Showing posts with label Driving under the influence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Driving under the influence. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

A former National Party logo
Image via Wikipedia






A former NZ National Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform drinking:


by Peter Petterson

When a former New Zealand National Party Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform the drinking laws in NZ, and allowed a  Parliamentary  conscience vote, they did not do New Zealand society a favour. The drinking age was reduced to 18 years, off-licences were introduced and as a consequence younger drinkers were given  greater access to alcohol.

 Quite frankly it has become a disaster to society as a whole and has also affected driving on our streets and highways. Drink- driving and other driving offences have also skyrocketed as alcohol has become more accessable to younger teens and children.Youth  drunkenness in the CBD areas of our cities has become a problem for our police and a public nuisance to other citizens. And there has been a proliferation of alcohol outlets in our cities and suburbs - they have sprung up like mushrooms, and robberies and deaths have ensued from them.

So what has the Key National Party - led administration done about it? Apart from the rhetoric a big fat zero! There is now a social cost to New Zealand society. Mores lives are being lost annually as the government delays action and a further reform of our drinking laws.

The Government has allegedly  turned its back on hundreds of pages of official advice to increase the drinking age and reduce the numbers of alcohol outlets, and a claim that the refusal to lower  the drink-driving limitt  was costing an extra  33 lives and  a saving of NZ$238 million a year. These pages have been released under the Official Information Act and showed that lowering  the alcohol limit was the best possible action it could take to reduce the number of road injuries and  deaths caused by drunk drivers. It is obvious that the current approach to drink-driving will not reduce the the level of fatalities.

The government was told that data based on 300 overseas studies showed that 33 lives and 686 injuries could be prevented. A social saving of up to $238 million ayear could be made, and ACC could save an extra $95 million in claims each year.

But the government wants to sit on its heads and do more studies. Why? Because they are obviously coming under pressure from the alcohol industry lobby, despite denials from those involved. The government refuses to reduce the  blood alcohol limit (BAC) from 0.08 down to 0.05 as recommended by experts. This  National Government wants to have a further two years of research before they revisit the limit; there has been years of public discussion and official advice on the matter. They want a good range of public submissions, ministers have claimed. Like Nero they will fiddle while Rome burns - the Rome in this particular scenario being hundreds of more deaths and thousands of maimed New Zealanders, including babies and elderly people.

So let me halt my rhetoric and produce some facts for readers to consider:

What  a lower limit would do:

1/  Save up to 33 lives a year.

2/Prevent up to  686 injuries a year.

3/ Save social costs of up to $238 million a year

4/ACC would save up to $95 million in claims each year.

5/The financial gain would be 173 times the cost.

Knowing your limit:

!/ The current blood alcohol content of 0.08 of alcohol per 100 ml of blood allows a man of average height and weight to drink six standard drinks within 90 mins. For an average woman,  it allows four standard drinks.

2/ A BAC of of 0.05 would allow an average height and weight man  to drink two standard drinks in the first hour and one an hour thereafter. For an average woman it allows one standard drink an hour.

What the Governments opponents say:

Innocent people will continue to be killed on our roads by drinking drivers  while Minister Steven Joyce and his fellow National cabinet ministers say the can't yet make up their minds about lowering the alcohol limit for drivers on NZ roads.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

John Key, leader of the New Zealand National PartyImage via WikipediaNew Zealand MPs given a conscience vote on the legal drinking age would probably allow 18-year-olds into bars and pubs but return the off-licence purchase age to 20...


The National Party caucus yesterday decided that the vote on raising the drinking or alcohol purchase age from 18 to 20 will be up to individual MPs in a conscience vote.



But National would vote as a party on other alcohol reforms in legislation expected to have its first reading late this year.



The caucus meeting also decided that any votes on drink-driving laws, including Labour MP Darren Hughes' private member's bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit, would also be along party lines rather than a conscience vote as suggested by Prime Minister John Key last week.



Asked how they intended to vote on the alcohol purchase age, many MPs, including Mr Key and Opposition leader Phil Goff, said they were likely to vote for a split age which would keep the purchase age on licensed premises at 18, but raise the purchase age at liquor stores, supermarkets and other off-licence premises to 20.



Mr Goff also said it would be up to each Labour MP how they voted on the drinking age, but he supported a split age because it was better to have 18 and 19-year-olds drinking under supervision rather "than out of the back of a car in a reserve somewhere".





Of 44 MPs who expressed a preference on the subject to 3 News, 29 favoured the 18/20 split, seven preferred keeping the age at 18 and eight favoured returning it to 20.



Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, who will be leading her party's response to the Government's alcohol reform legislation, also favoured the split.



"It takes the debate away from the age which is not so much the issue but whether people are drinking in a supervised versus unsupervised environment."



Other considerations included alcohol prices, outlets and access to takeaway alcohol.



"If we don't have a debate about accessibility and have a debate only about age, we will not fix the problem."



Mr Hughes said he was disappointed the Government would not allow a conscience vote on his bill - which would lower the drink-drive limit from 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 0.05 - if it was drawn out of the ballot.



"It would have been great to have all the politics put aside and National MPs voting for it as well."



But Mr Joyce said Mr Hughes was "playing politics" himself.



"This is a party that had nine years to make some changes in this area ... and they didn't bother and now it's the most urgent thing since sliced bread."



Mr Joyce said National's caucus felt the Government had made a call to revisit the issue in two years once additional research had been completed "and they were keen to back the decision with a party vote".



Other drink-driving measures planned by the Government included a zero drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers and drivers under 20 years of age and tougher penalties for people who drink and drive causing death.



National would also look at alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drive offenders.



THE NUMBERS



*44 MPs polled



*29 preferred the 18/20 split for clubs and off-licences



*8 preferred raising age to 20 for both



*7 wanted age kept at 18

But the New Zealand public may want the age increased to 20 years for all drinking, as it was before the last drinking law changes in 1999. Their opinion could be interesting, one year out from the next elections.


Enhanced by Zemanta