Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill

The title of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill should be the “Another Broken Promise From Labour Bill”. Dr Cullen, who sits opposite, told the public of New Zealand on 9 July last year that the Government had no plans for, and the public should have no fear of, sharp increases in alcohol prices. This bill is a direct contradiction of what he assured the public. What is interesting about 9 July 2002 is that it was about 2 weeks prior to a general election, so those members opposite were elected on false pretences.

💬 Darren Hughes: What happened at that election?

I say to that new member for Kapiti that his voters read in the Dominion Post that there would be no sharp increases in alcohol prices. That is what voters in his electorate thought they were voting for when they voted for him and for Labour, and what did they get? I ask that young member opposite whether this bill provides for a sharp increase in alcohol prices. Does it? I ask the member, who was so chirpy a moment ago, whether this bill provides for a sharp increase in alcohol prices.

💬 Helen Duncan: No!

Helen Duncan says that, no, it does not. I say to Madam Duncan that I would expect an 84 percent increase to be somewhat sharp. I do not have a PhD in mathematics—I admit that—and I know that Helen Duncan is hopeless on anything to do with standards in education, but I would have thought that an 84 percent increase was somewhat sharp. Does the bright new member for Kapiti believe that an 84 percent increase is sharp?

In fact, Dr Cullen went further. He said that there were no plans, intentions, desires, or need for any increases greater than inflation. Does the Government believe that the inflation rate is 84 percent?

💬 Helen Duncan: No!

Helen Duncan says it is not. Can she explain how this bill is true to Dr Cullen’s word that there would be no increases in alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation?

💬 Helen Duncan: The parents of New Zealand love this bill.

Suddenly those members want to change the topic. She says the parents of New Zealand love this bill. I did a bit of research this evening. I went to a local bar and asked the people there what sorts of drinks young people drink. Let me bring their answers to members, because I listened to what Jim Anderton said earlier. The most popular drink at the sports bar in Courtenay Place is a Vodka Teaser. They said that that drink was the most popular drink of young people.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: What’s the alcohol content?

My colleague asks what the alcohol content is. It is 5 percent. Will this bill put up the tax on it? I see Mr Anderton is in the Chamber. Will the tax on it go up? No, it will not. I asked the people at the bar what the next most popular drink was, and they said it was a Ruski; that is what they told me. I thought that that drink must be affected by the bill, because that is what Mr Anderton had told us, but the alcohol content is only 4.5 percent, so it is not included. So I thought I would try some more. What about Archers Aqua? That is, apparently, the most popular youth drink at the second bar I went to. I thought that it must be covered.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: How many bars did the member go to?

Many, I assure the member! I wondered if it would be covered. Jim Anderton had said this bill was to prevent abuse of alcohol drinking by young people. I thought that that drink must be covered by the bill. It has an alcohol content of 5.5 percent, so it is not covered. I asked for some more names of drinks, and I was told that the Vodka Cruiser was popular with young people. Is it covered? No, it is 5 percent alcohol, so it is not covered. So I asked a lady at the bar what drinks would be in the alcohol range covered by this bill. Let me tell members what she told me. The only such product available at the sports bar is Baileys. How many young people I know between the ages of 18 and 25 drink Baileys?

💬 John Carter: I do.

I have some news for Mr Carter: he is outside the age range. When Mr Anderton was talking about preventing abuse of alcohol by young people, I do not think he was talking about Mr Carter. We know he looks young and handsome, but I do not think he is included. The people at the bar said that dessert wine would be their biggest seller that would be picked up by this bill. I say to the youthful member for Kapiti that I know lots about young people, and dessert wine is not big on the list of drinks that they drink. This bill does nothing of the sort of which Mr Anderton speaks. He is telling one big porky.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The last statement from that member was clearly totally out of order. One cannot accuse people in this House of telling porkies. The member should be required to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Members cannot make that accusation. Could the member please withdraw.

Is the word “porky” misleading? Mr Anderton said in his first reading speech that this bill was designed to attack youth drinks. I think I very eloquently expressed to the House that, indeed, the Minister told a big porky.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am asking the member to withdraw the remark about telling porkies.

I do not think I have said anything wrong in expressing my views about Mr Anderton’s speech, which I listened to very carefully. If it was not a porky, I do not know what else it might be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows that that is a phrase that has been commonly associated with not telling the truth, and I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw.

I compliment the previous speaker, the Hon Nick Smith, on his contribution, because not only has he spent some of his own money, he has done something that the United Future party has not done. United Future members told us that they supported this bill because it would attack young people drinking the sorts of mixes he has put in front of us. Members have said to us that those mixes are typically less than 7 percent alcohol, but he has actually produced the bottles. I am sure the member would allow Judy Turner to come across and examine those bottles so that she could have a look for herself and see that this bill does not attack the youth drinks. Now that we learn that it is Baileys—the favourite of the middle-aged—

💬 Brent Catchpole: My mother.

