In Praise of the Caring Society: the so called Nanny State

To consider proposals by the present Government on alcohol control is to come to the conclusion that Government is more concerned with pacifying the hospitality and liquor industries, than solving the abuse of alcohol in society.

The well-being of its citizens must always be the first priority of a democratic government; good government should always be a caring government. It follows that, if there is developing behaviour of some that puts the safety of others at risk, good government should enact laws and regulations that provide sanctions against such anti-social behaviour.

Since the liberalising of our liquor controls, extending the opening hours of bars and night clubs, increasing the numbers of off-licences and eating establishments, we have witnessed a worrying trend in drunken behaviour with motor vehicle deaths and injuries involving DIC drivers. A large proportion of these drivers have been young teenagers and car racers, whose ill disciplined driving involved death and injury threats, not to themselves alone, but to the death and maiming of many others. On top of the motor vehicle mayhem was the increasing incidence of out-of-control parties involving violence leading to serious injury and loss of life. Public cries went up to do something serious about the availability of alcohol to the country’s youth. Our Government promised action, and invited input from the public.

Pegging back the allowable drinking age, shortening the opening hours of off-licences and on-licences, more restrictions on super-market sales of alcohol, limiting the number of all outlets, reducing advertising of alcoholic beverages, were just some of the suggestions. But the most widely supported was the urge to reduce the allowable limit of blood-alcohol for motor vehicle drivers, from 80 mgs per litre to 50 for over 20 year olds, and for under 20 yr olds down to zero. Victoria, Australia, with a striking decrease in Victorian traffic deaths, has a similar limit to those recommended, but Transport Minister, Stephen Joyce, said he would need to see New Zealand figures before he could recommend any change for New Zealand.

One would wonder what in the Australian diet could change the metabolism of alcohol in New Zealand drivers from those in Victoria. The only conclusion one could reach is that Joyce lacks the common sense expected of a Minister of the Crown, or he is under too much pressure from a certain lobby to retain the status quo. Meanwhile, lives, many of them quite innocent, are being lost and bodies maimed for life, simply because of a minister’s prevarication. This is not what we expect of a caring Government.

This Government, when in opposition, was applauded for its attitude towards the needy, what it labeled Nannyism – laws and regulations that were designed to protect vulnerable members of society. Now occupying the seat of power, National is terrified of being similarly labeled, and yet, if it is to be responsible to society, it must act. Not to take action on the blood-alcohol limits for drivers is unconscionable and could prove its ultimate disgrace.

We need a caring society. May this Government have the courage to be a right.