Editorial: Drink issue not just about age

Opinion

Ever since Parliament lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18 in 1999 there has been steady pressure to reverse the decision. Within a year the first calls for reversal were heard and since then a large amount of work has been done by the Government and other organisations to assess the social effects of the lower age.

It was almost as though the nation, as well as some MPs, were nagged by doubts about whether they had rushed into a fundamental social change without fully considering the implications.

Until now, however, the issue has never had enough momentum to force itself from the background and on to the national agenda. All that changed last Wednesday when a private member's bill from Progressive MP Matt Robson - who originally voted for the lower age - was selected from a members' ballot, thus reigniting a debate which has smouldered for six years and raising the real possibility that the drinking age could, once again, be 20.

Those who believe that 18 is too young have marshalled a seemingly compelling case. Lowering the age, they argue, has led to an increase in all kinds of social problems: Sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, violence and road trauma. Moreover it has led to a de facto drinking age of less than 18 because the law has not been enforced strictly enough, despite the clear intentions of Parliament.

There can be no question that their motives are true and their objectives are right. Nor can there be any question that the lower drinking age must be enforced strictly. That was a central tenet of the argument for changing the law in 1999 and if enforcement is now less rigorous than it was, then it must be reinvigorated.

But beyond that those campaigning to reverse the law are, in a real sense, trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Their proposal is a narrow, legalistic approach to what must be regarded as a deeper social question requiring a more comprehensive response, not just from MPs, the police, the medical profession and the hospitality industry but from society as a whole.

New Zealand has, unfortunately, a well-deserved reputation for a culture of binge drinking which makes it futile to expect that young people will alter their behaviour just because of an adjustment in the legal framework for selling alcohol.

Indeed, the Alcohol Advisory Council - which is among the supporters of a drinking age of 20 - points out that young people tend to mimic the drinking behaviour of adults.

By its own argument, therefore, it would seem futile to expect a return to the old law to solve the raft of social problems that have been linked to teenage abuse of alcohol. Until adults change their drinking habits, it seems unlikely that teenagers will mend their ways, no matter what the law says.

Therefore it is imperative that we find other means to get on top of those pressing social problems. The challenge is to bring about a cultural change so that the society as a whole matures in its attitude towards alcohol. The onus is not just on the young to alter their behaviour but their elders as well.

How to achieve such a change will no doubt require measures at once more subtle and more comprehensive than merely changing the the law. But there is no question that this could be done. Cultures do not spring out of the ground fully formed, they are made by people and can just as readily be unmade.

A national campaign to change attitudes towards drinking would be a good starting point to unmake one of the least attractive aspects of our national culture.