New 'rules of engagement' with alcohol lobby after alarm at 'way too friendly' interactions
New rules for health officials dealing with the alcohol industry are being drawn up.
Photo:
RNZ / Dom Thomas
New "rules of engagement" for health officials dealing with the alcohol industry are coming after a senior staffer complained a public health manager had been "way too friendly" with booze lobbyists.
In May
RNZ reported
that Ross Bell, a manager with the Ministry of Health's Public Health Agency, had close engagement with alcohol lobbyists, who were granted input into the development of alcohol policies. References to a review of safe drinking guidelines were removed from a Health New Zealand website after an alcohol lobbyist complained to Bell.
On the day RNZ published its story, Deputy Director-General of Health Dr Andrew Old sent an email to staff saying Bell had "acted entirely appropriately" in his engagement with the alcohol industry.
"Engaging with industry can, and has, yielded meaningful health gains for New Zealanders in the past - and will do so again," the email said. "However, we also know that some industry interests lead to public health harm, and so our engagement needs to be careful, mature, and intentional."
Old invited Ministry of Health staff to respond. Dr Clair Mills, who provides advice to the Public Health Advisory committee, took issue with the engagement with the alcohol industry.
"I do think there is a problem - at the very least, in terms of perception," she wrote to Old, in emails released to RNZ under the Official Information Act.
The alcohol industry's fight against Local Alcohol Policies - where communities set their own conditions for sale - revealed its motivations, Mill said. It contrasted with the "lack of community voice and power".
RNZ's reporting revealed a series of emails between Bell and alcohol lobbyists, which showed close relationships, multiple meetings and exchanges of information.
"I think the tone of the emails was way too friendly," Mills, whose career includes serving as Medical Director for Médecins Sans Frontières' and as Medical Officer of Health in Northland, said in her email to Old.
"In my experience… these alcohol interests have zero interest in reducing harm (or sales of booze) and a huge purse to fund their lawyers."
Old responded to Mills saying stronger processes for health officials engaging with the alcohol industry were being prepared.
"All good points - perception becomes reality after all," he told her. "Given we are expected to engage with industry, whether that's alcohol, food or anything else (except tobacco!) it would help to have some clear rules of engagement. I'm picking that up with our central MOH team."
Dr Andrew Old
Photo:
NZME via LDR
Tobacco lobbyists are shut out of policy making because New Zealand is a signatory to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Under the FCTC countries protect policy development from the "vested interests of the tobacco industry" as there is an "irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry's interests and public health policy interests".
In contrast, the alcohol industry has input into policy development in New Zealand, including managing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and spending the Alcohol Levy, a $16 million fund to reduce alcohol harm, estimated in a 2024 report by NZIER to cost $9.1 billion a year.
RNZ used the OIA to obtain 85 pages of emails detailing engagement between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and alcohol lobbyists, with Ross Bell emerging as the main conduit.
One document describes a 90 minute meeting between lobbyists and MOH staff in February 2025 as "Alcohol industry reps and Ministry of Health regular meeting".
The documents show the plan to manage FASD has been given to the alcohol industry. "Thanks for sharing the draft FASD plan," a wine lobbyist says in an email to public health officials, copying in a lobbyist with the spirits industry.
The documents show alcohol lobbyists made their own submissions to MOH on how they believed FASD should be managed.
The Spirits New Zealand submission runs to four pages but is entirely redacted by MOH under a section of the OIA designed to protect "the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials".
RNZ has asked the Ombudsman to investigate whether the MOH can legitimately use this section of the OIA to protect correspondence from a spirits industry lobbyist.
The documents obtained by RNZ show Bell was receptive to requests from the alcohol industry.
In November 2024 the Brewer's Association complained to Bell that references to a review of the low risk drinking guidelines were still on the Health New Zealand website, alcohol.org.nz, after it had already complained to him about it.
It also took issue that the site linked to what other countries, including Canada, were doing with their advice on low risk drinking.
Bell intervened in an email to Health New Zealand in December 2024.
"All work on this project will now pause. You will update relevant Health NZ websites to remove references to the review and also to other jurisdictions' guidelines (including the Canadian one)."
Bell refused to be interviewed by RNZ but in a previous statement he said the material was removed from the website to avoid confusion, as the drinking guidelines were now led by the Ministry of Health not Health New Zealand which runs the alcohol.org.nz website.
He said that was an internal decision by MOH and that a review of the drinking guidelines was now on hold while the ministry considered its priorities.
The documents obtained by RNZ show that Bell also shared the Alcohol Levy investment framework with wine and beer lobbyists in a November 2024 email.
