Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It concerns an issue that was raised with Madam Chairperson during the debate on Part 1. This bill has not been to a select committee and therefore we sought guidance that the debate would be wide ranging—which is a custom in the Committee stage, and I appreciate that you have followed that custom—and also long enough to allow for the fact that the bill has not been to a select committee. It has become a practice that bills that have been to a select committee are debated for about an hour in the Committee stage. That is the rough rule of thumb; give or take 5 or 10 minutes. Part 1 was debated for 1 hour and 5 minutes. I know, because I wrote it down. I asked your predecessor, on two or three occasions before we got to Part 1, whether the range and length of debate would reflect the fact that the bill had not been to a select committee.

My concern is that the practice of about 1 hour and 5 minutes, or 1 hour and 10 minutes, which applies to a bill that has been to a select committee, will become acceptable for the remainder of this debate. It has always been the precedent that when a Government puts a bill through the House, without sending it to a select committee, the Chair allows a wide-ranging and slightly longer debate. Given that so many people are seeking the call, I want your guidance as to whether you will stand by that ruling, rather than the traditional 1-hour debate for a bill that has gone to a select committee.

I think the Chair should note that now, under the Standing Orders, all bills go to a select committee, and therefore, when a Government takes urgency, I think we should have longer to debate a bill. I also think you should note the way in which the bill is being proceeded with. We have an interesting situation here. No Minister contributed to the debate on Part 1. Questions were asked of the Minister in the chair, and quite an interesting dialogue occurred across the floor as to what liquors were or were not covered, but the Minister just sat there. There was no response from Government members. It seems to me that is something you should note, because it is the job of the Chair to protect the rights of the minority. I am not criticising you, but I do not think the Chair should accept a closure motion when there are questions from the Opposition, but the Government chooses not to answer.

If you were to give an indication of that sort about the closure, then we would actually have a parliamentary debate. The Ministers would realise they are accountable to this Committee and that they had better start to answer questions, and that if they treat the Committee with contempt, the Chair will protect the rights of members by allowing the debate to continue. There is parliamentary precedent for this. In question time if a Minister trifles with the House, the Speaker allows extra questions.

In my view, the Minister in the chair has been trifling with the Committee. He made some statements in the first reading and second reading debates, but in the Committee stage it has become apparent they were incorrect. He has now chosen to remain silent in the Committee stage—and do his correspondence. I suggest to you that it would be quite a good way of protecting the rights of back-benchers, which you are sworn to do, if you indicated to the Government that you will not take the closure on Part 2 unless Ministers are prepared to participate and answer questions.

This is just a very brief observation, if I may, on the matters raised by Mr Sowry, by way of correction. In the case of the title debate, which lasted exactly 1 hour, there were 12 calls. The debate on Part 1, which has just been completed, ran for 19 calls and took 1 hour and 11 minutes, so the matter that Mr Sowry raised was not in fact accurate.

I thank Mr Benson-Pope for those times, because I did not have the exact time. He is saying that one debate ran for an hour—that is the standard time that this House in Committee has come to expect. It is a standard set by the presiding officers for a bill that has gone to a select committee. In the past, where a bill has not gone to a select committee, presiding officers have allowed two things: a wider debate and a longer debate. I want to say to you and to your predecessor in the Chair, that you have done the first thing extraordinarily well. We have not been wound up with lots of little points of order, because you have allowed it to be a wide debate, and I presume that is because there has been no select committee.

The same has not happened in terms of the length. One hour is exactly what we would expect, and 1 hour and 11 minutes hardly takes into account that the bill did not go to a select committee. I sought the assurance before we started debating Part 1. I did not take a point of order before you did the vote on the part. I thought that this time, before we started Part 2, I would seek another assurance that that would be taken into account.

Can I thank both members, the Hon Richard Prebble and the Hon Roger Sowry, who are long-serving members in the House. I understand what they are saying. I just have to remind members that the Chairperson is the sole judge of when the closure should be accepted. I have been listening, and am listening, very carefully to the debate, and I will certainly take members’ views on the debate into consideration as Part 2 progresses. I might also add that, as Chairperson, I am not responsible for whether members or Ministers take a call. That is up to them to do so. Again, I thank those members for their contribution to the point of order.

Part 2 is the meat of this bill. This is really the major part of the legislation, and if this bill was before a select committee, this is the part that we would be spending all our time on. I hope we do get sufficient time to cover what is a very, very significant part of the bill.

Part 2 lists all the different categories and item numbers that will have excise duty and tariff changes. This is the part of the bill that one reads to find out exactly what tariff change is taking place on what particular items. This is the part that spells out exactly what is happening to all the alcopops and ready-to-drinks. It spells out very clearly what is happening to items 2208.90.56, 2208.90.60, and 2208.90.67, which, in English—because all we have in this bill is a list of numbers—are the ready-to-drink mixes that were described to me earlier on by the owner of a liquor store as “kids’ drinks”. It shows that those drinks are being adjusted, in terms of their excise duty, by the rate of inflation, doing nothing to put up excise on those drinks at all. In this part, the bill puts up excise on a whole range of other drinks such as sherries and ports.

So we are in a situation where the Government is now saying to young people who want to go out and drink that if they want to drink spirits they should not buy them and mix them, but they should buy them pre-mixed. The Government is telling young people that if they buy spirits and mix them, it will tax them a lot more, so they should buy them pre-mixed. How logical is that? That does not send the message to young people. That does not send the message that the Minister, Mr Anderton, told us about in the opening stages of debate—that this is about stopping young people from drinking. Judy Turner from United Future gave a very impassioned speech explaining that she is supporting this bill because it sends a message to young people about drinking. It does not do that. Those drinks are not adjusted.

💬 Judy Turner: That’s right.

