Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill

This part talks firstly about the commencement date, which is why we are here at 12.35 a.m. debating this bill. A part of the bill will come into force immediately upon its carriage: the extra tax on sherries, ports, and other drinks that elderly ladies, primarily, drink.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: And Madeira.

That is right. The other clause in this part is the purpose clause. The Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, explained to the House that the purpose of the bill was to stop young people from drinking. We have already heard today that this bill will do nothing of the sort. In fact, it will transfer young people from buying alcohol and mixing drinks to buying ready-made drinks.

I have just come off the phone from talking to one person who has been listening to the debate. As a mother, she tells her daughter that if she is going to drink she should buy the ready-made drinks, because at least they have not been tampered with and are safer to buy. That mother encourages her children, if they are going to drink, to buy the ready-made drinks. That seems like the sensible thing for that parent to do in order to keep her daughters safe and to make sure that nobody is tampering with their drinks. She is distraught to know that those drinks will not be taxed any extra at all, despite Government members thinking that they will be. That mother rang in to find out who was right and who was wrong, and I assured her that Helen Duncan, Mr Anderton, and the rest of the Government members were wrong.

Firstly, I ask whether Mr Anderton will take a call to stand by the speech he gave in the opening part of the debate. Will he take a call?

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I am perfectly happy to stand by my speech.

That is good. He said he was perfectly happy to take a call.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: No, to stand by the speech.

We will wait to see whether he takes a call. I understand that he is now saying that he will not take a call, so he will not stand by his speech. That is understandable. Secondly, Labour members—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Don’t mislead the Committee.

I am not misleading the Committee. That member is the one who has misled and lied to the House, not me.

I want to ask Mr Anderton whether what Labour members are saying around the building at the moment is true. Labour members are saying that this bill has to come in so as to get $17 million of extra revenue that will go to the Ministry of Economic Development, because that was the only way the Labour caucus would agree to new money going to that ministry. Labour members know that that is a waste of money. Apparently after the debacle with the shipbuilders in west Auckland, Labour members have said that no new money would follow Sovereign Yachts. Mr Anderton said that if the price of alcohol for young people was put up and he did it, even though the bill is in Rick Barker’s name, he would take the flack. It is his last term here, so he said he would take the flack for this measure if he could get some extra money for the Ministry of Economic Development. That is what Labour members are starting to say around the corridors of Parliament; that is what they are saying..

I want to know whether Mr Anderton will take a call to deny that. He will not take a call to deny that. That member is wearing the can; he gave the speech in the House. He is prepared to wear the can for a bill that is in Rick Barker’s name. Mr Anderton is prepared to sit there in the chair because that was the only way he was able to get any extra money from the Budget. He had to wear the unpopular move of increasing the tax on alcohol, so he dressed that up to United Future and they fell for it. The only questions United Future asked were how many votes they would have to vote with Labour on—that was it. There was no question about whether the bill covered alcopops, or about anything like. United Future did not ask any questions. It has given one speech tonight saying how pleased it was that the bill covered ready-to-drink products, only to find out that it does not.

We are now debating the commencement clause. I want to ask a simple question that I hope the Minister might answer. What are the companies that produce the spirits in New Zealand supposed to charge tomorrow morning for orders that they receive on that day? What are they supposed to charge for those orders?

Further, I would like to get some assurance, particularly from officials, that with all the schedules that are to disappear later in the bill, they have not done something in there that defeats the purpose of the bill. That purpose is pretty clear. It is to catch all alcoholic beverages of between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol by volume, for which the duty is currently about $21 a litre, and to move them into the $39-a-litre bracket. We have been told some of the products that are supposed to be caught by this tax hike. Can the officials give the Committee, via their Minister, an absolute assurance that they have not left anything out, that they have not made a mistake, and that this legislation is not something that will be embarrassing for them some time down the track?

💬 Simon Power: Go on, tell us.

No, I will not say. It is not for me to do the work of the officials. They have enough time between now and the third reading to go back through the bill and to comb through all those code numbers and tariff numbers, to make sure they have not left one out. I am thinking that perhaps I should tell them what it is, but I will not.

💬 Hon Members: Go on!

I will not. I am not an official; I am not as clever as that. However, I think I have spotted something, and it will be a lot of fun tomorrow.

Do members remember the last time that the Government tried to ram through something like this, and it made the whole of New Zealand a dry area? Leading up to the holidays a couple of years ago, it made the whole of New Zealand a dry area. I think it has done something similar again. This time it has wetted the country up, big time. Again, the question for the officials is whether they can give an assurance, via the Minister, that there is no mistake in the bill, that nothing is left out, and that there is no contradiction between the purpose clause and the requirements in the first part of the bill. Can they give us an assurance that all aspects of the explanatory note are covered by the bill?

In the short time we have had to look at this bill I have dived into it a bit. I could be wrong, but—

💬 Opposition Members: Never.

No, no, I am happy to say I could be wrong. But Mr Anderton will not say he was wrong. He gave an appalling speech at the commencement of the first reading and got things completely wrong, but he will not admit it. I am happy to say I may be wrong. However, I would like to say I am right—after the bill is passed. Then we will have a great deal of fun.

I would like to know what is meant by clauses 5 and 6 becoming effective some days after the bill receives the royal assent. I simply ask the Minister why that is.

