Alcohol Reform Bill

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1, “Preliminary matters”. I guess this is a very important part of the bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, because it sets up the substance of what the legislation is designed to achieve. I just want to reflect on the purpose of the legislation for a start, and then talk about the object clause, which is clause 4. The purpose is to ensure that the legislation itself is “for the benefit of the community as a whole,”. I think that that is a really important statement to have in the legislation, but, unfortunately, there are many communities throughout New Zealand who will feel that this law does not go far enough in order to address the many concerns that they have raised.

In my time in Parliament I have never seen so many communities take to the streets to protest against the issuing of licences as has been the case in the last couple of years. We have seen people in South Auckland, we have seen people in Porirua, we have seen people in Christchurch, and we have seen people in different parts of the country all take a very strong stand when they see another licensed premise open up for business or propose to be open for business. I think that the Liquor Licensing Authority itself, when one looks at the decisions that it has been making over the years, is actually starting to see and respond to what is quite a serious concern coming from the community. It certainly is driven by the community, which is why we are pleased to see the expression “for the benefit of the community as a whole” as one of the principal statements, right up there in the purpose clause.

The purpose clause goes on to say that the purpose is “to put in place a new system of control over the sale and supply of alcohol,”. I guess we have moved on in terms of the language; the previous law was around the sale and supply of liquor. Then it talks about the characteristics that are established in subclause (2). This describes the characteristics of the new system as being “reasonable”, and states that “its administration helps to achieve the object of this Act.” In a way I could say that, actually, the characteristics of the new system are not going to be deemed reasonable just by definition or by use of the language in the legislation; it will be how it is actually implemented on the ground. That was a fundamental flaw in the Sale of Liquor Act. It had, in fact, a very strong purpose statement, but that purpose was not reflected in any way, shape, or form in any of the elements of the legislation. So when you are looking for harm-reduction measures in the legislation as it exists today, you will be hard-pressed to find them, and that has been one of the challenges that the Liquor Licensing Authority has had to face.

The other element is “to reform more generally the law relating to the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol so that its effect and administration help to achieve the object of this Act.” Again, I think that it is very important to reflect that the legislation is only part of the story. It cannot ever be the whole story. I think my husband uses a very good expression, which I use from time to time, and that is that “Red lights don’t stop trains.” As a former train driver and now a lawyer, he certainly has seen the practical implication of that particular expression. What it means is that you can have all of the lights showing red, but that is not going to stop the train from crashing through a barrier or stopping in time to prevent disaster from occurring, unless those brakes are applied by somebody in time. That is what this bill is actually all about as well. We have got a framework piece of legislation for the legislative framework, but it does require the community to take responsibility for the behaviour that we have seen associated with the consumption of alcohol, and the damage that it has done to communities.

I think that the community is facing up to that responsibility, and that is why we have seen them take to the streets in droves. That is why we have seen so many people make submissions to the Law Commission report. Three thousand New Zealanders took the time to make submissions on something that really mattered. This is certainly a major change. It is a major change in direction and philosophy, and I believe that the community is wanting Parliament to do a lot more than this legislation allows.

I move on to the object clause. The object of this bill is that “the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.” Then it goes on to describe what the harm minimisation is about. I think this is when we start to see the dollars and cents that actually lie with the approach that we might be adopting if we went further than we are doing. The bill states: “any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol;”. That is every car smash on the street—every car smash leading to death or leading to injury. Think of all of the costs that are put on our ACC system, and all of the costs that are put on our health system, and then look at the crime.

I just want to remind the Committee that the previous National Government, before the last election, held a ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime. It held that back in March 2009. It was actually one of the important initiatives that Simon Power and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples put together to try to get some group of people together to think about what were the drivers of crime. Alcohol came up time and time again, not so much as a cause, but as a driver. It is one of those fuels—kind of like petrol—that is set alight, and all of the domestic violence, all of the abuse of children, and all of these things, were tied back, in many respects, to the damage caused by alcohol. Then you come up with foetal alcohol syndrome and things like that. So you can see the harm that is done.

The Labour caucus took a very hard decision. We decided that, actually, the ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime was so important that we would offer to work collaboratively with the Government on those drivers of crime, particularly focusing on children aged nought to 12, in order to get a cross-party agreement on how that might be addressed. We decided not to look for elections, with the rules changing every time there is a change of Government, but to actually get a collaborative response around children aged nought to 12. What a difference that would have made. We would have been 3 years down the track on that by now, if the Government had responded in a slightly better way than what we received. Simon Power wrote back to me on 16 November and said: “Following decisions made by Cabinet and the National caucus, I would like to propose a policy matter upon which initial cooperation could commence: that being the sale and supply of alcohol. I consider that this is an appropriate starting point, in light of your previous role in bringing the sale and supply of liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill before the House, and the need to ensure that the legislative framework is coherent and enduring. This in no way precludes further cooperation on other policy issues relating to the drivers of crime, if working together on the alcohol issue proves to be mutually agreeable.”

Well, I have to say that it has not been mutually agreeable, because there has not been an engagement over what this legislation should contain. That engagement actually stopped after that letter was received. When the Law Commission reported back, the one advantage that I obtained was that I was enabled to have an embargoed copy of the report so that I could read it over the weekend before it was publicly announced. But apart from that, the Government did not consult with us about the fact that it was going to vote out the bill that I had introduced, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—vote it out, get rid of it—and then introduce its own bill, which does almost nothing more than what we already had in the legislation. To anyone who is going to get up in this Chamber and say that local communities are looking for their local alcohol plans—well, those plans are 2 years overdue because the Government voted out the bill that would have delivered them 2 years ago, in December 2010. In 2010 the Government made the decision not to proceed with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill.

As we go through the different parts of this bill, we are going to establish that in fact there is almost nothing additional in this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, compared with what was in that bill, and there was no reason why the Government could not have made slight amendments to that bill, and it would have been passed by now. It would have been passed before the last election, and every single community in New Zealand would have been able to go to their local council and ask for their local alcohol plan provisions to be given effect to. We know that there are councils throughout New Zealand that want to get on with the job, but they have been delayed by this Government’s decision to change the name of the legislation and put it in its own name, having, for some reason absolutely beyond my comprehension, decided not to proceed with the legislation that had already gone to the Justice and Electoral Committee, had already had submissions on it, and had already received significant support from one end of the country to the other. It did seem a complete waste of everyone’s time to require them to go back through that process again. In fact, because of the proximity of that legislation going through the select committee and the Law Commission actually looking at the whole issue, there were not as many submissions on that bill, because people were in general agreement with it.

