Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill before the House was promoted by the ministerial committee on drugs and alcohol as a health, not a revenue, measure. The Minister of Finance, I have to tell the House, was not on that committee, is not on that committee, and had nothing whatever to do with the idea of promoting this bill.

The objectives of the drug and alcohol national programme of action are simple and clear: a reduction in the supply of alcohol and effective control of it, demand reduction, and problem limitation. This measure is an attempt to reduce demand, and every piece of evidence that the committee of Ministers who promoted this bill had before it indicated that alcohol consumption is price sensitive, particularly where young people are concerned. If members want to know whether there is any international support for that, I say there are a number of international papers. I have a list of them, and I will provide that list to people who are seriously interested in the issue, so they can do the research themselves.

Suffice it to say, at this hour of the night, that the Government believes this measure will reduce the incidence of binge drinking and heavy drinking. It is not a panacea, nor is it every single step. There are 36 actions in the action plan that Ministers are developing for drug and alcohol harm minimisation. This is simply one of them. The bill is a step in the right direction, I applaud it, and I recommend its passage to the House.

What an extraordinary speech that was! It was extraordinary because it was only about 2 minutes long and because, on such an important measure, the Minister on his feet said a couple of things. Firstly, he said that this bill was promoted not because of the taxation revenue but because this was a health issue. He said that this legislation will stop binge drinking, and that that is why we are putting an extra tax on Madeira, port, and sherry. Where is the evidence that we have a whole heap of elderly New Zealanders out there binge drinking on port, Madeira, and sherry? The Minister is simply not credible.

Secondly, even more extraordinary was the Minister’s admission to the House that the Minister of Finance had nothing to do with this bill. So now we have a tax being levied that the Minister of Finance has had nothing to do with. That, also, was an extraordinary admission by the Minister. It really does feed into the sort of stuff that has been running around the building tonight, which is that this bill actually came about because Dr Cullen would not give Mr Anderton the money that he wants to waste through his Ministry of Economic Development—the money for the next lot of Sovereign Yachts, and the next sort of experiment that he goes on. So it was agreed that if the Minister for Economic Development were to take through the House a bill that was nothing to do with him and his portfolio areas, a bill that put an extra tax primarily on elderly New Zealanders, then he would get his money.

Why did we have to deal with this bill a week earlier than the Budget? The Minister of Finance not only wanted Mr Anderton to say, as he has said tonight, that the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, had nothing to do with this bill but he wanted to make sure that it was debated a week away from the Budget. This is the 2000 Budget repeated. We are in 2000 for the 2000 Budget, when the Labour Party came into the House with the support of the Greens and voted through a huge excise increase. Labour broke its pledge-card promise, voted through an increase in the excise duty on tobacco, and did so a week out from the Budget so that it would not have nasty headlines around the Budget. This Government spends every second of its day thinking about the political spin. So it has decided once again to try to put the bad news upfront, a week out from the Budget—

💬 Jill Pettis: And it’s working.

Hon ROGER SOWRY:—Jill Pettis says that it is working—to go out there and kick a few elderly people who like to have a glass of sherry or port, to do that a week out from the Budget, and then to say that the Budget is a non-event and we should not worry about it.

What is more, the Government is dressing up the kicking of people who want to drink a sherry or a port on the basis that this legislation will stop binge drinking and will do something about young people drinking. We know that is not the case. We know that United Future fell for the line that this measure was about stopping youth drinking. We know that from a great speech that was made by the United Future spokesperson on alcohol, Judy Turner, who said that she would rather people bought one of the ready-to-drink mixtures with 5 percent alcohol content than the drinks affected by this legislation. In fact, she said she would not mind if they had two of those drinks, because they would have 10 percent alcohol content then. That shows how much understanding we had from that member. She has no understanding of the process, at all. She had no understanding what she was voting for; she did not have a clue about what she was doing. United Future members were sucked into supporting this bill, and now we find that many of the Labour back-benchers did not realise that the prime target of this bill was elderly New Zealanders.

