Has the Time Come for New Zealand to Introduce a Legal Drinking Age?

Here ALAC's senior policy analyst, Megan Larken, looks at one suggestion, a legal drinking age.

Colloquially, the minimum legal purchase age is often referred to as the "drinking age". Those of us who work with alcohol policy know there's a big difference between a "drinking age" and a "purchase age". We will gladly point out that we have a purchase age in New Zealand so there is nothing illegal about anyone supplying any young person with alcohol, nor is it illegal for people of any age to drink. Except in a public place. This last provision is tucked away in the Summary Offences Act, whereas the Sale of Liquor Act is strictly about commercial sale and supply.

For a long time in New Zealand, and for very good reasons, the lowering and raising of the minimum legal purchase age has been a key focus of efforts to influence youth12-24 years of age. access to alcohol. However, Parliament's decision last year not to pursue raising the purchase age, followed by the Government's anti-climactic Review of the Sale and Supply of Liquor to Under-18s, has led to some of us taking a fresh look at alternative options.

Before reading on, it's important to grasp that the concepts we call "purchase age" versus "drinking age" are not black and white but are different points along a continuum. Moreover, a drinking age law can mean more than one thing because of various exceptions, exemptions and provisions that could be included. Put simply, a minimum legal drinking age severely restricts legal avenues both for the supply of alcohol to, and the consumption by young people.

At first, the suggestion of a drinking age law for New Zealand can seem rather radical. But stop and think ­ why do we have a purchase age? Is it because the act of purchasing liquor is bad for young ones? No. Obviously, it has to do with the commonly held belief that children and adolescents shouldn't be drinking the stuff ­ at least not in the way that adults do. Ponder too, the following finding by a survey of New Zealand college students. When the non-drinking students were asked for the primary reason why they don't drink, 41 percent said, "it's illegal".¹ Based on that, a change to a drinking age law wouldn't necessarily require a radical altering of perceptions, at least for some.

There are drinking age laws overseas, with variable levels of enforcement. A drinking age policy approach is applied in the United States (US), Canada and New South Wales with several variations and exceptions. In the US, it is illegal for anyone to supply alcohol to those under the legal drinking age of 21, although there are various exceptions for supply in private establishments or by parents, which vary from state to state. Some states require `alcohol permits' (the equivalent of a special license) if alcohol is to be supplied to minors at a private event. In 19 states, it is not specifically illegal for a minor to drink (they do not commit any offence when they consume alcohol), just illegal for others to buy for them (with some exceptions).

Canada has a drinking age of 18 or 19, which varies from province to province. It is illegal for anyone to buy alcohol for those under the legal drinking age, with some exceptions ­ minors may drink in certain settings in most provinces.

In Australia the laws vary between states and territories, and depend on whether the alcohol is being supplied and/or consumed. In New South Wales the drinking age is 18, but the law allows parents and guardians to give their under-age children alcohol with dinner at home. Any other person commits an offence if they supply alcohol to a minor without being authorised to do so by the minor's parents or guardian.

There is little doubt that minimum legal age limits for consumption or purchase of alcohol decrease harms and contribute to delaying the initiation of drinking.² However, while drinking age laws deter under-age drinking, they do not prevent it altogether, nor are they without risks. In the US there are concerns that their abstinence-based policy framework for alcohol, with a drinking age set at age 21 and heavy enforcement, has produced mixed results. Total consumption of alcohol by youth in the US has dropped steadily over the last decade but under-age drinking remains a prevalent problem. Under-age drinking accounts for 20 percent of all alcohol consumed in the US. In 2004, 51 percent of 15 year-olds in the US had consumed alcohol and 40 percent of 15-20 year-olds had binged in the past month.³ Concerns have been expressed that simply conveying negative attitudes towards alcohol may prevent some young people from experimenting with alcohol, but when they do violate the prohibition by using alcohol, they have no guidance by which to control their behaviour and are thus at increased risk of heavy use. ⁴

Another issue is the practical workability of a drinking age law. The more exceptions there are, the more complicated enforcement may become. Simple and clear-cut laws are preferable for ease of administration and enforcement, but it may be difficult to achieve simplicity when legislation deals with complex social behaviours.