The huge advantage of that piece of legislation was that it would have enabled us to deal with the blood-alcohol content issue, which, of course, is not being dealt with in the context of this bill, but which will be dealt with by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, when we get to a new part being moved by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. I think it is a real shame that the Government has chosen to take this approach, when I had a very promising letter dated 16 November 2009 with Simon Power being really very interested in working collaboratively with us, and then I find that, actually, collaboration does not mean anything when it comes to alcohol.

I do not believe that this House has really taken on board the object of this bill until we get to the later parts of the legislation. We keep coming back to the object of the bill. Is it going to minimise the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol? Are we going to see a reduction in crime? Are we going to see a reduction in “damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; and any harm to society generally or the community, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury” of that kind previously described?

That to me is the essence of the debate that we have to have in this House. It is what the people of New Zealand are asking us to have: an honest, open debate. We have to show courage in this House, and we have to be prepared to make hard decisions about what would make a difference in terms of the availability, in terms of the very low price, and in terms of the issues that are not being dealt with in this bill. The public are asking why they are not being dealt with, when this is the object of the bill. If we truly come back to the object in Part 1 of this bill, every single time that we deal with a different part of this bill, we will find that it is not going to live up to the expectation that the people of New Zealand are asking us to represent. I am surprised that the only issue that members have wanted to exercise some independence on is the question of age, when we know that age is the least important of the five separate issues that we have been challenged to seriously look at by those who have expertise in this field.

So I believe that as we go through this debate, we will have the opportunity to debate the important matters, but only because people have had the courage to put up Supplementary Order Papers in their own names and to take on board the attacks that will come from the industry, particularly from the grocery and retail sector and also the large breweries. Even the Hospitality Association does not think this bill goes far enough, and that, to me, says it all. There are many people out there who are relying on Parliament to get this right. We did not get it right in 1989. We certainly did not get it right in 1999. Let 2012 be different.

The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 attempted to introduce a European cafe-style drinking culture in New Zealand. I would have to say that all the evidence shows that for some this has not worked, although I would also acknowledge that although alcohol misuse contributes to crime—particularly domestic violence, disorder, and public health problems, and roughly a third of all recorded crime involves offenders who have been drinking—most New Zealanders who drink alcohol do not abuse alcohol. So this bill attempts to strike a balance between dealing with the abuse of alcohol and sending some very strong signals and, at the same time, not penalising those many New Zealanders in the vast majority who do not abuse alcohol.

The object of the bill is to minimise the harm caused by excessive drinking. Although, as I have said, many New Zealanders do not abuse alcohol, there are sometimes times in their lives, particularly when they are young and they are learning to behave with alcohol, when they might, in fact, indulge in excessive drinking. We, obviously, do not want to see that, and we would, obviously, like to have it stopped. But, actually, it has always been with us. It was with us before we had alcohol laws, it is with us now, and it will always be with us, but that does not mean to say that we cannot take some actions to help prevent that from occurring as much as it does.

We should also acknowledge that alcohol has social and commercial benefits. New Zealand’s alcohol industry employs over 70,000 people and contributes to our GDP. So the Government is proposing a balanced response to deal with the considerable harm that is caused by the abuse of alcohol, without unfairly affecting responsible drinkers.

The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 132 inserts two definitions relating to age to give effect to the House’s resolution to retain 18 years as the purchase age. I was one of those people who voted against the age of 18 as the purchase age, primarily because I think it is abused most often by people aged about 16 and people aged 18 who buy alcohol for their younger friends. That was defeated and I accept, obviously, the will of the House.

The technical Government Supplementary Order Paper 137 deletes the definitions of beer, grape wine, fruit and vegetable wine, and mead proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 132. The wording in Supplementary Order Paper 132 has given rise to doubts of the applicability of a New Zealand food standard. The proposed amendment is accordingly withdrawn to make it clear that alcoholic products sold in supermarkets and grocery shops must meet the relevant New Zealand food standard.

I will deal with just one issue that the member who has resumed her seat, Lianne Dalziel, has raised, and that is the issue around the hospitality industry, on which she has said that the bill does not go far enough. The hospitality industry has said it does not go far enough because they support minimum pricing. That is actually really around making sure that there are maximum profits for the alcohol industry, frankly. I note that there is a very recent report that I have just been handed, and I am happy to table it if anyone wants me to, that says that minimum pricing—which has been loudly supported by that member—which has apparently been brought in in Scotland, has actually now been put on hold. And, in fact, I think one of the things we need to deal with is that this bill actually cannot deal with the hypotheticals; it has to deal with the realities. It is not the only bill we will ever have on alcohol reform, but it is a start. It is the first time, I think in living memory, that we have introduced a bill to get through Parliament that actually puts more restrictions on the sale of alcohol, not fewer.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make some preliminary comments, especially about the objects of this Alcohol Reform Bill. And I would have to begin by disagreeing with the Hon Lianne Dalziel on age. I and New Zealand First believe that age is in fact a very important issue, and of course we have actually done with that issue. I think age could have made a big difference to the outcome for alcohol reform in this country, and it is a disappointment that we have not increased it from 18 to 20 years of age. But I do agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel that there are some equally important issues that we must deal with in the bill.

Overall, New Zealand First supports a more restrictive approach because we think that is what the majority of people in this country want and we think that is what is required to address the real issues. In doing so, the use of alcohol is unproblematic as far as the great majority of people in our community are concerned. So we must take care not to unduly interfere with their right to use alcohol responsibly and sensibly. And we must also take care not to damage businesses that are responsible in the way they do their business. I refer especially to the many wineries in this country that assist our export interests and also support a flourishing local industry. I would not like to see, and New Zealand First would not like to see, any measures that interfere with their doing business economically and competitively.

We must, however, target the alcohol abusers of all ages, and harm reduction is of course the primary objective in the bill. We must especially combat the culture of abuse, which has grown and grown and grown in this country, especially since the time when the purchasing age was reduced to 18 years. We must attack the problem of youth binge drinking especially. And in that respect we do not think the bill goes far enough, and we will be looking therefore to support some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward that we think would be useful in that respect.

New Zealand First will, however, support only practical measures that are simple and easy to administer and that are understandable and fair. We will also support meaningful changes that actually make a difference to the problem of alcohol abuse, and we will not be supporting purely philosophical approaches or those that we think are fundamentally grandstanding.

New Zealand First is glad to see the provisions for territorial authority local alcohol policies. We think they can make a very significant difference to alcohol abuse and the reorganisation of alcohol in this country. We support localisation of as many issues as are appropriate, and therefore we do support the part of the bill that relates to local alcohol policies, as I have said. We would even support a broadening of those, and we would be looking at the Supplementary Order Papers that look to do that.

