Drinking-Age Move

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31737, 22 July 1968, Page 20

Drinking-Age Move

(From Our Own Reporter) AUCKLAND, July 21. By a vote of 152 to 135 National Party conference delegates yesterday rejected a proposal that the minimum legal age for drinking in hotels be lowered to 18. But, by a comfortable majority, the conference agreed that the age should be lowered to 20.

A remit from the Wellington division of the party sought the lowering of the age from 21 to 20. Most supporters of the remit argued that the present law was widely disregarded, that young persons could not be expected

to exercise responsibility unless they had responsibility, that restriction on the availability of alcohol increased the desire for it, and that it would be better for young persons to drink under reasonable supervision in hotels than in parked cars. Only two delegates spoke against the remit and an amendment to alter the age to 18. They said that young persons were not as mature as they might lead adults to believe, and if the age were lowered, even younger persons would be encouraged to disregard the law. OMBUDSMAN’S POWERS The conference also approved a proposal that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman be extended to the actions of local body officers, but not to the policies of local bodies.

One of the longest debates was about a recommended review of the Destitute Persons Act, to increase the responsibility and powers of the Social Security Department to obtain and enforce affiliation and maintenance orders against the fathers of illegitimate children. Although several speakers argued that such a measure would not meet the fundamental problems of illegitimacy, the remit was carried. HEALTH SERVICE Urgent and extensive reforms were needed in hospitals and general medical services, for which the demand was increasing too rapidly for the resources of taxation, said Mrs H. L. Garrett (Sydenham). Calling for a health conference to plan immediate and long-term services, Mrs Garrett said the Medical Association of New Zealand had concluded that the standard of services would fall unless the taxpayer paid more, or patients contributed more to the cost of services, perhaps through voluntary insurance. The remit, seeking a conference to be set up by the Government, was carried without debate. LABOUR LAWS A committee of the conference unanimously rejected a remit from the Auckland division calling for stronger labour laws, “especially concerning penalties for illegal strikes.” The full conference tomorrow is certain to support the committee’s recommendation to dismiss the remit.

Mr F. R. Wilcox, a delegate from the Northern Maori electorate, told the committee that strike penalties were already sufficient if a Government saw fit to enforce them, though he could not “visualise Mount Eden filled with thousands of strikers.” Mr . B. Pere (Southern Maori) said this was a retrograte step, especially in view of the relationships tested in the recent dispute. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said: “It is agreed that we want to prevent strikes. Most administrators agree that legal penalties are not the best way.” The committee also rejected a remit seeking legal provision for a secret ballot within unions to determine

how funds should be allotted for political objects. OTHER REMITS Support in the committee was strong for the Government’s encouragement of technical training and retraining in industry, for Government assistance in the provision of volunteer lifeboat services, and for the abolition of the exempted goods list to permit a wider range of goods to be sold outside ordinary shop hours.

Another committee narrowly rejected a proposal that pension rates be increased annually in conjunction with a cost-of-living review.