Speaker 1: Kiota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Alcohol law
Speaker 2: reform could be on the cards this government term that's
Speaker 2: after alcohol was identified as one of the key factors
Speaker 2: that needs to be addressed to reduce deaths from non
Speaker 2: communicable diseases in the government's policy statement on Health. It
Speaker 2: comes at the start of Dry July, the yearly fundraiser
Speaker 2: that encourages people to give up the booze for a month,
Speaker 2: but now many are.
Speaker 1: Adopting that as a permanent fixture in their lives.
Speaker 2: To discuss what alcohol reform could look like today on
Speaker 2: the front Page, we're joined by Andrew Galloway, Executive director
Speaker 2: of Alcohol Health Watch. Andrew, people do refer to alcohol
Speaker 2: as one of our worst drugs.
Speaker 1: Would you agree with that statement?
Speaker 3: Not only do I agree with that statement, I think
Speaker 3: it's well evidenced. The University of Otago, Rose Cross and
Speaker 3: others did a study that ranked using a very well
Speaker 3: established international criteria drug harm, and alcohol comes out on top,
Speaker 3: not only because it's the most widely used, but because
Speaker 3: of the harm it causes to others. So yes, I agree.
Speaker 2: Roughly how many people in this country struggle with alcoholism
Speaker 2: or addiction in this area? Do you have any stats
Speaker 2: on that good question.
Speaker 3: I think it's over six hundred thousand. We have seen
Speaker 3: in recent years a reduction in both consumption and harmful use,
Speaker 3: and that we welcome those changes. But there still is
Speaker 3: a significant problem in terms of drinking. But there's also
Speaker 3: really high harm from low and moderate amounts of drinking
Speaker 3: as well. So we just urge people not to get
Speaker 3: stuck on and just looking at problem drinking. You know,
Speaker 3: the World Health Organization have said there's no safe limit
Speaker 3: of alcohol consumption, and I think everyone can benefit from
Speaker 3: looking at alcohol consumption.
Speaker 1: We talk a lot about drinking culture in this country.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's gotten any better over the years
Speaker 2: since we've been speaking about that.
Speaker 3: I think there's some really positive changes that we've seen
Speaker 3: in the last decade. And I've been away from the
Speaker 3: sector and come back. I had five years doing different roles.
Speaker 3: But in that time we've seen a huge array and
Speaker 3: you know, the alcohol industry have seen the benefit of
Speaker 3: having a range of low and no alcohol products that
Speaker 3: really do encourage people to space out there drinking or
Speaker 3: to have an alternative and I think that's a really
Speaker 3: positive change. Unfortunately, we still do have really high amounts
Speaker 3: of hazardous and harmful drinking, and those are disproportionately higher
Speaker 3: for Mighty and Pacific. So it's a tale of two halves. Really,
Speaker 3: you've got a good story. On the one hand, more
Speaker 3: people are choosing to drink less or not drink more
Speaker 3: young people are choosing to not drink until later, but
Speaker 3: you still do have high hazardous rates among all sectors
Speaker 3: of the population.
Speaker 4: I think it's a culture problem. I think we have
Speaker 4: a drinking problem in New Zealand. Maybe our young people
Speaker 4: have realized that this is in line with what is
Speaker 4: being seen around the world, young people taking less risk
Speaker 4: taking behaviors, and that's actually our older population that are
Speaker 4: coming to harm from alcohol related issues.
Speaker 2: What are some of the health ramifications of alcohol harm.
Speaker 3: It's really really widespread and you may have seen a
Speaker 3: Cost of Alcohol Harm report or heard about it come
Speaker 3: out last month and their cost has been most recently
Speaker 3: estimated the social and economic cost at roughly nine point
Speaker 3: one billion. One of the first recommendations was they did
Speaker 3: need to do some more work to help evidence that better.
Speaker 3: But even on that amount nine point one billion to
Speaker 3: put that into context, was the lower estimate of the
Speaker 3: recovery from cycling Gabriel. So it's a huge amount of cost,
Speaker 3: and that's spread across not just government. You know, this
Speaker 3: is a cost that businesses are paying for people who
Speaker 3: are away sick or people who turn up and what
Speaker 3: they call present ears, and people who turn up to
Speaker 3: work and unders productive or just aren't there. The really
Speaker 3: alarming cost that they've estimated for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
Speaker 3: FAST of four point eight billion disability adjusted life years.
