recommendations of the Law Commission, including a split drinking age and national opening hours (AKA the national bedtime), as well as a host of changes to the licensing and enforcement regime. Today, the Attorney-General found that some of those latter provisions are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act [PDF], violating the right to silence and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention.

The big problems are around the power of arrest to enforce local authority liquor bans. The bill will turn violating such a ban into an infringement offence, but intentionally retain the explicit statutory power of arrest. So, you can be arrested and detained by police for an arbitrary period of time for an offence for which you can never serve jail, and which has been explicitly judged to be on the same level of seriousness as a speeding ticket, without any oversight whatsoever. Because there will be no formal criminal charges or court process, the normal protections around arrest (which assume there will be) will not apply. The result is to render the arrest arbitrary, and detention potentially indefinite.

The problem here, which the wowsers fail to understand, is that arrest is a criminal punishment. You get stuck in a cell, deprived of your liberty. And that requires serious justification. The normal justification is to ensure people show up for trial. But that justification is obviously absent for infringement offences, where there is no trial. In this case, the power of arrest is apparently driven by concerns about "public disorder". But there are already existing powers (e.g. offensive or disorderly behaviour, fighting in public) to deal with that. If it doesn't reach that level, sorry, but it is not a crime for young people to have fun in public.

Related to this, the bill includes a power for the police to demand from anyone believed to be committing an infringement offence "the name and address and whereabouts of any other person connected in any way with the alleged offence", on pain of a $5,000 fine. This is an obvious and clear breach of the right to silence. That right exists for very good reasons - basically to prevent the police from fabricating "confessions" or beating them out of people - and it should not be eroded, particularly for something so trivial. While its obviously in the interests of police to be able to find out who sold people their last drink, or who your mates you were dancing in that fountain with are, they should not be allowed to threaten us in any way in an effort to force an answer.

There are other problems - reverse burdens of proof upon people who have no ability to prove themselves innocent because the evidence is held by others is one egregious example - but the overall impression is one of an overreach by enforcement authorities and laws made primarily for the convenience of police rather than with a proper respect for the liberty of the public. And that just isn't good enough. The government and Parliament have a legal obligation to uphold and protect our rights. Instead, they're giving in to moral panic and engaging in lazy authoritarianism.

Guess who's making our liquor laws?

So, why is the government;'s liquor policy so focused on pedophobia and lazy authoritarianism? John Armstrong's column in the Herald this morning provides a few clues:

Justice Minister Simon Power acknowledged alcohol consumption is affected by price, but added that given other tax priorities, "now is not a suitable time" to raise excise taxes on alcohol. On that logic, "not now" means "not ever".

Similarly, the Government's reluctance to fully raise the drinking age to 20 is rationalised in part by noting the financial impact of removing 132,000 18- and 19-year-olds from the alcohol industry's market.

Meanwhile, that industry has been given a year to help work out a minimum pricing scheme to stop supermarkets selling booze at below-cost. So much for urgency.

The Cabinet has also rejected recommendations aimed at reducing younger persons' exposure to alcohol advertising and restricting the promotion of alcohol through sponsorship.

What this shows is economic considerations - stressed by the retail and liquor lobbies - guided much of the Cabinet's decision-making on the forthcoming new liquor law.

92% of problem drinkers are over 20. But doing something about that might affect the profits of the booze barons. So instead they focus on shitting on young people, who make a convenient whipping boy for the sins of middle-aged drunks.

What's disturbing is that the government has been advised that this policy will be ineffective. But they're not interested in being effective - they're interested in ensuring they continue to receive donations from the Hospitality Association.

[Hat-tip: The Dim-Post]

Those who enforce the law should also be subject to it

As we all know, the government is cracking down on drinking. Except, apparently, drinking by police. They will get to keep their total exemption from liquor licensing laws, despite their being no justification for it at all.

