Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move, That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to align the excise duty on alcoholic beverages with between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol by volume with the duty that is levied on products with greater than 23 percent alcohol by volume, and to increase the rates of excise in line with the movement in the consumer price index. The provisions that relate to beverages containing more than 14 percent and less than 23 percent alcohol by volume will come into force on the date that the bill receives the royal assent. The rest of the clauses, those relating to the consumer price index adjustment and consequential amendments, will come into force on 1 June 2003.

Although most people use alcohol without harming themselves or others, the fact remains that the misuse of alcohol results in considerable health, social, and economic costs, which are borne by individuals, families, and the wider community. Minimising the harm caused by alcohol and illicit and other drug use to both individuals and the community is a key priority for this Labour-Progressive Government. We are using strategies of supply control, demand reduction, and problem limitation to achieve our aim of harm minimisation.

The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand commissioned economist Brian Easton to produce a report on the current excise regime for alcohol. Amongst other things, the Easton report recommended that the excise duty on light spirits be increased. The effect of an increase in the excise duty is to increase the price of alcohol on which it is levied. The effect of an increase in the price of alcohol, particularly where young people are involved, is some reduction in alcohol consumption. This is clearly evidenced in all the best research data that we have available. The extent varies by type of drinker, by the drinking situation, and possibly by the quantity drunk in each situation.

The current excise duty regime creates a tax advantage for alcoholic beverages in the 14 percent to 23 percent alcohol by volume range. This current tax advantage means that our young people and heavier drinkers can go down to their local bottle store and purchase a 1,125 ml bottle of 23 percent alcohol for about $8. This bill puts into effect the recommendation in the Easton report relating to the excise duty on light spirits. The changes mean that alcoholic beverages in the 14 percent to 23 percent alcohol by volume range will be taxed according to their actual alcohol content, rather than their all being levied as though they contain 18 percent alcohol by volume.

The changes also mean that the products will be taxed at the higher rate—the same rate that full-strength spirits are taxed at. This will remove the tax advantage that light spirits currently receive. That will mean that an extra $4.45 will be levied on 750 ml bottles of light spirits, and an additional $6.65 will be levied on 1,125 ml bottles of light spirits. This will mean that young people will not be able to afford to buy as much alcohol as they currently do. Their $10 pocket money will not enable them to buy a bottle of gin. They will drink less alcohol, get less drunk, and cause less harm.

Although light spirits have been identified as a particular problem area, it is necessary to apply the higher rate of excise duty to all products containing between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol, including wine-based products, such as sherry and port. This is necessary to ensure that these products do not become an alternative source of low-priced, high - alcohol content beverages, as has happened in other countries, particularly Australia, where this potential problem has not been dealt with adequately.

The bill also includes the annual adjustment to the excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcoholic beverages. This adjustment, an increase of 2.61 percent, is based on the movement in the consumer price index for all groups, excluding credit savings, over the preceding 12 months. This will come into force on 1 June 2003, as this is the date on which the industry expects adjustments to alcohol excise rates. This adjustment has been included in the bill to ensure that the increased excise and excise-equivalent duties payable on beverages containing between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol are consistent with those that will be payable on full-strength spirits.

I am seeking the leave of the House to table a document. Because we are proceeding under extraordinary urgency, the bill cannot be checked by a select committee. But the Minister of Youth Affairs told the House that this bill was introduced to carry out the recommendations of the Brian Easton report. I have a copy from the library. I thought the House should know—and I am quite happy to table it—that in fact Mr Easton recommended that the tax on full-strength spirits be reduced. I seek leave to have this report tabled, so that, perhaps, the Government might change its mind.

Document not tabled.

This is the second reading debate of the bill, and ordinarily the House would be considering it after it had been to a select committee for, perhaps, 6 months. [Interruption] Clayton Cosgrove laughs. He is the member for Waimakariri, the member who normally sends an apology before he even gets an invitation to functions in his electorate. He is laughing and saying that public consultation on bills like this does not matter. Well, it does matter.

The Minister who just spoke, and is now slinking out of the Chamber with an embarrassed look on his face, should do so, because he knows what an utter nonsense this bill is. The question I have is who has been got to. Which Minister in the Government has succumbed to the lobbying of foreign-alcohol importers? Which Minister has so influenced the legislative committee that it has decided to have the House sit under extraordinary urgency to pass this bill, to please foreign-alcohol importers? Ninety percent of all the low-alcohol spirits sold in this country are produced in this country. What the Minister for Economic Development has done, in succumbing to the pressure from the lobby group that supports those foreign-alcohol importers, is to shut down a New Zealand business. There are 200 jobs at risk; they are on their way out. The Minister for Economic Development, thinking he is clever coming here with some lame-duck story about the price of alcohol actually contributing to a reduction in its consumption, is going to put New Zealanders out of work, because of his own prejudices. That is very, very sad.