Speaker 3: So that's a really academic term, but things like lots
Speaker 3: of life and disability related to alcohol, and that quite
Speaker 3: plausibly features because it's a big impact on health. Accidents,
Speaker 3: road trauma two point one billion was the societal cost
Speaker 3: of road crushes estimated where alcohol is affector, So it's
Speaker 3: spread right across the whole of society. And I think
Speaker 3: that's one thing that alcohol harm is concerning for us
Speaker 3: as an organization is just how much of society it's
Speaker 3: present and how much better off we'd be if all
Speaker 3: of New Zealanders drink a little bit less or chose
Speaker 3: not to drink.
Speaker 1: Those are some massive number.
Speaker 2: How do they get to those numbers, or how would
Speaker 2: you explain what those numbers mean to someone who had
Speaker 2: no idea how they were brought to be.
Speaker 3: It's a really good questions and I'm not an economist,
Speaker 3: so economists were involved in this report at ENZII Report,
Speaker 3: New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. But to give you
Speaker 3: one example, FASD's been estimated at four point eight billion.
Speaker 3: FASD is a neurodisability which affects people who have been
Speaker 3: exposed to alcohol in utero when the mother's pregnant. So
Speaker 3: sadly that has a range of lifelong impacts for some people,
Speaker 3: so people are affected by it to differing degrees. The
Speaker 3: seven domains that are impacted, but those include things like
Speaker 3: behavioral challenges, learning difficulties, at times, physical disability. And you
Speaker 3: can imagine that there's not just a loss and productivity
Speaker 3: for that person, but often they need to be cared for.
Speaker 3: And sadly, FASD is not recognized as a disability, so
Speaker 3: there's not as much support there. So often family members
Speaker 3: have to give up or take a cut in in
Speaker 3: terms of their paying job to look after someone with
Speaker 3: their failt. So you can kind of imagine from just
Speaker 3: that one cost that there's a huge flow on effect
Speaker 3: to people around that person who needs support. And I
Speaker 3: think the other example if you look at road crashes.
Speaker 3: I was a volunteer in the fire Service and it's
Speaker 3: not surprising to me the huge cost that comes with
Speaker 3: road crashes, all of those people attending as a cost,
Speaker 3: as well as the cost to assets and potentially people's property.
Speaker 3: But then think of the long term cost on the
Speaker 3: health services from recovery or other costs that are related
Speaker 3: to well.
Speaker 2: The government's hinted at an alcohol law reform in their
Speaker 2: policy statement on Health. What is that currently in the
Speaker 2: law to deal with alcohol?
Speaker 3: So some of the good things that we've seen. In fact,
Speaker 3: the only good thing that we've seen change in my
Speaker 3: opinion in the last few years, was the removal of
Speaker 3: the ability for the alcohol industry to appeal local alcohol plans.
Speaker 3: So the government got a really good landmark review on
Speaker 3: alcohol in about twenty nine ten and it was done
Speaker 3: by the Law Commission, headed up by Sir Jeffrey Palmer.
Speaker 3: So Jeffrey was a Justice Minister and a previous government
Speaker 3: and passed the Alcohol Law for the nineteen eighty nine
Speaker 3: Act which we had which aimed to make alcohol more
Speaker 3: available and would have a cafe style drinking culture like
Speaker 3: the French which included more availability and people wouldn't be
Speaker 3: forced to drink quickly. That theory didn't work, It hasn't
Speaker 3: worked in any jurisdiction. What governments and agencies across the
Speaker 3: world and researchers have realized is that less availability it
Speaker 3: is better for less harm. And so Jeffrey came to
Speaker 3: that conclusion, guided by his really great team and agencies
Speaker 3: giving him that evidence. He came out with a roadmap
Speaker 3: for change which included over one hundred and fifty recommendations
Speaker 3: and I think one hundred and twenty six of those
Speaker 3: were picked up by the then government. Unfortunately they left
Speaker 3: off things like price marketing and some of that availability.
Speaker 3: So the availability was supposed to be covered by local
Speaker 3: alcohol policies, but what we've seen in practice is a
Speaker 3: very very well resourced alcohol industry which have appealed just
Speaker 3: about every local alcohol policy council has tried to implement,
Speaker 3: including Auckland, which has fought for ten years. It's just
Speaker 3: about getting to the stage where it might have an lap,
Speaker 3: but that's cost well over a million dollars and christ Church,
Speaker 3: Wellington big metro cities have abandoned. Christ Church is looking
Speaker 3: at now doing an LAP. So it's a long way
Speaker 3: of answering the question. We haven't seen a great deal.
Speaker 3: We've seen successive reports that cover alcohol. So while the
Speaker 3: government said no to changing marketing, advertising and sponsorship rules,
Speaker 3: they did instruct a ministerial forum in twenty fourteen and
Speaker 3: that was headed up by Graham Blow and had a
Speaker 3: really great team of people on it with a good balance.
Speaker 3: There were people on there from the Advertising Standards Authority
Speaker 3: looking at alcohol advertising, and that forum came up with
Speaker 3: the very same recommendation that we should phase out alcohol marketing,
Speaker 3: sponsorship andising. That didn't end up in anything. That just
Speaker 3: got explained away by close to what the industry say.
Speaker 3: They don't want to impact on the majority of reasonable
Speaker 3: drinkers by imposing something like that.
Speaker 5: In alter or, there are higher amounts of bottle shops
Speaker 5: and the advertising that comes with US and low income
Speaker 5: Maori and Pacific communities. These companies are usually affiliated with
Speaker 5: or supported by international alcohol organizations. They internalize the profits
Speaker 5: and take them offshore, but externalize the cost of harm
Speaker 5: onto New Zealanders.
Speaker 3: We also had Ministry of Justice the same year look
Speaker 3: at price and whether we should impose minimum munit price
Speaker 3: and excise taxes. The Law Commission recommended insurprisingly or unsurprisingly,
Speaker 3: the Ministry of Justice came up with the very same
Speaker 3: decision or recommendation, which was we should impose a minimum
Speaker 3: unit price and excise tax increase.
Speaker 2: Would that be something like what's happened with tobacco for instance?
Speaker 3: In part tobacco has had big excise tax increases a
Speaker 3: year on year and it has been a really helpful
Speaker 3: tool in helping people change. I know from smokers in
Speaker 3: my life. I was a smoker at one point when
Speaker 3: the price rose every January, you thought I'm going to
Speaker 3: quit this year. With alcohol, it's a bit different, you know.
Speaker 3: There is the option of a minimum unit price, which
Speaker 3: has been implemented really well in Scotland and really well
Speaker 3: in states in Australia. And the difference with a minimum
Speaker 3: unit price is you can impact the really cheap alcohol
Speaker 3: without affecting the alcohol and parts. So if you put
Speaker 3: them a minimum munit price, I think they use one
Speaker 3: dollar fifty per unit in Australia, it won't impact when
Speaker 3: you go out to a bar and buy a drink,
Speaker 3: but it will impact that really cheap alcohol. We know
Speaker 3: that really does appeal to hazardous and harmful drinkers or
Speaker 3: dependent drinkers, and also young people. And you'll know from
Speaker 3: going into a supermarket as I do, there are specials
Speaker 3: every week which are about seven dollars ninety nine for
Speaker 3: a bottle of wine, and it would lift that up
Speaker 3: from that price to a comparatively higher price. And the
Speaker 3: Ministry of Justice found that that would save money in
Speaker 3: terms of that high cost of alcohol. The reduction and
Speaker 3: consumption of that really cheap alcohol would reduce the costs.
Speaker 3: But also if it was coupled with an excise tax
Speaker 3: increase actually bring in some more excis that could offset it.
Speaker 2: To me, the argument against raising alcohol prices, I would
Speaker 2: assume it would be from the hospitality industry other than
Speaker 2: the alcohol industry as well. But in terms of getting
Speaker 2: those lower end, lower priced drinks, that seems that's common sense.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: It's a win win, isn't it win win win? In fact,
Speaker 3: you know, you win in terms of reducing that high
Speaker 3: cost of harm, you win in terms of reducing consumption
Speaker 3: and harm, and you win in terms of really what
Speaker 3: the government's looking for now is looking for revenue and
Speaker 3: all the places it can. So it's a win win win,
Speaker 3: and I think government needs to be reassured. From a
Speaker 3: University of Otago and Kanser Society project we participated in
Speaker 3: late last year, there's really really high public support for
Speaker 3: the fact that the price is very cheap alcohol should
Speaker 3: be raised.
Speaker 2: So what would be the reason or the barriers for
Speaker 2: us to do this? Can the government tomorrow just say, look,
Speaker 2: we're doing this.