We will also support making local alcohol policies compulsory. We do not understand why it should simply be permissive and not a requirement that each and every territorial local authority in this country should be required to come up with a local alcohol policy. We are sure that every community in New Zealand would like to see that happen, and so a compulsory regime, we believe, is appropriate.

We do think that local circumstances are very important when it comes to many issues relating to alcohol administration. You see, in some places like Mount Maunganui, Wānaka, Queenstown, and so on, where holiday issues are very large—where people congregate in one area on particular days to abuse alcohol, and for that purpose most particularly—those communities need to have local alcohol policies that specifically deal with those sorts of circumstances. We think that local authorities must take responsibility for alcohol issues in their district. It is not just a Government issue. Local authorities must get fully involved and must consult their community so that they know what their community’s expectations are. For that reason New Zealand First would support, for example, Supplementary Order Paper 116, and we see no reason why councils should not start work immediately on draft alcohol policies. We do not think there is anything in the bill that would make that difficult. We know that regulations still have to come, but that should not get in the way of the work that needs to be made.

In closing, we would also say that local authorities will need to spend quite a time, and financial resources as well, on these issues. That is a concern to New Zealand First. We think it is a shame that excise and taxation issues are outside the scope of the bill because we would like to see a proposal that would divert some of the excise taxes to local councils so that they would have the resources to develop comprehensive local alcohol policies and have the funds with which to do it.

With those comments New Zealand First looks forward to the debate. As I said, we will be looking not only for a more restrictive approach but also for one that is sensible, practical, and will make a difference.

I would like to begin by picking up on a comment made by the Minister of Justice in her first remarks, where she mentioned the benefits associated with the alcohol industry, and named specifically the jobs associated with that industry. I just want to bring the attention of the Committee to the fact that the benefits are not mentioned in the object clause of this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill. What is instead mentioned is the requirement to minimise the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol, and that is, indeed, where my comments are focused.

I want to come next to draw the Committee’s attention in these preliminary remarks to the fact that probably roughly 1,000 New Zealanders each year lose their lives due to the consumption of alcohol—1,000 per year. That is quite a few, and it is certainly one of the harms that the enumerated provision here listing the types of harms covers. In addition to those 1,000 deaths, something like 70 percent of the presentations to emergency departments in our hospitals each weekend are from people who have been consuming alcohol. So this is a very major driver of injury in particular, and indeed of illness and death in this country, and I will come back to some more detail on this in later parts of the debate.

In addition, we have this very major problem with binge drinking. Others have already referred to that, and I just want to enumerate some statistics about it that I have sourced from the New Zealand Drug Foundation. It states that 275,000 adult New Zealanders set out to get drunk on their last drinking occasion, and 450,000 adults were binge drinking on their last drinking occasion. Seven hundred thousand New Zealanders have been categorised as binge-drinkers—that is, consuming seven or more standard drinks per session—and 1.2 million adult drinkers are OK with binge drinking or accepting of binge drinking, and regularly do so. What that says is that the harm associated with alcohol consumption in this country is of a very major league indeed. I am going to come back to the match of the Government’s response to the scale of that harm, because there is a complete mismatch.

In addition to those health-related statistics and statistics about the nature of binge drinking, there is also some information available from the New Zealand Police about the association of alcohol consumption with offending. For example, the police attribute to the consumption of alcohol one in four property offences, one in five sexual offences, one in four traffic offences, one in five traffic crashes, one in two drug and antisocial offences, one in three family violence offences, and one in three violence offences—and, as an illustration of alcohol as a magnifier, one in three violence offences, but one in two serious violence offences. Alcohol is absolutely wrapped up in the offending and in the drivers of crime that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has referred to already in her contribution today. The police estimate that overall a third of all police-recorded offences are committed by an offender who has consumed alcohol prior to the offence, and 18 percent of the police budget is wrapped up in responding to alcohol-fuelled offending. So the harm that this Alcohol Reform Bill ought to be setting out to respond to is very considerable indeed.

I have in this House on several occasions over the last couple of years referred to the Ottawa Charter. The Ottawa Charter is an international agreement, which New Zealand is party to, that sets out a formula for responding to health issues in our societies, and recognises that those health issues of disease, injury, and premature death are associated with socio-environmental factors. They are not purely problems related to the individuals who experience those issues. What the Ottawa Charter says is that if we want to address the burdens of disease and injury in our societies then we need to do a few things: we need to promote healthy public policy, we need to create supportive environments, we need to strengthen community responses, we need to develop personal skills, and we need to reorientate health services. I often speak about these five actions collapsing into two basic things: the empowerment of communities and the individuals within them, and the creation of supportive environments—political environments, social environments, and physical environments—around those communities. That is the challenge that we ought to be responding to around alcohol. That is the challenge that this bill ought to rise to and does not.

I have referred several times to the opportunity presented by the Law Commission’s report. It presents the Government of the day and this House with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get alcohol policy right, to strengthen our community responses to alcohol, to empower communities to deal with those issues, and to create supportive environments around those communities that facilitate those responses. That is what this bill ought to be doing and does not. When we come to the more detailed debate over the parts of this bill, we will talk about those things. Although the Government sets out in all of the right directions, the progress that the measures it proposes make in those directions is pitifully small. That is why other parties in the House—the Māori Party, the Labour Party, and the Green Party—have all been advancing measures that would implement the recommendations of the Law Commission and that would give this House the opportunity to take up that once-in-a-generation opportunity to seriously minimise the harm that is created in our communities by alcohol. Thank you.

It is very good to see this measure, the Alcohol Reform Bill, back before the House. Right around the country, New Zealanders will be saying that they are delighted that we are debating this measure today, and they look forward to seeing it being adopted as the law of this land. Can I begin by acknowledging the work of the former chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee the Hon Chester Borrows, who did an outstanding job on this bill, along with all the members in the previous Parliament who worked incredibly hard, and I acknowledge that that includes members from all sides of the House. They heard an enormous number of submissions. They considered many more written submissions. They engaged with New Zealanders, and they took their points of view on board.

I also want to acknowledge our present Minister of Justice for her work since she has become the Minister, for her determination to strengthen the bill, and, in particular, for her determination to tackle the issue of parental supply of alcohol to minors. And when I talk about parental supply I am not talking just about parents of their own children; in particular, I am talking about those who supply alcohol to other people’s children. We have, sadly, experienced many tragedies in this land as a result of the very irresponsible supply of alcohol to minors, and I think the Minister should be commended for her courage in facing up to that issue and for providing a mechanism by which parents will at long last be able to exercise far greater control. I, as a father, would want to know, if somebody else was supplying alcohol to my children, that I had the right to say “Perhaps a little bit, but only under certain conditions, and certainly under strict supervision with responsible provision of food and other matters provided for.” This is a vitally important measure.

