We hardly needed Mr Hookway to tell us that alcohol and children do not mix. Once we might have been talking about kids indulging in a few sneaky beers behind the woodshed, but these days it's about lifelong damage being done by attitudes to alcohol that are formed at a very young age.
We are talking about the crime that is committed whilst under the influence of alcohol, about people dying in cars, and killing others, of young lives being blighted almost before they have begun.
And while it might be impossible to totally prevent youngsters from getting their hands on alcohol, we should be able to rely on the people who retail it within our community not to sell it to them.
The police said again last week that the penalties for selling alcohol to under-age customers can be "major," including a temporary ban on trading and the suspension of licences.
Whether those sanctions really are "major' is a matter of perspective, but however one views them they are clearly not the deterrent they are designed, and need, to be.
If liquor retailers really did fear the consequences of breaking the law designed to protect young people they would be making a much better fist of complying with them.
It is even more extraordinary that some are apparently prepared to pay fast and loose with their livelihoods when they can confidently expect to be subject to a CPO. That doesn't seem to bother them.
Last week a Northland police officer described the results of the latest CPO (which also saw four successful alcohol purchases at 23 outlets in the Whangarei District) as disappointing, given the efforts devoted to education, publicity and enforcement.
Shattering might be a better word than disappointing. No one, surely, whether they sell alcohol for a living or not, is unaware of the legal age for buying the stuff, and the requirement to ask those whose age might be remotely questionable to produce ID.
We are constantly reminded at outlets from supermarkets to bottle shops that if we don't look over 25 we will be asked for ID. So why aren't retailers doing it?
Perhaps the answer is to close offending outlets' doors not for a day or two but permanently. Goodness knows we have enough booze outlets in the Far North not to miss a few. Certainly anyone who breaks the law on a second or subsequent occasion should be gone for good. That would focus the attention of the remainder.
It says something about attitudes in the Far North that such a simple legal requirement as asking customers for ID is ignored by some.
That doesn't bode well for the efforts others are making to protect the younger generation from the even greater harm presented by illegal substances. If we can't stop our kids from getting their hands on alcohol, how on Earth do we protect them from cannabis and methamphetamine?
What we can do, and should be doing, is ensuring that those who sell booze to kids don't get a second chance. They should be out out of business for good. That would improve the compliance rate no end.
Well done FNDC
It would not be unreasonable to say that the Far North District Council took an awfully long time to address the problem of flooding in Allen Bell Drive Kaitaia. For years stormwater has rushed down Donald Road, hit the culvert at the bottom of the hill and poured across the road, into and through the houses on the other side on its way to the Whangatane spillway.
However, the council is to be commended for what it did last week, after at least two houses were inundated once again. Its contractor was there early next morning with men and machines to scrape mud off the street, and more importantly to clean the lower reaches of the Donald Road drain and the culvert itself, which should go a long way towards finally resolving the problem.
Those, including this newspaper, who have long been saying that a bigger culvert was the answer might well be proved wrong. The pipe that runs under the road is huge. But last week it was almost buried in silt. There was nowhere for the water to go except across the road and into the houses below it.
There can be no guarantee that these houses will never flood again, but the work done last week, and what remains to be done, should offer a significant degree of protection in all but the most extreme circumstances. It should be noted that last week's 66.5mm was unremarkable for Kaitaia in June. In fact it was only the fifth-highest 24-hour fall recorded by the Northland Age this year.
So why does Housing NZ continue to repair its houses, and re-tenant them, over and over and over? One family that was washed out last week was told before moving in, less than two months before, of the propensity for flooding.
That same house was inundated in March, the then tenant being succeeded by the family who were devastated last week.
Two doors along was washed out in May, and was still being repaired when it was inundated again last week. No 119 has an open stormwater drain along its boundary, whose only purpose can be to take water that has spilled across the road.
Yet Housing NZ continues to effect repairs, and to rent the houses. Its statement that it was aware of steps the council intended to take but the flooding occurred before those measures could be implemented, was disingenuous. It must know the history of these homes; it must know that 115 and 119 were flooded in March and May, and many times before that.
It is unconscionable that a housing authority continues to rent out homes that it has known, for years, will be flooded on a regular basis, to a degree that must be traumatic for the occupants. Indeed, these houses should never have been built in the first place, or at least should have been raised long ago. Having been built, and not raised, they should not have been available for renting.
Hopefully the council's response will make them safer, but only time will tell. In the meantime, the drain and culvert must now be cleaned of silt on a regular basis, without waiting for a calamity.