Mrs Turner is happy with that. So why does she want the tax put up on a bottle of vodka when it is not mixed with orange juice, but left low when it is mixed with orange juice? I ask Mrs Turner what the difference is. She does not know the difference. She will go home from here and her children will ask why she was up all night, and she will say that she was debating a bill to make sure that port and sherry went up in price, because we do not want young people to drink them.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: And their Madeira.

And their Madeira. Young people do not want to drink port and sherry. They want to drink vodka and rum, and now they know that if they buy a 750 ml or 1125 ml bottle of vodka and rum, Mrs Turner has voted to put the tax up on that hugely. But if they buy the rum mixed with the Coke, or the vodka mixed with the orange juice, that is OK—there will be no increase in tax under this part, other than a rise in price, in keeping with inflation. That is all.

I would like to speak as simply as I can, so that we can get this issue clearly spelt out. The best way I can think of doing that is anecdotal. Let us invent a person called Jimmy, who is 13 years old and in the third form. Tonight he is going around to his friend’s place with $10 in his pocket. The $10 may be his pocket money, his paper run money, what mum and dad gave him for fish and chips tonight, or he might have nicked it out of a wallet somewhere—but he has $10. The problem facing him is that when he gets to his mate’s, there is a seventh-form older brother there, who is 18 and can buy them the booze they want, using Jimmy’s $10. The issue is what will that $10 buy him? He wants value for money. Apparently he can get one, if not two, of the drinks that are sitting on Mr Ron Mark’s table. The combined alcoholic content of those will be what, Mr Mark? Five apiece? OK.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Which combined is what?

Ten percent? [Interruption] I will tell Mr Sowry what the boy can actually buy instead of those drinks, and he will have change out of his $10. Instead of buying those two drinks, he can get the older brother to purchase a 23 percent proof spirit that has been targeted at, and marketed to, teenagers. In fact, he can get 750 mls of it, which is about 22 shots, or 11 standard drinks.

💬 John Carter: That’s 100 percent!

No, 23 percent.

💬 John Carter: So if he had two bottles, it would be 46 percent!

He can afford one bottle of that, and he will have some change left over. The issue for a 13-year-old boy is that he wants value for his money. He wants to get the “coolest” drink that will give him the status he is looking for, and that drink will do it for him. It is targeted at him, and it is 23 percent proof. He can get it and in some places have change from his $10. He will struggle to afford two of Mr Mark’s drinks, but he will be able to get—

💬 Ron Mark: So there is now no problem with these drinks for teenagers?

We have a problem with under-age drinkers, full stop, but what we are trying to achieve here is harm minimisation. If they are going to illegally have access to alcohol, then our concern is that their pocket money goes a lot further with the 23 percent proof spirits that are at present bottled and marketed to teenagers. It has nothing to do with the bottles sitting there on the member’s desk. He has the wrong product.

💬 Ron Mark: Do you support alcohol?

United Future does not support under-age drinking. What we are concerned about is that where under-age drinking is happening, the pocket money of teenagers can supply them with drinks that have an extremely high level of alcohol and are dangerous for them to be experimenting with. That is why this legislation covers those special products that fall between 14 percent and 23 percent. We are not talking about sherry or port; we are talking about the products that fall within that range and can be picked up for $8 to $10 right now.

💬 Ron Mark: Where?

At liquor outlets.

💬 Ron Mark: And they can buy a 750 ml bottle for $10?

Yes, because it is below the 24 percent banding mark, and therefore does not, at this stage, incur the taxation that would put it out of the reach of the teenager with pocket money who is looking to illegally buy alcohol.

The first point I would make to the member is that it would have been helpful if she had produced that bottle, its receipt, and the like, and we could have seen how many bottles are actually being sold. I suspect it is one of those—

💬 Rod Donald: It is 1.2 million, according to your friends, the distillers.

Is it 1.2 million 750 ml bottles? If that figure turns out to be wrong, will the member resign? He is not prepared to put his word on it. I would like to hear that from the Minister, but I want to make this point: all she is demonstrating is that the industry, just like the young people, will move to whatever level. So we can absolutely guarantee that a new bottle of gin will come out, and it will be 13.9 percent proof. It will be on the market, and all people have to do is drink two of them to get the same effect. It will probably look exactly like—

💬 Rod Donald: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member challenged me, and therefore I seek leave to table an article from the Sunday Star-Times about below-strength spirits being targeted in a crackdown. Mr Thomas Chin from the Distilled Spirits Association estimated that more than 1.2 million bottles of light spirits are sold a year.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member has sought leave to table that article.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: The member cannot do that in the middle of a speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No—at the end of a speech.

That was completely out of order. The member can take a call, and I would actually be very interested if he did. He could then take it slower, and I would be quite happy to take long enough to hear him. But the point I wanted to make to the member who spoke before me is that if she thinks she is making any difference to the youth market, she is not.

I hope the Minister is taking some interest in the bill, because there are some aspects of it that, quite frankly, I do not understand, and so I want to ask him a couple of technical questions. If the Minister reads the explanatory note, he will see that it states that the reason for the bill is “the potential for teenagers to move to other low priced, higher alcohol products, and is consistent with the aim of minimisation of harm caused through the consumption of alcohol.” If we then look at what the explanatory note has to say about Part 2, we see that it states: “Clause 4 amends the Third Schedule of the principal Act to align the duty payable on beverages between 14% and 23% alcohol…”. When we look at the schedule, we find that the first “beverage” mentioned is ice cream. I want to know from the Minister—or perhaps from Judy Turner, or the Greens—where the evidence is that teenagers are being damaged by ice cream.