The vast majority of the people who are affected by this bill are elderly New Zealanders, and the Labour back-benchers were not told that before they came into the House today. This bill is not about young drinkers; it does not actually affect young drinkers. Young drinkers’ drinks of choice are excluded from the hefty taxation increases in this bill. Parents of young girls, in particular, who do not mind them having a drink but want them to be safe, rightly advise their young daughters never to drink a drink that they have not seen mixed in front of them, or that they should take a ready-mixed drink to a party and not put it down. Parents tell them not to let anyone get near a drink in case that person drops something in it, and to drink from a ready-to-drink bottle. Those are the drinks that young people are out there binge drinking on.

What has the Labour Government done about any of those ready-mixed drinks? Not a thing. The Labour Government has said to young people that if they go and buy drink, it will make it more difficult for them to buy straight vodka but easier to buy vodka that is mixed. That is what the Government has done. Then Government members stand up here in the House and say that it is a bit of a shame that people who drink Madeira, sherry, and port are caught up in this legislation, because it was really targeting young New Zealanders. The Government cannot have it both ways.

We know that this legislation is all about two things. It is about raising extra money so that the Progressives can get some money to spend in the Budget. That was its first priority. That is why the Minister for Economic Development took the bill through the House. It was extraordinary that we did not even hear the Minister of Finance speak on the bill. He was here when it was introduced, but he scuttled off and that was it. We did not hear from him during the course of this debate, and we did not hear from the Minister of Customs. What we heard, in fact, was a silly little poem from the member for Otago. He was up in his office with a few of his mates around him. They sat around and wrote a little poem, and came to the House. Then he pleaded with the whips to be allowed to make a speech. They said that back-benchers were not allowed to speak on the bill, but he said that he and his mates had written a little poem that was really funny, so the whips agreed that he could read his 2-minute funny poem. That was Labour’s whole contribution to the bill.

If the members on the Opposition side of the House were in Government and were to do what this Government has done, we would have had Labour members worrying about their dear old mums who have a glass of sherry, who live just on the pension, and who now face an extra tax. Do Labour members care one iota about that now? Do they care one iota about the elderly person living alone, who just likes to have a glass of sherry every night? Labour members’ answer is that that is binge drinking, and that is why they have to go out and get that.

Interestingly, one of the groups that will be most affected by this legislation is the hospice movement.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, for God’s sake!

Jill Pettis cannot give a toss about the hospice movement. I have recently been visiting a person in a hospice. One of the great joys for that lady was a—[Interruption] Yes, it was one glass. Jill Pettis might think that that is just a bit pathetic, but for that lady it was something that she really looked forward to. The hospice movement will have to raise more money and pay more tax.

That member is completely out of touch with what is going on with young people in this country. He does not understand what goes on with binge drinking. Young people who are binge drinking are not using the ready-to-drink mixes to achieve their goals. They are using heavy alcoholic drinks, such as Bully Hayes, a rum-flavoured alcohol, and the Kristov vodka-flavoured general alcohol beverage, which have a 23 percent proof alcohol content. That is what binge drinkers are drinking. This bill is necessary because of the irresponsibility of the liquor industry in targeting young people with those drinks at a cheap price. This bill is not a silver bullet; it will not eradicate all binge drinking. But I do hope that it will reduce some of the alcohol sales that have resulted from the lowering of the drinking age 3 years ago.

The first headline that I saw in the year 2000, one year after the bill lowering the drinking age was passed through this House, was that Lion Breweries had announced a 13 percent increase in sales. This legislation will help to reduce that, I hope, because of the effect that it will have on our young people. Some people who are as young as 14 years of age have access to those kinds of drinks. If there was something that could be done about ready-to-drink mixes, I would be very interested to look at that issue also. I do feel sorry for those people who are innocent in terms of heavy drinking but who may be affected by the ramifications of this bill. It is not us that they should blame for that but the liquor industry, which has not been acting responsibly with regard to young people.

I am grateful that this bill is finally about to pass in this House. We trust that it will make some difference to the young people of this nation.

The Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Jim Anderton, has said that this legislation will stop binge drinking. He was asked many, many questions during the Committee stage. Yet he was silent throughout virtually all the Committee stage, which I think lasted over 3 hours or so.

💬 John Carter: 4 hours.

It was close to 4 hours. It was virtually impossible to get an answer from the Minister to our questions. But one of the key things that we hammered throughout the Committee stage was this: when he gave his first reading speech on this bill was he referring to the bottles that are in the cupboard now, and with which he is very familiar—the small bottles of drink containing 5 percent alcohol? I know that when I spoke in the first reading debate, I had the clear impression that Mr Anderton was talking about the little bottles of drink that young people enjoy drinking. We had the clear impression that he thought that type of alcohol would be hit by this legislation.

Of course it transpired, through the research done by various Opposition members through the course of the evening, that that type of alcohol is not affected by this legislation, other than by the usual consumer price index increase, which will be undertaken on 1 June. The Minister, I believe, owed an apology to this House when he made his third reading speech. He could have put it on the record that at least an inference might have been drawn from his first reading speech that could have misled members of this House, and that certainly did mislead them. No Labour Party member tried at all to clarify that misleading view. I think it is because the Labour Party members themselves were misled. When they were walked into their caucus and told what was to happen, I am sure they were under the clear impression that this legislation would hit the small bottles of drink. I think they were as horrified as they could possibly be when they discovered that those small bottles of drink are not the ones that are involved.

After all, the explanatory note of the bill 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. Increasing the duty payable on these products, to more correctly price them, is aimed at reducing this consumption.” I would have thought that 5 percent alcohol content was a light spirit. I would have thought that 23 percent alcohol content was getting to the medium to high side in terms of spirits. Of course, that does reflect that this Government has rushed this legislation through without doing adequate research itself, and without an adequate explanation to the Opposition parties. It has created utter confusion as to what is meant by “light spirits”.

It should also be noted on the record that at no stage did the Minister do anything to clarify what the term “light spirit” meant. He could have stood up and made the speech that Larry Baldock has just given, saying that it means a mysterious bottle of gin containing 23 percent of alcohol by volume. But the Minister did not say that; I cannot recall him saying that. It is the Minister’s duty to inform the House about the type of liquor that is involved, not Larry Baldock’s or Rod Donald’s. What goes down on the record of this House, if it is ever looked at by a court subsequently, will be the Minister’s speech, not the speech of a member of a minor joint Government party like United Future or the Greens. It will be the Minister’s speech that a court will look at when it tries to interpret what is meant by this legislation. If that ever becomes necessary, the court will have no idea what was meant by a light spirit, insofar as the Minister’s early speech and the explanatory note of the bill are concerned. I think that insofar as members on the Opposition side of the House are concerned, it is very clear to us that it was only after Dr Lynda Scott, Nick Smith, and Ron Mark produced these small bottles that there was somehow a change of direction in the way in which the Government approached this matter.

If the Government was really serious about reducing the effects of alcohol on young people, it should have introduced a tax on the small bottles with 5 percent alcohol content. We have heard quite clearly tonight that it is those small bottles that are consumed by young people. If the Government was serious about reducing the effect of alcohol on them—at various parties and suchlike events—it should have had the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content included in this legislation. Why did it not do so? After all, here we are, being forced to sit here in the House under extraordinary urgency. New Zealand First has maintained 13 votes on this bill throughout almost all the night. We have sat here to fight and oppose this legislation; we have been prepared to do that. Surely the Government could have made sure that this legislation, which it is imposing on this country with the support of United Future and the Greens, hit those bottles with 5 percent alcohol content if it had wished to do so. Why did it not do that? After all, the Government has given the clear impression that those drinks are the mischief that has been affecting young people in this country.