There are over 130 positive measures in this bill. It is the first significant tightening of liquor legislation in my lifetime. The bill adopts and enacts the vast majority of the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform. Many people listening could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, from what they have heard, but it is worth repeating: the bill adopts the vast majority of the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform. Yes, there are some who would like to see it go even further, and I respect their views, but I firmly reject any suggestion that the measures in this bill will not be effective or are not significant. They are and they will be.

Part 1 of this bill, which covers preliminary matters, hints through its definitions at many of these very significant aspects, including the provision of local alcohol plans. That is something that is warmly welcomed in my city of Hamilton and—I was listening carefully to the Hon Lianne Dalziel before—I am sure it is equally so, if not more so, in Christchurch, where they have the additional problem now, as a result of the devastation caused by the earthquakes, of alcohol spreading and spreading throughout the suburbs. The need to have these local alcohol plans was highlighted in a television news feature that I saw the other night, and I am sure that the citizens of Christchurch and the wider Canterbury area will particularly welcome that measure.

The focus in the bill on the reduction of alcohol-related harm is real and very significant. A tighter definition of retail outlets that may sell alcohol is warmly welcomed in my area and, I am sure, around the country, as are tighter rules about where alcohol may be sold within those licensed premises. Restrictions on the marketing of alcohol, especially to young people, are vitally important. And so it goes on. There is much in this bill that is to be welcomed individually, but collectively it is of great significance, and it is inconceivable that these measures will not make a difference. Therefore, it is disappointing to hear some scaremongering from opponents, particularly on other sides of this House. Those particular claims, in many respects, lack credibility, when successive Governments have in fact presided over regular liberalising of our alcohol laws. This is the first Government to face up to the issues and to tighten the laws.

Like the Minister of Justice and Mr O’Rourke, who spoke earlier, I too was naturally very disappointed that my Supplementary Order Paper seeking to raise the minimum purchase age for alcohol was narrowly defeated at the end of August. I make the point that a clear majority of MPs actually voted for change when the first vote was taken. I think, in fact, it was 71 votes to 50. So the final vote in favour of the status quo, I have to say, seems a bit perverse. But there it is. We must move on from that. I just want to say that I call on youth leaders—

The select committee that heard submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill, the Justice and Electoral Committee, I think heard virtually a record number from members of the public, and took time to try to listen carefully to those concerns. They were—if you set the industry submissions aside for one moment, and they were numerically limited—almost overwhelmingly, as far as the public were concerned, in favour of going for a much stricter regime applying to the sale, availability, pricing, and advertising of alcohol.

It is true what a number of members, including the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe, have said in at least this respect: overall the bill does tighten up on those matters somewhat. But as I and a number of colleagues who sat on the select committee observed during the second reading debate on this bill, and as I think Kevin Hague and Lianne Dalziel observed, particularly when they made their contributions on this preliminary part of the Committee stage debate, that really is not the point. The point is that we could have gone so much further on so many key issues, and we failed to do so.

The member who has just resumed his seat, Mr O’Rourke, and the Minister of Justice, both mentioned the vote that was held in the House in late August around the purchase age. One of the problems that the debate has had has been the way in which it has proceeded, first of all, in dealing with the issue of age, which was the subject of a conscience vote in the House, and then in dealing with every other question including availability, pricing, advertising, supply, and what have you.

All the evidence that we heard at the select committee was that if we want, as a Parliament, to fulfil the objects of the Act, which my colleague Lianne Dalziel went into in some detail in her contribution, well, yes, age is an issue, but in the hierarchy that the experts described to us in the select committee, it is not by any means the most influential or impactive criterion. The other issues—pricing, availability, advertising, and supply—are much more influential, as it happens, if one wants to look at the evidence, on the problem of binge drinking that we have in New Zealand, than the question of the purchase age.

For people listening to the debate, and for members who might be new to that aspect of it, that is the point. The point is not that I am quibbling, or other colleagues with a similar view on this are quibbling, that this legislation will actually result in broadly a better regime; it will, and that is down to the careful work, I think, done by the select committee. I would join with the member who has resumed his seat in praising those members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who took the time to hear the submissions and to make the recommendations that were made and that appear in the report back that we are considering. I also thank the officials for the help that they gave us to try to negotiate our way around some of those issues and to try to make the best possible recommendations that we could in order to bring good legislation back to the House. It is better than what we have got, but the gap between what we could have and what we are going to end up with if members opposite simply take the Government whip, as has been indicated they will, is profound.

What I would like to say in my initial contribution in the debate is this: the evidence demands that we take much more seriously some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table, and my plea, if I can make one to National members, is that they do think very carefully about these Supplementary Order Papers. They have been put together, I think by and large, with a lot of care and a lot of thought, and with a desire to actually achieve the objects and purposes of the Act. That is why I want to mention one or two of them now. I am not going to go into any detail about them, but I think if we are serious about minimising the harm that comes from our binge-drinking culture, then we do need to think about some of these ideas.

In respect of the idea, for example, of lowering the permitted blood-alcohol content, there will be a discussion about the scope of it, and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has Supplementary Order Paper 40. There is no doubt that if we were to seriously consider that, we would certainly begin to deal with the sorts of harm-related issues that Kevin Hague mentioned in his contribution—the 1,000 alcohol-related deaths.

If we were, for example, when we are dealing with local planning issues, to give boards of trustees automatic standing to make submissions about whether or not licensing decisions should be made, given the evidence that we heard at the select committee about the harm that flows from locating licensed premises near or on the way to schools, again we would do a lot to achieve, in a much better manner than with the bill as it currently stands, the objects and purposes of the Act.

There has been mention already in this initial debate about local alcohol policies, and they have been praised, even by the Government member who spoke earlier. Well, the problem with them is that they are optional, so a local government entity does not have to have a local alcohol policy. When it does decide to have one it is going to take many, many, many months in order to be able to bring that local alcohol policy into effect—16 months, I think, is the figure that is given—and when they are chosen to be brought into effect by a particular territorial local authority, they are very restricted as to the matters that they can deal with. They are very, very restricted, on the face of the Act, to the types of matters they can deal with.

If we were serious about the object and purpose here, we would allow them to be much wider than they are. There are two Supplementary Order Papers before us, one in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 109, which would provide for them to be required by a territorial local authority, and one in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford, Supplementary Order Paper 116, which would circumvent the time that it will take to bring those local alcohol policies into place, as far as the local authorities are concerned. They are both very good measures as far as trying to achieve the objects and purpose of the legislation are concerned.

