These researchers calling today for a ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship sound to me like they’re living in the past.

Maybe it’s the circles I mix in. But I reckon things have come ahead leaps and bounds when it comes to our drinking culture in New Zealand.

And before you start yelling “what about things like crate day mate?” - I’m not saying we’ve got it perfect. But I think we’ve moved on from any decade before the current one - when what these experts are saying today might have carried more weight.

So health promotion advisor Lizzie Barratt and researcher Dr Debbie Hager are saying that, with people drinking more at this time of the year, there is a spike in violence - especially by men against women and kids.

I’m not going to argue with them on that one. But is advertising to blame for that? I don’t think so.

But it’s not just an end-of-year thing. They say there needs to be a permanent ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship to protect women and children from violence.

They say a ban would eliminate alcohol’s role in reinforcing a masculine drinking culture and eliminate its link with sporting activities. And, if we do nothing, things will only get worse.

But the alcohol adverts I see these days are way different to the ones we used to see. For starters, they are way less “blokey”. They also seem to be promoting restraint, as much as anything.

I really started noticing this a couple of years ago. Maybe further back than that. When the beer companies seemed to be putting as much effort into advertising their zero-alcohol products, as their other products.

So doesn’t that diminish the argument for a marketing ban and sponsorship ban?

What’s more, whatever I personally choose to drink has nothing to do with what I see on a billboard or whatever beer logo I might see on a rugby jersey.

I’m not saying that the alcohol companies should be allowed to run ads encouraging us to get tanked.

I‘m just saying that I don’t think banning alcohol ads and banning alcohol sponsorships would stop the mongrels who do get pissed and go home and beat up their partners and kids.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The eagle has landed. One of the police Eagle helicopters from Auckland is in Christchurch for the next two months as part of a crackdown on these criminal kids doing-over dairies and committing other crimes.

I think it’s brilliant that it’s here and I think we need one here permanently.

For several reasons: Christchurch is New Zealand’s second-largest city; we have a level of criminal activity here to justify it; and it’s not as if a police helicopter hasn’t been put to good use here before.

In 2020, it was in Christchurch for a five-week trial, and it was also used a few times earlier than that after the mosque attacks and when Prince William visited.

During the trial in 2020, the helicopter was sent to 346 incidents ranging from a water rescue, a robbery attempt, and helping a man thought to be having a heart attack in a park.

There was a bit of chat at the time about people being woken up at night by the sounds of it flying around. But an informal survey of residents found that only 24% of people thought the sound or noise from the helicopter was annoying. 60% said it didn’t bother them and 16% said they hadn’t noticed it.

The police themselves gave it a very positive review. One officer wrote to the Police News magazine saying every officer who had worked with the helicopter had found it beneficial in helping to prevent crime, catch offenders, and increase safety.

But despite Canterbury police themselves giving positive feedback on the trial, the powers-that-be decided it wouldn’t be made permanent. Which some people would have been happy about, because there were some who hated the helicopter being here and weren’t excited about the idea of us getting on here permanently.

National MP Gerry Brownlee was dead against it. I remember him saying that plenty of people had told him that they hated the noise. They also found it traumatising hearing it, because it took them back to the days after the earthquakes.

I get that. Nevertheless, I’ve always been in no doubt that we would benefit from having a permanent helicopter here. Which National kind-of talked about prior to the last election.

The party’s Christchurch central candidate was at a street corner meeting, and someone asked him what National was going to do about youth crime and whether it had plans for a police helicopter in Christchurch.

According to someone who was there, he said that Christopher Luxon had given it the nod but there wouldn’t be any announcement before the election.

That was it. Nothing more since.

But we know the cops love it. Most residents seem to like it. And my pick would be that support for us having a dedicated police helicopter would be much higher now than when the trial happened in 2020.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A couple of advisors at the Christchurch City Council have ripped into the Government’s plan for regional councils and have said to councillors that they reckon there’s a better way.

Or more correctly, two better potential ways. Instead of having local mayors run regional councils for two years and, during that time, work out how they’re going to get by without a regional council. At a briefing meeting yesterday, two principal policy advisors put two options on the table for councillors to think about.

Option 1: Amalgamate the Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri councils to create a new super city. Which I've been a fan of for quite some time now.

And Option 2: Keep all three councils and have the city council take over ECAN’s regional council functions.

The reason these two council advisors have put these two options up for discussion is that they think having local mayors run ECAN for two years and work out a new structure for local government is a “weak” idea, which wouldn’t do any favours for Christchurch ratepayers.

And I get what they’re saying, because as soon as you get three mayors around the table, they’re just going to be interested in what’s in it for them, aren’t they? Which is the same approach these policy advisors are taking. They’re on the city council pay roll and so they have to think about what’s best for Christchurch city.

And I like their idea of a supercity.

But every time a supercity is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it. The Auckland supercity brought together seven city and district councils and the regional council back in 2010. But a supercity in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We’re talking here about just three councils: Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

We’ve done amalgamation before on a much smaller scale. Back in 2006, Banks Peninsula Council amalgamated with Christchurch city.

The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn’t have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don’t have that problem – they’ve grown massively since the earthquakes. Selwyn, especially.

But half of the people living in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city. They’re using the city’s roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for.

Add to that the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri, and amalgamation is a no-brainer.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.