We are also hearing from Government speakers tonight that this measure is going to stop young people from going to bottle stores and buying their alcohol of choice—most usually, the ready-to-drinks, bought straight out of the cabinet. The various mixes of cola and all sorts of other spirits are not touched by this bill; nor is the consumption of beer in any way impinged on, or the price of beer increased, by this bill; nor are most wines touched by it. But spirits with a low alcohol content that are produced in this country are now to be taxed at the same rate as imported spirits. It is an utter disgrace that the Minister for Economic Development has caved in to pressure brought to bear on him and other Ministers by the alcohol lobby, outside this House. And I say that fully understanding the extent of the allegation I make.

There is a company in this country that produces 90 percent of all the low-alcohol spirits sold over the counter in this country. It employs 200 people. It will simply shut its doors. Why would that company want to battle a Government that knocks it at every turn? What sort of message is sent to other New Zealand entrepreneurs who try to build export businesses based in this country? They know they will be buffeted about by that sort of excess lobbying.

I am fascinated to read in this bill that it simply lifts a tax. That is all it does. It does not differentiate between various quantities, at all. It just says that there will be one tax applied to alcohol, by litre volume, regardless of the strength of the alcohol found in the bottle. How can the member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, stand up and say that this bill is about mitigating the worst effects of alcohol, when in fact it makes very little difference to the products most often consumed by young people—the ready-to-drinks, wine, and beer? It is a total nonsense.

I think that if those people really had the strength of their convictions, they would have looked at changing the drinking age as being the first place to make some sort of difference. It is without doubt that the number of offences committed by young people as a result of excess alcohol consumption have increased since the drinking age was lowered. There is no question about that, at all. The member over there might say: “Well, we’ll make them buy a little bit less, by putting the price up.”, but would members not think that a better solution might be to make it an illegal act for someone under the age of 20 to go into a bottle store and purchase alcohol? People can always go into a bar at the age of 18 and drink there. They could do that under the old law. But, no, now they will be able to go into bottle stores at age 18—and, we heard Minister Tamihere say, even as young as 14, I believe—purchase these supposedly low-alcohol products, buy huge volumes of them, and go out and get themselves in a state where they cause all sorts of other problems for society.

Anyone who thinks that putting $6.75 on the price of a 1.1 litre bottle of low-alcohol spirits is going to deter someone from buying it is sadly mistaken. All that will happen is some transfer of product of choice. I predict that the ready-to-drink market is about to take a huge boom, a huge rise, as young people decide that, as there is no substantial difference in price, they will get their kicks from drinks that, on average, are much greater in strength because they are premixed, and young people have absolutely no control over how much alcohol they are mixing with their particular split.

I come back to this question: why does the Government see this measure as being so important that it has to put it through under extraordinary urgency, just a few days before the Budget is to be brought down? It comes back to the question I raised before. Who has been got to? Who are the Ministers who have succumbed to the extraordinary lobbying that must have gone on to get them to lift the legislative programme for some hours and, in the height of an electricity crisis, have every light in the building turned on, right into the late hours of the morning, simply so that they can raise a tax that will have absolutely no social effect whatsoever?

But there is a question about the $14 million that this measure is supposed to raise. There was the suggestion from, once again, the member over there that the $14 million will go into additional programmes to help people get off alcohol, and all the rest of it. Let me say that when this tax goes on, this product will go off the shelf. We will have the extraordinary situation—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Dessert wine? No, I don’t think so.

The Minister says: “Wine? No, I don’t think so.” Wine, by and large, is not touched by this bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Dessert wine is what was meant. The member should clean his ears out.

Perhaps 1 or 2 percent of all wine products will be covered by this bill. I do not even know what dessert wine is, but I am not surprised the Minister of Education does. Some of the work he has been doing in education lately suggests he has been drinking a heck of a lot of it.

It is extraordinary that we are getting low-alcohol products taxed off the shelf. Our young people, as young as 14 by the admission of John Tamihere—a Minister who hails from south Auckland, where one might have thought there would be a greater predominance of this problem—will be making a choice to buy much, much stronger alcohol, because the price is not substantially different. We remain quite perplexed as to what this bill is about. It is not about mitigating the worst effects of alcohol. It does not appear to be about raising revenue. [Interruption] As craven as those members are, I cannot believe they would have the House sit until 5 or 6 o’clock tomorrow morning just to raise an extra $14 million. It might all add up, but it seems to me that a group of Ministers have been “caballed” in a back room somewhere, plied with some of the best imported spirits in the country, then quietly prevailed upon to use the parliamentary process to destroy a New Zealand - based business and put in jeopardy some 200 jobs in this country. [Interruption] The Minister sits there and says that is outrageous. Perhaps he did not get invited. Perhaps he was not one of the lucky few.

This bill is a disgrace and it should not proceed.

I do not want to take long on this call, but I want to remind the House of some of the issues we are facing tonight.