In the same vein, my colleague Lianne Dalziel, as is well known and as the Minister mentioned in her contribution, has a Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 113, that would bring in, or at least empower the Minister to bring in, if she so chose, a minimum pricing regime. It is entirely at the Minister’s discretion as to how that is designed. It need not be all doom and gloom in raising prices across the board. It could be a judicious measure if it were designed well. When the Minister was on her feet she told us that she had a report purporting to indicate that the Scots, who, as we know, have put in place a minimum pricing regime, have suspended that regime.

Well, we can all produce evidence about minimum pricing regimes. Only 2 weeks ago in Australia there was a report very strongly advocating that the only way in which Australia would be able to deal with its binge-drinking culture in a meaningful fashion would be, amongst other things, to bring in a minimum pricing regime for alcohol. The evidence is by no means overwhelming in the way that the Minister would have us believe.

There are some other very good Supplementary Order Papers that would certainly permit the objects and purposes of the Act to be better achieved. Andrew Little has proposed one that would restrict opening hours. Iain Lees-Galloway has another one that would restrict the advertising and sponsorship regime, one of the biggest, obvious failures that the bill would make if it is enacted in its present form. There is one in the name of David Clark that would restrict advertising that is specifically targeted at young people. My colleague Phil Goff has a very, very good one that would make restrictions on the availability of ready-to-drinks.

Again, we know from the Justice and Electoral Committee evidence that ready-to-drinks are sweet, they are sugary, and they are ready-made—ready prepared. If members mean what they say and what they have said in the Chamber already about trying to promote responsible drinking amongst young people, this is something that obviously, according to the evidence, ought to be dealt with, again, in respect of achieving the objects and purposes of the legislation. That is a Supplementary Order Paper that the Committee must consider seriously and independently, and any member who does not have a good look at that and think about their vote on it cannot be taken seriously about a desire to promote responsible drinking amongst young people.

David Clark has a Supplementary Order Paper that would remove the excise tax on low-alcohol products, therefore promoting them, again, via a sensible price mechanism, making them more attractive, so that rather than looking at hard liquor options, people are encouraged to look at softer ones. I mentioned, I think, the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Phil Twyford on fast tracking the local alcohol policy options, but there are other good ones as well. I think Kevin Hague has a number that are well worth having a close look at.

As I said earlier on, this is not about whether or not this is not an adequate bill; it is. It does make some progress. As I have said, the various players deserve credit for that, but the point is it could be so much better.

Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. By way of some introductory remarks, I want to state from the outset that the Māori Party believes that we must really focus on the long-term outlook, the intergenerational shift that will ensure that we reduce alcohol-related harm right across the whānau. We advocated for significant investment in the sector, targeted at alcohol treatment services, and were pleased that the Government moved in this way with a $10 million announcement in the Budget. We also support the proposal for a cross-agency advertising and sponsorship review, as recommended by the Law Commission. We are particularly supportive of the Law Commission’s advice that alcohol advertising and sponsorship could be addressed by limiting product information to a plain pack format, which is basically what Tariana Turia has done in respect of tobacco prevention.

We can say from the start, as well, that we are, however, disappointed that local alcohol plans remain voluntary. The liberalisation of alcohol sales—opening up supermarket sales, extending opening hours, reducing the minimum purchase age to 18, and the increased number and density of outlets—have all compounded the serious problem that other members in the Chamber have talked about, not only in this debate but also in the first debate in respect of the purchase age. A comparison made by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to the regime of environmental management is particularly helpful, I think. It was their contention that the rights protected under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi include the capacity to protect and preserve the well-being of our greatest taonga, our people, and accordingly it was their view that iwi have the right to be decision makers on the supply and regulation of alcohol within their respective ancestral lands. The proposal to enable iwi input into local decision-making will be proposed as one of the key amendments under my name to the clauses on local alcohol policy.

The Māori Party describes alcohol as a social hazard and argues for measures against hazardous alcohol intake across all layers of influence. It would be no secret—or maybe it is—that Māori have one of the few societies where the history prior to the arrival of the settler group was free of alcohol. Indeed, a term that our people use for alcohol is “waipiro”. “Waipiro” literally means “stinking water”. From that time to now, there has obviously been a clear impact on Māori communities across the board, and from the Māori Party’s perspective we take this particular issue, along with tobacco and, indeed, gambling, under the banner, if you like, of social hazards that we definitely need to have a look at. In that regard, as previous members have mentioned, under my name we have tabled a number of amendments, which the Committee will consider over the length and breadth of this debate. These include making the proximity to a school a criterion for determining liquor licences; adding Māori representation to the local committees; limiting the visibility of advertising for the product in grocery stores and grocery shops so that it is not visible in the store but alcohol is able to be sold; eliminating advertising and sponsorship of alcohol except inside on-licenced premises; and a sinking-lid policy on off-licence retailers within territorial authorities, in terms of talking about the replacement of existing stores being the only exception, and only if there is not another liquor store within 5 kilometres. There are other amendments that I will not discuss right now, but will come back to during the debate.

I did want to say that the bigger picture on alcohol harm is that it is not just what we drink, it is how and whom we drink with. It takes a community. One of the recommendations that came up from He Tētē Kura: Māori Addiction Treatment 1980-2008 tells us that there are three specific aspects to how we can work together to reduce and prevent alcohol-related harm. I will just mention those to close off. No. 1 is to build, strengthen, and maintain links between whānau, hapū, and iwi communities and the sector around the country. Secondly, we need to explicitly foster a collective whānau approach in the Māori addiction treatment sector and workforce. Thirdly, we need to work more as a unified and collective sector to achieve whānau ora for Māori with addiction-related issues and problems. We would hope that all of these things do come together as we complete this debate over the next day or so. Certainly, we in the Māori Party believe that the Supplementary Order Papers that we are advancing have some merit to them, as do a number—

This has been described by various speakers as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with one of the biggest social problems that we confront in 21st century New Zealand. I am not a wowser; I drink, but I am equally conscious as a New Zealander of the cost of alcohol abuse and misuse to our whole society—the economic cost, the social cost, and the individual human cost—and that is the reason why the last Labour Government set up the Law Commission to do a full inquiry into alcohol abuse in this country. It seemed a sensible thing to do, to take it out of the political arena, to give it to a group of experts who consulted widely across New Zealand society—over 3,000 submissions were received by the Law Commission—and to take what they themselves described as an evidence-based approach. What other approach makes sense than to look at the evidence—to look at it objectively, openly, honestly, and transparently—and then act on the evidence? That is why I believe that the Alcohol Reform Bill is a disappointment.