And one’s mum—the matriarchs. This bill is another attack on motherhood by this Government! The member said he was going to move an amendment to the title. I think he should. I have put down a couple. One may be out of order, and it is that after the word “Beverages” we should add the words “Stealth Taxes”, because that is what I think the bill is all about. But an alternative to that is that we should add after the words “Alcoholic Beverages”, the words “and Ice Cream”. If members look at the schedules they will see that this bill taxes ice cream with an alcohol content of more than 14 percent. I invite anyone—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That would be a good ice cream.

Great ice cream! Not only is the Government attacking Baileys, it is attacking Baileys ice cream. What will be next?

💬 Barbara Stewart: And chocolate.

And chocolate. I am glad that Mr Anderton is the Minister in the chair, because I am sure he was not trying to mislead the House, but I took his speech to be that he was making an attack on alcopops—those ready-mixed drinks. However, if he was, he clearly did not do his homework. I do not believe that the United Future party did its homework, although the United Future party is easier to roll over than the Labour Party caucus. All that it does is get a briefing and it immediately decides to support it. But then it might be that Mr Dunne is looking for a new job back with the Alcohol Advisory Committee (ALAC)—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: His old job with ALAC. He used to be executive director.

He may want his old job back, because the idea that it is Baileys that is leading our young people to grief is just not credible. I do not think that any member opposite did any homework. I do not think that any of them went out and had a look at those bottles. Did Helen Duncan find out what the alcohol mix level was? She tells us that every parent is going to be—

💬 Helen Duncan: Those bottles are less than most beers and the member knows it.

I am sorry? What do I know?

💬 Helen Duncan: They’re all empty.

The member says that they are all empty. Does that make a difference?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Does it change the labelling?

Does it change the labels? I ask Helen Duncan whether the label changes, once one has drunk the bottle. I suppose that after she does, everything changes! Maybe that is her personal experience with alcohol. I say to members opposite that this is a stealth tax. We were told that it was based on the recommendations of the Easton report. I went and got the report from the library and found that Easton actually recommended that full spirits above 37 percent be lowered. He actually recommended that lower levels of alcohol be completely exempted. The idea that this bill is based on the Easton report is rubbish. Of course, if we look at the McLeod report that this Government paid for, it stated that the tax on alcohol is almost certainly too high and cannot be justified. So this Government decided to take another little nibble. I guess it might have thought that the moralistic United Future party would be delighted to see a whack on alcohol tax. The fact that it is not aimed at the right group, and the fact that the Government is not taxing—

New Zealand First is very grateful to the Hon Nick Smith for the research that he has done. [Interruption] I say to Ron Mark—

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but there have been a number of interjections, but that is not the point so much as the fact that members are not to shift their seats to advantage. I am afraid that the member who was making a loud noise—it was Helen Duncan in particular, but other members have, as well—had shifted her seat. Either Helen Duncan sits there quietly or she should shift back to her own seat, from where she can interject if she needs to, and it should be rare and reasonable at that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I certainly call order.

I was about to say thank you very much to the Hon Nick Smith for his research. I was also about to say to Ron Mark, if he is listening, could he come back, please. Ron Mark is out there on patrol. He is touring one or two hotels at the moment to get some samples. I suspect they might be full rather than empty and we might have to consume them shortly, just to test the taste as much as anything else.

💬 Helen Duncan: The member is talking rubbish, and he knows it.

I am referring to the first speech made, and I am saying sincerely to Ron Mark, if he is listening, that we have got some samples and he can come back.

💬 Helen Duncan: All of those samples are not affected by the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call the member to order.

I have been trying to ignore the member, for obvious reasons, but she has made me go off the boil for a moment. A recent interjection from the Labour Party indicated that the Labour Party has now realised that the speech made by the Hon Jim Anderton when he introduced this bill is not consistent with the facts. He gave us the clear impression that ready-to-drinks, alcopops, and suchlike were to be caught by this bill. Dr Lynda Scott made it clear in her speech that those drinks are less than 14 percent, so clearly they will not be caught by this bill. It seems that Ms Helen Duncan has now worked that out for herself. She said that they are not caught by the bill, so I assume that she will now be voting against this legislation. The light has fallen for her, and I think that after her chat with George Hawkins perhaps the light will fall for him, as well, and a greater number of Labour Party members will now be opposing this bill. I suspect that what happened in the Labour Party caucus today was that it had a quick and sudden caucus because secrecy was required on this measure. I suspect that at some stage they had a caucus where they were told: “We’re going to introduce some rushed legislation into the House. This is what the bill is all about. It catches alcohol over 14 percent. I am sure you will support it, because it affects young people.” All the Labour Party members trooped out of their caucus saying: “Gosh what a great idea this is. We must support this legislation.” Those Labour Party members are now discovering that the information they were given in their caucus is inconsistent with the facts. Now of course they should be angry with the people in their caucus who told them that this bill would catch drinks of that kind.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Which other parties are supporting this bill?