I say to younger people of 14, 15, 16, and 17 years of age—and this is known to all of those members, for example, who were in the House when the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council was established way back in about 1977—that it is the younger, leaner, female person who is more inclined to feel the effects of alcohol at an early stage than an older person who is carrying a bit more weight, and suchlike. The trap for a young person would be to follow the advice of the mother mentioned by Roger Sowry, who tells her daughter to drink the bottles containing 5 percent alcohol, because I believe a young person of 14, 15, or 16 years of age who is female and of a slight build would probably suffer serious effects after drinking only one of those bottles, let alone after having a second one. If the Labour Government was concerned about the effects of alcohol on young people, it had every duty to include that type of alcohol in this rushed legislation that we are passing under extraordinary urgency. It has failed to do so, and United Future has failed to insist that it do so.

After all, the only reason that this bill is going through the House is United Future. If United Future had any impact on this Labour Government it should have insisted that the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content be included in the legislation, as well. It is no use for United Future to put up the sad story about the effects of the demon drink and to say the liquor industry is to blame for them, not the people who drink the liquor. It always seems to be the liquor industry that is the demon in this area, insofar as people like the United Future members are concerned. The people who consume alcohol have some part to play in becoming drunk. After all, if they did not consume it they would not become drunk. No one forces them to drink the stuff. United Future, if it had any real concern about young people who drink, should have insisted that that type of alcohol be included in this legislation.

Of course, the real solution for this House would be, as I indicated earlier, to accept Ron Mark’s bill to raise the drinking age back to 20. That is the real solution. That is New Zealand First’s preferred position. Obviously, we oppose this legislation. It mainly hits the elderly who have a little drink of port or sherry. Perhaps they have a half-gallon a week, which is staggered through the week. They are the people who will mainly pay this tax, not the young people. After all, the young people who drink drinks with a 5 percent alcohol content will not pay anything other than the norm. It will be the older people who will pay the additional amount of money. People will be hit, for example, in the Returned Services Association. Soon, perhaps they will not be allowed to smoke in their association’s premises; it will be interesting to see whether that legislation goes through. People will not be allowed to smoke in those premises if the Labour Party has anything to do with it—people whose port and sherry will have doubled in price as a result of this legislation. The Labour Party does not care about the working person. That is for sure!

I support the bill.

I think the member who just resumed her seat gave us the full content of her great knowledge in that very, very short speech. This is a taxation bill. It was brought to the House under the pretence that it was a health bill—a matter addressing a social concern. That has been exposed for the fraud that it was, and we have been through that at length.

Members are talking about young people. I think they are generally talking about 15, 16, and 17-year-olds who are out binge drinking. But let us remind ourselves that our liquor laws make it illegal for people under 18 to purchase alcohol now, or for people to supply minors. The problem is actually the lack of policing of the existing laws. I would put it to members that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are more responsible than 15, 16, and 17-year-olds. Some of them still engage in binge drinking, but the real social concern is about those early teenagers and mid-teenagers who are getting into the alcopops and all the rest of what we have heard about. So point No. 1 is the basic issue that our existing laws make it illegal to supply minors with alcohol and for minors to purchase alcohol. But, as we all know, those laws are not being policed. To think that we can somehow cover for that by increasing the excise tax—because youth are price sensitive—means that we are missing the basic point, are we not? The fact is that those young people are under age, anyway, and it is illegal for them to buy, or to be supplied with, alcohol. Surely we should be policing our existing laws, rather than engaging in another $14 million tax grab.

On that point, the Government’s own advice in the McLeod report recommended that we do away with excise tax. It stated that such taxes are not good policy. The McLeod report also addressed the health issue, and stated there was no evidence to suggest that we could somehow use excise tax to improve health situations, be they concerning alcohol or other substances. Then we come to the report of the economist Brian Easton, who was commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council and who reported last November. He recommended that the excise tax on spirits above the 23 percent alcohol by volume threshold be reduced. That was his recommendation, and somehow, with some kind of convoluted logic, the Government is saying that if we increase the taxation on the medium or light liquors, that will overcome the problem.

Clearly, that position is quite illogical. And, as has already been pointed out, the Government has the wrong target. By targeting products with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content, the Government does not pick up the alcopops. The point has been made that we are picking up ports, sherries, and Madeiras, but those are not the drinks of preference for young people. Then, of course, the Government has thrown in ice cream. We have had a lot of debate about ice cream. How on earth does the Government explain that away?

