Dying for a drink - is a crackdown the answer?
A third appalling murder in a fortnight in South Auckland has the Government reaching into its bag of tricks in a bid to find something, anything, to show the public that it is not complacent about the current spate of crime.
The news that an Asian mother had been run down and killed by robbers trying to snatch her handbag in a supermarket carpark was the last straw for the Prime Minister, who has announced a crackdown on liquor licencing and a government-wide review of social policy.
Coming hard on the heels of the brutal bashing of an elderly lady in her own home and the cold-blooded murder of a liquor store owner in Manurewa, it's understandable that the public should be demanding answers and action, and that the Government should be casting around for some way of providing both.
Calling the chief executives of the social service agencies together for a meeting tomorrow probably isn't a bad idea, although I'm not sure what talking is going to achieve. It can't hurt, anyway.
But I'm a little perplexed about Helen Clark's decision to launch into the liquor industry. At her Monday post-Cabinet press conference Clark said she believed there were too many liquor outlets in Manurewa. That much most people seem to agree on. But she also said it was time to review the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act, which ushered New Zealand out of the dark ages of the bottle shop and into a more enlightened view of alcohol consumption, which was that supermarkets and dairies could sell wine and beer, but not hard liquor.
Since then the number of liquor outlets in New Zealand has almost doubled - hardly surprising, since every supermarket in the land now sells it. The Prime Minister says there is evidence of a causal link between density of liquor outlets and criminal activity. Therefore, she says, the density should be reduced.
What springs to mind when I hear this, however, is the old caution about not implying a causal relationship between two inter-related events. Is there more crime in suburbs with more liquor outlets because of the outlets? Or do the outlets naturally gravitate towards lower-socio economic areas where drinking is a way of life and there just happens to be more crime?
I'm not saying alcohol doesn't cause huge harm in society - most people accept it does. But it is also something that is hugely enjoyed by a majority of the adult population. It is our social lubricant, whether we like it or not. Whether or not it should be is another question. Personally I would find life pretty wretched without a glass of wine at the end of the day, but I'm not into binge drinking.
But whether or not we as a society have a problem with alcohol - and if we do, how you solve it - isn't something that can be tackled by some knee-jerk crackdown on liquor outlets. And it's highly doubtful that it would stop young, desperate, disenchanted and uncaring thugs from shooting people or running them over. You could argue that the P epidemic has more responsibility for the current spate of crimes than alcohol, but that drug too is a symptom that masks underlying causes.
Clark said yesterday that in her opinion many dairies had been turned into "grog shops''. Maybe that's true in South Auckland, but in many places I'd have thought shoppers welcome the convenience of being able to grab a bottle of wine with their milk and newspaper.
The idea, 20 years ago, was that by making alcohol an accepted part of everyday life we would normalise it and perhaps even one day reach the position of many European countries, where wine and spirits are as ubiquitous as bread and cheese.
Perhaps Parliament was dreaming, just as lowering the drinking age hardly seems to have made young people more responsible in their behaviour.
Clearly there are huge issues that need to be tackled, and the government has a role in this. But a quick crack-down on the off-licence in election year, which would punish not just shop owners but the ordinary public, doesn't seem like the answer.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
You say "I’d have thought shoppers welcome the convenience of being able to grab a bottle of wine with their milk and newspaper.".
And of course, they do. You are, however, talking about reasonably well-adjusted individuals who do not make it part of their routine to steal, intimiate, or kill others. And that is the problem. It isn't the amount of liquor stores, or the regulations surrounding them. The problem is both deeper and broader - some people simply do not have the tools to operate in an acceptable manner in our society (that is, without causing serious damage to others).
What is the answer? I don't presume to know, unfortunately. But I do know that punishing the many for the incursions of the few rarely works. (And I'm speaking generally here, not bewailing the reduction of liquor outlets).
Yes far to many liquor outlets, but I think the real problem is lowering the drinking age to 18 it needs to be bought back to 20 and this Govt; needs to take some hard action they are far to soft and to PC, no consequences so it won't stop, it's certainly not the NZ I grew up in. Diane.
Well balanced and thought out post Colin.
The problem isn't the number of "grog shops" but more the fact you can purchase alcohol nearly 24/7 these days.
Dairies do make a lot of money from their alcohol, but perhaps limiting the sale of alcohol to between certain hours would be far better, rather than the current anything goes mantra.