The following sets out a framework for thinking about drinking age policy options.

Option A

Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 18 ­ illegal for any person to supply alcohol to a minor with the exception of supply by parents and guardians while accompanying them in a private social setting. Also an infringement offence for possession/ consumption by a minor, and supply by a minor to a minor.

Option B

MLDA with additional exceptions/exemptions according to the setting/circumstances of supply, for example: Other adults may supply and accompany in private social settings with the consent of a parent or guardian and The issuing of permits for supply at events and large private gatherings such as wedding receptions.

Option C

Graduated MLDA and purchase age ­ a drinking age of 16 and a purchase age of 18. An exception could be added to the drinking age for parents/guardians supplying and accompanying in private settings.

To any of the above could be added an additional requirement for supervision. This requirement would be that minors who have legally been supplied alcohol by an adult must also be supervised by an adult while drinking that alcohol with a view to preventing intoxication. This approach would require defining `reasonable supervision'.

You'll notice that each option includes an exemption for parents and guardians, in recognition of parental authority. Even with this exemption, and even if there is no requirement to supervise, the raised expectation generated by a change to a drinking age law should encourage parental monitoring and supervision. It's not always easy for an individual parent to maintain a firm stance on alcohol in the face of pressure from clever teenagers. A drinking age law may strengthen parents' resolve to maintain their standards, and increase their receptiveness to educational approaches that encourage supervision and harm minimisation approaches. The aim is to maintain, and in some cases raise, the norm.

What impact would a drinking age law have on Maori and Pacific peoples? There are important differences in the culture of supply across population groups. Pakeha kids are most likely to obtain alcohol from their parents. Maori and Pacific youth are less likely to obtain alcohol from their parents. For Maori, the role of adult whanau is imperative in bringing about change. Pacific youth are most likely to obtain alcohol from older friends.(5) This knowledge flags the need to examine how a drinking age law could be made relevant to Maori and Pacific.

We at ALAC hope to see the subject debated in the future. In the meantime, we've anticipated some likely questions and objections, along with responses:

Q: Would a drinking age law criminalise people who supply to minors, or the minors for drinking?

A: No, under a drinking age law, offences could be subject to infringement notices for either possession/consumption and supply to another minor. An infringement notice is not a criminal offence. It usually involves a financial penalty. A comparable example is a speeding fine.

Q: Would it mean adult family members who give a drink to their niece or nephew at a family picnic or wedding would be breaking the law?

A: Yes or no, depending on the exemptions. Under option A in the table above, it would be illegal.

Q: Shouldn't such decisions be left in the private domain, free from `nanny state' interference?

A: Should other drugs be left to the `private domain'? What about family violence? The reality is, we have all sorts of regulations that affect what happens in the home. The question should be whether a particular proposal to curb a private freedom is warranted.

Q: Would a drinking age law give the police powers to enter properties to check who's drinking?

A: No. A drinking age law of the type discussed here would not allow the police such powers. However, in a situation where police were called to a party that was getting rowdy, the police could enter the premises and try to move people on, break up the party, confiscate alcohol from the young people and issue infringement notices. The police would likely adopt a graduated response system. Depending on the situation and the mix of exceptions and enforcement powers under the legislation, they may also identify the supplier of alcohol to minors and issue an infringement notice, or begin investigations.

Q: Wouldn't it be difficult for the police to enforce a drinking age law?

A: That's a valid issue. Enforceability is a key consideration and would need to be explored fully.

Q: Would there need to be an exception for supply by spouses and de facto partners?

A: No. Not many under-18s in New Zealand are married or living in a de facto arrangement. Creating such an exception would only increase the number of 17 year-olds claiming to police that their 18 year-old companion is their de facto spouse.

References 1. Youth 2000 2. Research NZ report, page 110. 3. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). 4. "Reducing Harms from Youth Drinking", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, Vol. 50(4), Dec 2006, pp.67-87, http://www.peele.net/lib/reducing.html 5. ALAC surveys (as cited in Research NZ's report)

This article first appeared in the December 2007 edition of alcohol.org.nz. Why not comment on this article - post a comment below: