1 Publicans, Presbyterians and Policy: An institutionalist analysis of alcohol control policies in Australia and New Zealand 1900-2010 by Daniel Joseph Hanna – BA (Hons.) ANU School of Social Sciences Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of Tasmania, February 2016 2 Abstract Alcohol has been heavily regulated around the world for many centuries. Today there are at least as many approaches to alcohol control policies as there are nation states. Despite this policy variation, little research has focused on the forces that have shaped alcohol regulation. Australia and New Zealand had divergent approaches to alcohol regulation despite geographic, cultural, and demographic similarities. Through their histories, alcohol regulations were also heavily debated issues of public importance. Despite this, there has been little or no comparative research which seeks to systematically describe and explain alcohol control policies in the antipodes. This thesis seeks to address this gap in the scholarly literature by providing a detailed historical account of the trajectory of alcohol control policies in Australia and New Zealand and, using the tools of historical institutionalism, proceeds to present an explanation of policy divergence between the cases. This research focused on the influence of institutions in shaping policy paths and divergence in alcohol controls. The institutions assessed included mid-level political institutions (division of powers, parliamentary structure and practice, constitutional arrangements, and the judiciary) and, consistent with the work of some historical institutionalists and political scientists (such as Lowi), the influence of policy legacies. The approach incorporated a comparative, historical assessment of alcohol control policies (dependent variable) and ideas, actors and institutions (independent variables) over a long time period (1900-2010) to identify divergence and its causes. The research found that in 2010 the alcohol control policies in Australia and New Zealand were less similar than in 1900. This divergence became pronounced after World War One when Australian controls followed a path of incremental change, while New Zealand followed a different path with two brief periods of significant change (World War One and the late 1980s) and rigid stability in between. The divergence was evident in availability controls and other policy tools, including: taxation, drink-driving countermeasures, treatment, advertising controls, and national alcohol policies. Australian alcohol policies were consistent with the incremental change path identified by March and Olsen (1989), whereas New Zealand’s diverged after World War One when they followed a different path of rapid and dramatic change at critical junctures followed by “locked-in” rigid stability; consistent with the path identified by Collier and Collier (1991). 3 The cause of alcohol control policy divergence could be largely explained by institutional variables. Australia and New Zealand had similar cultures, policy actors and exposure to ideas throughout the period. These factors were less significant in shaping the policy divergence. The influential institutions were twofold. The first was divergent political institutions that concentrated power in New Zealand and dispersed it in Australia (especially the federal division of powers), allowing New Zealand governments a greater capacity to intervene in the economy and society and to make significant policy changes. The second was divergent legacies from policy decisions at points in time. For much of the period, policy legacies were more powerful than political institutions in driving divergence. This was demonstrated after New Zealand introduced the General Licensing Poll from 1918, which shaped rigid stability compared to Australia. This was despite political institutions that provided greater opportunity for New Zealand Governments to implement policy changes, a demonstration of the influence of policy legacies. The industry and temperance movement were effective in influencing alcohol control policies when they worked together through a “Presbyterian and Publican” coalition. They were less effective when they worked alone or were divided. The key determinant of whether actors would work in coalition or competition was the feedback from policy legacies. This research confirmed many findings of historical institutionalists and those of Theodore Lowi regarding the important role of policy legacies. The interplay between political institutions and policy legacies were the major drivers of alcohol control policy divergence from 1900 to 2010. 4 Table of Contents Chapter Page 1 – Introduction 9 2 – Theory and Method 17 3 – Alcohol policy context 62 4 – Alcohol policy in Australia 98 5 – Explaining the trajectory of alcohol policy in Australia 132 6 – Alcohol policy in New Zealand 169 7 – Explaining the trajectory of alcohol policy in New Zealand 198 8 – Comparative evaluation and discussion 240 9 – Conclusion 314 Appendix 1 – Local Option and related matters in each Australian 322 State Appendix 2 – Availability Controls in Australia 335 Bibliography 339 5 List of Tables and Charts Table/Chart Page Table 1 – Liquor Referenda in Australian States 1900-2010 146 Table 2 – Liquor Royal Commissions in Australian States 1900- 148 2010 Table 3 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand (alcohol 243 taxation) Table 4 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand 246 (availability controls) Table 5 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand (drink- 256 driving) Table 6 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand (alcohol 259 treatment) Table 7 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand 260 (advertising controls) Table 8 – Policy divergence: Australia and New Zealand (national 263 alcohol policy) Table 9 – Explanations of the factors that mediated key points of 266 divergence in Australian and New Zealand alcohol controls 1900- 2010 Chart 1 – Alcohol Control Policy in Australia and New Zealand 304 1900-2010 6 List of Acronyms AA Alcoholics Anonymous AAB Australian Association of Brewers ABV alcohol by volume – strength of an alcoholic beverage, expressed as a percentage AFADD Australian Foundation for Alcohol and Drug Dependence AHA Australian Hotels Association ALAC Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council, later the Alcohol Advisory Council ALSA Australian Liquor Stores Association AMA Australian Medical Association AMSAD Australian Medical Society on Alcohol and Drugs ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations BAC blood alcohol concentration BRIC Brazil, Russia, India and China BYO bring your own (alcohol), a permit for which allows diners to bring their own alcohol to consume on the premises CPI consumer price index DALY disability adjusted life years DLA District Licensing Agency DSICA Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia EU European Union FPP First Past the Post GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GDP gross domestic product GST Goods and Services Tax HI historical institutionalism ICAP International Center for Alcohol Policies – an industry think tank IMF International Monetary Fund LCC Licensing Control Commission LLA Liquor Licensing Authority LVA Licensed Victuallers Association LWA Living with Alcohol program MCDS Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 7 MLDA minimum legal drinking age MMP mixed member proportional representation MP Member of Parliament NABIC National Alcoholic Beverages Industry Council NAS National Alcohol Strategy NCADA National Campaign against Drug Abuse NCP National Competition Policy NDARC National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre NDP National Drug Policy NDRI National Drug Research Institute NDS National Drug Strategy NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NSA National Society on Alcoholism NSAD New Zealand Society on Alcohol and Drug Dependence NSW New South Wales NT Northern Territory NZ New Zealand OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development QLD Queensland RACP Royal Australasian College of Physicians RBT random breath testing RTD ready to drink – mixes of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages SA South Australia UK United Kingdom VAADA Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association WA Western Australia WCTU Womens Christian Temperance Union WET Wine Equalisation Tax WFA Winemakers Federation of Australia WHO World Health Organisation 8 Declaration of Originality and Authority of Access Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgment is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. 9th February 2016 ………………………… ………………… Daniel Joseph Hanna Date Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. 9th February 2016 ………………………… …………….. Daniel Joseph Hanna Date 9 Chapter 1 Introduction In December 1918, in the shadow of the Great War, New Zealand’s parliamentarians gathered in Wellington to vote on an important piece of legislation. The Bill was to introduce a national referendum on Prohibition or State Control of the liquor trade in conjunction with each General Election, known as the General Licensing