Let the drinking age be it's the driving age that needs to be raised

Last updated 21:49 12/01/2009

Relevant offers

News that the drinking age is likely to be scrutinised by Parliament has a familiar ring to it, The Press says in an editorial.

Since the age was lowered from 20 years to 18 years in 1999 there have been regular calls for this decision to be reversed. Now the Justice Minister, Simon Power, has said that the issue will be considered by the select committee which is dealing with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill.

Calls to revert to a drinking age of 20 years have a populist appeal to them, especially when there have been incidents of loutish or criminal behaviour by drunken teenagers. But to do so would be to apply a simplistic solution to the complex broader problem of alcohol abuse in New Zealand. A majority of MPs appreciated this in 2006 when they voted down the last attempt to increase the drinking age and, if the issue does come before Parliament this year, they should do so again.

The term "drinking age" is itself something of a misnomer. It relates to the age that someone can purchase liquor but not to the age a person can consume alcohol. One problem arises when underage youths drink alcohol which has been supplied by friends or family members at home, then cause trouble when they cruise into the central city or gate-crash parties. And raising the drinking age will not by itself prevent this occurring.

One of the key arguments for originally lowering the drinking age was that it was inconsistent for an 18-year-old to be able to get married, vote, purchase cigarettes and enlist in the army, but not buy alcohol. This argument was logical in 1999 and remains so today.

Another reason why Parliament opted for the lowered age then was that MPs were assured that, as a trade-off for alcohol law liberalisation, the new age limit would be strictly enforced. This was aimed at ensuring that a legal age of 18 did not become in effect an even lower age.

And a commitment by the former Labour-led government to tighten up still further the enforcement provisions helped swing enough MPs to oppose the 2006 bill in a conscience vote.

The present liquor supply bill before a select committee does strengthen the drinking age regime. It would make it a crime to supply a minor with alcohol without the permission of a parent, tighten the proof of age requirement, and introduce a "three strikes and out" provision for liquor store managers who are caught selling alcohol to minors for a third time.

The bill also tackles the proliferation of off-licence liquor outlets, which critics say has contributed to the problem of minors gaining access to alcohol, by giving local councils greater powers to determine how many bottle shops can be located in a particular community.

Ad Feedback

Assuming these measures are passed by Parliament, they should be given time to prove their effectiveness before the drinking age itself is relitigated.

It must be remembered that alcohol abuse is not confined to teenagers. Rather than focusing narrowly on the age at which alcohol can be bought, the emphasis must be on the longstanding culture of binge drinking in New Zealand.

The former government last year instructed the Law Commission to do just that by examining the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act. This inquiry will include looking at the drinking age, but in the broader context of the social impact of alcohol legislation.

But while MPs should resist any attempt this year to increase the drinking age, the driving age is a different matter.

The case for increasing the driving age from the present 15 years to at least 16 years has been well made for years now and opinion polls have shown that a majority of the community would support such a move, especially after high-profile instances of 15-year-old drivers being involved in fatal crashes. It is nonsensical that New Zealand has one of the lowest ages at which people can get driving licences.

A bill to increase the driving age is before a select committee. The Government should support the passing of this legislation, but leave well alone that other teenage rite of passage, the drinking age.

- © Fairfax NZ News

The Press Homepage

Sponsored links

Share this page

Email Facebook MySpace Digg StumbleUpon Delicious Reddit Linkedin Twitter

10 comments

Expand All

Oldest First

kylie #10 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Maybe if all schools did driving courses and stopped kicking out the 'too hard kids' and actually educated our youth, we might see a change.

John McDonald #9 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Maybe we need a drinking license. If you drink and drive, you lose your drinking license. If you get caught drunk in public etc - the same outcome. If you inflict damage on property or people, then no more booze. Those who drink safely are not compromised by the behaviour of others. Why not?