I recently had a very interesting briefing from representatives of the Alcohol Advisory Council on some of the problems that have been raised and discussed tonight about premixed drinks, and the ability for young people to pool their money and buy spirits—all the issues that go with teenage-drinking problems. But a new problem had come into the equation, which the council representatives had come to brief us about. It was separate from the issue of premixed drinks or the ability of young people to pool their money and buy spirits. Out of his briefcase one representative pulled a 750 ml bottle of spirits that the industry has, very cleverly, given 23 percent alcohol by volume. That is below the existing banding, and therefore that bottle does not come under the existing tax regime. Young people can buy that bottle of spirits of 23 percent proof alcohol for from $8 to $10—the money that their mum and dad give them in good faith for a meal at McDonald’s.

The Alcohol Advisory Council was extremely concerned about that new phenomenon. It was concerned about the irresponsibility of the alcohol industry in producing that product, wilfully knowing that it falls just under the higher rate of duty. The industry’s toe is up to the line, if not slightly over it. It is trying to bring into the problem of alcohol addiction young people who, at that stage, do not necessarily have the understanding required to set their own personal, safe standards of drinking. Those young people are still learning. They are still at the point of being educated, and are still experimenting. The council’s concern was that this particular move by the industry was bringing a whole new ingredient into play that young people had not previously had to deal with. That move was made possible by the banding of drinks of between 14 percent alcohol by volume and 23 percent; that provided the opportunity, the loophole, which the industry was taking full advantage of. What is happening tonight is an attempt to push those drinks to a pricing level above the price of a burger—the price range of young people.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the second reading of this bill. Listening to the comments that have been made thus far, I have heard it mentioned that the bill is all about minimisation of harm. Yet I have to wait till I get to page 2 of the explanatory note of bill before I see any mention made of minimisation of harm. Really, this bill is all about increasing the tax take from New Zealanders. It is not about reduction of the consumption of alcohol by young people, or anyone for that matter; rather, it is to increase spending on social services, to which the Government wants to apply the increased revenue.

💬 Brent Catchpole: Why would you want to? You have $4 billion in surplus.

That is right. We should be looking at addressing the issue of responsible drinking, if that is what minimisation of harm is all about. I must say that the last Parliament had the opportunity to do that, and it did not do it.

I do not think for one minute that this bill will address anything near like what has been talked about. Price has only a limited effect as a deterrent. I use the example of tobacco. Why has the consumption of tobacco, given its many price increases, not diminished? I say to this House that this bill will not go anywhere near producing a reduction in the consumption of alcohol—least of all, by our young people.

It has been suggested by a member of the Government that income will not rise but fall. My response to that is that it will not fall. Why? Because the intended reduction in consumption will be offset by the increased price. What the Government is saying is it is in a no-win situation.

I also say that the aged in our community are being given the boot by this Government. The bill is certainly putting the boot into that sector of our community. With the country facing an energy crisis, many of our elderly folk who rely on the wine and sherry toddies they are accustomed to drink to keep themselves warm will now have to find extra money to be able to avail themselves of the one comfort they are at present able to enjoy.

We heard reference to ready-to-drinks not being covered. We tend to underestimate the ingenuity of our young people. If it will cost them more to buy the drinks subject to this bill, they will go out and make their own. So, rather than this measure bringing about the minimisation of harm that members are talking about, I believe that the concoctions that young people are likely to make as a result of what this bill is imposing on them might cause even greater harm to their health. It does not take too much imagination for one to realise that, for instance, if young people got a bottle of methylated spirits and a bottle of Fanta and combined them, that action in itself would help to stem the difference that we are proposing to impose on our young people through this bill.

It is claimed that this bill is about an issue of health. I cannot for one minute believe that it is about health; rather, it is about increasing the coffers of this Government in order that it might be able to extend its so-called social policy programme—whatever that might be. Again, I remind this House that it was not this side of the House that promised the electorate it would not increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol. We did not promise that; this Government did. I should not be surprised that that is another promise that is being broken, because it is not the first one.

Madam Chair, I beg your indulgence of my addressing the old people of our Māori community, to let them know the effects of this bill. Nā reira koutou ngā kaumātua, ngā kuikuia e noho tonu ki te wā kāinga, anei te kaupapa o tēnei Kāwanatanga i whakatakoto mai i mua i a tātau i roto i tēnei Whare. Kite koe i ngā inu i inuhia i a koutou ki te whakamahana tā koutou tinana? E hiahia ana tēnei Kāwanatanga kia whakanui te utunga mō ērā o ngā inu. Nā reira, koutou mā, aroha mai ki tēnei tā koutou tamaiti, mokopuna e kōrerohia i tēnei wā nā te mea, kei hea ngā mema Māori, ngā mema nā koutou i whakatohungia he kaīkōrero mā koutou? Ka nui taku aroha i a koutou. Moumou tā koutou tāima ki te tautoko i a rātou. Nā reira, tēnā pea mā te wā ka kite mai i a koutou, ko wai ngā Rōpū e tika ana hei kaikōrero mā koutou. Whakaarongia koutou ki a koutou rangatahi ki te āhuatanga o tēnei pire e hiahia ana te Kāwana kia whakamana, kia whakatau hoki. Mehemea e horekau i wātea ngā inu ki ngā rangatahi i āianei nā, kei te haere tonu i a rātou ki te mau, ki te kai hoki i ngā tarutaru o tēnei ao. Nā reira e tātou mā, koinā noa ngā kōrero mō tēnei wā, engari ka hoki mai i a au i roto i wā tātou reo e rua.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[So to you the elderly men and womenfolk who are still living at home, here is this Government's policy that it placed before us in this House. This Government wants to put up the cost of those drinks that you drink to warm your bodies. Therefore, to those of you out there, take pity on this young one, this grandchild of yours who is addressing you right now, because where are the Māori members, the ones you elected to speak on your behalf? I really pity you. You wasted your time supporting them. Perhaps you will see in time which parties are the right ones to speak for you. Think about your young people and the impact that this bill that the Government wants to pass into law will have on them. If the drinks are no longer available to young people now, perhaps they will continue to take and consume the drugs of this world. So that is all the talk for now, but I will be back in our second language.]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This is one of Winston’s best members!