When asked about it, Police Minister Judith Collins said that she was "very comfortable with trusting police to run the police bars" and that they "run their bars very responsibly". Yeah, right:

n 1997, The Evening Post reported internal allegations that some officers had dealt out kickings to fellow officers during "jug sessions" in the Wellington Central police station bar.

Two senior investigators were among those that complained after drunk, aggressive officers punched and kicked colleagues as "punishment" during drinking games in the bar.

Police managers denied allegations of kicking, but three officers were given a warning for "pushing and shoving"

[...]

Boisterous jug sessions are still a part of police culture after shifts and are used by general duties staff to unwind from the rigours of the job and to help bond the team.

The sessions usually involve "punishing" officers for minor indiscretions by forcing them to down beer.

Plus of course there's the endless stories of police driving home drunk from their private bars - behaviour enabled by the fact that the bar doesn't lose its license for serving them.

The overall message this sends is one of rank hypocrisy: that those charged with enforcing the law consider themselves to be above it. I can think of nothing more likely to encourage general and widespread contempt for the law than that.

The rest of the proposal

The government released its liquor policy today. I've already commented on the discriminatory and pedophobic split drinking age and authoritarian national closing time. So what do I think of the rest of the proposal?

Mostly posturing, I'm afraid. The requirement for parental consent and restrictions on RTDs are prime examples of this, continuing the trend of demonising the young while ignoring the real problem of middle-aged drunks. Though they're unlikely to have much practical effect - the parental consent law will probably be widely ignored (in that the sorts of adults who will give someone else's kids alcohol aren't going to ask for a note first), while the RTD restrictions will simply restrict serving sizes (which is fine; the joy of RTDs is their taste, not their alcohol content). Meanwhile, other aspects, such as restrictions on small outlets and local alcohol plans are troubling. The first favours large industry players while also promoting the idea that alcohol is a taboo (the wrong approach), while the second is a licence for local wowserism. As for the ability to ban products, it sounds like a good idea, if it weren't for the likelihood of it being subject to enormous amounts of anti-competitive lobbying, plus I don't trust the National Party not to ban absinthe (which some of them have grumbled about in the past). About the only good move in the entire package is the focus on enforcement and the greater ability to strip liquor licences from repeat offenders.

Overall, this is a poor package, which focuses on the wrong problems. Don't get me wrong - alcohol causes harm - but the fact that we live in a liberal society sets very strong constraints on how we deal with that harm. This package has too many policies which grossly violate those constraints. Meanwhile, measures which might actually reduce harm, such as a lower drink-drive limit, have been ignored. What we're left with is authoritarian posturing which rather than producing a sensible drinking culture, will simply promote contempt for the law.

Against a split drinking age

With liquor law coming back before the House, it looks like many MPs are settling on supporting a split drinking age - 18 for bars, 20 for off-licences - as a "happy medium". I oppose this change, and any attempt to increase the drinking age, for a simple reason: it is discriminatory. While the default age of majority in New Zealand is still technically 20, the Human Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of age, and for the past twenty years (since ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defined childhood and therefore adulthood) we have operated a de facto policy that adulthood begins at 18. Where specific age limits have been put in place, they have been set at 18 or younger; it is very hard to find a law enacted in the last twenty years which sets an age limit at a higher age.

(I can find one obvious one: the Gambling Act 2003, which bars under-20s from entering casinos, though ironically they can still buy lotto tickets and scratch cards and play pokies. The BORA report on that is not available, so I have no idea if the matter was even considered, but I'm not sure such an age limit would pass muster today).

In our society, 18 year-olds are adults. They pay taxes. They get paid full wages (discriminatory youth rates were repealed some years ago). They can get married or civilised, serve on juries, vote. They can even sell their bodies for sex. The remaining age limits - forbidding 18 year-olds from driving trains or holding office in a building society - are legacy code, which is gradually being expunged.

