Smearing public servants is not integrity

The Integrity published the following from Dr Melissa-Jade Gregan:

Espiner’s latest investigation reveals what insiders have known for years: the alcohol industry is not just consulted on health policy — it’s calling the shots. Emails released under the Official Information Act show that Ministry of Health officials are constantly communicating with alcohol lobbyists, sharing draft policy documents, and even inviting industry feedback on how public health money should be spent.

In one case, officials paused work on reviewing drinking guidelines and scrubbed references to international standards from a government website at the request of an alcohol lobbyist.

This is simply false. The lobbyist did not demand or request a review be paused. All that happened is they saw mention of it on a Health NZ website, and as they knew nothing about it, asked the MOH what was happening. The MOH got it removed from the Health NZ website for the very simple reason that policy reviews belong with MOH, not Health NZ. Health NZ was acting outside its remit, and was pulled into line.

The industry was also given the draft plan for managing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and asked for feedback on the $16 million Alcohol Levy, money intended to reduce alcohol harm.

The industry pays the levy. Only in academia would it be seen as a bad thing to ask the people who fund the levy, for their input on what it gets spent on.

Ross Bell, a group manager in the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Agency, is at the centre of this. Bell has shifted roles – he was previously a long-serving head of the New Zealand Drug Foundation. In becoming a public servant, Bell has moved from being a staunch public health advocate to becoming an industry liaison, now in one of the most senior public health roles responsible for alcohol policy in New Zealand.

While at the Drug Foundation, Bell argued that the liberalisation of alcohol regulations had “revolutionised the alcohol industry” and was behind New Zealand’s “drinking problem” as well as “domestic violence, drink-drive deaths and youth suicide”. See his proclamations such as: Let’s face up to our drinking problem and Public encouraged to speak up on alcohol law reform.

Bell also encouraged the public to make submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill, saying: “No doubt the Government is under a lot of pressure from industry lobbyists to leave things as they are” and he argued that changing New Zealand’s approach to alcohol was more important than the “industry’s profit margins”.

Now, in his position as liaison with the alcohol lobby, Bell’s messaging appears to have fundamentally changed. The latest revelations paint a picture of Bell becoming captured by the alcohol lobbyists that he’s been liaising with.

This is a smear against a public servant, who can’t defend themselves. So I will do so by pointing out the obvious. When Bell was at the Drug Foundation, he was a lobbyist. When he is a public servant at the Ministry of Health, his role is not to lobby for his personal views, but to drive a robust policy process, that of course includes consultation with stakeholders. Any public servant that doesn’t consult stakeholders is doing a bad job.

Rather than accept the blindingly obvious that Bell is simply now in a different role, the Integrity Institute paint him as somehow captured simply because he follows best practice on consulting with industry representatives in his area of policy. If he did not consult with stakeholders, he would be sacked by his bosses.

Smearing public servants who can’t respond is something you might expect an Integrity Institute to condemn if it was done by say politicians. But instead they are doing it themselves.

The latest revelations show the generous level of access that alcohol lobbyists have to policymakers. Contrast this with the experience of public health advocates, who are largely denied the same opportunities. As my own research has shown, government-funded public health service providers are restricted by their contracts from engaging in anything that looks like political advocacy.

Public health lobby groups that are not funded by taxpayers have no restrictions on lobbying. In fact they do it relentlessly. But the Auditor-General has said many times that taxpayer funded organisations must not be funded by the Government to lobby the Government. Again this is something you might expect an Integrity Institute to applaud – not having Government funded lobbying.

We must adopt clear, enforceable rules of engagement for entities who benefit from harm. Are big alcohol companies seriously going to recommend their hard-earned money is spent on something that’ll reduce their profits?

The author seems to think that reducing the profits of alcohol companies is the same as reducing harm from alcohol. I suspect many public health activists share that view, but it is fundamentally wrong of course.

Off memory different groups representing the alcohol industry have advocated for confiscating cars from repeat drink drivers, heavier fines for drunken behaviour, spot fines for Police, alcohol interlocks for cars, alcohol education in schools etc. I know this as Curia does an annual poll for the NZ Alcohol Beverages Council where they ask NZers if they support such harm reduction measures (and the vast majority do).

The post Smearing public servants is not integrity first appeared on Kiwiblog.