Ahakoa, taihoa, pai atu tēnā tangata ki te kōrero mai i tēnā tū āhua. Engari nā rātau, i tata ake nei, i whakatau tētahi pire ki te whakanui, ki te whakamōhio tātou te iwi whanui te reo Māori. Engari i tenei wā, whakarongo mai i a ia, he kohete mai ki a au, i runga ake i taku tūnga, ki te whakakoretake i wā tātau reo rangatira. Tika atu te āhua i a rātau i tētahi wā, nā rātau i whakamana tā tātau nā reo, engari i tēnei wā, i roto i te kōrero o tēnei kaupapa, nā rātau i whakakoretake tēnei kōrero.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[It is all very well for that member to address me in that manner, but they have just recently passed a bill to celebrate the Māori language and to let us, the people at large, know about it. But now, listen to him going on about the stance that I have taken, and making disparaging remarks about our chiefly language. It was all right when it was their turn; they gave the language status. But at this very time, during the debate on this policy, they are really rubbishing my address.]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I was not disparaging the language the member was using but the quality of his speech.

💬 Dail Jones: The assumption one makes from that comment from the Minister of Education, Mr Trevor Mallard, is that he can speak Māori, and that he could understand every word that was being said. He referred to the quality of the speech. If he could not understand the speech, then he has misled the House. If he could not understand the speech, he cannot comment on its quality. I ask the member to say whether he understood everything the member was saying, because if he did not, he has just misled the House, and he knows what he ought to do in that situation.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am happy to give the member an assurance that, for relatively simple Māori like that we have just been hearing, I have a reasonable understanding of it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister’s point of order was completely out of order. He was making a debating point, and breaking up a speech, and I believe that you should rule against him.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a debating matter, and if the Minister wanted to raise it, he should have made a personal explanation.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the matter now only because the member’s speech has been broken up. I realise that he is a new member, but a large part of his speech has been out of order. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 39(3): “It is out of order to pass remarks addressed to anyone other than the Chair, …”. The member has made an interesting speech, but he has told us that it is addressed to people outside the House. He may not realise that that is out of order. If he wanted to make his speech in order, he should have addressed his remarks to you, then said that the remarks he was making to you would be of interest to Māori. The fact that he is making his speech in Māori does not make that practice legitimate; he must follow the same rules. All speeches must be addressed to the Chair. Members cannot address a speech, as that member said he was doing, to Māori, or New Zealanders, or any group of people outside the Chamber. He must address it to the Chair.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance. I would counsel the member on relevance, and he should address the Chair.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was quite clear in my mind that I was addressing you. I prefaced my opening comments by addressing you, and I feel that the rest of my speech was directed through you.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right; please continue.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not going to raise the matter, but as the member’s speech has been broken up, I want to say there were several interjections from the other side that specifically referred to the leader of the member who is speaking—the Rt Hon Mr Peters—in a manner that was offensive. I am surprised that you allowed those comments to be made. They were able to be heard quite clearly by me, and therefore should have been heard by you. I think that you should have asked that member to withdraw and apologise. I now suggest that you do so.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think several comments were made. Which member?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am happy to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like your consideration, and maybe a decision at another time—even tomorrow. My first point I raise is that you, quite clearly, through your own admission just then, admitted that you had heard the disparaging comments, and your body language indicated to me that you knew that those comments came from two members on the Government benches. You chose not to act on them, despite having heard them. Now that you have taken an apology from the Minister, I assume that you will also look to the senior Government whip, whom you were also looking at, who also made similar comments, but has chosen, as an honourable member, to sit there and not offer an apology. I bring that to your attention.

I also bring to your attention, for consideration, that the conduct in this House is determined and set by whips. That is their function; that is their duty. It concerns me greatly that some of the poorest conduct that we have seen displayed in this House and demonstrated to his junior members is, indeed, coming from the most senior whip here, that being the chief Government whip. I ask you what you, as the Speaker of this House, intend to do. That member has been spoken to once already in the Chamber today, and has chosen blatantly to carry on his misconduct and ignore the Chair and the Chair’s ruling. I am asking what you, as Speaker, wish to do or intend to do about the repeated, poor, and dishonourable conduct of the chief Government whip in the performance of his duties in this House and the disparaging comments that he continues to make.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. We are dealing with the situation now.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to make it known to the House, to those members of the House who are present tonight, and to those who have been present in this Chamber every time I have spoken, that I have tended to use te reo Māori when there has been a barrage of interjection while I have been speaking. As long as Government members continue to interject while I am speaking, then I will continue to use te reo Māori. It seems to me that it is the only vehicle I have to be able to express what I want to say without any interjection.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was not really a point of order. Does the member want to continue his speech? He has about 40 seconds left.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have dealt with the points of order.