I was pleased to see one thing cleared up. I was concerned about the timing of this debate under extraordinary urgency. Of course, we are still debating in yesterday’s date, and the bill is to become effective from the day it receives the royal assent. That would have been, effectively, midnight of what would have been last night. There are various outlets still open for business that could be caught by that. But the Minister made the point that alcohol is in bond. I presume that the bond stores will not open until 9 a.m. and possibly the royal assent will be on this legislation by then, so that should overcome that problem.

Just as an aside, I remember an excise tax back in 1986 or 1987. The then Minister of Finance—who was either my former colleague Roger Douglas or maybe Trevor de Cleene—foreshadowed that there would be an increase in the excise duty on petrol. One very keen member of the House, Rob Talbot, who actually sat right here at the time, rushed out—I have never seen anyone leave the Chamber so fast—and 20 minutes later he came roaring back. He said that he had gone out and filled up his car with petrol, and came in beaming and saying that he had beaten the system. He had topped his car up with petrol—only to find that the excise tax had gone down. Poor old Rob! Never mind!

If the Government is serious about addressing the concerns in terms of youth alcoholism, why on earth did it close down Queen Mary Hospital’s youth alcohol programme at Hanmer Springs? Can anyone explain that? That was a very good programme for those unfortunate youths who become alcoholics at an early age. This Government is happy to grab tax and to take another $14 million net in taxation, but to close down—[Interruption]—Perhaps Damien O’Connor, the Associate Minister of Health, can address that question. This Government closed down the Hanmer Springs youth alcohol programme. That was an outrage.

The other thing we are likely to see come out of this legislation is an increase in home brewing. We know that there are now very sophisticated kits, which are legal as long as one does not sell the brew. A lot of people have those kits now in their garages. I do not know whether this is so, but members of the House may even have them. One can produce vodka, gin, bourbon—anything one likes—by adding a flavouring essence, and the alcohol content is way up there in the 45 percent range. I think we will see young people now engaging in those sorts of activities because of this greedy Government’s legislation, which tries to gouge more taxation dollars. That is what this legislation is all about.

Why on earth are we debating this legislation tonight under extraordinary urgency? Is it because this bill is a trophy for United Future? Is it something that United Future has been asking for—or possibly Jim Anderton—and all the bad publicity was not wanted with the Budget next week? That is when one would normally expect a matter like this to be addressed, but, for a very strange reason that has not been explained, the Government today decided at short notice to rush this bill through all stages, without any consideration by a select committee. If the bill had gone to a select committee, obviously some of the deficiencies that have been identified in the Chamber tonight and pointed out to the Government could have been addressed, but that opportunity has been denied.

This is bad legislation; ACT will certainly be opposing it. It does not achieve the objective it purports to, and it is nothing to do with health, as has been claimed by the Minister who introduced it. It is all about more taxation and more excise duty, and that is against the advice of the Government’s own advisers. This legislation is bad public policy; ACT will be opposing it.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill.

I think Ken Shirley hit the nail on the head when he spoke in his contribution earlier of the deep embarrassment that Government members started to feel when it was revealed that alcopops and other ready-to-drink alcohol mixes freely available to young people these days are not covered by the bill. Ever since that time, we have heard all sorts of fake sanctimony about the whole binge-drinking culture that, frankly, I do not think exists to the extent that those members want to claim. Alcohol is a problem for a very small percentage of the population, alcohol has always been a problem, and alcohol will continue to be a problem, regardless of a bill like this.

It is an utter nonsense for this Parliament to put forward a view that because the tax on a bottle of 23 percent alcohol rises by between $4.75 and $6.75, that will suddenly see an end to binge drinking. The argument is that if people pay higher prices for their alcohol, they will not binge drink. Everyone in this House has to know that that is a total nonsense. Any suggestion that this bill has been moved primarily for health reasons is rubbish. It is without doubt a straight revenue grab—albeit a small amount—that will satisfy some of the demands of minor parties that support the coalition in this House.