Advocates of a split age or a higher drinking age argue that there is strong evidence that alcohol causes significant social harm. I agree, it does. But policies to combat that harm must be non-discriminatory. A harm-reduction policy which discriminates against 18 year-olds is as morally untenable as one which discriminates against women or Maori. And that applies no matter how strong the evidence is. No amount of evidence can outweigh the fundamental right to be free of discrimination, and if society would benefit from infringing that right, then society can go burn. These people are adults, full citizens, and they must be treated as such. If 50 year-olds can drink, then 18 year-olds must also be allowed to. Anything else is just bigoted pedophobia.

Yes, that's right, its bigotry. Age discrimination is every bit as pernicious as discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, and those advocating it are in the same boat as the racists, sexists and bigots. And if people don't like that comparison, then perhaps they should be a little less bigoted in their behaviour.

Alcohol: Or, the police could do their job...

The papers this morning are full of discussion about the Law Commission's alcohol report [PDF]. The big news is that the government has ruled out the best idea - making alcohol users pay the cost of the social harms they cause. I guess they think liquor industry profits are far more important than public health. Unfortunately for us, this leaves them with options that are far more intrusive on personal liberty than price increases: either a nationwide closing time, or blaming the young by raising the drinking age. And given that there are votes in pandering to the prejudices of the old, then I guess we'll be getting paedophobic wowserism. Oh joy.

Meanwhile, the other practical response is ignored. The police are concerned about public disorder, alcohol-related crime (a staggeringly high percentage of offences are committed while under the influence), and youth drinking. But it is currently a crime to serve an intoxicated person, and to serve alcohol to a minor. Unfortunately, these laws aren't enforced - as part 4 of the report [PDF] points out, there were only 91 prosecutions for supply to a minor last year (resulting in 27 convictions), and only one for supply to an intoxicated person. This is lowered because some offences are handled through the Liquor Licensing Authority, but still, the general picture is one of non-enforcement. Which suggests an obvious solution: the police should do their bloody job, and enforce a zero-tolerance regime on bars which admit minors or sell to drunks. No additional powers would be required (though some of those suggested by the Law Commission would be helpful). But again, that might interfere with liquor industry profits, and the police would rather spend their time arresting harmless dope growers and spying on political protestors.

The Law Commission on alcohol

Today the Law Commission released its report on reducing harm caused by alcohol. The report [PDF] had already been leaked by DPF last week, so there's no real surprises. As expected, they're suggesting a rise in excise tax, a nationwide closing time, not being able to buy alcohol in supermarkets after 10pm, and (of course) raising the purchase age back to 20.

Of these, the rise in excise tax is the best idea. Alcohol clearly causes social harms, including increased health and policing costs. It is entirely appropriate that its users pay the cost of those harms (just as it is appropriate the users of carbon pay the cost of the harms they are imposing on the environment). While a 50% rise in excise tax sounds enormous, it is expected to result in only a 10% rise in the final price of alcohol. But it will result in an estimated $500 million extra in government revenue to help pay for those costs.

The nationwide closing time is a pretty transparent attempt at social engineering, an attempt to turn the clock back to the days before the 24/7 society and stamp out the late night party culture in our major cities. But, to put it bluntly, it is none of the government's business when people party. Yes, it would undoubtedly make policing easier. So would a dusk till dawn curfew. The reason we laugh at any suggestion of the latter is because of a recognition that people are free to live their lives as they please. Being able to buy a drink at 3am in and of itself does not hurt anyone. Its getting drunk and driving, or smashing windows, or beating people up which does. And those are the behaviours the law should target. Yes, its "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" stuff - but so is arresting people only after they've committed a crime. Both are required by a proper respect for liberty.

(A similar criticism applies to the proposal that supermarkets not be allowed to sell alcohol after 10pm. We know Geoffrey Palmer is old, and grew up in the "good old days" when work happened from 9 to 5 and the shops closed at 5pm and didn't open on the weekend. But society moved on from that quite some time ago, and today the idea of not being able to buy alcohol after 10pm is as ludicrous as the idea of not being able to buy it on good Friday, easter Sunday, christmas day or Anzac day. Its not the government’s business to tell people when to shop, and its certainly not their business to tell us when we can drink in the privacy of our own homes (which is what this measure is aimed at)).

Then there's raising the drinking age again. This is another attempt to turn back the clock, but while it will no doubt be popular with the old (who like to see alcohol as a youth problem and avoid responsibility for their own behaviour), there is a fundamental problem: these people are adults. They can get married or civilised, fight and die for their country, vote - and Palmer thinks they're not adult enough to drink? This is simply paedophobic wowserism. Discrimination on the basis of age is as despicable as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or gender. 18 year olds are full citizens (give or take a few old laws which no-one has bothered to fix yet because they're irrelevant in practice), and they should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, there are votes in appealing to the paedophobia of the old, and if the government progresses any of these measures, its likely to be the last one. And with a parliament composed mostly of old people, who grew up ignoring a drinking age of 20, the odds are that they'll probably get away with it.

Discrimination

A Wellington bar owner has refused to accept Parliament's decision not to raise the drinking age, and is banning 18 and 19-year olds from their premises. Their "justification"?

"As a private business we have the right of refusal."

Actually, they don't. As I pointed out last time some stupid bar owner had this bright idea, s44 of the Human Rights Act 1993 outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services (such as selling alcohol). And "age" (meaning "any age commencing with the age of 16 years") is listed as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in s21 (i). So while the Sale of Liquor Act requires them to refuse service to anyone under 18, refusing it to anyone who meets the purchase age - whether teenagers, 40-somethings, or crufty old pensioners - is illegal. You can't stick up a sign saying "No Maoris" in your public bar, and you can't refuse to serve 18 and 19-year olds either.

Getting involved

DPF has an interesting post on how the Keep It 18 campaign came into existence, with the aim of

actually encourag[ing] more people to get involved with politics and campaigning on issues. The drinking age debate showed that a few people can make a difference. Now I do not mean to imply that MPs made up their mind on the lobbying alone, or even that other lobbying from industry groups such as BWSC (which ironically and sadly has just been closed) and HANZ wasn’t also influential. But feedback from both media and MPs has been that the efforts of KI18 did help to a significant degree.

Of course, the people involved were all politically well-conected, with excellent access to media and politicians for lobbying, and this made their job immensely easier. But these skills can be learned, and you'd be surprised how many politicians will respond to a well thouht-out email. As I keep saying, democracy is fundamentally a clash of interests, and its a matter of participate or perish. And if you don't stand up for your interests, then they willnot be taken into account. So, to echo DPF, next time you see an issue you feel strongly about, speak up about it, let the politicians know what you think, and (if you're keen) get together with some friends and try and organise a campaign around it. Otherwise, when you get walked all over by people who do do these things, you will have no-one to blame but yourself.

Drinking age: the vote

The Herald has posted voting lists for last night's vote on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill:

Ayes:

• Jim Anderton (Progressive Coalition, Wigram)
• Chester Borrows (National, Whanganui)
• Peter Brown (New Zealand First, List)
• John Carter (National, Northland)
• Ashraf Choudhary (Labour, List)
• Bob Clarkson (National, Tauranga)
• Johnathan Coleman (National, Northcote)
• Gordon Copeland (United Future, List)
• Clayton Cosgrove (Labour, Waimakariri)
• David Cunliffe (Labour, New Lynn)
• Brian Donnelly (New Zealand First, List)
• Harry Duynhoven (Labour, New Plymouth)
• Taito Phillip Field (Labour, Mangere)
• Christopher Finlayson (National, List)
• Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori Party, Waiariki)
• Craig Foss (National, Tukituki)
• Martin Gallagher (Labour, Hamilton West)
• Jo Goodhew (National, Aoraki)
• Sandra Goudie (National, Coromandel)
• Hone Harawira (Maori Party, Te Tai Tokerau)
• John Hayes (National, Wairarapa)
• Phillip Heatley (National, Whangarei)
• Shane Jones (Labour, List)
• John Key (National, Helensville)
• Annette King (Labour, Rongotai)
• Colin King (National, kaikoura)
• Winnie Laban (Labour, Mana)
• Nanaia Mahuta (Labour, Tainui)
• Wayne Mapp (National, North Shore)
• Ron Mark (New Zealand First, List)
• Sue Moroney (Labour, List)
• Pita Paraone (New Zealand First, List)
• Winston Peters (New Zealand First, List)
• Ross Robertson (Labour, Manukau East)
• Eric Roy (National, Invercargill)
• Tony Ryall (National, Bay of Plenty)
• Dover Samuels (Labour, List)
• Pita Sharples (Maori Party, Tamaki-Makaurau)
• Nick Smith (National, Nelson)
• Barbara Stewart (New Zealand First, List)
• Paul Swain (Labour, Rimutaka)
• Georgina te Heuheu (National, List)
• Anne Tolley (National, East Coast)
• Chris Tremain (National, Napier)
• Tariana Turia (Maori Party, Te Tai Hauauru)
• Judy Turner (United Future, List)
• Doug Woolerton (New Zealand First, List)
• Richard Worth (National, List)
• Dianne Yates (Labour, List)

Noes:

• Shane Ardern (National, Taranaki-King Country)
• Chris Auchinvole (National, List)
• Rick Barker (Labour, List)
• Tim Barnett (Labour, Christchurch Central)
• David Bennett (National, Hamilton East)
• Paula Bennett (National, List)
• David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South)
• Georgina Beyer (Labour, List)
• Jackie Blue (National, List)
• Mark Blumsky (National, List)
• Sue Bradford (Green, List)
• Don Brash (National, List)
• Gerry Brownlee (National, Ilam)
• Mark Burton (Labour, Taupo)
• Chris Carter (Labour, Te Atatu)
• David Carter (National, List)
• Steve Chadwick (Labour, Rotorua)
• Charles Chauvel (Labour, List)
• Helen Clark (Labour, Mt Albert)
• Judith Collins (National, Clevedon)
• Brian Connell (National, Rakaia)
• Michael Cullen (Labour, List)
• Lianne Dalziel (Labour, Christchurch East)
• Jacqui Dean (National, Otago)
• Peter Dunne (United Future, Ohariu-Belmont)
• Ruth Dyson (Labour, Banks Peninsula)
• Bill English (National, Clutha-Southland)
• Russell Fairbrother (Labour, List)
• Darien Fenton (Labour, List)
• Jeanette Fitzsimons (Green, List)
• Phil Goff (Labour, Mt Roskill)
• Mark Gosche (Labour, Maungakiekie)
• Tim Groser (National, List)
• Nathan Guy (National, List)
• Ann Hartley (Labour, List)
• George Hawkins (Labour, Manurewa)
• Tau Henare (National, List)
• Dave Hereora (Labour, List)
• Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom)
• Marian Hobbs (Labour, Wellington Central)
• Pete Hodgson (Labour, Dunedein North)
• Parekura Horomia (Labour, Ikaroa-Rawhiti)
• Darren Hughes (Labour, Otaki)
• Paul Hutchison (National, Port Waikato)
• Sue Kedgley (Green, List)
• Keith Locke (Green, List)
• Moana Mackey (Labour, List)
• Steve Maharey (Labour, Palmerston North)
• Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South)
• Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays)
• Damien O'Connor (Labour, West Coast-Tasman)
• Mahara Okeroa (Labour, Te Tai Tonga)
• David Parker (Labour, List)
• Allan Peachey (National, Tamaki)
• Jill Pettis (Labour, List)
• Lynne Pillay (Labour, Waitakere)
• Simon Power (National, Rangitikei)
• Katherine Rich (National, List)
• Mita Ririnui (Labour, List)
• Heather Roy (ACT, List)
• Clem Simich (National, List)
• Lockwood Smith (National, Rodney)
• Maryan Street (Labour, List)
• Nandor Tanczos (Green, List)
• Lindsay Tisch (National, Piako)
• Judith Tizard (Labour, Auckland Central)
• Metiria Turei (Green, List)
• Nicky Wagner (National, List)
• Kate Wilkinson (National, List)
• Maurice Williamson (National, Pakuranga)
• Margaret Wilson (Labour, List)
• Pansy Wong (National, List)

No abstentions - everybody voted!