💬 John Carter: Is that what’s wrong with it?

No. But I guess one might say there is a bit of breathing space there for the Government. I have asked those simple questions, and I will repeat them so that the Hansard record is full of them. First, have the officials closed everything off—have they got everything lined up, with nothing missing—and second, why do clauses 5 and 6 come into effect much later than the rest of the bill?

Finally, when clause 3(b) states that the purpose of this legislation is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable on alcoholic beverages in line with the preceding 12 months’ movement in the Consumers Price Index All Groups excluding credit services.”, what does that mean?

💬 John Key: A good question.

That is a great question. I have learnt that question from Winston Peters—the only difference between us is that he asks it a lot more than I do, and he asks it with a great deal more speed to his question.

Speaking to Part 1, which includes the—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that New Zealand First would be next in the order of speaking.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is right, but no one from New Zealand First took the call.

💬 Dail Jones: Our member has sought it twice.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. I did not see him. My apologies. I have already called the Hon Ken Shirley.

Part 1 contains clause 2 and clause 3. Clause 2 relates specifically to the commencement. ACT has a number of problems with this bill, and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, and his colleagues on the Government benches, might at this late stage consider withdrawing the bill.

One of the immediate problems with the commencement is that even though it is past midnight, liquor outlets will be open. If they are not open, nightclubs will be, and they will be selling these light spirits in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol content band. Those people will get caught. Under extraordinary urgency, this legislation, according to the commencement clause, came into effect at midnight tonight. Clearly, it will not get the royal assent until tomorrow, but midnight was the time it came into effect. So liquor outlets and, certainly, nightclubs operating from an hour ago to however long it takes to get the royal assent will be caught out. The excise will be charged on the liquor they have sold as from midnight tonight, but they will not be recovering that money from their patrons for the next 8 to 10 hours or so.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Will they get both the excise and the fines?

Quite so! We are in a terrible situation. But the point that has been made by many speakers is that the whole purpose of what the Government is doing has been exposed for what it is—that is, one big fraud. This is one of the dangers when Governments get a rush of blood to the head, think they are doing one thing—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Don’t send it to a select committee.

—and do not send bills to a select committee. The Government is introducing the bill and ramming it through under extraordinary urgency, and it has been totally exposed by the scrutiny of the Opposition. We see in the explanatory note that the bill is, clearly—and the Minister who moved the first reading made it quite clear—all about social engineering, about redressing the binge drinking of our young people. He was sincere; I believe he was genuine in saying that. But it has been adequately exposed that the preferred drink of young people that the Government thought it was targeting is not included. This bill covers dessert wine, sherry, vermouth, port—the drinks of the matriarchs, shall we say. Labour Party matriarchs are the ones who will be affected by this. The next Labour Party conference could be a quite testy affair, when the matriarchs make their displeasure known to those members. The bill is not targeting the people whom it purports to cover, as stated in the explanatory note.

I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call. He sat there with his head down, obviously out of shame, and I can understand that, but we are a forgiving bunch on this side of the Chamber. We think he should get up and concede the point that the bill fails miserably. If it is intended to address the binge drinking of young people, it fails because their preferred drink is not included. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, then he is party to what can only be called an absolute tax grab. If the member was honest and sincere in what he told us the bill is all about, then he will get up, concede that the bill fails, and withdraw the bill, even at this late stage. That has been done before. Then we can all go home, and I do not think anybody would worry too much about that. We have wasted a few hours on what is, clearly, a very bad bill.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Mothers back to their children.

Mothers can go back to their children; we have had speeches on that tonight. Withdrawing the bill would be a very, very sensible course of action at this late stage. Will the Minister take a call? He has not indicated whether he will. He has not taken any calls from the chair to date. A major revelation of an inaccuracy in the bill has been exposed. I ask the Minister to take a call.

I want to start by referring to the explanatory note. It states under the heading “Part 1”: “Clause 2 relates to the commencement of the Bill. The provisions that relate to beverages containing between 14% and 23% alcohol by volume come into force on the date on which the Bill receives the Royal assent. The other provisions come into force on 1 June 2003.” I want to focus on the provisions that relate to beverages containing between 14 and 23 percent alcohol by volume.

I used to—and still do every now and then—hang out at our local rugby league club. The Hibiscus Coast Raiders do very well in the Bartercard Cup trophy. I used to play in the open age restricted team, and we would go out on the field and get hammered a bit, and after the game we would go into the club and have a few drinks. A lot of the boys in our league team would go up to the bar, but I never heard one of them say: “I want a man’s drink. I’ll have a sherry.” The girlfriends drank lollipop drinks, or what we have been calling alcopops. I did not see one of them drinking dessert wines, port, or similar drinks.

Interestingly, the explanatory note states: “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 within these groups.” We know there is excessive alcohol consumption within those age groups, but I have to make the point that, from what I have seen around the place—and this is not just my point of view, but the view of many members tonight in the Committee, including my colleagues Ron Mark and Dail Jones—the high alcohol consumption of young people hardly involves light spirits or sherry; it involves drinks like that sitting on Ron Mark’s table over there, KGB Vodka, which was one of the first lollipop drinks. I ask the member to turn the drink round, so that everybody can see it. It was one of the first alcopop drinks that came out, and all the other ones followed—Tattoo, Vodka Cruiser, and Smirnoff Ice followed soon after. Just recently, there has been Archers Aqua, which is over on Nick Smith’s table. That came out in the last year or so.