💬 Ron Mark: You did tell me, and you ruled in response to my point of order, that you were dealing with the issue now. Could you explain to the House precisely what you are doing right now to deal with the issue that I raised? I have not seen you give any instruction. That member has not stood up, withdrawn, and apologised. You have not said anything other than “We are dealing with the issue now.” I would like to know how you are dealing with the issue now.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member, but I want the member on his feet to continue his speech, without interruption.

I just reiterate the point I was making earlier: that this bill will not minimise the harm as expected; it will only increase the tax take. It will also impose more hardship on our elderly folk as they face the forthcoming energy crisis. Kia ora.

I rise to support the second reading of this bill. Let me strongly commend the speech made by Judy Turner. It was an excellent contribution. I am happy to support the bill.

ACT New Zealand will be opposing this Government bill. It is interesting that already we have had an absolute moving feast, in terms of what this bill is all about. For some reason the Government decided to spring this bill on the House today and to take extraordinary urgency tonight on an excise matter. Why could it not wait until the Budget next Thursday—only a week away? This is clearly a matter that the Government wants to have passed tonight. Is it a trophy for Jim Anderton, and perhaps for United Future? The speeches that we have heard would suggest that it is. Obviously, the Government did not want this bad news—increased taxation—in its Budget next week, so it has sprung extraordinary urgency on the House. That is a very rarely used process, and it has already been observed that the last time it happened was when this Government used the same measure of extraordinary urgency to increase the excise tax on tobacco. Now we have the other one—the excise duty on alcohol.

The second reading was kicked off by the Government Minister the Hon John Tamihere, and he commenced by saying this bill essentially implements the recommendations of the Easton report. That has already been blown out of the water. My colleague Richard Prebble has already had permission to table that report, and it will be tabled tonight. The Easton report, commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council, is entitled Taxing Harm: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties, and was published in November 2002. One of the key recommendations of that report is on page 13, where it recommends that the excise tax on high-alcohol spirits be reduced. If the object were to use the pricing mechanism to stop young people from imbibing or indulging in alcohol, why would one decrease the excise duty on high-alcohol spirits? But that is what the Easton report recommends. So where was the logic in the Minister’s speech when he moved the second reading of this bill?

We have had some other extraordinary revelations tonight. Reference was made to the McLeod report—again, a report commissioned by this Government. That report strongly urged the curtailment of excise duties, pointing out the distortions they create, and that they are ineffective. Paragraph 3.9 the McLeod report specifically addressed the health issue with regard to alcohol, and stated: “A number of submissions were received from health sector organisations. Though these submissions make reference to externalities, we believe that the health policy approach to taxation and the framework adopted by the review are irreconcilable.” So the Government is moving a measure here that is in direct breach of the recommendations of its own taxation report from McLeod.

We have also had some rather strange comments tonight. The Government member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, actually said the Government was not rushing this bill through.

💬 Opposition Members: Ha, ha!

She said it was not rushing this bill through. Now, let us pause and think about that. The Government has decided to take extraordinary urgency. We should have stopped at 10 p.m. We will still be debating this bill, I predict, when the sun rises. No, the sun is rising a bit later these days so I predict we will be going until 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock this morning. Yet we are not rushing it through! How confused are those Government members?

In the briefing on this bill the Minister of Finance, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, said that of course we have to rush it through tonight because all the young people whom we have to address for social reasons could rush out before midnight tonight—the bill is meant to become effective from midnight—and buy up all the alcopops in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume band. Yet anyone listening to Parliament on the wireless would know about this bill—they are probably text messaging each other on their cellphones—and if there is a windfall they could rush to the nearest liquor store. But I suspect young people will not do that, because they are smart. They know, as I think most of us are learning fast, that the Government’s claim that its key target, which it stated it was targeting for social reasons, is the young drinkers who overindulge in relatively cheap alcopops—the ready-to-drink mixes—and its suggestion that those drinks would be picked up by the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume bracket, is utter nonsense. The alcopops are all in the 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume bracket, and will not be affected at all. So Jim Anderton’s speech is down the drain. I say to Mr Anderton that I am sorry about that. He believed that he was picking up the alcopops in the bill, and was caring for young people. If that was his intention he has failed miserably, because this bill does not pick the alcopops up. They are in the 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume band, and certainly not in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume band that we have in the bill.