"As discussed and as promised, attached is the draft Alcohol Levy Investment Framework for your consideration and feedback," he wrote.
The alcohol lobbyists then provided at least three pages of feedback on how the money should be spent.
But again MOH is keeping all that information secret under the section of the OIA designed to protect "the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials".
Photo:
123RF
Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey turned down RNZ's request for information on the Alcohol Levy but did release correspondence from alcohol lobbyists.
Those documents included a July 2024 email to Doocey and his Cabinet colleague Shane Reti where the wine, beer and spirits industries pushed for greater involvement in setting alcohol policy.
"We still believe industry has a lot to offer as government seeks to reduce harmful drinking," the booze lobbyists wrote.
They pointed out that they funded the main education programme which teaches students about the impacts of alcohol.
"We also fund, through our own social investment charity - The Tomorrow Project, an in-school theatre-based better drinking education programme called Smashed," the lobbyists told the Ministers. "Smashed is independently run and delivered by The Life Education Trust and reaches over 20,000 year 9 students every year."
Filings with the Charities Services show that the beer, wine and spirits industries each paid $105,000 towards The Tomorrow Project, a charity entirely funded by the alcohol industry.
The alcohol lobbyists also make a pitch for the government to "partner with industry" in deciding how to spend the Alcohol Levy and say they should be "working directly with officials" on reducing alcohol harm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Concern over chemicals in mass sewage discharges into Shotover River
Otago Regional Council is at loggerheads with Queenstown Lakes District Council over a series of large discharges of sewage into the Shotover River by the district council. Photo: RNZ / Tess Brunton Wastewater being discharged into Queenstown's Shotover River could breach national ammonia limits, Otago Regional Council says. In March, the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) used emergency powers to begin pumping treated effluent into the river each day from its wastewater treatment plant - the equivalent of nearly five Olympic-sized swimming pools a day. It retrospectively applied for consent in May, then last week applied for the case to be handled by the Environment Court. However, a letter now published online shows Otago Regional Council (ORC) had already assessed the application, and placed it on hold due to several concerns. In the letter dated 19 June, Consents Processing Planner Hannah Goslin said QLDC needed to provide more evidence to support its claim the discharge would have "less than minor" impacts. "The application relies on a small amount of monitoring data to support the conclusions reached in terms of the scale and significance of effects," she said. ORC raised concerns about ammonia and phosphorus concentrations observed in the river. It said monitoring at five sites suggested "potential for the discharge to cause exceedances of the national bottom line for ammonia", and it asked why QLDC had not set a discharge quality limit for phosphorus. It said QLDC claimed the river would dilute the treated wastewater by 15 to 25 times - but had not backed that up with any hydraulic modelling, dye tests, or flow calculations. ORC also wanted more evidence to support QLDC's claim there was an initial "flush" of germs when the discharge began. It also called for a public health risk assessment to evaluate the likelihood of illness from disease-causing microorganisms in the treated wastewater - particularly given the river's "suitability for bathing." ORC gave QLDC until 11 July to respond to its letter. "If the information you provide raises more questions, your application will remain on hold until sufficient information has been provided to enable processing to continue," Goslin said. On Friday, QLDC said the Environment Court was already familiar with the Shotover discharge situation and "would help to provide an efficient and comprehensive decision from a neutral arbiter." However, ORC would still oversee public notification, submission timeframes, and the technical assessment of the application, it said. RNZ has approached QLDC and ORC for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Health and Disability Commissioner investigates struck-off dentist Bharath Subramani, finds more breaches
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist of Photo: 123rf More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has recommended that he apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. After, Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An "excessively painful" large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a "floating piece of tooth". He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, "a large piece of tooth came out", where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was "very disappointed in the whole experience" with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a "type of mouthguard," he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Dr Vanessa Caldwell. Photo: James Gilberd Photography Ltd But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. "I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed," he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was "quite insistent" that she ground her teeth and was "very confrontational". At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using an airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she "shot upright and could not breathe," and it felt like a "choking sensation", which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was "well up in her face", she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment. Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Weightloss drug Ozempic to be available in New Zealand
The much hyped weightloss drug Wegovy, also marketed as Ozempic, is expected to be in high demand when it becomes available in New Zealand from tomorrow. But the drug is unfunded so users hoping to shed weight could be paying up to $500 a month. In 2023 Pharmac approved Wegovy, Ozempic to treat type two diabetes. In June this year it was approved for weight loss use. The once a week injection, which suppresses apetite mirrors natural hormones which regulate appetite. Weight loss specialist Doctor Gerard McQuinlan spoke to Lisa Owen. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