There are some things that it does, and I applaud the careful steps that it takes in that regard, but most of the things that it does actually date back to the time when Lianne Dalziel was Associate Minister of Justice and talked about the need for local alcohol policies and for giving local communities the ability to control the supply of alcohol in those areas. I heard a very frustrated mayor on the radio the other day in Auckland, saying that we needed these policies 2 years ago. We did need them 2 years ago, and we could have had them 2 years ago, but the Government sat on this bill, then acted very cautiously and rejected the main recommendations of the Law Commission. The main recommendations of the Law Commission included the raising of the age of consumption to 20. I voted for that because I believe that we have a huge problem with teenage binge drinking. The Committee, in its wisdom, decided not to do that. Well, if we are not going to do that, then the Committee has to consider what in some of the Supplementary Order Papers will have an impact on binge drinking.

I want to express my disappointment again that the Minister of Justice met with the liquor industry interests—the vested interests that make hundreds of millions of dollars out of this area. Yes, of course they produce jobs, but that should not prevent us from saying that we have an obligation in this House to pass legislation that will moderate the impact of abuse. One of the things that Simon Power, the previous Minister of Justice, was adamant that the Government should do was to limit the alcohol content of the ready-to-drinks, the alcopops, to 5 percent, which is pretty much the same as beer. I saw the comments that Simon Power made, and I agree with those. These drinks appeal, particularly, to our young people. They are the preferred drink of 63 percent of female, school-age drinkers, and have had the biggest single impact on raising the level of alcohol consumption in this country. Spirits soared because of the introduction of ready-to-drinks. Ready-to-drinks were designed to taste so sweet that you could not taste the alcohol, to appeal to young people. They were to be marketed like soft drinks and to be drunk like soft drinks. Selling half a million containers of alcopops a day has resulted in an enormous increase in alcohol consumption.

It is easy to deal with, Minister, and that is by restricting the level of alcohol to 5 percent for companies that have moved the alcohol level of ready-to-drinks up quite significantly. Many are now selling at 8 percent, some as high as 10 percent. What I want is for this Committee to look, even at this late stage, at an evidence-based approach, and for Government members of Parliament to have the right to vote according to the evidence and not to be whipped into line and agree to everything they have been told by the Minister to do to protect the liquor industry. I urge National members of Parliament to vote according to the evidence and to their own views. I have done a bit of research and I have seen what National members of Parliament have said, including the Minister’s own predecessor, about ready-to-drinks and the need to restrict the alcohol content. So I urge the Government to allow the freedom to its own members to vote according to what they believe is right. The MPs whom I have talked to—and I do not name them, because it was in confidence—from the other side of the House have expressed concern about that and have expressed concern that the liquor industry might be paramount over health and policing people on the front line.

I want to bring it back to what the cost of alcohol is and why we need to act. I took time out to go down to an accident and emergency department, in this case at Auckland City Hospital, to spend the early hours of Sunday morning there, to witness what the staff of those hospitals have to deal with daily. I do not know, Minister, whether you have had that experience, but I would certainly recommend it to you. Ministers from the Government and the Prime Minister were invited to do so. I was appalled at the sheer number of people coming in injured because of alcohol, ill to the point of endangering their health because of alcohol, and often abusive of the staff in the hospital. You have only to spend time with the doctors who are working there through the small hours of the morning, absolutely frustrated that they are spending their time working on people who have abused alcohol, rather than doing the work they want to do to improve the overall health of the community.

Imagine the bonus to New Zealand if we were able to cut down the abuse of alcohol and cut down the $5 billion in costs that the Alcohol Advisory Council says that the abuse of alcohol is causing each year—$5 billion. Instead of slashing social services, instead of cutting back the sorts of services that New Zealand wants, if we could bring down alcohol abuse, we could do something about it. But this bill is a wasted opportunity, because it does not tackle basic things that the Law Commission said it should tackle—for example, price and advertising. Why do we allow alcohol to be promoted? Why do we allow ready-to-drinks to be sold with higher and higher levels of alcohol in what the industry is producing, rather than dealing with it? Let us have the courage in this House to do what is right and not surrender to pressure from the industry. This House is obliged to act for the benefit of New Zealanders, not for the benefit of those people who make money out of promoting alcohol to younger and younger people all the time. We need to do something about that.

Can I say that there is another Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 40, in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, on the level of alcohol that can be consumed before you are driving unlawfully. I have got the Cabinet paper in my hand that tells us what the Government was advised on this. It says that lowering the adult limit is arguably the most cost-effective way we have got of improving road safety. That is the advice given to Cabinet, and I want to ask the Minister why the Government has ignored that advice and said that we need more research. We have got all the research we need. At 0.05 grams your driving starts to become impaired. At 0.08 you are three times more likely to have an accident. I say the Committee should exercise its independent judgment. Look at the evidence. If we are worried about the hundreds of people who are dying and being maimed on the road each year because of too much alcohol in their blood, then let us act in this House, because we can make a difference.

It would be remiss of the House to simply go down the path of caution and say “Great, this bill doesn’t liberalise alcohol.” No, it does not, but nor does it address the critical problems that are causing billions of dollars to be spent in health and in policing in this country. I want to say to those who said “It’s a minor problem. Let’s not hurt the majority, because it’s a minor problem.” that there are 444,000 people who in one of the recent surveys that were done said they felt drunk when they were driving—nearly half a million New Zealanders. One in three violent offences is alcohol related. One in three domestic violence offences is alcohol related. The Minister in the chair is the Minister of Justice. These things must be deeply troubling to her. She was the Minister of Police.

We have to do something more than say “Let’s not offend the liquor industry. Let’s not offend those who are making money out of promoting a good that is legally saleable but actually isn’t an ordinary commodity.”

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No one’s saying that. Silly thing to say.

It is not a silly thing to say; it is absolutely true, and Mr Williamson ought to consider what the cost is. You know, we heard it from Kevin Hague not so long ago—275,000 New Zealanders set out, when they went drinking on their last occasion, to get drunk. That is a serious problem.

I am pleased to be speaking to Part 1 in the Committee stage, on preliminary matters. This is the biggest reform since Prohibition. I congratulate the Government on bringing this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, to the House today. It is in response to the Law Commission report, and there have been over 130 positive changes as a result. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the previous Justice and Electoral Committee, which heard over 1,500 submissions on this very topic, and the chair, Chester Borrows. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, on her work, and the officials. There has been a huge amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes.

It is a balanced approach, and, let us face it, you are never going to please everyone. But I am particularly pleased about some aspects of this bill, which, if time permits, I will talk to. Local alcohol plans—absolutely, the community wants those. It wants to be able to make those decisions on where alcohol outlets should be. Alcohol displays in supermarkets and grocery stores—that one particularly incenses me. My local supermarket changed the layout and made shoppers go down the alcohol aisle. You could not go left, you could not go right. You had no option but to go through the alcohol, and that infuriated me. I am also pleased to see parental tools are available. I have a 16-year-old daughter. I would be outraged if she went to another home and she was offered alcohol without my knowing or having my express wish. I am particularly pleased about that.