The results have also been entered into the CommoNZ archive of conscience votes here, which allows them to be searched and compared with votes on previous bills. And lining up the results side by side, its clear that both an awful lot of MPs changed their minds between the first and second reading. It's also clear that a few who opposed lowering the drinking age in the first place have accepted that there is no going back now, and that it is untenable to remove rights from people who can vote. By contrast, the number of people who voted for a lower age in 1999 and who now think they made a serious mistake is limited to two: Wayne Mapp and Nick Smith.

In terms of the party split, National and Labour were mixed (with Labour being more heavily opposed than National), ACT and the Greens were 100% against, while NZ First and the Maori Party were 100% in favour.

Kept at 18

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill just lost its second reading, 72 - 49. An excellent end to a great political day. And just to cap it all off, it looks like the Democrats may have won the Senate as well.

Details of the vote will be up as soon as I receive them.

Too close to call?

It's D-Day for the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill [PDF], and the vote is reportedly still too close to call. According to the Herald, its 43 to 34 against, with 13 favouring a split age and 28 unknowns. According to Dominion-Post, its 48 to 35, 12 splits and 26 unknowns. While this seems to favour those wanting to keep it 18, the split age faction will vote for the second reading, so the numbers are much closer than they appear (a lead according to the Herald, and a tie according to the Dom-Post).

At this stage, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope. Though emailing or calling some undecided politicians at the last minute probably wouldn't hurt (contact details and phone numbers here [PDF]). We really have left it rather late on this, which suggests keeping a much closer eye on the Order paper and "interesting" bills in future.

You can tune in and listen to parliament's webfeed here. As for when, it really depends on how long they take on the business ahead of it on the Order Paper. Parliament starts at 2pm, Question Time takes one to one and a half hours, followed by an hour of general debate - so business starts at 4 or 4:30. First up is the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill, an uncontentious local bill, which might simply be passed by leave rather than debated (it happens with local bills). If this happens, then allowing two hours for the 100 MP Bill (which will get a thorough working over) means debate on the drinking age will start 7:30 - 8ish and the vote will be taken two hours later. If the Rotorua bill is debated, then push those times back by half an hour or so (few people spoke on the first reading, and I don't think they'll show any more enthusiasm). Note that this might push the finish time back beyond 10pm, which means a final vote won't be taken until the 22nd. But at least that would give us more time to work on those MPs who have not yet stated a position.

Blaming the young

As I mentioned earlier, the drinking age bill is likely to get a vote on Wednesday. Meanwhile, United Future's Gordon Copeland, who had previously been in the "definitely 20" column, has come out in support of a split age, stealing some of Wayne Mapp's thunder by putting up his own amendments on the matter. While this is better than an outright rise, it still undermines the rights of 18 year olds, and will still leave them in the ridiculous situation of being able to marry or be civilised, join the army, vote and stand for Parliament, but unable to have wine with friends or a beer at a BBQ. And it unfairly blames 18 and 19 year olds for the unsupervised supply of liquor to minors, when this is overwhelmingly done by parents. But its so much easier to blame the young than address the real problem, isn't it?