Well, it seems that the same sort of style works with United Future. Judy Turner said she actually saw a 1.125-litre bottle that was 23 percent. Well, perhaps she will produce that bottle and we can all have a look to see just what the label says—whether it was 4 percent, 5 percent, or whatever. I suspect that what she was given may also have influenced her decision.

Of course the Greens are supporting this bill. They say how important it is to get young people off alcohol, but of course they are very happy to get young people on to marijuana. There seems to be some inconsistency there, but that does not stop the Greens supporting this legislation.

I would have thought a name for this bill should be the “Customs and Excise Alcoholic Beverages (Another Attack on War Veterans) Bill” because, clearly, war veterans who like their port and sherry will be attacked by this legislation. The price of their sherry is going up from $21 to $39 I think on a ½ gallon or something like that. They will get a dreadful shock the next time they go into the liquor store to buy themselves something for the winter. They have been attacked when it comes to smoking. There they were in the Second World War being given cigarettes to keep their nerves under control, and now they have been banned from smoking in the Returned Services Association.

This bill is certainly a misnamed bill as we talk about the title of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. It is grossly misrepresented in the Chamber tonight. Because speaker after speaker from the Labour Party, the United Future party, and the Green Party have said the reason that Labour, United Future, and the Greens are supporting this bill is that it will stop young people from drinking. That is what Labour member after Labour member has said. Helen Duncan, who knows nothing about young people, has sat opposite us in the Chamber and interjected time after time saying that mothers will be happy about this bill. That is what she said—mothers will be happy.

I say to Labour members that I have just been on the phone to one of the largest liquor shops in this country. The owner of that shop, when presented with this bill via the fax, told me that young people buying 23 percent vodka and 23 percent gin will now go and buy ready-to-drinks and alcopops, because the tax on those is adjusted only by the rate of inflation. So we have made it an advantage to buy ready-to-drinks and alcopops over buying the bottle of spirits. His view was that this would make it easier for young people to consume alcohol because that is what they will do, because they are not affected at all with the ready-to-drinks and alcopops.

So I asked him what was the major group affected. He said it was dessert wine, port, sherry, and a drink that I have not heard of in my forties, called Madeira. But I am sure that young people around the country are queuing up and drinking Madeira and Muscat! So those are the drinks that are affected. Meanwhile good old ready-to-drinks and alcopops, the things on which Jim Anderton said when he introduced the bill that a message would be sent to young people, will be cheaper. Well, the message it sends to young people is to not buy a 750ml bottle of vodka, but to go and buy a six or 12-pack of alcopops or ready-to-drinks. Buy it already mixed because it is a lot cheaper.

I ask Labour members where the amendment to increase the tax on ready-to-drinks or alcopops is. Because the same liquor shop owner told me tonight that he could not believe this. There have been rumours through the industry for weeks that in the Budget the Government would target young people’s drinking, and it has not done it. The Government has left the ready-to-drinks off. So when Helen Duncan says that mothers will be happy, I tell her that mothers drinking port, sherry, and something called Madeira will not be happy. Those people will be paying a lot more for their drink from tonight because Mr Anderton and the Labour Party need the money.

This has nothing to do with young people drinking—not a thing; because if it had, the Government would target the alcopops. This is all to do with putting some bad news through before the Budget, and that is why this bill should be renamed to reflect the deception that has been forced. I ask the United Future Party in particular whether it will be out there. I heard Judy Turner’s speech. She said that this bill is what we have been waiting for because it targets young people. Well, Judy Turner from United Future should come back down to the Chamber now and admit that it does not do that.

Madam Chair—

💬 Jill Pettis: You had better do something about raising your profile!

Or, in fact, the octaves of my voice, then I too could sound like a strangled seagull in a clothes line. The general policy statement of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill refers to the fact that light spirits, in particular, are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons, and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups. We have just heard the Hon Roger Sowry and the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this side of the Chamber say that it is not often that one gets a bill where the general policy statement has no direct relationship to the operative clauses of the bill at all. What we have heard so far is that this bill does nothing to address those drinks that young people consume. In fact, by the very nature of the level of alcohol contained in those drinks, they are excluded from this legislation. They are no more expensive to buy. So the general policy statement of the bill does not reflect what the bill will do.

In fact, the title of this bill should simply be the dressing up of a tax grab, because that is all it is. To try to paint this as some social policy helping teenage people with drinking difficulties is just stupid. What worries me most about this is that clearly Government members on the other side of the Chamber have not read this bill. Clearly they have not worked out what the bill does. It does nothing to address those concerns. It should, in fact, be called the “Anti - McLeod Report Bill”.

It is worth referring to the McLeod report, because what is interesting about that report is that it outlines in a section called “Excises and Duties” the following: “We believe that the levels of alcohol excise that could be justified on externality grounds are likely to be well below those currently applied in New Zealand.” At the time it was produced in October 2001 the McLeod report stated that excise duty and customs duty on alcohol was too high. We now have a bill before Parliament, under extraordinary urgency, that purports to do exactly the opposite to the recommendations contained in the McLeod report, despite the fact that this Government spent millions of dollars having the McLeod report produced.

The report states: “In our issues paper we concluded that excise taxes were difficult to justify on either tax efficiency or tax equity grounds.” In other words, the McLeod report has stated very clearly that this is the wrong way to go about collecting revenue. If this Government considers this to be just a revenue-gathering exercise, the McLeod report takes care of that issue in the sense that it states that it is the wrong way to go about it. On the other hand, if the Government believes the general policy statement on the front page of the bill that states it is aimed at young people and their over-indulgence in consuming these types of alcoholic drinks, it does nothing to meet that need, either.

The drinks that young people consume, which have been so well outlined by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, are not even covered by this bill. As my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall said earlier in the piece, when young people turn 18 the least likely thing they will do is to march into a public bar and say: “Give me a port.” or “Give me a sherry, and one for my mate, too. No, guys, I’ll get this round of sherries.” It just will not happen. This bill has completely missed the point of either being revenue gathering, or protecting young people.

We are led to believe that this bill is not another tax. When we see a tax that is 84 percent, that is a colossal tax. Jim Anderton claims that this will reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people; his Government is very naive if it believes that. The alcohol that the Government is to tax will not affect young people, at all. I have in my hand here a bottle of Vodka Cruiser. It happens to be the passionfruit version. The total volume percentage of alcohol in this bottle is 5 percent. It falls outside of the limits of this bill. This is one of the most popular drinks for young people. Ron Mark has a pile of bottles in front of him. There is KGB Vodka and Vodka Teaser, both of which have 5 percent alcohol. How will this bill stop young people from drinking? By increasing the price of the higher-valued alcoholic drinks? That will miss the mark. This bill will miss the mark because young people are not interested in the higher-alcohol sherries or ports. They would be laughed out of the pub by their mates if they walked in and asked for a port. They would be laughed out of the clubs if they walked in and asked for a sherry.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: No, there will be a new fashion statement.

Yes, there will be a new fashion statement: “My mates are going to buy me a sherry down at the club.” The research that we have done on these ready-to-drink drinks will show that this bill is really just a tax-gathering exercise. Helen Duncan screamed across the House a few moments ago that parents around the country would be pleased with this bill. I tell Helen Duncan that the only ones who will pay for the high-alcohol content are the parents. They will not be pleased by her statements that they will be pleased because it will reduce their children’s drinking. It will not. They will continue to drink these alcopops and ready-to-drink drinks because those are their favoured drinks. They can drink them without any problems, and it will be a lot cheaper for them. They will go down to the pub or the off-licence and buy a 6-pack of Vodka Cruisers, Vodka KGBs, or Vodka Teasers.

The prices on Baileys, sherries, and port will skyrocket. These are drinks not of the young people, but of the middle-aged and the seniors in our society. Those are the people the Government has targeted. This Government is targeting the seniors, the workers, and the people who cannot afford to drink the high-alcohol drinks any more. The people on a budget scheme will dread this bill. They will go to their budget advisors and say: “We can no longer afford to pay for the children’s food. We’ve spent it on the higher taxes on alcohol.” That will not slow these people down from buying their higher-alcohol drinks. They will trim it back from the children, buying the children’s clothes, buying the children food, or even allowing their children to go on school trips. They will continue to buy their high-alcohol drinks. It will not slow the drinking of younger people. The younger people will drink, and they will get their drinks either from their parents’ drinks cabinet or they will buy the cheaper alcohol with the lower-alcohol volume content. They will not worry about the price. They will continue to drink.

I move, That the question be now put.

This Parliament has made quite a big mistake tonight. The mistake is that it believed what Jim Anderton said about this bill. I was pulled up for referring to Jim Anderton by the term “crocodile tears” as I saw him dripping with sincerity and concern about the drinking habits of our—

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s the Leader of the Opposition doing debating a bill like this? He should show some leadership.

That member is worse than a screaming seagull—I saw him dripping with sincerity and concern about young people, only to find that that was wrong. It is as simple as that. I say to Ms Pettis that that is why I am speaking on this bill—because Parliament, Ms Pettis, the Labour caucus, and United Future have been misled, duped. Jim Anderton drips with concern for young people who drink these products—not the ones that he is taxing; maybe it is only the children of dessert wine socialists who drink Baileys for recreation—not the young people whom I know, that is for sure.

Why bother constructing such a sophisticated version of spin to run in the media, and to corrupt officials by making them put it in the commentary on the bill? The bill states: “Light spirits, in particular, are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons ...”. What did he think they meant? Why bother with the dishonesty? If the Government wants to pass this bill under extraordinary urgency to keep it out of the Budget, why bother making up a story? The worst aspect of it is not so much that it took in United Future, or that it fooled the Labour caucus, but that it is a cheap shot on New Zealand’s young people.

Are they as stupid as this? Are they so stupid that they will not know by tomorrow night that this tax and Labour’s big story about it are a monster lie? Of course they will know. And John Tamihere, “Mr brave, courageous, outspoken Minister”, has stood by, rattled through a patronising and insulting speech as if he did not care, and the young people of New Zealand are apparently going to buy this story. [Interruption] Mr Prebble would know about the level of intellectual debate in the Labour Party caucus!

Why did Jim Anderton use up his reputation as someone who has been seen to be concerned for young people, in making up a story about this bill? Until tonight I thought he was genuine in that respect. I thought he was. He was put in charge of a task force on young people after the election, with 15 different Government departments and a budget to do something about young people who were feeling depressed and who suffered from mental illness.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: He issued all the press releases on youth suicide.

He issued all the press releases on youth suicide, and he comes in here with a dishonest bill that does not do what he said it would do. It is as simple as that. There is no other conclusion from this debate, because he has not bothered to stand up and explain, as I hope he will, how this bill taxes those drinks. So there we go. The honourable former deputy Prime Minister, the man who stood up dripping with sincerity, should get up and tell us how this bill taxes the drinks that young people drink. It does not. He made it up. The Government made it up. It is a simple tax grab. It is simply Dr Cullen’s ego at work. He has been quoted, and I will quote it again: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco.”

I move, That the question be now put.

I agree with my colleague the Hon Richard Prebble when he says that this bill is definitely misnamed. He is quite right when he says that the words “stealth tax” should be added to it, because it is nothing more than that. This bill is nothing more than a stealth tax, and we are here at midnight debating it because Michael Cullen does not want to impart his bad news on Budget night.

If we look at the title even further, the addition of “ice cream” is entirely appropriate. If we look at the schedules, we will see that ice cream is clearly stated several times to be part of the increase in excise duty, so the title should read “Customs and Excise Stealth Tax (Alcoholic Beverages and Ice Cream) Amendment Bill”. A little wordy it might be, but it is a much truer reflection of what the bill is actually about.

I would like to move on to Helen Duncan’s comments about mothers. Mothers will be happy with this bill, she says. I am a mother, and I am extremely unhappy with this bill. I am particularly unhappy that I am standing here talking about this ridiculous bill at midnight. When I mention the fact that I am a mother, Jill Pettis normally shrieks across the Chamber to ask why I am not at home with my children, and that is a very good question. The reason I am standing here at midnight is that United Future has agreed to this urgency.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: The family party!

The family party is keeping me from my family tonight, because Michael Cullen cannot bring himself to bring his bad news out on Budget night. [Interruption] Mothers in this House are certainly not happy with this bill. I can tell members that for nothing.

💬 Helen Duncan: I’m a mother, and I’m happy.

I am a mother too, and I am very unhappy, because I would rather be at home doing my after-hours job with my children.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Rather than taxing the voters!

That is exactly right. [Interruption] No, it will not help at all, because there are plenty of other people who want to speak about this bill, and quite rightly so.

I want to carry this line of thought on for a bit longer. As a mother—and fathers in this House will agree with me too—I am responsible for my children. Parents need to take responsibility for their children, particularly when it comes to buying and imparting alcohol to them. Of course, this bill completely misses the point. It was meant to encompass all of those alcopops and ready-to-drinks.

💬 Helen Duncan: No, it wasn’t.

Oh, it was not meant to? I would like to invite that member to take a call after me and explain the comments she is just making. I am reading directly from the commentary, in which the general policy statement states: “Light spirits, in particular, are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups.” If that is true, why does this bill not encompass alcopops? Increasing the duty payable on these products so that they are more correctly priced aims to reduce consumption, so I would like Helen Duncan to take a call after I have finished speaking and tell us why these bottles are not included in the bill. If the statement in this commentary is true, they certainly should be. I think it is time for a little honesty in this Chamber, and I would call for that. Michael Cullen is not being honest in his Budget lead-up, and now the commentary is not even being honest about the whole purpose of this bill.

Why will this Labour Government do anything that stops people taking responsibility for themselves? That is my next question. If this Government were serious about reducing alcohol consumption, it would be trying to incorporate these things, although it is very difficult to tell now whether it is, or is not, doing that.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am much obliged to be participating in this debate, as the clock strikes another 3 minutes to the midnight of this Labour Government. More and more New Zealanders are aware, as they are going to sleep tonight, that the combined forces of the Opposition in this country are holding our left-wing minority Government to account. We are holding it to account because not only has it sought to mislead the people of New Zealand, it has misled its own caucus, and it has misled United Future, and it deserves to be punished for that.

What an extraordinary circumstance it is when the Minister for Economic Development, Jim Anderton, who made himself a sort of patron saint of youth and those who are finding it difficult in this world, the Minister who issues press release after press release, taking credit for the reduction in youth suicide in New Zealand, the Minister who tries to talk about young people, is actually prepared to sell his capital for a cheap and scrawny little deception that this bill is about stopping young people from buying alcohol. That is nonsense, because this bill taxes a whole lot of alcohols that young people do not buy. When was the last time an 18-year-old bought Madeira? When was the last time a group of 18-year-olds went down to Port Ohope, near Judy Turner’s place, and got boozed on a bottle of sherry? When was the last time kids went into a café in Christchurch and decided to go down to the River Avon and get sloshed on a bottle of port? It just does not happen. They drink ready-to-drinks. Are those ready-to-drinks going to be caught by Dr Bernie Ogilvy’s vote in favour of this bill? Are they going to be caught by Marc Alexander’s vote in favour of it? Absolutely not!

That is what stunned me when Jim Anderton took a call and spoke in favour of this bill. He is a man who has earnestly tried to reposition himself in the last 12 months as someone with an interest in young people’s issues. He has issued a lot of press releases, given speeches, and he attended a young people and drugs seminar in Wellington last month. His was the keynote address for the sixth annual Young Person and Drugs seminar. He has tried to develop a reputation as being the person who talks for young people in New Zealand, and I cannot believe that he sold his capital so cheaply to be associated with this bill. I suppose that that is what happens when one is a poodle to Helen Clark. One will sell one’s soul to get one’s name—[Interruption] Here comes Clayton Cosgrove. I will get on to him next. The Minister, Mr Anderton, is prepared to sell his soul for a bill that will do nothing to stop young people drinking.

I can hear the member for Waimakariri. He is named after a low-alcohol drink, and he would not be the only person. There is a leader named after a brick block, and now there is a member named after a low-alcohol drink. If that member ever remembers being 18—I suspect he was born 40—he will know that those kids do not go in and ask for Madeira. They do not go in and ask for a sherry, and they do not go in and ask for port. As the Hon Roger Sowry said, the owner one of the biggest liquor outlets in this country has said that this bill will not work because the drinks that are the predominant choice of young New Zealanders are left untaxed.

The other point on which the National Party and the combined Opposition will oppose this legislation is that this Government does not deserve the extra $18 million it will get from this tax grab.

I move, That the question be now put.

This bill could have had many titles that were much more direct and told New Zealanders exactly what it is about. One of them—the most simple and direct—might have been chosen by the Prime Minister. She prides herself on being blunt, straightforward, and telling it like it is. If she had had anything to do with this bill, and maybe she did, it would have been called the “Distract the Punters Bill.” This would be the bill that one brings in under extraordinary urgency to attract attention at a time when the House has been paying very unwanted attention to a few other things where one’s directness has not been paying any dividends.

This bill might or might not distract the punters from matters of real importance, but it certainly has nothing to do with its stated intentions. This bill will not distract from the failure to use the strategic assets the Government retained when it said that it would not sell electricity generation. This bill will not distract from the fact that sucking up to China, Russia, France, and Germany has no morality when the Prime Minister refuses to comment on Chinese aggression against Tibet, or Chinese treatment of Sars, or brutal Chinese treatment of Taiwan. This Prime Minister would never talk frankly about those matters. Instead, she directs her attentions to our friends and allies. She will talk frankly about the United States and attack it for freeing the Iraqis. This is a distraction bill.

But worse, this bill does nothing about the problem stated in its introduction—namely, young people drinking and ruining their brains. If this bill did intend to deal with that problem, it would have been brought forward at a time when we could debate whether the right way to deal with youth drinking is to return to what several members on the Government side have mentioned, and that is an older minimum drinking age. If the bill had really been intended to deal with youth drinking, it would have allowed evidence to be brought forward as to whether it targeted what young people actually drink. How many young people drink Pimms? How many young people get stuck into Campari? How many young people get drunk on port these days, when there are so many more drinks that have much less flavour but are much easier to get hold of? They drink the alcopops and the ready-to-drinks, and most of them can simply drink themselves silly on almost any alcohol that is readily available, whatever its strength.

So the idea that this bill is in some way justified by an attempt to attack alcohol abuse would perhaps have been slightly credible if it contained provisions that directed enforcement against the problem. Why, for example, has United Future—the family party—not raised the simple prospect of treating drinking young people as though they were responsible for their own behaviour? Why are we continuously targeting the vendors without looking back at what our grandparents, or even our parents, did? When I say “our parents”, I look to the 1950s and 1960s, when we as young people knew that if we were breaking the drinking law, we, and not just the anonymous vendor, might pay a penalty. I say to the family party that it might be possible for this bill to contain something that would direct enforcement against the people committing the wrong. The wrong in this case, it seems, is young people drinking too much.

This bill does not seem to be a “retrieve the initiative” bill. It will not succeed in allowing the Prime Minister to distract attention from other failures in the areas of electricity and foreign policy. It certainly will not, in the end, persuade anyone for very long that it addresses youth drinking. A much more direct title for it would have been the “Youth Drinking Bill.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Undoubtedly the title of a bill should reflect the reality of the situation. I think it is summed up in the article in The Dominion Post on 9 July last year that stated: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco and alcohol prices during the next 3 years,” Finance Minister Michael Cullen says.” That is the reality. The article went on to state: “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.” To be appropriate and realistic, there is no doubt that one of the alternative, and much more realistic, titles for this bill would be: “Dr Michael Cullen (I Don’t Mean What I Say About Alcohol Taxes) Bill.”

But let us go a bit further, and into one of the serious reports that was provided to this Government some years ago. Of course, I am speaking of the McLeod report, which quite rightly suggested that excise taxes should be phased out. Perhaps the appropriate title for this bill would be the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Ignore the Advice of Tax Experts) Bill”. I can see the Hon Ruth Dyson smirking, but that was a very serious comment to this Government, which propounds economic growth as being important but does the exact opposite. But let us go on. It is now 11 minutes past midnight and we are discussing this bill, which is undoubtedly a tax grab, so let us call it the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Grab the Tax Under Extraordinary Urgency) Bill”.

One of the things that I was quite deeply impressed by was the Hon Jim Anderton coming into this Chamber and saying, in a somewhat mysterious and moralistic voice, that international research showed undoubtedly that alcohol consumption by young people was price-sensitive. What could be more obvious? But there he is, sitting in the chair; perhaps he could stand for the first time this evening since that mysterious and moralistic edification and tell us about that research-based evidence. I think it is quite relevant to what we read in the explanatory note: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits, fortified wines, and sherries. Light spirits, in particular, are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption …”.

I say to Mr Anderton that he should not talk mysteriously and moralistically about that ethereal, international research, but take a cue from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who used his common sense, went down to one of the local establishments in Wellington, and found out for the Committee what young people really are drinking. We find that they are drinking Vodka Teaser, Ruski, Archers Peach Schnapps, Vodka Cruiser, and Smirnoff Ice.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a bit of a sad day when we look at the title of a bill like this, particularly having listened to some of the speeches in the first and second readings.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, and I know you will allow him to continue with his address, but I just want to point out that under the Standing Orders, a member who has not had a call gets priority over one who has. Mr Mark has made a contribution in this part of the debate.

No, I have not.

💬 John Carter: The member has not been called on this part?

No.

💬 John Carter: I do apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Can I also remind the member that Standing Order 178 is now suspended. A member can speak twice. It is not necessarily a preference.

We have heard enough already about what this bill is designed to do. What I clearly take exception to is hearing members of this Committee, and particularly the Minister himself, playing on the heart strings of parents whose children have suffered as a result of alcohol abuse. They have been telling the nation that this bill has been brought to Parliament out of some heartfelt desire to address the alcoholic problems facing our youth, and the temptations of alcopops and light spirits. Men like the Hon Jim Anderton, and women like the Labour member whose name I have forgotten—that is not unusual, a lot of people do—told us that this bill was aimed at redressing the drinking habits of the young, and that young people’s drinking habits were price-sensitive, only to find that there is no price adjustment for the very drinks they are indulging in.

I am appalled at the Greens, and at United Future, in particular. United Future members came to the House and gave many fine maiden speeches about Christian values and principles, and about how they would stand on those principles. Those members have since had it clearly demonstrated by the drink bottles I am holding in my hand—and I will spell it out, like Janet and John; like kindergarten, because I know they are not listening but need to understand, and it needs to be in Hansard—that they are supporting a bill under the apprehension that the Minister is addressing the drinking habits of young people who are being lured into buying alcopops. I am holding an empty Vodka Cruiser drink bottle in my hand. The young lady who served me at the Wellington Sports Café said it was a popular drink for young people. Its price at that place at this time of night is $6 a bottle. How can their drinking habits be price-sensitive when the price of this drink will not alter after this bill is passed?

Speaker after speaker from United Future and the Government have told the Committee that these are the drinks they are targeting. The explanatory note of the bill says that light spirits, in particular, are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons, and are contributing to excess levels of alcohol consumption within those groups. This is the drink they are talking about—the one I am holding in my hand. Why are people worried about that? They should smell one. This Vodka Cruiser, which has a raspberry flavour, smells very syrupy and is very sweet, and is the very type of drink that Mr Anderton says he is concerned about. Is it covered by this bill? No, it is not. Will its price go up? No, it will not. So what is this bill here for?

What is this drink that the young lady told me is very popular amongst young people? It is manufactured by Independent Liquor New Zealand, and it is called a Vodka Teaser. It is a very cute-looking bottle, white with lovely orange flames all over it. The alcohol content stated on the bottom of the bottle is 5 percent. Is it covered by this bill? No, it is not. So what is all the hoo-ha about? What is all the raru raru about over on that side of the Chamber? How is it that Helen Duncan can say: “Oh, we’re doing this to benefit the young people, to adjust their drinking habits, because parents have suffered from their children being traumatised by alcohol abuse and binge drinking.” But, hello, it is all a lie. Maybe this bill should be called the “We Can Fool Some of the People Some of the Time, But We Can’t Fool Them All of the Time Amendment Bill”. Maybe this bill should have been called the “We in the Labour Party Believe Our Own Propaganda, But Nobody Else Does Bill”.