We then had Mr Brownlee’s contribution, which I thought made some very interesting points. He pointed out that 80 percent of the group of products that will be included—the medium-alcohol band of 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume—is produced in New Zealand by one company, and he suggested 200 jobs were at stake. He suggested that those producers will all close their doors and the jobs will be lost. I do not think that is so. I think the companies will just repackage and rebottle their products at 13.9 percent alcohol by volume. Let us bear in mind that a strong beer is about 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume, while light beer is down to 2 to 3 percent. So we are talking about something that is two or three times the strength of beer, even at 13.9 percent alcohol by volume, and that is quite enough to have an impact on a young adolescent if he or she overindulges. All that we will see is greater volumes by dilution of alcohol down to 13.9 percent by volume and the only requirement will be that young people will need bigger bladders than previously in order to be in an equally intoxicated state. This legislation is a total failure in terms of the objective that the Government outlined.

Let us follow the rationale through a bit further. We know that obesity is a problem in this country, particularly obesity amongst young folk through lack of exercise and overeating. If we were to follow the same logic through with regard to that, we would increase the tax on food. If we were really concerned about the health impact of obesity, we would increase the tax on food. Is that the Government’s intention also?

The whole logic behind this bill, which the Government has brought to the House tonight, is deeply flawed. ACT will be opposing it because we oppose silly legislation. To dress this bill up in social concern about binge drinking by young people, which we concede is a problem, is not right. This measure will not in any way address that problem. This bill is nothing more than a $14 million net tax grab by a Government that promised it would not increase taxes. Here is the pamphlet that Labour put in every letterbox, with the airbrushed photo of Helen Clark on it—the whole kit and caboodle. Quite clearly, it states that there would be no new taxes, and no increase in taxation. The Government has already increased the excise duty on tobacco, and we now have it with alcohol.

Who will bear the impact of that? It will be the old folk who drink sherry and port. They will be spending this winter huddled round the kerosene heater in the freezing cold, because there will be no electricity. They cannot afford their tobacco any more, and under this Government, their port and sherry—the small comfort that they had—will also be out of their reach. That is what this Government is bringing to New Zealand: there will be no heat, and no tobacco, port or sherry unless people are prepared to pay about three times more than the price they paid prior to midnight tonight.

I rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. It is interesting to follow the ACT party, which does not seem to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story with regard to the passage of this bill. Mr Shirley came into the House and waved around a 1999 Labour Party manifesto card, and said that we made a promise about our taxes. Well, I have here our 2002 pre-election commitment card, which clearly states there will be no rise in the rates of income tax, GST, or company tax. It may have missed the member’s attention, but excise duty on alcohol is not actually income tax or GST. So it was quite wrong for the ACT party to assert that.

Mr Shirley then went on to say that we were focused on alcopops and ready-to-drink products, and that the Government had failed because this bill does not cover them. The Hon Jim Anderton, as Acting Minister of Customs, did not mention alcopops in his first reading speech. We are talking here about alcohol that is 14 percent proof plus and about bringing that into the same tax category as alcohol that is 23 percent proof plus. This measure is about harm minimisation, and I will vote for the second reading of this bill.

What a cynical abuse of the parliamentary process this is! Here we are approaching 10 minutes to 11 in the evening, and because we have already spent more time here than usual we will not achieve any power savings this week. That is because Dr Cullen and Mr Anderton want to sneak through very sneaky legislation. When I first took a briefing on this bill, Dr Cullen said he was motivated to pass it because he was concerned about young kids getting absolutely legless on cheap spirits. I considered that for a little while and I thought that if that was his motivation, it was reasonable. Then I thought more carefully about it. I thought, no, I have a better and wider respect for the young people of New Zealand than that, because most of them are very responsible people. I tell Dr Cullen and Mr Anderton that this bill is really about just another tax increase. How much do they want? They already have a $4 billion surplus. Will $14 million net really make a big difference? How much will this Government take from hard-working Kiwis before it says that enough is enough? Two years ago this Government taxed tobacco, and now it is alcohol’s turn.

All that we get from this Government is empty promises. Can we believe what it tells us? No, we cannot. Let me demonstrate why we cannot trust it. I have an article here from the Dominion Post headed “Booze, tobacco tax rise most unlikely—Cullen”, and it quotes Dr Cullen. Two of my colleagues have already referred to that article, so I will not go through it in detail, other than to quote this. “Dr Cullen, who increased tobacco excise in May 2001, said yesterday it was ‘most unlikely’ there would be any increase in tobacco and alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation. ‘We have done that once. We don’t do those things very lightly,’ he said.”

💬 Pansy Wong: Jekyll and Hide.

Yes. The article goes on to state: “Dr Cullen also scoffed at Opposition claims of a petrol tax increase during the coming parliamentary term.” People who believe that, and who believe Dr Cullen on this issue, probably believe in garden fairies, also. This Government is a tax-and-spend Government, and it is very mean-spirited—and members will, of course, see the pun in that. It looks around and sees people enjoying themselves, so it thinks it has to attack them. It is an envious Government, which introduces envy taxes, and now it is doing so again. New Zealand is at present led by an autocratic bunch, and this measure is the first step towards “teetotalitarianism”—I think members get my drift.

