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