Those members should hang their heads in shame at the effect that this tax grab will have on elderly New Zealanders, who, as many of our colleagues have said, do occasionally enjoy some sherry, some Madeira, or perhaps some port. In many cases, they will now have to pay $7 or $8 a bottle more. This Government has repeatedly said that it does much better by our elderly. This is a Government that crows about how much superannuation has gone up under its watch. I want to tell New Zealanders that for every dollar this Government has given elderly New Zealanders in their pensions, it has taken $2 back with some of the pernicious tax moves in its absolutely appalling management of this country’s economy. One does not have to go very far to see examples of that—outrageous power prices, high increases in food costs, extra petrol tax, extra tobacco tax for those who still enjoy that habit on occasions, and now a very large tax increase on what might have been a quiet Sunday evening tipple.

The argument run by Mr Anderton was quite nonsensical. He suggested that the habit of binge drinkers, or those who have any problem with alcohol, is in some way price-sensitive. I suggest that for many young people who start to experience those problems, this issue is about access to the drug that causes their problem. I am absolutely sickened by the number of Labour members who have made great speeches in this House about how the problem of binge drinking and bad practice with alcohol can be solved by raising its price. They are the same members who just a short time ago voted to lower the drinking age. How much better it would have been if this House had had a proper process, and proper public consultation, around the issue of limiting access to alcohol for younger New Zealanders. That would be a fair thing to do, and would have created an environment where a whole community could have been party to a wider educative process. However, the idea of simply slamming the House into extraordinary urgency to put on a little bit of extra tax, and dress it up as somehow being a health move, is just totally outrageous.

I tell Larry Baldock and other members of United Future that I accept that the sentiments stated in their contributions were very genuine. However, when we hear things like: “Last time the Government did something like this, Lion Breweries made massive profits.”, one sees that there is a misunderstanding of what this bill is all about. Lion Breweries do not make the stuff that is being covered by this bill. Ninety percent of that stuff is made by a New Zealand - owned company that employs 200 New Zealanders, and is now likely to close. If those young people make choices about the alcohol they consume on the basis of price, they will now be driven to beer, wine, and also to those different ready-to-drink mixes that are currently available. It is said that the industry will make a degree of profit where misery is involved, but the vast majority of New Zealanders who consume alcohol do so responsibly, and do not have problems in their lives. Increasingly, it is just a hallmark of this Government that the failings of the minority are suddenly made to be the tyranny of the majority by all sorts of laws that are designed to restrict and impinge upon everyday freedoms.

One of the ridiculous aspects of this bill is the effect it will have in increasing the costs of food items like ice cream, liqueur chocolates, Christmas cakes, and preserved fruit. All of those items are very viable export earners for New Zealand. They are tested in the domestic market, and they get their start by making progress in the domestic market. Anyone who suggests that binge drinking is contributed to by ice cream with a small alcohol content, liqueur chocolates, Christmas cake, or preserved fruit has to be almost preserved fruit themselves. [Interruption] The junior whip for the Labour Party says that is nonsense. That person should read what is in the bill.

Finally, some advice for all those Labour members: next time one of their senior Ministers comes to caucus and says that they will be up all night saving the young people of this country by pushing through an excise bill, they should just read the bill before they say yes.

I support this bill.

This bill is straightforward. It addresses an anomaly in the excise tax regime. Until tonight, so-called “light spirits” have been taxed on the basis of the liquor having 18 percent absolute alcohol by volume, although the actual absolute alcohol by volume is 23 percent. That loophole has been exploited by opportunist operators who produce watered-down spirits and market them as the real thing. Some of those products are as cheap as $7.95 for a 1.125-litre bottle. If the same excise tax were applied to other alcoholic beverages, one dozen 330 ml cans of beer would cost $6.33 only, a 750 ml bottle of wine would cost $2.76 only, and a 1.125-litre bottle of spirits would cost $12.85 only. But they all cost more than that, which is why light spirits are so attractive to young people and heavy drinkers, in particular, and why it makes sense to increase the excise on them.