Speaker 3: They could impose a minimum minute price without too much problem.
Speaker 3: I would think obviously you'd need to go through a
Speaker 3: consultation process. But excis tax increase, I think there's periods
Speaker 3: in the year when you can increase excis tax relatively easily.
Speaker 3: I say that, and I'm not a government policy person.
Speaker 3: I'm sure there's a ton of work that goes into it,
Speaker 3: but yeah, I mean with tobacco, they increased excise tax
Speaker 3: at a scheduler way and it was every year January one.
Speaker 3: They could do the same with alcohol, and I think
Speaker 3: the only thing that's missing is political will, And I
Speaker 3: think part of that reason is the really good and
Speaker 3: effective influence the alcohol industry have, and their messaging is
Speaker 3: very very consistent. It's consistent across the globe and it's
Speaker 3: the message, oh, you shouldn't really impact on the majority
Speaker 3: of moderate drinkers, when in fact we know even moderate
Speaker 3: drinkers can be causing harm to themselves or others. But
Speaker 3: also that most people, when confronted with a bit of
Speaker 3: evidence and the facts, would go I can actually see
Speaker 3: why you raise excise tax or oppose a minim immune
Speaker 3: pricess like you say a win.
Speaker 2: Win Green co leader Chloe Swarbrick had the bill last
Speaker 2: term that would have curbed alcohol sponsorship at sports events.
Speaker 4: Young people are being exposed to alcohol advertising, which is
Speaker 4: continuing to normalize and to glamorize alcohol.
Speaker 2: South Auckland's top public health expert, doctor Gary Jackson, agrees
Speaker 2: and wrote to local MPs asking them to back at.
Speaker 6: Children in New Zealand see alcohol advertising everywhere, especially promoted
Speaker 6: by their sporting heroes. Currently in New Zealand, we are
Speaker 6: not protecting our Tamini key from exposure to alcohol marketing,
Speaker 6: promotions and sponsorship.
Speaker 1: Would you have liked to have seen that pass?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? Yeah. I wasn't here at the time, but my
Speaker 3: previous executive director worked very closely with Chloe and then
Speaker 3: subsequently with Kitty Ellen. I think the Justice Minister, if
Speaker 3: you remember, Chloe's bill was voted down, but the government
Speaker 3: decided at the time to put up their own bill.
Speaker 3: Sadly that was stopped during the policy bondfire after the
Speaker 3: change in leadership. But yeah, I think that was a
Speaker 3: really really good response and I think Chloe has picked
Speaker 3: up the really good strong evidence from starting at the
Speaker 3: Law Commission review and then looking at the Ministerial Forum
Speaker 3: and then further the Government acquiry into mental Health and
Speaker 3: addiction that happened in I think eighteen twenty nineteen, which
Speaker 3: recommended that the government should do some of the recommendations
Speaker 3: from reports it said previously and wrote a really strong
Speaker 3: bill on it. And it's sad to see that that
Speaker 3: didn't progress or it got kind of tossed out in
Speaker 3: that policy bonfire with the commitment that they might look
Speaker 3: at it next term and the government changed and here
Speaker 3: we are. But it was a great program and again
Speaker 3: the public really do support and this is again in
Speaker 3: the Cancer Society and Otago we did last year, this
Speaker 3: strong public support for banning alcohol sponsorship at supporting community
Speaker 3: and other events that people go to underratings go to
Speaker 3: in particular, and banning all marketing and sponsorship also had
Speaker 3: high public support. So I think it's one of those
Speaker 3: things where our government would benefit from just having a
Speaker 3: good look at the evidence, having a good look at
Speaker 3: the public support for change, because I think everyone out
Speaker 3: in community will know someone who's impacted by alcohol harm
Speaker 3: given its prevalence, and they'd be prepared to take some
Speaker 3: imposition on the use of it or the consumption or
Speaker 3: the sale of it in light of the fact that
Speaker 3: the evidence says that that will lead to less harm.
Speaker 2: Is it astonishing that alcohol was ever made a legal substance.
Speaker 1: I know that's a big call, but.
