Matt Robson: Education isn't enough to rectify underage drinking

A Herald editorial opposing a reversal of the drinking-age law took me to task for seemingly having a "narrow, legalistic approach to what must be regarded as a deeper social question" (see link below for editorial).

The Progressive Party agrees wholeheartedly that the legal framework is just that - a legal framework. Further steps, a "comprehensive response" as the Herald argues, have to be taken to tackle the harm of liquor abuse among young and old.

But Parliament should set in place a legal drinking age that is in accord with the best public-health advice available. And without Parliament setting the conditions on how this legal drug can be promoted by an industry whose first imperative is profit, not the public good, all the education about responsible drinking that the world has to offer will fall on barren ground.

Appropriate analogies can be drawn with other public-health measures.

Safer driving is a good place to start because alcohol plays a large role in unsafe driving. It is also a major factor in youth crime.

Educational campaigns and methods that teach and exhort us to drive safely are an important part of our attempts as a society to lower the road toll and protect our citizens from dangerous, careless and negligent drivers.

But experience has taught us that education is not sufficient. A legal framework is necessary to ensure that drivers comply with the rules and regulations that make us safe.

One important law being debated right now is the driving age. We have gone from a simple age of 15 and one day with a full licence to placing a range of restrictive conditions and hurdles that have to be passed before the full licence is granted.

Consideration is now being given to raising the age at which the learner's licence can be granted. Thus the effective age for driving with a licence might be raised even higher. Evidence is being sought from experts. Those looking at this are not being called conservative. They are considered to be responsible.

There is no sensible suggestion that, since the age for a full licence was 15 for generations, raising the age would be ridiculous because the genie is out of the bottle and the age of 15 is sacrosanct.

Nor is there a suggestion that setting the legal age does not mean there do not have to be other legal measures and educational programmes to effect cultural changes, so that we change from an aggressive driving culture to a safe one.

A further analogy can be used with the legislative changes regarding tobacco smoking. Education has played an important part in teaching the public the harm of smoking. But legislation has had to be introduced to enforce smoke-free environments to protect our health. Curbs have had to be enforced by legislation on supplying to minors and having health warnings on tobacco products.

The tobacco industry would have continued to have used sporting events to promote their products without the intervention of Parliament.

And now, five years after the purchasing age for alcohol was lowered to 18, our public-health experts have reported this measure should be reversed.

They also report that the liquor industry regulating its own drug through the Advertising Standards Authority is a failure.

Alcohol is not toothpaste or milk. It is no ordinary commodity. Distribution and advertising need regulation which recognises that fact.

A report was prepared for the ministerial committee on drug policy by public-health experts last September. Its study of international and local research showed that, with the lowering of the drinking age, harmful patterns of drinking liquor had emerged, and that this had extended to ages well below 18.

Hospital admissions for heavily intoxicated 13 to 17-year-olds had increased, along with 18 to 19-year-olds. Traffic crash data for both age groups for both fatal and non-fatal accidents showed that the contribution of alcohol had dramatically increased.

The number of fatal crashes during "high alcohol hours" increased sharply in the period studied, 2000 and 2001.

In all the areas studied - from hospital admissions to sexually transmitted diseases - the lowering of the drinking age to 18 had created greater alcohol-related harm.

The advice to the ministerial committee was unequivocal: "From a public-health perspective there is enough international and New Zealand evidence to strongly suggest that there would be overall population and health benefits from raising New Zealand's current minimum legal purchasing age back to 20 years."

It is that public-health evidence which my bill will allow Parliament to assess. Responsible MPs, no matter which way they voted in 1999, cannot just walk by these conclusions because it is election year and they don't want to stir up controversy.

The very least that MPs are required to do to discharge their responsibility to the public is to vote for this bill to go to a select committee for an objective examination of the public-health evidence.

* Matt Robson is the Progressive Party deputy leader. Parliamentary debate on his private member's bill, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Bill, is likely to start tonight. Mr Robson is responding to the view of a Herald editorial that a national campaign to change attitudes towards drinking, not raising the drinking age, would be the best cure for teen drinking.