But I go further than that. I went back to the Act we are amending, and I cannot see that ice cream was actually in the schedule of the 1996 legislation. I might have missed it, and that is why I am asking the Minister a question. What I would like to know from Government members is whether they have added ice cream into the bill. If they have, then, clearly, it must be causing some serious problem. I have seen Bailey’s ice cream at the supermarket, and I have had it, but is there really any evidence that it is harming young people? How much Bailey’s ice cream would people have to eat before they were affected? [Interruption] The member seems to know the answer. I would like to see him take a call, because I see that ice cream is the first item in the schedule: “Ice cream and other edible ice…”.

We are going to change the tax on ice cream, and, indeed, I see that it appears a number of times in the schedules. The Government must think it is a serious problem. It is 2 o’clock in the morning, so how serious a problem is Bailey’s ice cream, or is it like the rest of the stuff we have heard about—really just an excuse to raise another $18 million? This is a serious question to the Minister: is ice cream a new item, or was it in the 1996 Act? Has there been a problem with alcoholic ice creams; if so, where is the evidence? The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech that more young people have been admitted to hospital. Were they there with ice cream dribbling from their lips?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Intoxicated on ice cream!

Yes, intoxicated on ice cream. It reminds me of that Salvation Army song: “Crumbs on Their Chins”. Is this a serious problem? Are we making a change, or was this item in the earlier Act? Since Judy Turner says she is an expert on young people, is she concerned about young people eating ice cream with alcoholic content? She tells us she has had a lot of experience and has seen examples, so do young teenagers have ice cream alcohol parties? Is this the sort of thing we are dealing with? If they do not, surely the Minister should take some responsibility for the explanatory note. When the Government is putting a bill through under extraordinary urgency, I think it has a greater obligation to give us an explanatory note that we can rely on. This explanatory note, as members have pointed out, is confusing, misleading, and a disgrace.

I think the member was referring in his ice cream analogy to the possibility of a young person at a 21st having to do a yard glass of ice cream, as opposed to a yard glass of beer, or the like.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I remember doing a yard glass of beer. It was disgusting.

That is right. Imagine it with ice cream! Although Part 2 just looks like a series of random numbers, contained in clauses 4 and 5, they are important random numbers.

While I am on my feet, I have to refer to my colleague Judy Turner’s description of how this bill would apply to the ordinary situation of a young person wanting access to alcohol. The kindest way I can put it is that in the context of the way this bill is drawn up, it was just simply wrong. The bill itself has a general policy statement on the front cover that is wrong. It 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.” That is a pretty fair statement in its own right, but the bill that follows it does nothing to address that concern. The honourable Dr Nick Smith, Ron Mark, and others in this Chamber, have made the point over and over again that young people drink the types of drinks that are sitting on Mr Mark’s lectern. Those drinks generally have alcohol levels between about 5 and 7 percent, and are not the subject of excise and customs duty increases under this bill. This bill does not address the products that young people go anywhere near. Members are voting for this bill as a quasi-extension of social policy to deal with young people drinking to excess, when all it represents is simply a mechanism to collect revenue. That is all it is.

💬 Rod Donald: You wouldn’t know.

I say to Mr Donald that this is not a document designed to shape social policy. It is not going to happen. These drinks are the drinks that teenage girls are drinking. They are not drinking the drinks that are covered in this bill. They are not drinking port and sherry. They are drinking premixed, ready-to-drink, cheap-to-get, easy-to-access alcohol—like the bottles on Mr Mark’s desk.

What worries me is that members have come to this Chamber to vote on this bill, but have they have not thought through the implications of what the bill does. The more disturbing fact—and we have heard from members of the Government and from Mrs Turner of United Future—is that they clearly have not read the bill and worked out exactly what it does to the prices of different types of alcohol. What is clear is that this is not a document that will in any way change the social fabric of New Zealand and the drinking habits of its young people. It is not designed to do that—this bill is designed to collect revenue, and that is all it is designed for. It is that simple. Let us not dress it up and make out that it is some great social instrument to solve the problem of teenage binge drinking. All this document does is put $18 million in the hands of the Government.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Stealth tax!

It is even worse than a stealth tax, in the sense that it is being dressed up as something sincere and decent, when it does not even reach the market that those members opposite claim it reaches. That is probably the greatest scandal of all. If the Government wants to grab tax off the taxpayers of New Zealand, Government members should say so. They should just say that this is good old-fashioned socialism at its best, and they want taxes to go up. They want to take money out of the pockets of ordinary working people and redistribute it.

I thought I would rise to reply to Mr Prebble’s point. I say to members that I have checked carefully any substantial point that they thought they were making for factual support, using the evidence of the officials and my own understanding of the bill. I have to say that none of the suggestions made have had any validity.

To answer Mr Prebble’s comment first: ice cream was added to the Customs and Excise Act in September 2001 because of concerns about food and beverages coming into New Zealand with an alcohol content and not bearing proper excise duties. That is why ice cream is in the bill. Because of the level of alcohol content in this case, it is not caught by the provision for 14 to 23 percent alcohol, but it is subject to the increase in cost of living index prices, which will be added on—as they are annually. That covers the point someone raised of why the two dates are different—one is for the imposition of this extra tax. If the House passes that tax, it is immediate on the bill receiving the royal assent. Of course, the industry expects consumer price indexes to go in June, and that is the date on which they will take place.

I want to raise one or two other things just as examples to assure the House that I have been keeping a close watch on its concerns. I refer to the question of alcohol excise duty being payable, the timing, what happens if orders are received, and so on. Excise duty is payable when the goods are removed from a customs-controlled area, or are imported. Stock that is already in the stores has already been taken out of the bond stores and would not be subject to that tax until the new product is taken out.

Just by way of illustration, the point was made a while back that there was something missing in terms of 9 percent but not more than 14 percent volume alcohol suddenly going to 20 percent. I know that, but I am just giving examples. Members want a few examples, and I have kept track of it. Those are all in schedule 1; these are schedule 2. That is fair enough, but if I were trying to answer all of these questions, it would take all my time. If there had been something that had any substance to it, I would have raised it with the Committee, but every time I checked, or knew the answers to it myself, nothing that has been raised so far has had any substance.