I have said this once, and I will say it again: this measure is not just about kids getting smashed on cheap alcohol. By introducing this tax, the Government is attacking Kiwis of all ages. These drinks are the most popular drinks in the country. I have said the Government is mean-spirited, and what greater example can one have of that than attacking sherry? My old mum makes a fine trifle. It is an institution in my household, and on Mother’s Day I will be denied that privilege—as will thousands of other Kiwis—because of that bunch over there on the Government benches. I say it is not good enough.

The elderly folk in this country will have a very cold winter because of that Government’s incompetence with regard to how it has managed the power crisis. They will have cold showers this winter, and the Government does not care—it has already told us that. Elderly folk will be told to turn their heating off, and when they reach for the sherry bottle to fortify themselves a little bit, what will happen? They will not be able to afford it, because that mean-spirited lot over there on the Government benches have put the price of a bottle of sherry up by four or five bucks. That is not reasonable or fair. Unlike that bunch of Government members, I feel for the elderly folk of this country.

This bill is all because this Government has an insatiable appetite for taxation. It is an envy tax, and that is why the Government has turned this Parliament into a circus tonight. It should have the courage of its convictions and do something about the drinking age. If it really wanted to address youth drinking, it would increase the drinking age. I do not care who put the age down; if the Government really thought it was right, it would do something about the drinking age. It would not sneak this legislation through the House in the dead of night. Rather, it would come out and say in a very clear and honest way that we should mount a media campaign to educate our young people about binge drinking, and put that on the 6 o’clock news. I hear Dr Cullen groaning, because he knows I am right and he is wrong. He knows he is mean-spirited. He knows that the people of New Zealand know that I am right and he is wrong, and that all he is doing is sneaking in a tax—because he is a sneaky, sneaky individual.

Government members are saying they are doing this because young people are price sensitive in their buying patterns. If they are price sensitive, why has increasing the excise duty not worked in terms of reducing smoking? The Government keeps putting the price of smokes up, but that does not stop young people from smoking. [Interruption] I think Mr Mallard has woken up at long last—good! Maybe I should translate my speech in a language that he understands. I understand that by his own admission, Mr Mallard is an expert in the Māori language. We should go back and test him on that, because he is an absolute expert.

I look over here and see the Greens, who support the Government—and, by implication, the Government supports them. I do not think the irony is lost on people on the Opposition side of the House that we have in the Green Party a party that is interested in smoking, but that at the same time stands up and says we need to put the price of cheap drinks up because they are bad for our kids. I will not use the word that starts with “h”, but I am sure members will get my drift when I say that there is some irony and inconsistency in the argument that has been driven by the Government. Instead of taxing Kiwis further, why do you not spend some of that money on fixing some of the things that are wrong with this country? Why do you not fix up the roading problems in Auckland?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please do not bring me into the debate.

I apologise for that, Mr Speaker. Why does the Government not spend some of the taxation money on fixing up the roading problem in Auckland? Why does it not spend some money on the forestry infrastructure, so that we can actually get our wall of wood to the markets? Why does it not do something that is constructive and spend the billion dollars that is necessary to upgrade our forestry infrastructure, rather than sneaking through a tax under extraordinary urgency? Why does the Government not do something about streamlining the compliance and red tape issues, instead of bashing up the people in this country who contribute the most—the businesspeople? Why does it not do something constructive, and leave our young kids alone?

I am delighted to stand in support of the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. It promotes and fosters a principle that we as a nation should embrace—that is, a health initiative. That health initiative is to decrease the consumption of alcohol by young people.

I rise to make clear once again that New Zealand First will be voting against this bill. Having listened to the range of speeches in the first and second readings, I say that I do not think anyone listening to them could accept any of the arguments that the various Government members, in their very short speeches, have made to justify this bill, because they have all contradicted each other.

I have heard people say that this bill is all about harm minimisation. I have heard a Government member say that she voted against the lowering of the drinking age, and that this measure is the way to minimise the harm done to our young people. That member knows full well that the greatest harm was done when the drinking age was lowered. If that member were true to herself, she would be enforcing the introduction into this House of my member’s bill, which seeks to put the drinking age back to 20. As I look around this Chamber, I see members on the Government benches who voted against that legislation, and who, in their very hearts and being, do not support this bill as being the panacea that will minimise the harm caused by the teenage drinking problems we face.

Let us just remind ourselves who said that the lowering of the drinking age had contributed towards the types of problems we are seeing. The people who said it were the people who staff our accident and emergency services all over the country—nurses, doctors, and medical attendants. They are at the frontline, picking up young people who are blotto and out of their minds. Putting them into ambulances are the St John Ambulance people. They would much rather see the drinking age raised than see this bill passed. Who else is there? Doctors have said on countless occasions—and I have read it in community papers from Whangarei, in Northland, all the way down to the south—that they believe that the way to minimise harm is to put the drinking age back up. Fire Service people say the same thing; they are tired of cutting these people out of cars that have been in accidents.