It is a happy coincidence that, for a range of reasons, the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand, the Alcohol Advisory Council, the Government, and the Green Party all support this tax change. By opposing this bill, National, ACT, and New Zealand First have lost all credibility when they express concern about alcohol abuse by young people. The bill does not tackle ready-to-drink preparations or alcopops, but that is not a reason for opposing it. This legislation is an important step in the right direction, and the Opposition parties are doing young people and heavy drinkers a disservice by voting against it.

The evidence is clear that teenagers and adults in their early 20s are sensitive to higher prices. Higher excise duties should help to reduce alcohol consumption by those groups. We sincerely hope that the current sales of light spirits will be reduced considerably from the 1.2 million bottles of the stuff currently sold each year. If the Government raises any additional revenue from that tax alignment, the Green Party wants it spent on more community-based treatment services for alcohol addiction, and on youth groups to provide peer education on responsible use of alcohol.

If we are serious about irresponsible drinking in our society, and the gentleman who keeps rabbiting on obviously is not, then we have to tackle other issues. The harm minimisation approach will work only if Parliament reverses its 1991 decision to allow television advertising of liquor. Lifestyle liquor advertisements should be banned, and we have a member’s bill to do just that. It is in the Government’s interest to support the Greens on this measure, because it is estimated that the existing excise duty on alcohol does not even cover the costs incurred by the public health sector in dealing with alcohol harm, and may cover only a quarter of the gross fiscal costs.

We hope the Government also tackles the issue of ready-to-drinks or flavoured alcohol beverages, but as Brian Easton says in his report Taxing Harm: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties, it is not as easy as tonight’s measure, but it still needs to be addressed. In the meantime, the Green Party is pleased to support this bill.

I stand to support this bill.

There can seldom be a time in Parliament when one could experience such an awful, horrible series of events where, for example, the Green Party, which had promised never to vote for urgency, is now supporting extraordinary urgency, and where the Māori members of this Parliament, who know the true malaise of alcohol and the degradation it has caused amongst their people—

💬 Government Members: Ha, ha! [Interruption]

The fishwife can laugh, but I am on my feet speaking, and what is she doing? She is looking old and haggard, and acting like a fishwife on market day.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is out of order. Carry on.

It is not, Mr Speaker. She can laugh—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I said that comment was out of order, and it was. The member will withdraw it.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am on my feet, and totally aware of what is going on. Are you going to stop them, or what?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated while I am on my feet. Interjections are allowed, and they are allowed within reason. They were not out of order. Carry on.

Excellent! If they cannot stand the riposte or response, that is their problem. But the reality is that the Green Party, which was tonight represented by Mr Rod Donald, made a commitment a long time ago never to vote for urgency, but tonight it supports extraordinary urgency. All around New Zealand, beginning about—

💬 Rod Donald: That is not true.

It is totally true, of course. He will deny it now—like he has denied every promise the Greens have made.

The reality is that at about 4.30 this afternoon, we learnt that there was to be a debate under extraordinary urgency later on today. Everybody around New Zealand asked why would we possibly have such an urgent debate. Most New Zealanders remember the great debates of the last 20 years, and the one in 1980 where the PSIS, headed by a former Labour acolyte and activist called Stan Rodger, was going to collapse, and late one night a National Government moved urgency through all motions of the debate to save the PSIS. At that time, we had a crisis that accorded with the Standing Orders, and I want to talk about Speakers’ ruling 11/2 on this matter, because that is what this debate should be about. I quote: “… exceptionally, it may be necessary for the House to continue sitting beyond midnight to pass a particularly urgent piece of legislation. Primarily this will involve Budget legislation, but it could also apply in other cases of real emergency, for example, where there was a need to pass legislation to deal with the collapse of a commercial or financial organisation or in a matter involving state security. To deal with these latter cases provision is made [in the Standing Orders] for another motion, to be termed a motion for ‘extraordinary’ urgency.”

