From the Alcohol Reform Cabinet paper:
24. The purchase age is currently set at 18 years of age. The Commission recommends that the purchase age be raised from 18 to 20 years with no exceptions.
25. I recommend introducing a split alcohol purchase age of 18 for on-licence sale and supply and 20 for off-licence sale and supply (recommendation 119).
26. I note that alcohol legislation has traditionally been subject to a conscience vote and a decision to vote along party lines is a matter for each caucus. I anticipate that any proposal to amend the alcohol purchase age will continue to be considered by Parliament as a conscience matter and the Alcohol Reform Bill will be drafted in a way that supports this approach.
Age splitting effectively imposes an excise tax on drinkers aged 18-20, only the money goes to the hospitality industry instead of the state. The industry lobbyists are very enthusiastic about an age splitting policy so I’m pretty sure Parliament will find it in their ‘conscience’ to vote in favor of the proposal.
I guess most MPs will be torn between the clear statistical evidence of harm reduction, and the nightmare of having to explain to their teenage kids that they’ll have to keep scrounging booze til they’re 20. Age-splitting seems to be a nice easy fence to sit on that will achieve nothing but piss off the least people.
Comment by gazzaj — August 23, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
I don’t understand this one. By focusing on the sale of alcohol only they are addressing the supply, but not the demand of the product. It’s no wonder that we start drinking so young, the way alcohol is marketed to us. I’d be very interested to see any research paper that suggested alcohol advertising did more good than harm.
Comment by Brad — August 23, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
I predict nothing will change, under 20′s will still get boozed and make dicks of themselves. Other people over 20 will get waaaasted on more expensive brands, make dicks of themselves without the benefit of youthful attractiveness and the ability to recover quickly.
This is bad for Phil Goff.
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 23, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
I’d be very interested to see any research paper that suggested alcohol advertising did more good than harm.
Personally I think the Tui Brewery Girls are a clear gain for society. Alcohol advertising has also popularised colloquialisms like “Good on ya, mate” and “Yeah, right” which we’d be a lesser country without. I’m not sure how they stacks up against the harm they’ve caused but Lion Red’s “Red-Blooded” campaign has got to have been worth a dozen liver disease operations and at least a couple of domestic violence incidents, right?
Comment by gazzaj — August 23, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
I dunno, gazzaj: after seeing that Steinlager ad with Harvey Keitel in it, nearly every freaking ad break during one particular evening, I was close to self harm.
Comment by Clunking Fist — August 23, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
Alcohol advertising has also popularised colloquialisms like “Good on ya, mate” and “Yeah, right” which we’d be a lesser country without.
And we’d all be lesser men without the advice from Grant Bowler about when it was OK to have a Woodie.
Comment by Phil — August 23, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
i think you’re starting to drown in flippancy.
Any set of regualtions will have anomalies. You can have a straight age limit – at 18 or 16 you can do what you damn well please, or you have some sort of graduated system that recoginises, even if imperfectly, that people that age are still changing.
But any graduated system if placed under a microscope can be made to appear arbitrary. If you want.
Comment by NeilM — August 23, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
The student loan debt will just get that little bit bigger.
Comment by Matthew — August 23, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
“The Commission recommends that the purchase age be raised from 18 to 20 years with no exceptions.
I recommend introducing a split alcohol purchase age of 18″
Ahhhh, what?
Comment by garethw — August 23, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
Age splitting effectively imposes an excise tax on drinkers aged 18-20, only the money goes to the hospitality industry instead of the state.
Yeah, but you’re only considering minor issues like the actual, real-world effects of the proposal. If we raise our level of assessment above trivial matters like that and consider the more consequential issue of how politicians can find a way to vote for both 18 and 20 as the minimum age, thereby giving them a line of spin for voters on either side of the debate, this proposal seriously kicks ass.
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 23, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
That’s true Gazzaj, and I guess they’re also educational. How else would you know that you have to earn a DB before drinking the aforementioned DB? Without the ads I’d be out there drinking unearned DB’s like an idiot. Or even worse, no DB at all!
Comment by Brad — August 24, 2010 @ 10:00 am
I’ll always regret never finding out if Carlton Stripe really did taste better when you’d earnt it.
Comment by Sam Finnemore — August 24, 2010 @ 10:54 am
Sam, you don’t have to find out, because Lance, Andy, Dave and Steve, or THE LADS as they’re known, have done the legwork for you. It does.
Comment by Brad — August 24, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
“Sam, you don’t have to find out, because Lance, Andy, Dave and Steve, or THE LADS as they’re known, have done the legwork for you. It does.”
Ah yes, those good lads, hardworking and ‘ambitious’ for a refreshing Carlton Stripe. I wonder where they are now.
Comment by Sam Finnemore — August 24, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
garethw: The Commission did not write the Cabinet paper. The Cabinet paper is the government’s discussion of the Commission’s report (and the issue in general), and is authored by the office of Simon Power (wearing his Justice hat).
Comment by derp de derp — August 24, 2010 @ 5:00 pm