In respect of the Māori MPs, their body language says it all. It does not matter what the Hon John Tamihere read off the piece of paper given to him as the introductory second reading speech. I saw his body language as he went out of here. He does not believe in the slightest that this bill will have the effect of minimising the harm done to the young Māori people whom the Waipareira Trust has been trying to help. Speaking of the Waipareira Trust, is it not that trust that helps low-income people manage their budgets? What will it have to do now? It will have to manage budgets that are minus the money that has been taken out to pay for the alcohol that those adults—not children, not teenagers, but adults—had previously been able to buy at a reduced cost. Those budgets will have to be rewritten because the cost of that alcohol is going up. It is the same for the elderly; the Waipareira Trust helps a large number of elderly people.

Is it not a joke? I have heard a lot from Government members about how this measure will help people. Well, get real! We are now seeing this Government for what it is: a Chardonnay-sipping bunch of spa-bath socialists who continue to hammer working-class people. Who got whacked when petrol prices went up?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Say that again.

Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists—that is what they are. Who got whacked when they put up the price of petrol? Working-class people who were trying to drive to work. Who got whacked when cigarette prices went up? Working-class people who just want to enjoy a fag—not that type of fag; a cigarette type of fag—at smoko. Who will now get whacked when the price of cheap booze goes up? Working-class people.

I tell members that those working-class people have long since started talking about this Labour Government. It does not have one freezing worker in its ranks. It does not have one truck-driver—

💬 Taito Phillip Field: I was.

Welcome, Taito Phillip Field! We know why he is not a Minister. It is because he is an ex - freezing worker. That Government does not have any working-class people in its ranks. I was at a Labour fundraising do the other night. I will tell members the sorts of things I am hearing in Belfast—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come back to this bill, please.

Tax hikes like this, from this Government, hit working-class people. The reason those members do it, and believe they are doing the right thing, is that there are no working-class people in their ranks. There are academics, tutors—[Interruption] Harry Duynhoven may be a working-class person, but that is why he is not a Cabinet Minister. And, at the end of the day, he was a teacher. This House sits here and deliberates on a bill like this from the perspective of academics, theoreticians, and philosophers. They are Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists who have never lifted a crescent or a meat cleaver, or driven a truck, in their entire lives.

Out there, tomorrow, the rest of the working-class people will know what this Government wants. It wants their money. One of their last refuges, a cheap bit of booze, is being taken off them. Is this measure going to hit the ready-to-drinks, the alcopops, that that lot over there so vigorously tell me it will hit? No, it will not. Therefore, will it reduce teenage drinking? I will tell members what this measure will do. Teenagers who would have bought that cheap booze and diluted it with Coke will now not put Coke in it. That is what will happen. They will make their more expensive drink go further. This measure will drive teenagers to drink those spirits, which they will now pay more for, with less Coke or L & P added, because they will not be able to buy as much to get their binge buzz. Members should think about it

💬 David Benson-Pope: What?

I am going to help that member over there, and if I have to ask for an extension of time to do it, I will. The chief Government, whip, who has been so rude throughout the whole of the proceedings, setting a wonderful standard for his MPs to follow, is puzzled. Let me explain it again. A young person who has only so much money to spend will not now be able to afford to buy Coke. Young people will have to go without the Coke. In fact, because the booze will cost them more, they will be less inclined to dilute it as they share it around their mates. What will the result be? Drunker kids for the same amount of booze, for the same dollars. The only difference will be in the coffers of the Minister of Finance. He will have more money, and that is really what it is all about.

What else is it about? It is about keeping Helen Clark off the front page tomorrow because she had such a lousy day in the House. This bill is being debated in order to get the media to rerun page 1, so that the lousy day that the Government had—that Minister Goff and Prime Minister Clark had—at question time is now shunted off to one side, and the focus goes on this bill.

I predict that young people around the country will scoff at this bill, and they will scoff at this Government, which is nothing more than a revenue-gathering exercise.

I rise to support the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party. It will not solve the whole drinking problem of our young people, but it is a good move in the right direction. I support all the other measures that the Opposition is talking about. Yes, education is needed. I would support that, and any measure that those members might come up with that would tell our youngsters to treat the stuff wisely. But this bill closes a loophole that needs to be closed, and we will support the closing of that loophole. Our youngsters do not need cheap booze. The rhetoric on the Opposition side of the House defies belief. The quality of the debate, when the House sits as late as this, is appalling, so I will not continue. We will support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute, however briefly. I would like to make a couple of comments about the comments of the speaker before the previous speaker. I am sorry that Mr Mark has allowed the deep trauma of his career replacement to affect him so much. As there are so many teachers and counsellors on this side of the House, I am pleased to offer their services to help him reconcile his differences with his whip. I support the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fail to see that what that member said had anything to do with the bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member knows that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Mr Mark’s speech you intervened, at one stage, and reminded him that he should come to the bill. I note that when the senior Government whip spoke, there seemed to be a different standard. You did not interrupt him and, when challenged, you said that it was appropriate to give a speech that did not make reference to the bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The senior Government whip spoke for 30 seconds. Mr Mark spoke for almost his full 10 minutes. Mr Mark was not raising a valid point of order.