The recent report of the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction included a recommendation for the government to strengthen alcohol regulations. The government has chosen to ignore this, thus joining a procession of successive governments over the past 10 years, which have been unable to bring about public health measures to curb excessive drinking and thereby reduce associated harm.

The current Labour-led coalition government came to power expressing fresh hope for a better future for all New Zealanders. In particular, the government campaigned on making a difference in the mental health and addiction arena. Numerous statements and speeches highlighted wellbeing and addressing the needs of New Zealand families affected by mental health and addiction problems.

Action followed rhetoric when a wide-ranging inquiry into mental health and addiction was soon set up. Over 5,200 submissions were received by the inquiry team and more than 400 meetings held throughout the country.

The final report of the Inquiry included 40 recommendations and the Prime Minister proudly announced her government’s intention to consider the vast majority of them:1

“The Government’s response to He Ara Oranga (the report of the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction) shows just how seriously the Government is taking mental health and addiction says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The Government has accepted, accepted in principle, or agreed to further consideration of 38 of the 40 recommendations of the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction laid down a challenge to the Government and to all New Zealanders. We need to transform our thinking and approach to mental health and addiction—and that is what we are committing to today.”

Startlingly, however, the Inquiry’s key recommendation related to alcohol had been taken off the agenda. The recommendation was: “Take a stricter regulatory approach to the sale and supply of alcohol, informed by the recommendations from the 2010 Law Commission review, the 2014 Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship and the 2014 Ministry of Justice report on alcohol pricing”.

The extent of self-harm from alcohol as well as harm to others2 leaves little doubt that alcohol is the drug doing the most damage to New Zealanders’ mental health and wellbeing. It is the cause of widespread damage and suffering, and costs the country an estimated $7.85 billion per year according to Business and Economic Research (BERL).3 Apart from various emotional and mental health sequelae of injury, violence, and chronic disease including carcinogenicity, alcohol can directly cause clinical depression, is associated with a number of anxiety syndromes and is a significant factor in causing about a third of completed suicides.

This was the fourth government-initiated report in the past decade that has recommended stronger regulation of alcohol. The previous National-led governments had rejected three of them beginning with the 2010 recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission to dismantle alcohol advertising and sponsorship, increase the price of alcohol, limit the hours of sale of alcohol and raise the purchase age for alcohol back up to 20 years. Those governments had also ignored findings of two further reports commissioned in the aftermath of the Law Commission review: (i) the key recommendation of the 2014 Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship to remove alcohol sponsorship for sport in New Zealand; and (ii) the evidence provided by the 2014 Ministry of Justice report that increasing the price of alcohol through either minimum pricing or excise tax increases would yield a positive economic gain for society.

Stricter regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol is arguably one of the easiest and most effective ways by which a government can improve the nation’s wellbeing and reduce misery. Dismantling all alcohol marketing, raising the price of alcohol and curbing alcohol sales are three of the most effective specific elements of stricter regulation,4 each of which has featured in the unheeded advice to governments in recent years.

Why have governments, both left- and right-leaning, been reluctant to enact recommendations about strengthening alcohol regulation from their own government inquiries? The scientific evidence is strong about reducing population-based harms from such measures,4 and the majority of the public in New Zealand, in the region of 70–80%, are either strongly in favour, in favour, or would be neutral about stronger alcohol regulations.5

Two questions must be asked and straight answers sought: (i) whose stakes are at risk if the people of New Zealand drank less alcohol? and (ii) do these vested interests have undue influence on New Zealand’s political processes behind the scenes?

We remain hopeful that a government in the near future will show the necessary leadership to act boldly on alcohol, in similar fashion to the government which acted in the public’s best interest on tobacco 30 years ago; and in fact in similar fashion to this current government’s recent action on guns.

‍

The recent report of the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction included a recommendation for the government to strengthen alcohol regulations. The government has chosen to ignore this, thus joining a procession of successive governments over the past 10 years, which have been unable to bring about public health measures to curb excessive drinking and thereby reduce associated harm.

The current Labour-led coalition government came to power expressing fresh hope for a better future for all New Zealanders. In particular, the government campaigned on making a difference in the mental health and addiction arena. Numerous statements and speeches highlighted wellbeing and addressing the needs of New Zealand families affected by mental health and addiction problems.

Action followed rhetoric when a wide-ranging inquiry into mental health and addiction was soon set up. Over 5,200 submissions were received by the inquiry team and more than 400 meetings held throughout the country.

The final report of the Inquiry included 40 recommendations and the Prime Minister proudly announced her government’s intention to consider the vast majority of them:1

“The Government’s response to He Ara Oranga (the report of the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction) shows just how seriously the Government is taking mental health and addiction says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The Government has accepted, accepted in principle, or agreed to further consideration of 38 of the 40 recommendations of the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction laid down a challenge to the Government and to all New Zealanders. We need to transform our thinking and approach to mental health and addiction—and that is what we are committing to today.”

Startlingly, however, the Inquiry’s key recommendation related to alcohol had been taken off the agenda. The recommendation was: “Take a stricter regulatory approach to the sale and supply of alcohol, informed by the recommendations from the 2010 Law Commission review, the 2014 Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship and the 2014 Ministry of Justice report on alcohol pricing”.

The extent of self-harm from alcohol as well as harm to others2 leaves little doubt that alcohol is the drug doing the most damage to New Zealanders’ mental health and wellbeing. It is the cause of widespread damage and suffering, and costs the country an estimated $7.85 billion per year according to Business and Economic Research (BERL).3 Apart from various emotional and mental health sequelae of injury, violence, and chronic disease including carcinogenicity, alcohol can directly cause clinical depression, is associated with a number of anxiety syndromes and is a significant factor in causing about a third of completed suicides.

This was the fourth government-initiated report in the past decade that has recommended stronger regulation of alcohol. The previous National-led governments had rejected three of them beginning with the 2010 recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission to dismantle alcohol advertising and sponsorship, increase the price of alcohol, limit the hours of sale of alcohol and raise the purchase age for alcohol back up to 20 years. Those governments had also ignored findings of two further reports commissioned in the aftermath of the Law Commission review: (i) the key recommendation of the 2014 Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship to remove alcohol sponsorship for sport in New Zealand; and (ii) the evidence provided by the 2014 Ministry of Justice report that increasing the price of alcohol through either minimum pricing or excise tax increases would yield a positive economic gain for society.

Stricter regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol is arguably one of the easiest and most effective ways by which a government can improve the nation’s wellbeing and reduce misery. Dismantling all alcohol marketing, raising the price of alcohol and curbing alcohol sales are three of the most effective specific elements of stricter regulation,4 each of which has featured in the unheeded advice to governments in recent years.

Why have governments, both left- and right-leaning, been reluctant to enact recommendations about strengthening alcohol regulation from their own government inquiries? The scientific evidence is strong about reducing population-based harms from such measures,4 and the majority of the public in New Zealand, in the region of 70–80%, are either strongly in favour, in favour, or would be neutral about stronger alcohol regulations.5

Two questions must be asked and straight answers sought: (i) whose stakes are at risk if the people of New Zealand drank less alcohol? and (ii) do these vested interests have undue influence on New Zealand’s political processes behind the scenes?

We remain hopeful that a government in the near future will show the necessary leadership to act boldly on alcohol, in similar fashion to the government which acted in the public’s best interest on tobacco 30 years ago; and in fact in similar fashion to this current government’s recent action on guns.

‍