It is interesting, because we might now be seeing a slight clearing of the waters. Let us go back over some of the things that have been said. I now know for sure that despite all the hue and cry about the effects of alcopops on the teenage drinking problem, United Future no longer believes that alcopops are a problem with regard to teenage drinking. At least we now have that clear. I understand from the comments made by Rod Donald and Judy Turner that their main concerns lie with the sale of hard liquor that has only 23 percent alcohol, as opposed to the mainstream stuff that a lot of people buy.

We have all seen the children on the streets who have bought a 1-litre or a 2-litre bottle of Coke. They tip half of it into the gutter, get a bottle of spirits, whack it straight into the Coke, shake it up, and then walk around the streets, handing it out amongst themselves. Yes, we know that happens, but if I remember correctly, what we have been told here by countless Government speakers is that this bill has been brought in only to tidy up the teenage drinking problem. If that were the case, then as much as the member from the Green Party wants the Government to target light alcohol, as he has described it, surely, given everything its members have also said, this bill—if that were its true aim—would be targeting alcopops. Not to be targeting alcopops tells me that the bill is not about correcting teenage drinking habits.

We have had the Minister say that young people are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits accordingly. I know that on countless occasions outside this Chamber the member has talked about the plague that exists with alcopops, so if I were to accept this statement that teenagers’ drinking habits can be adjusted by this bill because they are price-sensitive to the excise duty, then my simple question is: why has he not included alcopops? The answer can only be because this bill is not about redressing teenage drinking habits; this bill is about revenue collecting in an area of the market where he knows there is a loophole and he wants to snare it up. The argument that this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people does not stack up, because despite all the concern about the 750-millilitre bottles of vodka they can buy cheaply, the Government has totally missed that huge hunk of the market that everybody talks about. The Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council talks about it, doctors talk about it, and if we walk down the street and look at the young kids staggering around, it is that bottle they are holding in their hands so often. It is that bottle that gets thrown down the street at the drunken riots that involve boy racers throwing bottles at police cars. It is this bottle as well, and a lot of these bottles that I have here, so to tell me that this bill is all about correcting the drinking habits of young people but to leave that part of the market out, is to tell me that, actually, it is not. This bill is about revenue collecting to get $18 million.

Ice cream is another thing. If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people, why are we including ice cream? If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people because they are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits, why does the bill list mead? How many children drink mead? Where does one buy mead? Well, there is a great place in Rangiora, is there not, Mr Cosgrove? Mead is brewed in the Waimakariri, and a fine drop it is, but I do not see queues of boy racers, hoons, and young people outside that country residence, and backed up down the road, queuing to buy mead.

This bill is not about what it has been touted as being about—an indirect method of adjusting teenagers’ drinking habits because teenagers are sensitive to price increases—it is about revenue collecting. For once, I would just love to hear the Government say what it means. It should be up-front and say: “We need another $18 million, and we have found a loophole by which we can target it, and, by the way, the people who are buying the stuff can afford to pay it.”

It was pleasing to see the Minister eventually take a call, but I was disappointed that he did not address the substantial question that has been consistently raised during this Committee time. Ron Mark, in particular, once again asked the Minister to explain why the drinks most popular with teenagers are not covered by this bill.

While we are debating Part 2, I also want to point out right now that it consists of a lot of numbers—I hope they are not random numbers—which are the numbers of scheduled items that have been withdrawn and replaced by new ones. I want the Minister to take another call to explain to the Committee why this bill is not going through a select committee, and what procedure has been taken to ensure that all of those itemised numbers have been absolutely audited, so that if we have gone through a session of extraordinary urgency, we will not return to the House tomorrow morning to find that some of them are not correct.

The other interesting thing—[Interruption] Why does Ms Jill Pettis not take a call? She is always blathering on. I wonder why Labour and coalition members will not take a call, but continue to interject while members in the Chamber try to pose questions. Why does the Minister who lives a blemish-free life—Steve Maharey—not take a call and explain to us whether the Minister in charge of social welfare will get a share of the $18 million to target the youth issue? Does he get a share, or will he hand out all of that $18 million to the Ministry of Economic Development? What sort of Minister of social welfare is he?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member who is on her feet, but I was trying to follow the debate. I think some very interesting points are being made, and we have a barrage of inane interjections from the Government benches. Its members are not prepared to get up and take a speech themselves, but there is a meaningless barrage against the member who has the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I was just about to ask members on that side of the Chamber to cease their interjections. The interjections they are making should be rare and reasonable.

Those interjections were not even interesting, but we are slightly reassured. At least we know that some members on the Labour benches are fully awake, which is not a bad thing.

I want to go back to Part 1, because I want the Minister to take a call to explain why the purpose clause of the bill—clause 3(a) and (b)—does not mention solving the problem of teenage drinking in the content of the general policy statements. I find it very interesting that while targeting teenage drinking is said to be the sole concern of this bill, that particular purpose is not contained in the bill itself. It seems to me that that is very clear evidence that this bill is just a grab for revenue—$18 million—when this Minister of Finance promised that there would be no additional tax. We can entirely prove that by the fact that the purpose clause of this bill has nothing to do with the concern about teenage drinking.

I always wonder why the Labour, United Future, and Green parties—so proud of their socialist principles—do not simply state in the bill that this is a redistribution of wealth. It is a socialist principle to simply tax for $18 million, and levying beverages with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content is a mechanism to achieve that. Instead, they have to put up a pretence of concern for young people and how to direct young people not to drink, etc. What a Mother’s Day gift this Labour Government is delivering! If young people want to purchase a bottle of sherry or Bailey’s to say “thank you” to their mothers, they now, in effect, have to save a bit more money. We shall remember this bill as Labour’s gift to Mother’s Day to penalise teenagers.