South Auckland has a lot of outlets, too much for such a small area. Better limitations on where alcohol can be sold, such as in areas with high foot traffic, better lighting and perhaps closer to the closed cop shop would be more effective.
Why does South Auckland need 17 liquor outlets within a 1 km radius? Why does anywhere need that many?
As far as "normalisation" of alcohol goes, perhaps if the drinking age was still 21, there wouldn't be this excess binge culture. We have people at 15 drinking alcopops (Pihema Cameron) which was no doubt supplied by an older brother. Very rarely is alcohol supplied to those under 18 by their parents. Its more often than not those at 18.
3 years age difference is a lot when you're considering moral, societal and economic attitudes.
No not the answer! This is just political gamesmanship! Lets get onto an anti-alcohol campaign like the anti-smoking campaign. Pictures of drunk 14 year old girls lying in the gutter on every bottle and can! An "ÏT Actually aint cool to drink" ad campaign, Not the patronising adverts of today where "Its not the drinking but the way were drinking! Ever thought that maybe it IS the drinking thats costing this country and its people! Alcohol is the scurge of todays society, used by peopel at the top to control the masses. Well see whose got the guts to follow through with this. I aint holding my breath!
Yet again we get an irrational response: Poor robbers it is not their fault is it? It is the fault of society for having bottle stores!
Add that one to: Don't blame the poor criminal kids, blame their parents. No, don't blame the poor parents, blame social services!
Wbat's the betting that all these low-lives will turn out to have been frequent passengers through the revolving doors of our "justice" system?
When will we turn over reform of this hopelessly ineffective and hideously costly disaster to business brains who want to solve the problems instead of legal bureaucrats whose careers depend on the problems continuing?
I agree, it isn't the answer. While I don't doubt that alcohol can be a nasty and destructive drug, I think that cracking down on the amount of liquor outlets because of a 'casual link' to criminal activity wont make a blind bit of difference. Its the increasing violence of these crimes and the complete lack of remorse from the perpetrators that scares me. The attitude of 'I want it so I'll take it and if I kill you so what' is just sick. I certainly don't have the answers, but I think a pervading lack of responsibility throughout our whole society is a big problem. I also think we're way to soft on violent offenders in NZ.
Perhaps it is time to stop this liberal experiment of doing without any rules? I think making alcohol less accessible is a good idea. Putting the drinking age back to 20 would also be good.
However I am a conservative Christian and so I wouldn't stop there. I would probably repeal all the social liberal legislation of the past 25 years. Bring back capital punishment to restore respect for life. Govern the country by the Christian principles that used to serve us so well.
But ultimately the problem is us. We are trying to live without God. Nothing will change in my view until as a nation we turn back to God.
Did anyone mention that the PM Helen Clark voted against the reduction of age to 18, and later voted to increase the age to 20?
Oh good, I was sure someone would.
All rise - On the House stands adjourned
Dumb and dumber: Axing Heather Roy
Carter commits political suicide
Green leader out of line with protest
Get Carter, but not because he's gay
Party's over for Labour's Hooray Henrys
Whinegate unlikely to sozzle the PM
English sprinkles the fairy dust
Family of 13 face threat of homelessness
Dad leaves stories to be remembered by
Police uncover alleged date-rape drug lab
Airport to remove homes in noise zone
Emily Longley 'stood no chance' - prosecutor
Rebstock appointment to welfare reform board concerns
Airport to remove homes in noise zone
Target carpet cleaner in court
Family of 13 face threat of homelessness
Kiwis pay up for popular TV shows
Doubts don't slow Facebook behemoth
Airport to remove homes in noise zone
Councillors must do more to stop demolition
Down syndrome protest at workshop
Health boss photographed drinking from beer bong
Homeowners contaminate recycling efforts
Editorial: The beer facts about that photograph
So yet again the nanny state is intending to restrict the freedoms of the majority in order to been seen to be doing something in the name of political expediency.
My view is very simple - if you take somebody's life by killing them then you should not expect to live yourself. Dogs are put down for simply biting so the mad dog humans should not expect any leniency. One way or another very quickly there would be a lot less murders and society is restored to some sort or order, and imagine the $$$ savings. In Singapore there are large signs upon airport arrival that simply say to expect the death penalty if you are caught in possession of drugs and that seems to work exceptionally well.