David #8 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I think the Law needs to be changed to come down harder and I do mean HARDER on anyone breaking the driving laws. I also agree that making it harder and costlier to get a license in the first place a good step. If people have to pay out a couple of thousand dollars for their license, and risk losing it and having to pay again to get it back on the FIRST offence then they will think twice about breaking the law. In some European countries it costs over NZ$5000 to get a license, and if you lose it you start again with another $5000 bill. So if someone goes out and drink drives or street races etc, they lose their license FIRST Time, Second time they go to Jail, No Fines they don???t pay, JAIL!. I would rather pay more tax to have more idiot young drivers behind bars, than have them repeat offending on the streets, its my family and friends they are killing. Lowering the drinking age or driving age affects all young people including the responsible ones, so hit the bad ones HARD! And leave the good drivers alone.

Brian #7 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Well it might be a parentling issue as a deep underlying root cause but that does not solve the problem. Some of these 15 year olds do not have the maturity to drive. End of deal and the raising of both driving and drinking will not compund this isue, it can only help. To hell with sorting the educational issues, that will take time but raising the drink/drive ages will have an immediate effect. Do it. Then regulate what size engine capacity a learner driver can handle and let them build up to more powerful vehicles. I hate regulations but you know what the Police say....the road toll must come down.

Alan #6 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Well Marky, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many unruly teens if parents were required to take responsibility for their offspring's behavior, including payment of compensation for vandalism, tagging and traffic accidents.

Mobius #5 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

It's not age which is the concern here I think, it's ability. Fifteen year olds have regularly shown, across the globe that they can drive a car, and often with more skill and speed than race drivers twice their age - so it's certainly not outside the capability of 15 year oilds to drive well.

The problem as I see it is that a drivers license is FAR too easy to get!

New drivers are useless drivers, it's that simple. They do not understand the physics of driving, nor even the grosser points of vehicle dynamics. For example, teaching a new driver that tyres are "good for three things - turning, braking or accelerating - PICK ONE OF THE THREE" helps them advance their driving skills far beyond any number of senseless miles under their belt already.

If drivers were forced to complete (and pass!) advanced driving courses, including the trolley-wheeled so-called "Skid cars", forced to learn to employ ABS correctly (gently guide the car away from the accident straight ahead) and to understand what causes, and how to avoid accidents, we could cut the injury and fatality rate by very significant margins.

Simply learning to "raise the gaze", and "Look where you want the car to go" can save tens (and possibly hundreds) of lives every single year - and yet most drivers do not learn these things until they're in the 40's or 50's (if ever!).

Treating driving licenses like professional qualifications, and refusing to permit unskilled persons behind the wheel on the open road is the way forwards. Driving is a privilege and not a right. The sooner we realise this, the better.

And if it costs $1500 for a person to achieve the standard required for open road driving, then so be it!

Amy #4 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Being 19 myself I dont see the point is raising the drinking age, every time I go to town there are 16year olds and onwards clubbing, Most bouncers dont care anyway so its pretty pointless. The driving age should be raised or at least the power of the car, I have seen to many of my friends hurt by young drivers, And lost a friend due to a 18year old driver going over 100k on a 50k road.

Leave the drinking age do something about the deaths due to young people in cars !!!!!!

Mark Coulthard #3 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

The raising of the age where a drivers license came be gained, has merit as does raising the age for the consumption of alcohol.The reducing of the age to 18,coincided with the upcoming election,where it seemed that the Prime Minister of the time championed changing the law in what appeared to be a forlorn hope of staying in power by attracting the youth vote,a dismal failure I might add.The art of parenting has been steadily been eroded, essentially by the cotton wool approach that has made it virtually impossible to discipline children, if a child wants to misbehave,it can.Limiting the cc rating of cars for learners is not an option as there are too many ways to get around that issue. Unfortunately with the changes to technology,communications, along with the soft approach to children and young peoples behavioral issues unless there is a dramatic change with the Laws and some sort of accountability of parents, things will remain as they are.

Marky #2 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

So Alan, Once you have fined or jailed the under 18 year olds parents - what do you do with the unruly teenagers?

It wouldnt solve the problem but would reduce the impact on the community if Under 18s were restricted to vehicles under 75 horsepower or with 1.1 litre engines...

Alan #1 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

This is not a drinking problem or a driving problem, and it won't be solved by raising the driving or drinking ages. It's a parenting problem. Parents should be jointly responsible for criminal and antisocial behavior by their children under 18. Then perhaps they might take an interest in where there children are and what they're doing.

Ad Feedback