Speaker 3: Is it Put it another way, if we were going
Speaker 3: to introduce alcohol in the present day, knowing a little
Speaker 3: bit about its impact, we would do so in a
Speaker 3: really different way. When we look at regulating as the
Speaker 3: government did a few years ago when we had a
Speaker 3: vote on cannabis product which doesn't have as much of
Speaker 3: the harm to others, they looked at the same sorts
Speaker 3: of things, how it's advertised, how it's marketed, how available
Speaker 3: it'll be. So yeah, I think if we had the
Speaker 3: opportunity and we were really looking at alcohol for the
Speaker 3: first time, I think we would take a very different
Speaker 3: approach to having it so cheap, having it so available,
Speaker 3: and having it glamorized through alcohol marketing, sponsorship and advertising.
Speaker 2: And so if the government were to do something tomorrow,
Speaker 2: if you could snap your fingers, what is on the
Speaker 2: top of the agenda do you think not the easiest,
Speaker 2: but what should be at the top of the agenda.
Speaker 3: Well, we're in evidence based public health organization, so we
Speaker 3: would point to the most evidence based approaches that you
Speaker 3: could take to reducing the harm, and that would be
Speaker 3: impacting price, So like we've talked about the minimum unit
Speaker 3: price or excise tax increases. The next would be alcohol marketing,
Speaker 3: advertising and sponsorship. We know from the evidence that young
Speaker 3: people who are exposed to advertising early more likely to
Speaker 3: go on and have a hazardous relationship with alcohol, so
Speaker 3: in particular for young people, but not just we also
Speaker 3: know from dependent drinkers that glamorous marketing and advertising can
Speaker 3: be a hook back into drinking and availability. Finally, you know,
Speaker 3: making sure that we really are making it available in
Speaker 3: a way that is consistent with the amount of harm
Speaker 3: that it causes. And we could look at some other
Speaker 3: countries Canada, for example, who have a government monopoly on
Speaker 3: retail alcohol, and that really does reduce both the availability
Speaker 3: in some of those shady operators that do some harmful
Speaker 3: marketing at times. So there's quite a range of things
Speaker 3: that you could do. The other one that we advocate
Speaker 3: for is including t TDT in the alcohol framework because
Speaker 3: we know that madia very heavily over represented in the
Speaker 3: harms from alcohol.
Speaker 2: And finally we're speaking about this as dry July kicks off.
Speaker 2: I know the general concept is just not to drink
Speaker 2: during July.
Speaker 1: Is that right? Or can you give me some more
Speaker 1: information about what it actually is.
Speaker 3: Drive Lie is a fantastic initiative. There's a range of
Speaker 3: them across the year, and we're really supportive of these
Speaker 3: movements because it really does give people the opportunity to
Speaker 3: stop drinking for a month. You can bypasses if you
Speaker 3: have an event that comes up in the month, so
Speaker 3: it's not a strict no one's going to monitor you
Speaker 3: and ping you if you don't. But it's a great
Speaker 3: way to raise money. So ultimately, people who participate in
Speaker 3: the challenge set up a page and it's all facilitated
Speaker 3: through the drider Life website. The money goes towards cancer
Speaker 3: preventional cancer treatment, which we know alcohol causes cancer. It's
Speaker 3: a level one castingers. So I think it's a really
Speaker 3: great marketing tool that is getting people to think about
Speaker 3: their drinking by stopping and have that month off and
Speaker 3: then raise some money for cancer. So all of these
Speaker 3: things are great, but I think we would encourage people
Speaker 3: who are stopping to maybe consider how good life is
Speaker 3: without alcohol so much present in your life. Because we
Speaker 3: know from the experience of more and more New Zealanders
Speaker 3: are choosing to drink this or not drinking. And everyone
Speaker 3: I've talked to who's doing that, So that the benefits
Speaker 3: just keep rolling in, better sleep, better productivity, They get
Speaker 3: up and go to the gym, they lose less days.
Speaker 3: You know a lot of times if you are a
Speaker 3: heavy drinker, you'll lose days where you're hungover and you're
Speaker 3: probably eating terrible food as a result. The compounding effect
Speaker 3: of alcohol and people's lives is immense, and I think
Speaker 3: when you take that break, you can go. Actually, even
Speaker 3: if I continue drinking, but I do so in a
Speaker 3: less harmful way, that's a net positive result for New Zealand.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Andrew. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of the Front Page.
Speaker 2: You can read more about today's stories and extensive news
Speaker 2: coverage at enzad Herald dot.
Speaker 1: Co dot z.
Speaker 2: The Front Page is produced by Ethan Seals with sound
Speaker 2: engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front
Speaker 2: Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 2: tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.