In speaking to these numbered schedules in Part 2, I think it would be good to comment on a few things that have come from some of the previous speeches. I am a bit disappointed that Ron Mark, having made his speech, has now disappeared from the Chamber, because he asked some provocative questions—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Those comments are completely out of order. Mr Copeland is a new, new member, but it is out of order to refer to the absence of someone, and, in that particular case, it is extremely unfair because Mr Ron Mark has been participating all the way through the debate. I can now see he is in the lobby, so, by raising the point of order, I have done the member a favour, but I think he should apologise to Mr Mark for that remark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you very much for raising that. I was responsible for that point of order because I should have raised the matter myself. The member is not to make that reference again, please.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is getting ridiculous. You have properly called my colleague to order for referring to the absence of a member. We have had an interjection from two members over there referring to the fact that he has not been in the Chamber all evening. Equally, they should be called to order for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you. That applies right around the Chamber. I do not want to hear any more references to members not being in the Chamber, or any inference along those lines.

I was just referring to the question raised by Ron Mark as to whether the alcohol represented by the drinks—his bottles and labels are in the Chamber, and some are on the desk of members of the National Party and the New Zealand First Party—is referred to in the bill and whether the bill refers to the alcohol in those drinks. The answer is yes, it does. The bill does cover the alcohol in those drinks. It adjusts for the consumer price index the content of those drinks, and just to answer the question, yes it is referred to.

I also refer to some comments made by Simon Power when he asked the question several times whether teenagers drink—again, the drinks are represented by those bottles, by what he calls those pop alcohol labels. The answer to that is yes, teenagers do drink those kinds of drinks. Teenagers in this country also drink beer. The excise duty on most types of beer is also being adjusted tonight by the consumer price index. However, the important thing is that this bill is primarily aimed at the alcohol content—and I stress the alcohol content—in the band of 14 to 23 percent.

The rest is pretty straightforward. At the moment, one can buy a bottle of that size with 23 percent alcohol for less than 10 bucks. From the date this bill is passed, the price of that alcohol will go up quite significantly. Because it is price sensitive, people will therefore buy less of it. There is a very simple adage here: if something is discouraged, there will be less of it, and that is exactly what will happen. The consumption of that kind of alcohol will diminish.

Will it be replaced by the pop alcohol? Probably so, but the difference, of course, is that if there is 5 percent alcohol in that, one would have to drink four and three-fifths bottles to gain the equivalent of one bottle at 23 percent. If there is 3 percent alcohol, the fraction will be seven bottles and two-sevenths. Therefore, the amount of alcohol consumed will decrease.

Members should not forget that this bill is about alcohol content. It is about intoxication and about how much alcohol it takes a person to drink to become intoxicated. Believe me, at the 23 percent level, a person will get drunk a lot faster than with a bottle with only 5 percent of alcohol in it, as I have just pointed out. I think that covers the main points.

I make one further observation, and that is that there may be some people—insomniacs probably—listening to the radio tonight who may be a bit disappointed that the price of their Baileys or sherry will go up. That is true, it will, because of the adjustment of that 14 to 23 percent band. But if those people are a bit brassed off about that, they should know they can lay the blame squarely and solely at the feet of the liquor industry. The liquor industry has quite cynically set out to market alcohol in the range of 14 to 23 percent to the teenagers of this country, and that is not good enough. That is a wrong, cynical, and greedy action to take. That is where the blame lies.

I commend this Government, and I wholeheartedly support the action that is being taken here tonight to try to turn off the tap a bit to reduce the level of drunkenness—not the quantity of the drinks, but the drunkenness that results from alcohol for teenagers in this country. I continue to be amazed at that drunkenness, and I know for certain that the great majority of parents in this country are good parents and that they will overwhelmingly be with us—United Future, the Labour Party, and the Greens—on this bill, and that the minority of bad parents who do not seem to mind that they give their kids drinks containing alcohol will be disappointed.

I listened with some incredulity to the comments from not just Mr Copeland, but other members who have spoken in this debate—and I must say from the United Party—who just do not seem to understand what this bill is all about. We have debated this issue for quite some time and we are still in this Chamber arguing the toss about whether it is a “KGB”, or whether it is a bottle with something else that has 23 percent, 10 percent, or 5 percent. The real issue is about kids getting fractured and getting drunk during parties. That is the issue. I tell Mr Copeland that some outlets are selling about 30 pallets a week of that product. He should not shake his head. I have been talking to a member of that industry who has been in the business for 30-odd years and he tells me that that is exactly what is happening. It is those that are the problem—not the inference that that member is trying to make about a product that he cannot even produce.

This bill is about tax gathering, because one would not include fortified wines and sherries otherwise. The people who drink fortified wines and sherries are elder constituents of members. They are older people. They are the superannuitants who will go along to buy their litre of sherry, only to find that tomorrow morning, the next day, or the day after, it has gone from $15 to $30. I ask Steve Chadwick why the Government wants to whack the superannuitants. Why does the Minister in the chair—what was his name, that old chap who has been in the chair for so many years: Jim Anderton—want to hit superannuitants?

I make this point also: is it not Jim Anderton who is the Minister for Industry and Regional Development? He has effectively killed the sherry industry in this country. Nobody will pay the sort of tax level that he has imposed. People will just switch away from that, on to something else. The industry and regional development ministry has just killed the sherry industry in this country over the last few hours.

💬 Ron Mark: It’s the teenagers’ fault.

