Garth George: Phoney booze war lacks fire power

No thought has been given to removing alcohol from supermarket shelves. Photo / Supplied

If the Government's proposals for changes to the liquor laws are, as it says, an "all-out war on youth binge drinking", then it's destined to have about as much success as the campaign to capture the Gallipoli Peninsula in World War I.

But in the meantime it's going to be a phoney war, even longer than the one between Britain and Germany in 1939 and 1940.

That lasted nine months, but our phoney war against the depredations of alcohol overindulgence is set to last at least a year if not longer.

For none of the provisions proposed this week are scheduled to come into effect until after the Rugby World Cup in September-October next year.

Meanwhile, thousands of New Zealanders, young and old, will fall victim, through road carnage, murder, violence, crime, suicide and alcohol-induced illnesses, to a booze culture which has long been running right out of control.

And even when the measures become law, they will be lacking those which would be most effective in dealing with the horrendous problems outlined in the Law Commission's report which triggered their consideration.

According to an editorial in this newspaper on Tuesday, the Government's plans "amount to a reasonably practical and coherent response to the problems that have arisen from two decades of liberal liquor laws".

What nonsense. They are mostly nothing more than typical political compromises, designed to offend as few people as possible and cover political arses, while giving the appearance of doing something worthwhile.

Not only has it had a dollar each way on the drinking age, the Government has refused to increase the price of alcohol by upping excise taxes. It has declined to consider restricting advertising to point of sale and outlawing alcohol-related sponsorships. It has not even given a thought to removing alcohol from supermarkets, although it has picked on convenience stores and hasn't forbidden blatant discounting, will only "investigate" minimum pricing; and has refused to reduce the drink-driving limit from .08 to .05.

Yet these are all things which would have a salutary effect on our rampant booze culture and would show positive results in a relatively short time.

As Family First director Bob McCoskrie says: "At a time when we're trying to tackle domestic violence and child abuse, which is far too often fuelled by alcohol abuse, the measures announced will make little difference ... populist policies that fail to rock the boat and fail to tackle the problem."

About the only really worthwhile move among and array of proposals, most of which have loopholes you could drive a 53-tonne truck through, is that which will reduce the alcohol content of lethal and highly-addictive "alcopops" to 5 per cent.

Even in that the Government could have gone further. In many states in the US 18-year-olds can purchase only what's known as "three-two beer" - a special brew with an alcohol content of 3.2 per cent. And that's plenty for any teenager to handle, considering the amount of the stuff many of them put away at one sitting (or standing).

Incidentally, the legal age to buy booze in every one of the United States has been 21 since 1988, when many states which had lowered the legal age limit put it back up.

Much is being made of the plan to make it illegal to supply under-18s with alcohol without parental consent. Yet the parental consent proposals are as full of holes as a net stocking.

Justice Minister Simon Power says he is confident the select committee studying the legislation will clearly define parental consent. Examples would include a written note, a text or phone call, implied consent if the host was a close relative or historical grounds if consent for that host had already been given.

"The definition of consent will be multi-layered - implied consent or a consent that has come about because of a history of events, for example, [when] it's not uncommon when that person goes to that place to have a glass of wine with dinner."

Apparently it is to be left to the police, already so overworked they don't know which end is up, to use their discretion as to whether the supply of liquor to a minor is legal or illegal - under such wide-open definitions that they will be most disinclined to prosecute.

And it ignores the fact far too many parents don't give a damn whether their kids drink or not and have no idea where their kids are or what they are doing at any time of the day or night.

Also missing from proposals is any attempt to provide additional treatment facilities for those with alcohol addiction, which will always happen irrespective of the stringency of the liquor laws.

So when all this posturing, pandering and pussy-footing comes into law - and the effect on our booze culture is zero - just remember you read it here first.