KEY POINTS:
The sudden announcement of a Government review of underage drinking seems to have been critical in Parliament's decision on Wednesday to keep the legal age at 18.
Supporters of Labour Hamilton West MP Martin Gallagher's private member's bill, which attempted to lift the age of purchase and supply of alcohol to 20, were yesterday adamant that the review - which was made public just hours before a vote that was expected to be a cliffhanger - had been a major factor in the bill's defeat by 72 votes to 49.
A Herald poll of MPs before Wednesday's vote showed supporters of a change in the drinking age had a slight advantage, but that 32 uncommitted MPs would play a critical role in deciding whether 18 and 19-year-olds would still be able to buy alcohol.
Several of those MPs contacted yesterday said the review had played a part in their decision.
"The review is something I support because what that will look at is the supply of liquor to under 18-year-olds," Labour Christchurch East MP Lianne Dalziel said. "I was very pleased to see that."
Labour list MP Dave Hereora said the announcement of the review had "quite a significant" part in his decision. "It suggests that it's giving an overall look at the problem and would pick up some of the issues I was thinking about."
Labour Palmerston North MP Steve Maharey said the review was not a critical factor in his vote against the bill, but if one had not already been announced he would have called for such a review himself.
Other MPs said they had waited to hear the arguments before voting.
"The review came up after I had made up my mind," Labour Te Tai Tonga MP Mahara Okeroa said. "I don't think it changed minds, I think people considered the issue over a long period of time."
National list MP Paula Bennett said she thought there had been strong arguments both ways, hence her being undecided, but the review announcement played no part in her vote. "I was a mother at 18 ... I was old enough to raise a child, but I don't think I was old enough to buy a bottle of wine. It just didn't ring true with me."
Progressive leader Jim Anderton, a staunch advocate for a drinking age of 20, was certain the announcement of the review had swayed the vote.
"When you see the figures 72-49 that looks fairly decisive but, when you analyse what that means, it means 12 votes. Twelve votes coming off the 72 and going to the 49 gives the 49 a majority.
"Is it possible that the Government saying, 'Look, don't worry about it, we're going to review it,' is going to let some people off the hook of making hard decisions? I think so."
Mr Anderton, who made a passionate speech supporting Mr Gallagher's bill during the debate, was angered that he had not been told about the review, especially as he is an Associate Health Minister and in the coalition Government with Labour.
Associate Health Minister Damien O'Connor yesterday said it had been an oversight that Mr Anderton had not been told, and Mr Anderton said he had received an apology from Mr O'Connor.
Mr O'Connor said the fact that a senior minister had been unaware of the review did not mean its announcement had been hasty or off the cuff.
"We want to have laws that are supported by the vast majority of New Zealanders, particularly in this area where the only way we can make real progress is through changing our attitudes and culture towards alcohol."
The review will be carried out by the Ministry of Justice, with input from the Ministry of Health. With the debate over the drinking age having revealed widespread community concern about the country's drinking culture, the Government hoped the terms of reference would be drawn up quickly and the review completed before the middle of next year.
"We thought that we needed to say something so that those voting on the bill knew that a no vote wasn't going to leave this issue in a vacuum," Mr O'Connor said.
Mr Anderton said he was disappointed the bill did not garner enough support to be considered further.
"That's not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of parents. I think the parents of New Zealand are the ones who care about this, They're the ones sitting by the bedsides of their kids in hospital and they're the ones going to the funerals."
WHY UNDECIDEDS VOTED FOR 18
Bill English (National, Clutha).
As a parent of teenagers, I knew how important an issue binge-drinking was. That is in the end an issue of parental responsibility, and raising the age to 20 may have sent some signals but I think it would avoid the issue.
Tim Groser (National, list).
I wanted to consider the arguments. The conclusion I came to was a very conventional one. Yes, there are massive problems out there with drink but we're not going to fix it with this mechanism ... I didn't want to go down the feel-good political route.
Dave Hereora (Labour, list).
It's about access at the end of the day for me, and not trying to rely on a piece of legislation to try and fix a problem we should all own and participate in.
Nicky Wagner (National, list).
Evidence showed us it was mostly parents and friends who gave underage drinkers their alcohol, and I came to the conclusion this piece of legislation was not going to make a significant difference to what was going on in our society. Therefore I wasn't prepared to take a privilege away from 18 to 20-year-olds.
Lianne Dalziel (Labour, Chch East).
I guess I'm persuaded by the argument that it doesn't solve the problem, that the essence of the problem lies with the quite open slather of hours of operation of sale of liquor outlets.
Steve Maharey (Lab, Palmerston N).
It's always been the opinion of the city that we would like to have young people in controlled drinking situations rather than the problems we used to have in the past when there were a lot of uncontrolled parties that led at one point to the burning down of half a street. We would rather have a clear-cut age of 18.
Mahara Okeroa (Lab, Te Tai Tonga).
I don't think raising the age in any way addresses the issues. It's far more ingrained than just putting a plateau and saying the age is 20.