Gracious me! It is quite extraordinary that we are here at almost a quarter to three in the morning discussing a bill of this nature, and we are totally missing the target. That has been said so many times before during the course of this debate, but the Minister seems unable to grasp the point. He would not hit a barn door with a shotgun, for goodness’ sake! The bill states that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers—not superannuitants—and young people. They are the target audience that the Minister is trying to have a crack at. OK, target the very things that are the problem, such as the alcopops—not sherries or the fortified wines.

Some wines in this country are regarded as “overcooked”. That is the expression. They are too hot. There is too much alcohol content, but actually they are very, very nice wines. Can the Minister tell me why a wine that is bottled at 13.9 percent alcohol, or thereabouts, can escape the increased duty, whereas wine at 14 percent and above gets clobbered? What is the reason, when the difference is only a fraction of a percentage point, or two? What is it in real terms?

The Minister sits there, but cannot answer. I have been to two members of the Labour Party tonight and told them the Government has totally missed its target. They agreed that it had, but said: “We’re going to get some, anyway.” This is an appalling state of affairs. It brings Parliament into disrepute. It is seen as a laughing stock by the public. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars; burning electricity—

It is with great delight and enthusiasm that I stand to speak to the debate on the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. I would like to answer a question that was put to the Minister by Mr Gerrard Eckhoff when he was asking about the differences in alcohol, but I say: “Alcohol is alcohol, is alcohol.” That is one of the things overlooked by Mr Copeland. So it does not matter what percentage it is; alcohol is alcohol. I lasted for about 6 weeks in sixth-form chemistry and I remember the chemical structure of alcohol, which we studied with great interest. It does not matter what the level of alcohol is; in a drink it makes no difference. It has been a real education listening to the debate tonight; and in looking at the vast array of alcohol bottles behind me, I realise how far the entire industry has moved on since that great decade—the 1980s.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why won’t he answer the questions?

I do not know why he has not answered. He may be asleep. I would like to go back to the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If the member is referring to the Minister, please refer to him as the Minister or Jim Anderton.

The Minister is awake. I see how far the industry has moved on, because in the 1980s it was a huge innovation when Miami Wine Cooler was introduced. I recall the same sort of debate. It was argued that the alcohol industry was targeting my age group, which was supposedly mindless, and unable to make our own decisions. Of course it was not the point of the—[Interruption] Would Mr Peters like to take the call? Miami Wine Cooler was one of the great innovations of the 1980s—the time when there was “big hair”. Jeepers! Mr Prebble was even in Cabinet during that magnificent decade! In terms of how the industry had moved on, yes, it was a decade of great innovation.

I want to get back to some of the contributions made by United Future. I want to discuss Jimmy. Does everybody remember the boy with his $10 pocket money, which was not much, and he was going out for a night on the town? I must say, though, that Jimmy had obviously learnt something, because he was going out to look for value for money, which I thought was quite an innovative attribute for someone so young.

But I have to say that things have not changed much, if one looks down through the generations. The complaints of adults—in particular, middle-class adults—have not changed much. This bill is one of those prime examples of middle-class do-gooding. It will not make one iota of difference to the kids out there. They will still go out and try various things. Hopefully, they will make good decisions, but in terms of what this bill will do, it has been dressed up, presented, as something that will make a huge difference to the youth. I concur with some of my colleagues: I have not yet met a teenager who consumes sherry. I admit I often sit down with my nana at the end of the day and have a sherry, and she will be very upset next time she goes to replenish her alcohol cabinet, because sherry has skyrocketed in price, according to some members of the House.

In terms of education, I have learnt about a number of other alcoholic beverages. The Hon Roger Sowry made an inspired speech about Madeira. Who knew about Madeira before Roger Sowry so enthusiastically publicised it, up and down the country? I suspect that tomorrow there will be a rush on Madeira, as people flock to the shops to try this new alcoholic drink promoted by Mr Sowry.

It has also been a bit of an eye-opener looking at some of the other alcoholic beverages—some of these bottles behind me are all empty, unfortunately, having obviously been tipped out by good members of Parliament, who would not bring that sort of thing into the Chamber. I can see now why there has been such an excited debate, when people look at the vast array of opportunity out there. In terms of what this bill is designed to do, it is nothing more than a tax grab.

This legislation does not “trifle” with sherry. It is legislation that is “fortified” with common sense, and no amount of “whining” from the Opposition will provide any “proof” to the contrary. I submit that in terms of this legislation, those late-night listeners, be they “Ethyl” or “Methyl”, will not be able to bear much more of this debate. So I suggest that we “nip” this debate in the bud, and in the “spirit” of cooperation pass this legislation unanimously.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not take this point of order during the member’s speech, because I did not want to interrupt him. I am sure your hearing is as good as mine, and words were uttered by one of the members opposite, and I request that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.

It is well recognised that the point of order must be taken immediately, and clearly it was not taken immediately on that occasion, although I appreciate why it was not. But no doubt the point has been made, and although the point of order cannot stand, I think the point itself is probably noted.

What is the situation now—because I chose not to raise the point of order during the member’s speech? Does that mean that raising a point of order now has no validity?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, it was in close proximity to the words that the member is objecting to, but offence has not been taken by the person it was directed at, although those words are not really acceptable in the Chamber. But it is 2.48 a.m., so I just take note of it.

I listened closely to the speech made by Gordon Copeland, and although he was genuine and believed in what he was saying, I say to him and to Peter Dunne, if they really believe there is a bottle of something between 14 and 23 percent alcohol that one can buy for $10 or less, please produce it. What is that bottle of which they speak? Because it is a mystery to me, and I suspect that it is a mystery to most other people on this side of the Chamber. I ask Mr Copeland what this bottle is of which he spoke. I would love to have seen it produced. He is not the only one who has spoken about it. His other colleagues have also mentioned this bottle, but I am not aware of it, and those who have done the research and produced bottles are not aware of it.

