M.P.s reject cut in drinking age

Press, 2 June 1989, Page 1

M.P.s reject cut in drinking age

By

PETER LUKE

in Wellington

Parliament last evening voted 38 to 31 against lowering the legal drinking age to 18.

On a conscience vote, members instead opted to retain the drinking age at 20, but retain also the exceptions which allow 18 and 19-year-olds to drink in certain situations (mainly with parents or a spouse). Last evening’s vote means the result of reports dating back to 1986, thousands of submissions and hours of Parliamentary debate is the status quo.

The vote confirmed the conservative mood over liquor law that was previously seen in the rejection of wine in supermarkets and Sunday trading. More than 100 young people listened intently as the drinking age clause of the Sale of Liquor Bill was debated in committee stage.

Supporters of a lowered drinking age mounted an impassioned plea to trust the youth of New Zealand.

“I have for too long heard such nonsense and hypocrisy on this issue,” said Mr George Gair (Nat., North Shore). “I would sincerely suggest that the responsibility of members of this House is to do that which the country needs — not what it is politically convenient or comfortable to do.”

Mr Gair rejected the surveys mustered by conservative members as representing merely the majority of the minority who responded to them. In response, Mr Geoff Bray-

brooke (Lab., Napier) argued that the “facts are indisputable” regarding the link between a lowered drinking age and drinkdriving. Among those who supported the status quo were Mr Jim Anderton (Sydenham), Mrs Margaret Austin (Yaldhurst), Mr Jim Gerard (Rangiora), Mr Doug Kidd (Marlborough), Mr Ken Shirley (Tasman), and Mr Larry Sutherland (Avon). Advocates of a lowered age were -Mr David Caygill (St Albans), Mr Maurice McTigue (Timaru), Mr Geoffrey Palmer (Christchurch Central), Miss Ruth Richardson (Selwyn), Mrs Jenny Shipley (Ashburton), and Mr Jim Sutton (Waitaki).

In a heated debate, Mr Trevor de Cleene (Lab., Palmerston North) slammed the advocates of 20 years for their “Neanderthal” attitudes. Like Miss Richardson, Mrs Shipley and Mr McTigue, he said the youth of New Zealand must be trusted. “The House is proving itself extremely conservative and contemptuous of the youth of this country,” he said. “Young people deserve the right to be trusted,” added Mr John Falloon (Nat., Pahiatua), who urged his colleagues to remember their own youth.

“If we look back to the time we were young, we know we probably did more drinking illegally than we did legally,” he said.

The police evidence on the inability to enforce the law was frequently cited last evening, but the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, did not believe that a limit of 18 would be any easier to enforce.

This argument provoked a strong response from Mr Trevor Mallard (Lab., Hamilton West), who labelled it “an exercise in contempt of Parliament.” He explained that if Parliament retained a .drinking age of 20 in the law, it did so knowing the law would be broken.

He accused conservative politicians of still having the booze attitudes of the "six o’clock swill,” while other advocates of 18 years charged that teenagers would be driven to drinking in the car on the beach.

Wellington reporter

Wine in supermarkets but no Sunday liquor trading were the preferred options of a majority of northern South Island members of Parliament who voted in two key divisions in the Sale of Liquor Bill debate.

The House, in committee, threw out the bill’s proposal to allow alcohol sales in supermarkets and also rejected a bid to allow only wine to be sold. An amendment to allow limited Sunday trading — especially in tourist areas — was heavily defeated.

Fourteen local members voted in each division, with the majority supporting wine sales in supermarkets by nine votes to five.

But by 11 votes to three, local members rejected the proposal that would have allowed Sunday trading.

Mrs Margaret Austin (Yaldhurst), Mr David Caygill (St Albans), and Miss Ruth Richardson (Selwyn), supported both measures.

Others to support wine sales in supermarkets were Mr Doug Kidd (Marlborough), Mr Maurice McTigue (Timaru), Mr Geoffrey Palmer (Christchurch Central), Mr Ken Shirley (Tasman), Dr Peter Simpson (Lyttelton), and Mr Philip Woollaston (Nelson).

Opposing wine in supermarkets were Mr Jim Anderton (Sydenham), Mr Jim Gerard (Rangiora), Mrs Jenny Shipley (Ashburton), Mr Larry Sutherland (Avon), and Mr Jim Sutton (Waitaki).

Opposing Sunday trading were Messrs Gerard, Kidd, McTigue, Palmer, Shirley, Sutherland, Sutton, Woollaston, Dr Simpson, Mrs Shipley, and Mr Philip Burdon (Fendalton).

Mr Anderton and Mr Burdon voted in only one of the two divisions, while Mr Mike Moore (Christchurch North), did not vote in either.

The Speaker, Mr Burke, has no vote.

Mrs Austin told Parliament last evening she would be prepared to have no official drinking age limit, with parents and the community responsible for controlling drink-driving and violence.

But, as she said, Parliament was forced to choose, she supported retaining 20 as the age limit.

Mrs Austin took issue with politicians who argued that the age should be lowered because the present limit could not be enforced.

She suggested that if 20 could not be enforced by the police, then neither could 18.

Mrs Shipley said keeping the drinking age at 20 would simply continue disrespect for this provision.

A strong advocate of lowering the drinking age, she told Parliament last evening that it had a challenge: “To define a lav/ that clearly sends a message to young people about when they are legally able to be on licensed premises and to see we put provisions in place that allow that to be realistically enforced.” Mrs Shipley urged her colleagues not to be swayed by the drink-drive argument.

“I am not convinced that anything to do with driving should be seen as recommending the age of 20 being retained.” Mr McTigue called for logic, not emotional outbursts, when he supported lowering the drinking age.

He said Parliament should be trying to give guidance to society that would allow responsible social change over time. "I also believe very strongly that we shouldn’t judge young people as harshly as we seem to be doing in this House. The vast majority of those young people are very responsible now.” Leaving the law at age 20 would not change the irresponsible minority, nor would it diminish the amount of alcohol being drunk, argued Mr McTigue.

He accepted legislation would never change people but said it could be used to help people evolve more responsibly.

The New Labour Party’s leader, Mr Anderton, opposed lowering the drinking age.

He told Parliament he did not object to teenagers drinking in the family or in other controlled circumstances where they would be looked after rather than turned out on the street. But he said New Zaaland did not have a good social record when it came to alcohol, either in terms of family and community trauma or the road toll.

Keeping the drinking age at 20 would not stop anyone abusing alcohol.