💬 Deborah Coddington: How much alcohol?

That is a very good question. It is 5 percent. But when I looked at the bill, I saw that it did not mention 5 percent.

💬 Brent Catchpole: That’s below 14 to 23 percent.

Another member in another part of the Committee says that it is below the 14 to 23 percent alcohol range of products, which predominate as far as excessive drinking by young people is concerned. Members on this side of the Committee who have talked about this bill, particularly my colleagues Ron Mark and Dail Jones, make a very good point. I really think this Government is making an excuse. It is saying that it wants to reduce the harm to young people—

The issues relating to the commencement dates, in Part 1, have already been covered by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry, and I do not intend to canvass them again. But I do want to spend a bit of time on the purpose of the bill, which is contained in clause 3(a) and (b). Just for the sake of clarity, I want to say that the purpose clause states that the purpose is “to align the duty payable on beverages containing more than 14% but not more than 23% alcohol by volume”. Clause 3(b) states that a further purpose is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable” on drinks in that bracket—more than 14 percent alcohol but not more than 23 percent.

I would be obliged if the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, who to the best of my recollection has not taken a call at all on this bill, would explain this to me. If he takes the time to look up from his correspondence, and turns to schedule 2, in particular to page 14, he will see that under “Other fermented beverages (for example, cider, perry, mead)”—and that is not Colin Meads—percentages of alcohol per litre are set out. It states: “Containing more than 6% vol., but not more than 9% vol.”, and “Containing more than 9% vol., but not more than 14% vol.”, and then we go to “Containing more than 23% vol.” What happened to the bit between 14 and 23 percent? That is the operative part of this bill. I could have missed something here, but I think it would be worth the Minister taking a call and explaining to the Committee how that came about, and on what basis that particular omission, for “other fermented beverages”, came about.

The omission is not just there. If members have taken the time to look through the schedules, they will have seen that it is difficult for the purpose of this bill to be fulfilled, because this matter arises again, on page 15. Members will see again: “Containing more than 9% vol., but not more than 14% vol.”, and then it goes straight to “Containing more than 23% vol.” Where is the operative bit? Where is the bit that says “more than 14% but no more than 23%”? That is the operative part of this legislation; it is on the front page, but, unfortunately, the explanatory note does not create law. If we move through the bill, we can see that omission again, on page 16.

If the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take at least a short call, he could perhaps put me out of my misery and explain to me why the schedules—which are the parts of the document that contain the detail about the products that the operational clauses in the bill are to apply to—omit those specific percentages. It might be something I have missed—I am sure it probably is—but it would be worth the Minister at least taking a call and explaining that to me. I do not think the Minister has taken a call at all during the Committee stage of this bill. When rushing a bill through under extraordinary urgency at 4 minutes to 1 in the morning, the Minister should at least have the decency to respond to what I consider to be a reasonably legitimate question.

I think that matter also aligns with the fact that what the purpose clause does not contain is the actual purpose of the bill, which is a tax grab. Clause 3(a) states it is “to align the duty payable”, clause 3(b) states it is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable”, and a clause 3(c) should state it is to grab some tax dosh. It is my guess that the $18 million the Government will grab will not be used at all to help young people who are accessing alcohol, and creating social problems as a result of that access. The purpose clause should reflect that.

I will address clause 3 of the bill, which lifts the tax on alcoholic beverages of over 14 percent alcohol by volume, but less than 23 percent, which Mr Anderton tells us are the drinks that are corrupting the young. Mr Roger Sowry tells us that those beverages are actually sherry, port, Baileys, and Madeira.

I think we have found the reason Mr Anderton thinks that. I ask Mr Anderton whether this is the source of his concern. I asked the library for some research on Madeira, and I was given this poem:

She was young, she was pure,

She was new, she was nice

She was fair, she was sweet seventeen.

He was old, he was vile,

And no stranger to vice,

He was base, he was bad, he was mean.

He had slyly inveigled her up to his flat,

To view his collection of stamps;

And he said as he hastened to put out the cat,

The wine, his cigar, and the lamps:

“Have some madeira, m’dear,

You really have nothing to fear;

I’m not trying to tempt you, that wouldn’t be right,

You shouldn’t drink spirits at this time of night.

Have some madeira, m’dear,

It’s so very much nicer than beer.

I don’t care for sherry, one cannot drink stout,

And port is a wine I can well do without.

It’s simply a case of chacun á son gout.

Have some madeira, m’dear!”

Unaware of the wiles of the snake in the grass,

Of the fate of the maiden who topes,

She lowered her standards by raising her glass,

Her courage, her eyes, and his hopes.

She sipped it, she drank it,

She drained it, she did,

And he quietly refilled it again,

And he said as he secretly carved one more notch

On the butt of his gold-handled cane:

“Have some madeira m’dear,

I’ve got a small cask of it here,

And once it’s been opened you know it won’t keep,

Do finish it up, it will help you to sleep.

Have some madeira, m’dear,

It’s really an excellent year.

Now if it were gin you’d be wrong to say yes:

The evil gin does would be hard to assess

(Besides it’s inclined to affect my prowess),

Have some madeira, m’dear.”

Then there flashed through her mind what her mother had said

With her ante-penultimate breath:

“Oh my child should you look at the wine that is red

Be prepared for a fate worse than death!”

She let go her glass with a shrill little cry,

Crash! Tinkle! It fell to the floor.

When he asked, “What in heaven?” she made no reply

But put in a dash for the door.

“Have some madeira, m’dear!”

Rang out down the hall loud and clear,

A tremulous cry that was filled with despair,

As she paused to take breath in the cool midnight air.

“Have some madeira, m’dear!”

The words seemed to ring in her ear …

Until the next morning she woke up in bed,

With a smile on her lips and an ache in her head,

And a beard in her earhole that tickled and said:

“Have some madeira, m’dear!”

I think we have found the key to why Mr Anderton thinks Madeira is corrupting of the young. It has brought back to him the Flanders and Swann song. I have to tell him that it is actually a song, not proper research. The idea that Madeira is corrupting our young is a view that only Mr Anderton and Dr Cullen could possibly have. If there is any research other than what I found that says that Madeira is corrupting the young, I invite the member to table it.

💬 Hon Member: The family party might have some.

It might. That member told us she had seen a bottle that was 22.5 percent proof. If the National Party can produce the lollipop drink bottles, which are only 5 percent alcohol, then I invite the United Party to produce this new drink that no one has heard of—to produce any evidence, apart from what I have given, that Madeira is causing any corruption of our young people. I believe that when this bill was put up, none of the Labour Party caucus members asked any questions. They are so out of touch that they had no idea that what Jim Anderton was saying to them was a load of rubbish, based on a Flanders and Swann song. Introducing a tax on Madeira is his swansong. What a triumph for his parliamentary career! When he is asked what he managed to do in Parliament, he will say: “I managed, m’dear, to increase the tax on Madeira.” What an extraordinary achievement! I say to Government members that when they lose the next election, it will be the tax on Madeira that did it.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.

I want Mr Jim Anderton, the Minister in the chair, to answer a very simple question: where is the research to back up his contention that this bill will increase taxation and reduce the problems associated with alcohol abuse by the young? We have maybe an hour or two—

💬 Ron Mark: He’s not going to answer that.

Is the Minister in the chair prepared to answer that question? It is a very fair question, because he cannot trot into this Chamber, hand on heart, and say he will save our young people from the evils of alcohol without delivering a skerrick of evidence that this bill will in any way affect the popular drinks.

Ron Mark and I have spoken to people who work in the bars. I spoke to three of them, and they pointed out to me the alcoholic drinks that are popular with young people. I also want to recite for the benefit of the Minister in the chair that in Nelson we did have a serious alcohol riot at Tahunanui beach. The place was strewn with bottles of alcopops. So when I heard the Minister say that this bill would deal with those sorts of drinks, I took him at his word. I thought the Minister would be giving us a fair steer. However, I am mighty angry that I now find out, with a small amount of research, that that is absolutely untrue. I say to the Minister in the chair that he can do better than that, for goodness’ sake!

Does the Minister in the chair intend to do better than that? Does he intend to provide the United Future party, the Labour Party, and any other party in this Chamber with any evidence that the alcohol products that are a risk for young people are addressed at all by this bill? We have heard speech after speech that shows that, in terms of what this bill provides for, that is absolutely untrue. The explanatory note of the bill states that young persons and teenagers are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption, and that this bill will attack that. Does the Minister stand by that comment in the explanatory note? Does he stand by the speech he gave when introducing this bill? Such is the arrogance of the Minister in the chair that he is not prepared to answer even perfectly reasonable questions about this bill.

The second question relates to what members have against the products that are affected. When I asked at the Wellington Sports Cafe in Courtenay Place about the products that would be affected, I was told they were dessert wines. What do the Government and the United Future party have against dessert wines? In my electorate there happen to be a large number of wine producers who have won wonderful prizes for New Zealand, and who export large amounts of dessert wine. Why do this Minister and this Government want to attack them? Why do they want to increase the tax on them? I thought that Government members were the Chardonnay socialists who always come to Nelson to gloat about its wonderful wine industry. But then secretly, in the dead of night, they want to ping that industry with an extra tax. And what will the Minister for Economic Development—who is also the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, and who wants to help regions like Nelson—do about the impact of this legislation on the dessert wine industry?

I also challenge the member Judy Turner to say what on earth she is proposing to do by supporting this bill. I refer to all the alcohol products that are commonly used by young people, such as Vodka Cruiser, Vodka Teaser, Archers schnapps, Ruski, Tattoo, or KGB Vodka. Did she know that all those products were unaffected by this bill?

💬 Judy Turner: Yes.

She knew that? Then how could Judy Turner support this bill, saying it would deal to the problem of young people abusing alcohol, when none of those products are affected? Can Mr Paul Adams explain why that is?

💬 Paul Adams: Yes.

OK, why are none of those products affected?

This legislation is interesting, because there has been much talk about our young people. I for one am a great supporter of the young people of our nation; I think they are fantastic. But we cannot legislate human behaviour. Therefore, all that one can do is to indicate to people what one is trying to achieve, and I think that is what we are doing here. We often look at money, without looking at the wider issues.

We members of Parliament need to recognise that in our nation we have a severe drinking problem with our young people. We should ask ourselves why that is. I think a lot of it has to do with their training. We train our children on how to handle themselves when crossing roads, and so on, but many of us fail in our responsibility to teach our young people to handle alcohol. We should train them to use the drinks with a lower alcohol content sensibly. Let us be honest and admit that if people want to get drunk, then there are many ways that they can do so, and no legislation will prevent it.

Another issue we will need to address in time and to have a serious look at is the distribution of alcohol to those who are not old enough to have it legally. I believe that is a major issue. Let me tell members a story.

💬 Ron Mark: Give me a story about the bill.

I am telling you a story about alcohol, and the bill is about alcohol.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should not bring me into the debate. He cannot use the word “you”.

I apologise.

💬 Ron Mark: Is this a sermon or a speech on the bill?

I will leave that for the member to decide.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that running commentaries are out of order.

There is the problem, which I think we all recognise, that those who are under the legal drinking age can easily obtain alcohol. We have very little come-back on the people who supply it, whether that is a parent or an older person. There is a story of a father whose daughter was killed in a car accident. He said that if he ever found out who was responsible for supplying that liquor, he would deal severely with him or her. Unfortunately, that liquor came from his own liquor cabinet. I would like to see, some time in the future, us dealing with the people who allow younger people to get alcohol.

There are many issues that we need to address. I would like to see us educate our young ones. We should encourage them to use low-alcohol drinks in a sensible manner, so that they learn to handle alcohol correctly. Of course, many children see their parents come home drunk, so therefore they think that is acceptable. It is the same with the behaviour in this Chamber. If we do not want that kind of behaviour in society, maybe we need to stir ourselves up. United Future supports this bill because we maintain it gives an indication of our concerns about liquor.

It is with some concern that I rise to speak in opposition to this bill. My concern is for this reason. On Saturday I went to visit my 18-year-old son, who is a student at Victoria University, and on the wall in his room in Stafford House on the Terrace was a huge orange poster, with the slogan: “The first thing I’ll do when I graduate from university is pay back my student loan. Yeah, right.” Members should not need to guess who is promoting that poster. It is orange with red writing. I wonder whether any of the Government members can guess, or know, who is promoting that. And right there beside the poster in the corner of the room was a stack of empties—I am a bit ashamed to admit that, 18 though my son is—and members can guess what kind they were.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Sherry!

They were not sherry, Madeira, Baileys, or ice cream. They were none of those things. I will give members a hint: they came from Mangatainoka.

💬 Brian Connell: Tui?

Absolutely. They were Tui.

I am astounded at the result of Nick Smith’s research, robust though it was, when he went down town to find out what young people were drinking. I wonder what sort of a bunch of namby-pambies there are in this town. Nick Smith came back with a whole lot of empty containers, and none of them were cans of Tui. There was not one single can of Tui—or any other beer can, I hasten to add. What is the alcohol content of Tui?

💬 John Carter: 4 percent.

It is 4.8 percent, I believe. Will that be covered by this legislation? When the honourable Minister talked in his speech about saving young people—like my son at Victoria University—from the evils of alcohol by taxing them $18 million, will this legislation save them from drinking Tui? No, it will not. It will not affect them one single iota.

I say to the member over there on the Government benches that something occurred to me while I was listening to this debate. If one was going to introduce legislation to protect young people from alcohol, there is one group that I would speak to. Who would that be? Members can guess who that group may be. I would go and talk to the young people.

💬 John Carter: Especially if you were drinking Tui.

That is right.

💬 Ron Mark: No, the United Future party.

I would not speak to the United Future party. I would go to Victoria University, which is not far away. In fact, members could almost get to Stafford House in a couple of leaps; it is just near the end of the Terrace. I would talk to the groups of young people there in the common room—especially if one had had a few drinks of Tui, although I am not sure about that other stuff over here. I am not sure whether one should go to Stafford House with that stuff, but one could certainly go there with Tui.

💬 Ron Mark: And Speights.

And Speights. I would go there, and I would ask those young people what they drink and what its alcohol level is. I would say to them that we think there is too much binge drinking among young people, and that we think that we will address that problem by doing something through the taxation system to try to discourage them from drinking alcohol.

What do we have here in this bill? We have legislation that will once again penalise and bite the very hands of the people who voted for Labour and this socialist Government—the hard-working mums and dads out there who come home after a trade union meeting, and who sit down in the corner to have a quiet Scotch whisky. They are the ones who will pay this mean-spirited grab-and-snatch tax. They are the ones who will pay.

What will the money be spent on? That question has been asked many times in this debate tonight. What will it be spent on? One thing is for sure: it will not be spent on extra police to enforce the current drinking age. Will it be spent on that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call. His overwhelming concern for youth has been demonstrated tonight in the House. Will he spend the extra money on more police to enforce the current drinking-age laws? The answer is no. What will the Government spend that money on? What will that money go into? One thing is for sure. I know the Chardonnay socialists, and I know that Chardonnay will not have an extra tax—

I move, That the question be now put.

I am moved to take a call after Paul Adams’ speech. I cannot see Paul Adams now, but he gave a very spirited speech that attemped to justify, in some way, the United Future party’s position in supporting this bill. The only thing he has done is to demonstrate to the Committee that he clearly does not know anything about the bill. He has given us a great speech about fathers’ liquor cabinets. If he sincerely believes that not allowing young people to get alcohol is the way to deal with the problems of teenage drinking that the United Future member Judy Turner spoke so strongly about and used as the reason that this bill had to be passed, then maybe he is telling the Committee that he wants to see a tax on fathers’ liquor cabinets, or something. I do not know whether he is saying that. Maybe fathers should just lock their liquor cabinets.

Paul Adams gave us a great lecture about how the real way to solve the problem of teenage drinking is to educate young people. I have only one question for him. If that is what he believes—that the way to address the teenage drinking problem is to educate teenagers—why is he voting for this bill? In his own words, this bill will not do that. This bill is not about education. The title is not “The Teenage Education to Correct Their Drinking Habits Bill”. That is not the title. The title should be the “Tax Grab on Behalf of Labour (Sponsored by Jim Anderton) Bill”. That should be the title.

Paul Adams loves to play the heartstrings. I am sick of hearing those socialist MPs playing the heartstrings on the subject of drinking. That will bite some of them right on the backside, because it comes across as terribly insincere. Why is it insincere? It is because the very drinks that they refer to in their speeches—and boy, I will copy those Hansards off and mail them out—as being a problem for teenage drinking, and the very drinks mentioned at the beginning of the explanatory note of the bill, are the ready-to-drink mixes that are not covered by the bill, at all. It is a lie, it is deceptive, it is misleading, it is incorrect, it is wrong, and it is inappropriate to tell the public—and to come into this Chamber, I say to Mr Adams—that one is voting for this bill because it will stop teenagers from drinking the ready-to-drink mixes. This legislation will not do that. Therefore, if it will not do that, why are the Government members—and the United Future members, in particular—voting for this bill?

In his speech, Mr Adams has given us every reason to expect that he will vote against the bill.But, no, the real truth is that the poodle has rolled over, sat up, and begged, and is now playing dead to the tune of Mr Anderton, who clearly does not understand that the drinks he is worried about are not covered by the bill, and to the tune of other people in the Labour Party who do not have the foggiest clue about what they are doing.

If we accept all that—and we do—then we must ask ourselves what the aim of this bill is. We can come to only one conclusion: it is about revenue gathering. It is not about hitting the Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists’ pockets, because the Chardonnay they sip is not covered by this bill. It is not about hitting students at university who really want to lay into a slab of beer over a game of rugby, and then to go out and buy another slab afterwards. A slab of beer, with its 4 percent alcohol, is not covered by this bill. This bill targets people at the top end of the income scale who drink port and Madeira. Here is one of the great ironies: this bill targets officers of the New Zealand Defence Force. Just the other day this Government was patting itself on the back for giving defence personnel a pay rise. The Government now says that $12 million is going out to them but, by the way, all the port that they drink in the officers’ mess will go up a whack. The Government will scrape back $18 million out of the pockets of defence personnel because really, at the end of the day, it thinks they are just a bunch of horrible capitalists who only drink flash drinks that the Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists do not like. In fact, the Government wants their money in order to carry on its beneficiary binge.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Committee will be interested to know that earlier today I was walking down the corridor from the Chamber, to go back up to my office, and I happened to bump into Mark Peck—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: What was he doing in our corridor?

No, he was just walking out of the Chamber. We got talking about the business of the day, and I said: “We’ll be here late tonight.” He said: “Really? Why, what’s going on?”. I said: “Well, there’s going to be a bit of extraordinary urgency.” He said: “What, urgency?”. I said: “No, no, extraordinary urgency.” He said: “Really? What’s that about, then?”. I said: “I don’t know, Mark, but to the best of my knowledge it is to do with some customs or alcohol tax.” He said: “Really? Well, you know more than I do.” I said: “Well, that’s no surprise.”

But the point is—[Interruption] The senior Government whip is chipping away again. The point is that what worried me about that conversation was that it made me wonder how many of the Labour caucus actually knew what was going on. When we look across at the faces on that side of the Chamber, as we go through this debate, we see they are looking slam-dunked. They are looking as though someone has pulled the wool right over their eyes. In fact, I would wager a bet that most members on the Government side of the Chamber had not been informed.

Indeed, any of them who were informed would have been told the same cock and bull story that we were told at the briefing we had earlier today. We heard this nice, namby-pamby story that this legislation will help the youth of this nation, that it will save them from the evils of drink, that it will create an environment where they will be pure, that we will not have to worry any more that they might overindulge at some sort of alcohol-participation party somewhere, because the cost of the alcohol will be so great that they will not be able to afford it any more, and that Jim Anderton will feel better because he is the one who introduced the measure, and misled this country and this Parliament.

If we look at this bill, we see that its purpose clause should state: “This is an example of Labour Government policy.”, because it is typical of Labour members to try to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes, to mislead. It is sneaky, cunning, sly, dirty—

💬 John Key: It’s dumb!

Absolutely; it is just another dopey piece of legislation, but it is also sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. Government members come in here telling us one thing, but, as with all the things they do, there is another purpose. Finally, they get found out. This time they happened to get found out quicker than they thought they would. This time they were found out within about half an hour or an hour. The public will know that they have endeavoured to come to this Chamber and mislead Parliament and the nation.

I say to the Minister in the chair, Mr Anderton, that it is a disgrace. He should be ashamed to be sitting in the chair without taking a call, after he tried to mislead the House with his address. It is an absolute disgrace that he can sit there without taking a call, with a smug smile on his face, and say that it is OK, but he will not respond to decent questions or explain himself. I say to him that, in my time in Parliament, this is one of the worst examples of a Minister who has absolutely gone out of his way to perpetrate something on this nation that should not be happening. The Minister is responsible for that, along with the other members who are supporting him. It is a disgrace, and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves, quite honestly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Do not bring the Chair into the debate, please.

The members on the Labour side should be ashamed, Mr Chairperson, and so too should the other parties that are supporting this bill. I say to the United Future party and to the Green Party—to Rod Donald and Paul Adams, who have spoken or are about to speak on this bill—that maybe they too were misled. Maybe they were. Maybe they were fooled by the disgraceful conduct of this Minister and this Labour Government; if so, they have a chance to change it and stop this from happening. I have to say that this is the worst case that I can think of for some time.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take just a very brief call—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Take your whole time.

Thank you, Mr Prebble. I am concerned that the burgeoning number of listeners will be concerned by what Mr Mark was saying before—that this bill is all about ready-to-drinks. The bill clearly states in the explanatory note—

💬 Ron Mark: I didn’t say it was all about it; I said that’s what they have sold it on.

No, the Government has not sold it on that, because the explanatory note clearly states: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits, fortified wines, and sherries.” It goes on to talk about light spirits.

I suggest that people like Mr Mark have a look at what the Distilled Spirits Association stated in its submission to the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) on this issue. It very clearly defined light spirits, and it did not refer to light spirits as having anything to do with ready-to-drinks. So those members with all the bottles on their benches—and I do not know who did the drinking, but—

💬 John Carter: That’s what the Minister said in his introduction. Hansard recorded it.

Did the Minister say that? I missed the Minister’s speech. Well, I refer all members, both from the Opposition and the Government, to what the Distilled Spirits Association says in its submission to ALAC about light spirits. I referred to some of it in my first reading speech. It very clearly defines light spirits by saying that it is a market-coined term, it is a loose term, and it is not legally defined. It goes on to state that a proper and alternative name would be “general alcoholic beverage or diluted alcoholic preparation”, and that those drinks “should in no way be confused with a traditional distilled spirit”. As I said in my speech, they are, in effect, watered-down ethyl alcohol, or flavoured alcohol, containing small amounts of sweetener.[Interruption] But they are formulated to just below 23 percent. The industry’s definition of light spirits is formulated to just below 23 percent, and “so designed to benefit from the anomalies in the excise system”.

The submission stated: “A crucial difference denoting between spirits and light spirits is New Zealand’s food law requires a spirit to contain a minimum of 37 percent of alcohol. The association underscores the fact that there is no official definition of light spirit, and as a category it should, for policy reasons, not be confused in any way with traditional spirits and liquers.” The association went on to say—and this is the industry—“Anecdotal evidence has been presented that light spirits are primarily consumed and targeted to young people. It appears the market is growing primarily because of some very low retail pricing. An excise shift could help address and achieve the harm minimisation objective.” I think it is quite extraordinary that the industry is actually calling for a change in the excise, yet National, ACT, and New Zealand First are opposing it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I believe that Rod Donald has just shot himself in the foot.

💬 Shane Ardern: In both feet!

Absolutely, both feet, because he has said that he does not know what a light spirit is. If I were Rod Donald and I was reading something from the Distilled Spirits Association, I would have said to it: “Give me an example. Give me one example. What are you talking about? Name one example—one 1.13 ml bottle or whatever it is”—

💬 Rod Donald: Castleton gin.

Castleton gin? Come on, gin is 37 percent alcohol as a rule.

💬 Rod Donald: Not this one; it is 23 percent.

Gin is usually about 37 percent as a rule.

💬 Rod Donald: And so is Saratoga vodka.

Is that what the Distilled Spirits Association said?

💬 Rod Donald: Twenty-three percent.

And that is what it believes needs to be more highly taxed?

💬 Rod Donald: Yes, dead right.

So that is what it calls a light spirit—23 percent?

💬 Rod Donald: That’s right.

Twenty-three percent is right?

💬 Rod Donald: Smell the roses!

All I can say is that I find a light, 23 percent alcohol spirit very, very hard to believe. Are you telling me that young people drink Saratoga gin?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not bring the chairman into the debate.

Do they drink that 23 percent alcohol gin? Do they drink that 23 percent alcohol vodka? What a load of rubbish! Young people drink this type of thing. They do not drink 23 percent gin, and they do not drink 23 percent vodka.

💬 Rod Donald: Come and visit me this weekend. I will show the member my—

Come to my house. I have a 22-year-old, a 26-year-old, and a 28-year-old. They do not drink that type of gin and that type of vodka.

💬 Rod Donald: Yes, they do.

Look in my fridge!

💬 Rod Donald: The empties are there!

Sometimes I just cannot believe what I see on the fridge door when I open up the fridge. It is not the type of thing that Mr Donald has been speaking about just now. He has been caught out badly.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It’s a big world.

I live in Auckland, in the real world, on the North Shore, and, boy, there are some real parties on the North Shore and in Auckland. Mr Donald has been well and truly caught out.

He asked why the Distilled Spirits Association was interested in this legislation. The reason is that its members cannot tax these drinks. They do not make any money on them because, as I understand it, they make the more expensive stuff. They are not involved with these drinks. As Mr Brownlee pointed out, a New Zealand company makes about 90 percent, or a considerable amount, of these drinks. The Distilled Spirits Association does not make a dollar out of them. That is why it complains. I have been to see it. I have been given the story. The Distilled Spirits Association does not make any money out of these drinks, but it does make money out of the higher—

💬 Rod Donald: But it is not complaining about those.

It is. I have been to see the association members and I have spoken to them about it. They do complain about these drinks. They do complain about the ice cream drinks as well. I suggest Mr Donald goes and sees them and gets the blurb. I have been to see them. I have had a discussion with them. Mr Thomas Chin is doing his job. I have met him a couple of times. The Distilled Spirits Association does not get any money out of these drinks, but it does get money out of the big, heavy gins and the heavy spirits. That is why it is called the Distilled Spirits Association. These drinks are not distilled spirits.

💬 Rod Donald: They are not the issue.

They are the issue.

💬 Rod Donald: They are not covered by the bill.

Mr Donald, of course, said that he was not here when the Minister made his opening speech. He should have been here, because if he had been here, he would have heard what the Minister quite clearly was getting at, and what Judy Turner was getting at. They have been duped.

The Labour caucus was lined up. It was told one story. We have proved in this Committee, in a short space of time, that this minority Labour Government duped its caucus, duped United Future, and duped the Greens, and neither the Labour caucus, the Greens, nor United Future is willing to admit its mistake. If they were honourable people, they would admit their mistake and say that they got it wrong and made an absolute mistake. This bill will not take away this type of drink from young New Zealanders. This bill is purporting to do that, but it will not. The speeches that have been made by United Future, by some Labour members, and by the Greens have been proved by members of this Committee to be absolutely wrong.

This bill is a tax grab, as usual—just as the Minister made $18 million out of his customs excise legislation to do with the importing, the new computer, and such like. Funny, but it is $18 million again. Is it a lucky number? This is the second time in less than 6 months that he has made $18 million out of a new tax.

I move, That the question be now put.

That exchange we heard between Dail Jones and Rod Donald demonstrates how ridiculous this whole situation is. The Minister in charge—he is pretending to be in charge—Mr Anderton, sat there and let that ridiculous exchange go on. And I do not mean to be disrespectful of my colleague Dail Jones.

This bill states that it aims to protect or make an impact on young people drinking. The Minister, in his opening speech when he introduced the bill, tried to pull the wool over the eyes of all of us here and pretend that that was the case. Now we find, thanks to the good research of colleagues of ours in the Committee, who have all those bottles lined up over there, that the drinks that a lot of young people love are not even covered by this legislation. I think it is a confusing situation. The Minister should get to his feet and explain what he means when he says that the bill is aimed at harm minimisation, and at having an impact on the binge drinking that goes on. We find that a lot of the drinks that young people love are not covered.

I ask the Minister, given that we were not all in the House to hear his opening speech, to stand up and reconcile what is an obvious anomaly, given that the bill says one thing yet does something else. The Minister should not look like that; he should stand up and tell us why the bottles of drinks lined up over there are not covered by this legislation. Have the members on the Government side ever gone out on a Friday night? Have they ever gone out on New Year’s Eve and seen what the young people drink? Actually, when they are getting really sloshed they drink anything, but to start with a lot of them are drinking the drinks that are lined up on this side of the Committee. Mr Mark and Mr Nick Smith, I think, went out and got those bottles.

I ask the Minister to stand up and tell us why those drinks are not included in this legislation. If he does not do that, then that shows the utter disdain that this Government and this Minister have for the public of New Zealand. The way that they have brought in this legislation tonight and kept us here all night also shows disdain. They are entirely cynical about what they do and say.

I would like Paul Adams to tell us whether he has actually seen what young people drink, and whether he understands the issues around young people and drink. He said that we cannot legislate behaviour; so why does he support this bill? According to the Minister, this bill is aimed at doing just that, or so he says. Paul Adams said that we cannot influence behaviour. Who knows why that party supports the bill, other than the fact that it is a poodle party? That is what it amounts to. All that that party’s members do is stand up and support bills, and they cannot even understand why they are doing it.

The Minister continues to sit there and show disdain for this Committee and for the public of New Zealand, and will not reconcile the things he says with some of the information that has come out during the debate. Is it any wonder that members of the public are getting terribly cynical about this Government and its supporters, the Greens and United Future? There will come a time, and it is coming quite soon, when people are not able to believe anything the Government says.

Just briefly, I want to turn to the issue of young Māori drinkers. I was pretty proud of most of the Māori members of the House on the night that the legislation lowering the drinking age was passed into law. I think that nearly 90 percent of all Māori members in this House voted against the lowering of the drinking age. Why did we do that? Because we are very much aware of the harm that drinking does in young Māori communities. I want the Minister to take a call and tell this Committee how this legislation will impact on, and minimise drinking in, Māori communities.

I move, That the question be now put.