I think it is very important, and if they have got that evidence, we need to know, because that would put a different slant on it. Until that evidence can be produced, I say that the argument is flawed, which brings me to the next point. If United Future, the Greens, and the Labour Party, and the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, are genuinely concerned about youth drinking, then why are we fiddling? All this is a fiddle. Why are they not addressing the matter of the drinking age? If they are genuine about it, why are they not saying they will shift the age back from 18 to 20—or if they are worried about that, then why not shift it back even further? If those members are absolutely genuine in what they tell us in this Chamber, then would they not be moving to change the drinking age? I would have thought that instead of their coming down here and talking about some mystical bottle of drink that Jimmy can get at less than $10, or the fact that it is for the good of the young people, they would have been talking about changing the drinking age—but not on your nelly! I say to Peter Dunne, Gordon Copeland, the Labour Party, and the Greens, please produce that bottle, or talk about raising the drinking age.

That leads me to the third point I will make, which is this—and I say this particularly to Mr Anderton. If the Minister had said, “Look, we are going to increase the tax. This bill is about increasing tax, but we also hope it will have some other benefits. It might discourage young people from drinking, and it might have some other beneficial sides to it. It might encourage other investment in drinking, but the purpose of it is taxation.”, when he first read out his speech, that would have been an honest statement.

But, unfortunately, that is not what he said at all. He did not tell the Parliament that. The member in the chair came down and made a speech, and said: “We are worried about young people. We are concerned about the drinking levels of young people. We are worried that they are abusing alcohol, so what we will do to stop it is increase the price.” That is not what the Government will achieve, anyway, on the drinks that the young people drink, and that was not an honest statement for that Minister to make in his introductory speech.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have listened for some hours, and I have let this go a number of times, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for a member to accuse another member of not being honest. It has been said a number of times tonight, and I object to it, and ask the member to withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that point of order.

Let me put it this way, then. It would have been more honest if Mr Anderton had said that this was a tax bill—that would have been an honest statement, because that is what this bill is. If he had said in his introductory speech, “This bill is about taxing alcohol, and we will get revenue of some $18 million.”, that would have been an honest statement. Instead, he chose to make other statements, which, in my view, did not tell us what this bill does. He spoke about the fact that he wanted to stop young people drinking. That will not be achieved. This is a tax bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think we have finally got to the crux of this bill. John Carter, who has just resumed his seat, made the point that it is a tax bill. The difficulty we have is that the Government has brought it to the House under extraordinary urgency, under the false pretence that it is somehow a form of social engineering, that it is do-gooder, social improvement legislation, but clearly it is not. It is nothing other than a tax bill, and we know that it is a tax grab to the tune of $14 million net.

I have heard speech after speech saying that it is all about saving irresponsible young people. I would like to put it on record that I think the vast majority of young people are actually very responsible. There is a binge-drinking problem in this country. It has unfortunately been part of our culture for many generations, and it goes under the category of substance abuse. But if one is really serious about it, why is there nothing in all the schedules and numbers that does anything to address the serious problem of substance abuse? Little Johnny with his $10, who is into substance abuse, can go and buy 10 litres of petrol to sniff, or he can go to the hardware store and buy a great big 4-litre tin of glue to sniff, and that is not an issue. We are not setting an excise tax on glue or adding any more tax on petrol, because of substance abuse.

The point is we should address the problem. That was what the Government’s own advice was from McLeod and also the Brian Easton report. McLeod and Easton said that excise tax does not work; it is a thing of the past. The Government has ignored their advice; in fact, it has gone against it. It has come here tonight to increase the excise tax, against the recommendation of its own tax report, and also against the recommendation of the Brian Easton report, which was commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council and published.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: That’s not correct.

The Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, is shaking his head, but if he looks at page 13 of the Easton report, he will see it quite clearly states, with regard to full spirits, that the excise tax should be lowered. This Government is talking about increasing the excise tax, to save young people from overindulging in alcohol. One cannot reconcile those two positions: the recommendation is quite contrary to what the Minister is talking about.

But if the Government is really serious about addressing alcohol abuse and the social problems associated with it, can it answer this one? Why did this Government close down the youth programme for alcoholic recovery at Queen Mary Hospital, in Hanmer in the South Island? This Government closed down that hospital. That was a real programme that was addressing the problem. Only a minority of young people overindulge to that extent. This Government closed down that programme for youth alcoholics at Queen Mary Hospital in Hanmer. I invite the Minister to get up and reconcile that to the Committee. Again, we have tables and tables of convoluted schedules, references, and numbers, but, at the end of the day, that has nothing to do with what this Government is all about, which is increasing taxation.

The other aspect is the home brew kits. Most people know that now one can produce vodka or any spirit one likes. One can buy a little packet of essence, and if one has a little home still—it is now quite legal to have a home still, as long as the product is not sold—one can produce with friends, as a hobby, any amount of volume of alcoholic material, and not pay any excise whatsoever.

The member for Otago raised an interesting point relating to methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. We quite regularly read in the newspapers of Indian weddings, where scores—and sometimes hundreds—of people die because of methyl alcohol consumption. Is that what we will drive our young people to drink now? We know we have homebake, with the drug scene; now we will have home stills producing alcohol. Through ignorance, some people may produce methyl alcohol and die.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is with some pleasure that, at 3 o’clock this morning, I rise to speak to the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill, and to say, if people have not noticed, that National members are opposing it.

Part 2 consists of lists and lines of figures that look like some kind of computer printout that Steve Maharey got from some university or other; I am sure they are connected to some piece of legislation, and it may be to do with alcohol, but we cannot be sure of that. In looking at those, it absolutely occurred to me that we are here at this time of the day, under extraordinary urgency, to discuss a tax bill—nothing more, nothing less.