But I really want to just take some time and actually focus on the cross-sectoral approach that the Government is taking to alcohol. You cannot do it with just one piece of legislation; I think we all have to agree on that. But in health there are some very exciting initiatives with regard to alcohol harm. We know there are about 700,000 heavy drinkers out there in New Zealand. Most of them probably do it through a lack of education or they might be in denial. But there are two tools. One is the Whanganui alcohol screening pilot that is under way. It is very exciting. That is showing some good results, where people are screened on alcohol—on how much they are drinking, when and where, what types—and, if they are registered as high risk, interventions are offered to them. That is rolling out very nicely.

But there is another exciting tool, which I am particularly happy with and I am very excited about, and that is called eCHAT. It has happened in two general practitioners’ practices in Auckland. It is going to be rolled out to 30 more, including Tāmaki College next year—no; it is actually currently happening—where everyone in the waiting area is given an iPad or a tablet and they are given nine fields of questions to answer. It is very quick. It covers alcohol, it covers recreational drugs, it covers violence, it covers depression, it covers exercise, and it covers a couple of other areas. It has been well researched. It has been looked at and the questions have been fine-tuned. It basically, again, links into the patient record. Again, if the person registers as high risk in any particular category, they go on and answer more questions, and the general practitioner can offer them some screening and some intervention tools. I think that is particularly exciting, particularly because people often do not realise the harm they are doing. Some of it is through lack of education, and maybe it is just pointing out: “Look, you need to look at what you’re drinking and how much you’re drinking.” I am really pleased by that.

The emergency department of Wellington Regional Hospital has been screening people who appear at accident and emergency with an alcohol-related event. They are contacted a few days later by their community alcohol and drug service. Most of those people do not want to know about it, and that is fine, but there will be people who want to know, and realise, maybe in that reflective stage of their drinking, that, yes, they have got a bit of a problem and it is time to address it. Those are measures I am particularly pleased about.

In the Minister’s other portfolio, ACC, they are doing huge work in reduction of alcohol harm. I was on to ACC the other night—I had to phone about a constituent—and I got this recorded message while I was waiting to be answered: “Don’t forget to serve non-alcoholic drinks and serve food at your party.” I was staggered, and it made me realise how much ACC is doing to reduce harm from alcohol, particularly in the workplace. There is also transport. The Safer Journeys initiative has actually really targeted youth and alcohol drinking and harm. In corrections, it is fabulous. Alcohol and drug treatment beds have opened up for prisoners, and all prisoners have access to those. It has been life changing. I went to Pāremoremo prison and I spoke to staff at the unit, and it has been absolutely life changing for prisoners who have taken up that option of having alcohol and drug treatment. Basically, alcohol had fuelled their lives and their lives had been brought into crisis. Thank you.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair.

Iain Lees-Galloway has been trying for a while. I will give him the call.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to pick up from where Dr Jackie Blue left off. Her point was that we cannot address the harm caused by alcohol just through legislation; we have to do it through other measures as well. Nobody in this Committee would disagree with Dr Blue on that, I think.

There has to be a range of responses to the harm caused by alcohol. But one of the responses is through legislation, and this is an opportunity that is going begging. It is not what is in the Alcohol Reform Bill. Tim Macindoe spoke about the fact that a large number of the Law Commission’s recommendations are in the bill. They are and they are good, and I will certainly be voting in support of the bill. It is a step in the right direction. But by no measure can it be called a reform bill.

It is not a reform of our alcohol laws in New Zealand; it is a very, very timid turn away from liberalisation. We have had decades of continued liberalisation. Yes, this is a step away from that, but a very timid and a very small step away from that continued liberalisation. And it is a real disappointment to all the people who have been lobbying, who have been working so hard in this field, who made submissions to the Law Commission, who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, who have lobbied individual MPs, and who have presented us with the evidence—it is a huge disappointment to those people—that this Government has brought an alcohol bill that is nothing more than a timid slowing down of the decades of liberalisation that we have seen.

Why do we need real reform of our alcohol laws? Well, The Economist produced a table, a drug harm index, and it showed the relative harm of different substances that people take recreationally: alcohol, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, tobacco, cannabis, GHB, butane, all the way down to magic mushrooms. Right at the top of that list for harm caused not only to the individual who consumes the substance but to the wider community is alcohol. And it is not ever so slightly at the top of the list; it is way out in front—way, way out in front—of all those other substances. That does not mean it is not possible for alcohol to be consumed sensibly and safely. Thousands and millions of New Zealanders do that, and we should not curtail their ability to do it.

The Minister said this is about striking a balance. Yes, we have to strike a balance. Some countries dabbled with prohibition almost a century ago—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How did that go?

—and that was an abject failure. It was, Mr Williamson, an absolute failure, and we would not want to go there. We have to get the balance right, but the balance in this legislation is tipped too far towards the alcohol industry and those who are too nervous to really take on genuine alcohol reform. A better balance needs to be struck, and that is still possible. It is still possible. I know that National Party members will be under the whip and at this stage are not planning to vote for the measures that are going to be proposed that will truly strengthen this bill, but I urge those members to continue, even at this late stage, their discussion with their leadership, and I urge all other parties in the Chamber to support those amendments that will genuinely strengthen this bill and make it a true reform bill.

I heard, as I was travelling to the House today, Kevin Hague talking about the Ottawa Charter and how that establishes the environment for good public health. That is what a lot of these amendments are focused on today. It is not about trying to clean up the mess after people develop an addiction to alcohol or overuse or abuse alcohol, but actually trying to create the right settings and the right environment in which the right attitude towards alcohol is developed. And we can do some of that through legislation—not all of it, but we can do some of it through legislation. We have the evidence that tells us what are the right things to do: restricting the availability, restricting the advertising, increasing the price, and lowering the legal alcohol limit for driving. All of those things are meaningful and have an evidence base behind them, and will actually do something about the issues we have with alcohol in this country. We have the opportunity to do much, much more than we are doing in this legislation at the moment.