Majorities and the drinking age

The Keep It 18 campaign have sent me an interesting spreadsheet, compiled from Parliament's electorate profiles and comparing the number of voters aged 18 - 22 at the next election to the size of the sitting MP's majority at the last. It's a fairly crude analysis, but 23 of 69 electorate MPs are vulnerable to a significant swing amongst young voters, and four MPs - Bob Clarkson (Tauranga), Steve Chadwick (Rotorua), Darren Hughes (Otaki),and (irony of ironies) Martin Gallagher - are vulnerable if the swing is less than 10%. Of these, only Gallagher backs raising the age. Of those vulnerable to a 15% swing in the youth vote, Mark Burton (Taupo), Nanaia Mahuta (Tainui) and Pita Sharples (Tamaki-Makaurau) are in the "don't know" column, Craig Foss (Tukituki) backs an increase, while Anne Tolley (East Coast) wants to see a split purchasing age. These might be people worth targeting.

Speaking of targeting, I've also set up a pledge to contact MPs on this issue. I'm not being particularly ambitious - I'm only after 10 people to join me - but the pledge is open until Friday, and people can sign up even after it has been filled. FWIW, I've already done my end - I sent out a bunch of letters to undecided MPs on Saturday.

Keep it 18

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill [PDF] looks likely to get its Second Reading on Wednesday, and the Herald reports that opinion among MPs is split. The current head-count is 30 MPs "definitely" or "probably" in favour of raising the age back to 20, and 32 who "definitely" or "probably" want to keep it at 18. However, there's also a group of 12 in the middle who favour a split age of 18 for drinking in pubs and 20 for purchasing from liquor stores and supermarkets, which may end up as a fallback position for both sides if they don't have the numbers to get their own way on a straight vote. This group will probably vote for the bill at Second Reading (which should be enough for it to pass to the committee stage); its anyone's guess which way they'll vote if they fail to get a split age (and it may depend on which order the amendments and clauses are voted on).

Significantly, 23 MPs (including Prime Minister Helen Clark) have not made their minds up yet, and a further 20 could not be contacted. So, these are the people to target. There's not much time, so if you want to lobby anyone, you need to get letters in the post today or tomorrow (email of course you can send any time, but there's less chance of it being noticed).

Meanwhile, Wellington law student Chris Bishop has launched a keep it 18 campaign - with the support of the youth wings of Labour, National, the Greens, and ACT (NZ First of course doesn't have a youth wing - unless you count members between the age of 50 and 65). Its rare to see that sort of political unity across parties, and its a strong sign that those whose rights are undermined by the bill - 18 to 20 year olds - are strongly opposed to it and will punish supporters at the ballot box. Parties courting the youth vote would be wise to take heed.

Drinking Age Bill is back

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill has been reported back by the Law and Order Committee. As the original bill addressed two different functions, they've divided it into two: the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill [PDF] and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill [PDF]. The first bill contains the provisions on restricting liquor advertising to after 10pm, with clarifying amendments. It is likely to be a party vote, and it will probably pass. The second part would raise the purchase age to 20, and reintroduce the host of exceptions that prevailed under the previous law. At the same time, it would remove clauses criminalising supply to minors, and retain the ability for parents to supply at private social gatherings (which is both desirable, and yet at the same time one of the key problem areas. We've all seen the media reports of teenage parties which have turned into drunken near-riots fuelled by parentally-supplied booze, and the committee’s position means no-one could be held accountable for it). This bill will be a conscience vote, most likely on November 8th. As for how it will go, 28 of the MPs that voted on the first reading have now left Parliament (19 of them voted for, the rest against). However, that still leaves the bill with 60 votes in favour, without even considering the views of new MPs (at least two of whom - Tau Henare and Eric Roy - voted against lowering the drinking age in 1999). While some of those who voted in favour will have done so simply to let a select committee examine the issue, those wanting to see the bill defeated face an uphill struggle.

I suggest that those wanting to see the bill defeated, and particularly those who are under 20, but over 18 now or who will turn 18 before the next election contact their MPs and remind them that while they may no longer be able to drink if this bill passes, they will still be able to vote, and that they will be judging those MPs and their parties on how they vote. I particularly suggest targeting those MPs who voted to reduce the age originally, but also voted to raise it. These are:

• Shane Ardern
• Nick Smith
• Wayne Mapp
• Maurice Williamson
• Jim Anderton (though he's probably a waste of effort)
• Murray McCully
• Rick Barker
• Steve Maharey
• Mark Burton
• David Carter

I also suggest targeting new MPs. Full contact details are here.