The Committee has been sold a crock, and here we are at 20 past 12 debating a bill that will not achieve what the Minister has led everybody to believe it will achieve. That is why John Tamihere stormed out of the Chamber. He did the honourable thing as a Minister, but sitting here are people who cannot be excused, because on their votes this bill will pass, and this dishonesty will be perpetuated. They are the members of United Future, which once again is the poodle party. I probably should give those members a couple of these bottles to drink, because they certainly need them. They do not understand how they have been hoodwinked, or they choose not to believe.

This bill targets ice cream. How can Mark Peck, supposedly a southern man—a shorter version, I know—allow Speights ice cream to be taxed?

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye”, to the contrary—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been watching the time quite carefully, and I have seen that this debate on the title has gone on for a fraction over an hour. There has been a habit in the Committee in normal time, once a bill has been to a select committee and is being debated on a part by part basis, for closures to be accepted after about an hour. So in your accepting the closure, you have followed the procedure that has become the habit of the Committee. But there has long—as long as I have been here in Parliament—been a tradition that when a bill comes in under urgency and has not been to a select committee, two things happen: the debate is usually allowed to be wider—and you have done that—and it is usually allowed to go on for a longer period of time. I suggest that you have not allowed the latter of those two things to occur. If we get into a position where, as presiding officer, you stay with the conventions that have been established when a bill has gone to a select committee, then there is no counter on a Government that chooses not to send a bill to a select committee. Let me give you an example if I may, because this is a very, very important issue. The Government found the resource management legislation before the House and realised it would take a long time to get that through, so it decided to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that sort of crunched 14 parts down into 3 parts. It could have done that and then pushed that legislation on as a new bill through the House without its going to a select committee. Speakers’ conventions—and I suspect Speakers’ rulings, but certainly Speakers’ conventions—would have been for an extended debate on each of those parts, because the bill had not been to a select committee. The Government sent the bill to a select committee, albeit only for a week, and so therefore avoided that.

This bill has not been to a select committee. We are sitting under extraordinary urgency for only the third time since 1990, and I suggest that if you start accepting closures after what is only an hour of debate, then you really are severely limiting the Opposition and its role in this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am the sole judge of when to take the closure, and this debate has gone on for 1 hour and 10 minutes. I have accepted the closure. Standing Order 139 is clear. All those—

I raise a point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is out of order to debate the closure motion.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

Absolutely! I want a ruling from you that as we move through this bill you and the other presiding officers will take into account, on the parts we are moving through—

💬 Jill Pettis: You can’t ask the Chair to do that.

Is Mrs Pettis to be allowed to interrupt? I want a ruling from you that as we move through the parts of this bill you will take into account the fact that this bill has not been to a select committee, and will abide by the convention that has been held for a long time in this House that bills that have not been the subject of consideration by a select committee are given a longer time of debate in the Committee. I would ask that you give that ruling now, before we go on to the following parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As the member knows, the presiding officer at the time is the sole judge of relevancy. We will now put the vote. All those in favour—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order—

Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): —because we cannot debate the closure.

I am not debating the closure.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think you are coming very close to it—

Well, will you hear my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If it is a new point of order.

I asked specifically whether you were prepared to say to the Committee that, as we go through this debate on the following parts, as the presiding officer you will follow the convention and allow extra time for debate because this bill has not been to a select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Certainly the presiding officers are aware that this bill has not gone to a select committee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have dealt with the matter.

No, you have not. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, no. It is my determination that I have dealt with the matter. Presiding officers clearly know that this bill has not gone to a select committee. OK? That will be taken into account.

Thank you. That is what I asked for.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am becoming more and more concerned that as we go through issues in the Committee, and particularly when there are matters of procedure such as that point of order that Mr Sowry was just dealing with, we are hearing interjections from the Government whips’ bench, and, in this case, from Jill Pettis. The fact is that the whips in this House have a responsibility to set standards. I am afraid that, as a long-serving whip in this Parliament, I feel I am being let down by interjections from somebody who should know the Standing Orders and should know not to interject. I ask that you admonish Jill Pettis for that interjection. It was inappropriate, it happens too often from the whips on the Government side of the Chamber, and it is starting to worry me because it does not set the standards that this Parliament should expect from whips.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes. The member has made a fair point. There should be no discussion during points of order; there should be silence during them. Thank you. All those in favour please say “Aye”—

I remind members that during votes there will be silence.

The first amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 1(1) to add the words “Stealth Taxes” is ruled out of order, as it is not a serious description of the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 1(1) be agreed to:

to insert, after the word “Beverages”, the words “and Ice Cream”.