Mr Speaker, you are the one who decides this issue. When a leader of a party and a Government comes to you, you are the one who decides whether it is a matter of extraordinary urgency. My question is how on earth could you have possibly decided that putting up the tax on liquor was such an issue—to stop the whole of the proceedings of Parliament and go all night on a question of raising the excise on liquor? Show me a precedent where any former Speaker would have done that. This debate is not about whether it is right or wrong to put the liquor tax or excise up. This whole debate is about the abuse of Parliament.

The Clerk does not need to rise; I have not challenged him yet—but he is doing it already. He knows that I am talking about a serious issue. One does not abuse Parliament by having extraordinary urgency on a matter that, in a week’s time, will be in the Budget, and will be decided that night. No, no. But having had a few patchy weeks in politics, having been “done” in the House every day, the Labour Government has decided that it will get rid of all the bad news—like putting up alcohol tax—tonight. Forget the great and grand issue of a democracy and the crisis that may one day beset a nation, where every party sets aside its own personal and parochial view and deals with the national interest. That is what extraordinary urgency is about.

I was a young politician when I first saw this Parliament stop to save the PSIS. Today it is a great credit union.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Destroyed it!

No, no. Excuse me, we saved it. We got a receiver in and we saved it, and today it is a great credit union that belongs to the people. That is an issue to do with Speaker’s ruling 11/2, which I just read out. Well, I am asking all those members why they would they allow themselves to be so abused—the Greens, the United Future members, and those back-benchers over there—by the spin of their party executive, and the Speaker himself—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I am on my feet. I ask him to be seated, or he will be leaving. The Speaker cannot be brought into the debate. The member is perfectly entitled to criticise the executive or the Government for doing what they are doing, but he cannot criticise the Speaker, or bring him or her into the debate.

Mr Speaker, you will not prejudge what I am going to say. I am saying that the Speaker himself was there back at the time I am talking about. He was a young MP back in 1980, when there was the question of the PSIS. You have no right to jump into a debate about which you are obviously embarrassed, because you allowed that debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is wrong, and if he makes that comment again and brings me into the debate, his speech will end.

OK, I have made my point. Everybody knows it. Every parliamentarian who has ever stood in a Western democracy knows what I am talking about. But extraordinary debates—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Oh!

Oh yes, but that walrus would never understand. He has no love for this Parliament. He has no dream of a democracy that sometimes rises above shallow, petty party politics and actually does great things. The PSIS was one of those events, and I have seen others. But I have never in my life in politics—and I have been here longer than most people—ever seen this Parliament used to raise the excise on liquor.

💬 Jill Pettis: No, because you’re pickled.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

💬 Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

I should make the obvious point. The member should not draw the obvious inference if she is going to make an interjection. She looks like she is. I am not. If members cannot take it, they should not say it.

In my closing 2 minutes I want to say this—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Don’t smile and try to be churlish.

Ah yes, the member should tell us why he left boarding school. He should not try to be smart.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I wasn’t at boarding school.

Oh yes, the member was. He should not enter the debate if he cannot handle it.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Don’t misquote Michael Laws’ nasty little stories about attending boarding school—he got the wrong man.

I did my research. Why is the member so embarrassed? If Laws is wrong, why is the member so embarrassed?

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I’m not embarrassed. I was never at boarding school.

Methinks he protests too much.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please continue the speech.

All I want to say is this: I have had a long career in politics. I was out tonight speaking to a group of businessmen—

💬 Jill Pettis: Ha, ha! [Interruption]

It would be foreign to the member. Usually, it is market day for her.

I was out tonight speaking to a group of businessmen—[Interruption] it would be foreign to that member, because it is market day—and they asked me at 7 o’clock why there would be urgency today. Was it the crash of Tranz Rail? Could Tranz Rail not pay its debts off? Was it AMP’s share price, or what? It must have been some huge, gigantic financial event. When I came back to Parliament, I could not believe that it would be about the petty, tawdry business of taxing the workingmen’s pleasure in this country.