It also occurred to me, when I thought about my son’s Tui poster, which reads: “The first thing I’ll do is pay off my student loan. Yeah right.”, that the next Tui poster will read: “The Labour Government”—headed by Jim Anderton in this case—“cares about young people’s drinking habits. Yeah right.” That’s what the next Tui poster will read. I hope the Tui people are listening tonight in their headquarters up there at Mangatainoka, in Georgina Beyer’s electorate. That will be what they have on their next poster.

This legislation, which we are debating at 3 a.m., has absolutely nothing to do with the drinking habits of young people, or with the desire, which the Government purports to have, to reduce the amount of alcohol young people drink. Rather, it has to do with the fact that we have a “Chardonnay socialist” Government that is envious of people who do well in society and enjoy a nip or a dram on the way home from somewhere, or on reaching home. Most of them are the Government’s own people, who, after having been to a trade union meeting somewhere or other, get home and want to have a wee nip of whisky. This Government is going to tax them.

That is on top of two commitments made in two credit cards produced in two elections. Labour campaigned up and down the country that a Labour Government would not raise taxes for people on incomes of less than $60,000. Well, that promise has gone down, big time. That is one promise that Labour is breaking in the Chamber tonight, overwhelmingly. It is trying to dress it up under extraordinary urgency, at 3 minutes past 3 in the morning, as some sort of social agenda aimed at helping our young who are not of an age, ability, or mental capability to understand what they are doing to themselves. So we are to slap $18 million more tax on them, and that will bring them to their senses, and suddenly they will all be saved from the evils of drinking Tui!

I hasten to add that I know nothing about these sorts of drinks that young people are drinking. I have not seen them once, in the shearing sheds in Te Kuiti, or in the haymaking paddocks in Taranaki – King Country, drinking KGB Vodka, Tattoo, or any of other things that are displayed here in the Chamber. I have seen them drink DB, Speights, Tui, and Lion. Those names are familiar to me. I suggest to the Minister in the chair, Mr Anderton, that the tax in this bill does not affect any of those drinks. If the objective of this bill is to decrease the number of young people who binge drink, then this measure completely misses the mark. That has been stated tonight. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how I am wrong, because I would love to find out.

It was interesting to listen to the United Future speakers; they stated that there are some drinks out there—drinks that I do not know of; it might be that there are such drinks somewhere out there—in small bottles of 700 ml or less that contain at least 23 percent proof alcohol, and that will be affected by this tax, thus saving those young people out there who buy those drinks up large and consume them in great quantities, from the demons of their ways. Well, I would like someone to point that out to me.

It is just not credible for the Government to come into this Chamber under extraordinary urgency to do this. Extraordinary urgency is the only time, I hasten to add, that special tax laws can be passed. To say that this law is to help young people is just not true.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I would be inclined to do that, but I must let the debate go on longer than that on Part 1.

I feel quite proud of myself, because yesterday I bought a bottle of port, in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol range, from one of the wineries in my electorate.

💬 John Carter: You should have bought the case.

I do now wish I had bought the case, but I feel I somehow had a premonition that this Labour Government was going to add to the tax. I am quite proud of myself.

This bill is not about stopping young people from drinking alcohol in the 14 to 23 percent proof range. That is not what this is about. If it were, Government members would have a whole wad of things they might like to do to stop young people from drinking harder liquor. If they have not thought about those things, then maybe I can make a few suggestions. At 5 past 3 in the morning, they are, no doubt, all ears.

The first thing they could do, as Mr Carter predicted, is simply increase the age at which young people are eligible to drink alcohol. But that is not happening, because no revenue is raised by doing that. The second thing they could do is increase the amount of money they spend on education for young people in this country, to help them understand what will happen if they consume excess amounts of alcohol. But that costs money; it does not raise it. So that is not on the Government’s agenda here tonight. The third thing Government members could do is spend more money on policing, so that the rules of the land that apply to excessive drinking by young people are adhered to and administered. They could spend more money on policing. With all the policing they have promised, and with all the talking tough they did when they were in Opposition, they could now front up and spend some money. But they will not do that; it costs money. This bill is all about raising money; it is not about costing the Government money. ID cards could be more heavily administered when young people go to buy alcohol. That could be another way for the Government to stop young people from drinking more alcohol. But that is not what is happening with this bill.

Nor is this bill some sort of brilliant mathematical theory to stop young people from excessive drinking. If it is, it is a pretty messed up theory of elasticity of demand. I want to take the Committee, at this late hour, through my reason for thinking that. It is very simple. Under the old model, there was a price break for alcohol of less than 14 percent proof, and there was a price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. There was also a price break for alcohol of above 23 percent proof. What the Government is doing by passing this legislation is very simple. It is eliminating the price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. The message to young people is that if they want to progress to harder liquor, then it does not matter whether they drink something that is 15 percent proof or 35 percent proof.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No, they’ll go higher.

Absolutely. They will go all the way and take the really hard stuff. If the message from the Government is that we want to stop young people from drinking harder liquor, then this is a pretty weird way of doing it. If Government members were really serious about encouraging young people, then one of the things they could do is reduce the excise tax on ready-to-drinks, on Tuis, or on something else, so that the price differential between those products and the high-alcohol products was greater. If that was their mathematical theory, then that is what they could do. But they are not doing that. This Committee knows that this legislation is tax legislation. It is not a piece of social policy legislation; it is tax legislation. We know it is tax legislation because tax legislation gets whipped through the House under extraordinary urgency. It always has and it always will, because that way the consumers—the mums and dads and the young people of New Zealand—do not have the chance to go out and stock up on Madeira, port, sherry, and fortified wines. The Government sneaks in and makes the changes while it has the chance. This is not about social policy to help the young people of New Zealand; it is about a tax break.

I move, That the question be now put.