Oh, and for those who are interested, details of the bill's first reading, and of the 1999 Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (no 2) are in the CommoNZ conscience vote database.

Submit!

The Law and Order Committee is seeking submissions on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. 20 copies, by Friday, 12 August 2005, to

Tracey Rayner
Law and Order Committee Secretariat
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

A submission can be as simple as a letter saying "I support / oppose this bill" and stating your reasons why. There's a guide here if you need further help.

Note that this is also the deadline for the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill and the Evidence Bill, both of which are before the Justice and Electoral Committee. If you'd like to have a say on those, follow the links.

Drinking age: the vote

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Bill passed its first reading tonight by 78 to 41, with 1 abstention. Here's how MPs voted:

For:

Paul Adams, Jim Anderton, Shane Ardern, Larry Baldock, Rick Barker, David Benson-Pope, Georgina Beyer, Peter Brown, Gerry Brownlee, Mark Burton, Chris Carter, John Carter, Brent Catchpole, Ashraf Choudhary, Helen Clark, Judith Collins, Gordon Copeland, Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe, Brian Donnelly, Harry Duynhoven, Gerry Eckhoff, Bill English, Ian Ewen-Street, Taito Phillip Field, Stephen Franks, Martin Gallagher, Phil Goff, Mark Gosche, Sandra Goudie, Bill Gudgeon, Ann Hartley, Phil Heatley, Dail Jones, John Key, Annette King, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Moana Mackey, Steve Maharey, Nanaia Mahuta, Wayne Mapp, Ron Mark, Murray McCully, Craig McNair, Damien O'Connor, Bernie Ogilvy, Mahara Okeroa, Pita Paraone, David Parker, Mark Peck, Edwin Perry, Winston Peters, Jim Peters, Jill Pettis, Lynne Pillay, Simon Power, Mita Ririnui, Ross Robertson, Matt Robson, Tony Ryall, Dover Samuels, Lynda Scott, Nick Smith, Murray Smith, Barbara Stewart, Paul Swain, John Tamihere, Georgina te Heu Heu, Lindsay Tisch, Tariana Turia, Judy Turner, Mike Ward, Maurice Williamson, Pansy Wong, Doug Woolerton, Richard Worth, Dianne Yates, Darren Hughes.

Against:

Marc Alexander, Tim Barnett, Sue Bradford, Don Brash, David Carter, Steve Chadwick, Deborah Coddington, Brian Connell, Michael Cullen, Lianne Dalziel, Rod Donald, Helen Duncan, Peter Dunne, Ruth Dyson, Jeanette Fitzsimons, George Hawkins, Dave Hereora, Rodney Hide, Marian Hobbs, Pete Hodgson, Parekura Horomia, Paul Hutchison, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Janet Mackey, Trevor Mallard, Muriel Newman, Richard Prebble, Katherine Rich, Heather Roy, Ken Shirley, Clem Simich, Lockwood Smith, Lesley Soper, Roger Sowry, Jim Sutton, Nandor Tanczos, Judith Tizard, Metiria Turei, Kenneth Wang, Margaret Wilson.

Abstention:

Russell Fairbrother

Party Splits (For / Against):

ACT (2/7), Green (2/7), Labour (33/17/1), Maori Party (1/0), National (19/8), NZ First (13/0), Progressive (2/0), United Future (6/2).

If you're between 18 and 20, then you might want to pay attention to this list come election time.

BTW, it's good to see that ACT for once lived up their claim to be "the liberal party", and voted overwhelmingly against it. But at the same time, it's rather scary to see that they put being able to drink ahead of being able to have your relationship recognised in the great scheme of things.