I would like to just touch on something. I will come back to it at the appropriate time, but because Jackie Blue raised it in her previous submission I would like to raise it now. That is the aspect of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 132 that deals with alcohol areas in supermarkets. I am not convinced that it is quite all that it is cracked up to be, and I think we need a more thorough examination of it. My concern is that there is a loophole in the way it has been worded that will allow the alcohol section in supermarkets to be right next to the entrance so it is something that everybody has to walk past. They may not have to walk through it, but they may have to walk past it. If that is an incorrect interpretation, then I would be very pleased for the Minister to clarify that so that we know what we are voting for. I certainly will not be voting for that aspect of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper until we have that clarification. If that is the case, I will gladly support it, but if it is not the case, then I think we need to take a closer look at it.

I certainly will be speaking in support of and voting for those amendments proposed by my colleagues in the Labour Party and by the Green Party, and some of the amendments proposed by the Māori Party that get the balance right. The Minister is absolutely correct: this is about striking a balance. But the balance is in the wrong place right now, and we have some work in the coming hours and days to get the balance right.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair.

Did you call?

💬 Hon David Parker: I did, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call the Hon David Parker.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to take a call on the preliminary part of this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill. As other speakers have said, there does not really seem to be much dispute that in New Zealand we currently have a worse problem with the abuse of alcohol than we did before liberalisation of alcohol sales laws in the 1980s, and that therefore there is a need to redress that balance and introduce some more restrictions around the sale of alcohol in an effort to reduce the harm that is done in society from the abuse of alcohol. Most people in this Chamber drink alcohol from time to time, and most people in this Chamber do not abuse alcohol, but it is true that too many people in New Zealand do abuse alcohol, to the detriment of themselves and their families, and at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

One thing I would want to raise with the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, at the moment is that the proposal in the legislation to change the default closing time to 4 a.m. for licensed premises still seems to me to be overly permissive. I think that the cost caused to our tax system as well as the harm done to our population by those late closing hours is in need of further remedy. I think that Mr Flavell’s amendment in that regard is probably quite a good step. He says that the closing hour should be 3 a.m. and that between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. there should be a one-way policy, so that if you go into a licensed premise and you leave it, you cannot hop into another one after 1 in the morning. I am struck by a statement that was made to me probably about 3 or 4 years ago by the then head of police in Queenstown, who said that the cost of policing is effectively driven to quite a significant extent by the closing hour of licensed premises. Rosters need to be maintained and cars need to be kept on the road until the licensed premises close, and if those licensed premises close earlier, then they do not have to keep those rosters going as long.

I think that is pretty clear. It is not that long ago that we had 10 o’clock closing, then 11 p.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays—I think that is where it was extended to first. Since then, we have effectively had open slather with very, very late licensing hours, including in premises that border on residential areas, which causes a nuisance to those around them. So one of the things I would like to see passed as we go through this debate is the Flavell amendment in that regard. There are other aspects of his amendments I disagree with. I do not think it is practical to limit off-licences to only one within every 5 kilometres of each other. That would effectively mean that in a place like Wellington there might be one or two off-licence premises in the whole of Wellington central, which would just be, I think, wrong. In respect of small towns, it would effectively mean there would be one monopoly provider. So I do not agree with that, but I do agree that we need to truncate the hours of these licensed premises.

I am personally disappointed that in respect of the debate we had on the age, we did not move on the age for off-licence premises. I think that has been a mistake this Parliament may rue. There is no doubt that the scientists tell us that the younger a person is when they start drinking, the more likely it is that they develop an alcohol problem long term. In addition to their greater likelihood of developing an alcohol problem, we also know that whatever damage is done through drinking, it is more long term for a younger person because of the stage of development of their brain. Again, there is good scientific evidence to show that the damage that is done to a young person’s brain before that brain completely matures is greater than the damage to the brain of an older person who has had the same level of alcohol consumption. So I think that for both of those reasons it would have been appropriate to increase the age for off-licences. There is, indeed, an argument that we should have done it for on-licences as well, but the argument in respect of on-licences is not quite as strong in that there are, at least in theory, meant to be controls relating to serving intoxicated people that make it less likely that there will be harm to those people on licensed premises.

I think that whatever happens with this legislation, I would like to see the Government putting more focus on enforcement of the law. I live in the very heart of Dunedin, in the central area, and I can tell you that at 3 or 4 a.m. most—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I thought you were from Remuera.

I have got a foot in more than one camp, Mr Williamson, but none of them is in Remuera. I do know that the state of people when they come out of those premises at 3 or 4 in the morning is such that it is impossible that they were not being served when they were absolutely totalled when they were in these licensed premises. I would like to see more Government resources be put into closing down some of those irresponsible licensed premises. I think the courts are ready to take a hard line and to close down some of these places and make them lose their licences for a month or 6 months, on a graduated scale. Some of those businesses would go to the wall, and they deserve to do so if they act irresponsibly and breach the laws that this Parliament passes and that society wants us to uphold.

I would also speak in support of a couple of other amendments. I agree with Jackie Blue in respect of the amendment relating to the non-sale supply to young people. This is an issue on which I have had a lot of discussions with Lianne Dalziel through the years, and we both thought it was important for it to be in the original bills that were discharged some 3 or 4 years ago. It is a nonsense that it is illegal to sell liquor to a person who is a minor, while under current law there are very few restrictions on the non-sale supply to a young person, even if that supply is without parental consent, even if it is for hideous amounts of strong spirits, and even if they are in a car. There are so many gaps in the existing law relating to non-sale supply to minors that it is no wonder that the police cannot effectively enforce the current law, such as it is. So I am pleased that the non-sale supply to minors is going to be significantly tightened so that it can be legal only if there is parental consent and there is then a responsible level in terms of the provision of alcohol. It will take some of the pressure off parents around some of these pre-ball and post-ball parties, where parents are put under pressure because they are told by Johnny that everyone else is doing it and therefore they have to do the same thing. So I think that is a good step in the right direction, but I would note that it could have been done 3 years earlier if the earlier bill had not been discharged.

I also agree with local liquor plans. I think that local authorities should be able to control how many off-licences or on-licences they have in areas. I think local people have a right in a democratic society to exercise some control of that. I would also speak in favour of the measure in respect of the liquor-laden soft drinks, the ready-to-drink soft drinks, that have become so pervasive. Some of the richest people in New Zealand have made their fortunes on the back of the misery caused by ready-to-drinks, and we ought not to shrink from concluding that those ready-to-drinks really are marketed in a way that is meant to disguise the taste of alcohol—they are soft drinks, essentially. Phil Goff’s amendment to limit the concentration of alcohol in those drinks, and the size and number of standard drinks that can be in a ready-to-drink, is, I think, worthy of the support of this Parliament. The misery that flows, particularly for the younger people who are most attracted to these ready-to-drinks, is something that can be remedied by this Parliament if we vote in support of that amendment.

As others have said, this bill does not go as far as it needs to in order to remedy some of the harm. I intend to support the bill notwithstanding those failures because it does go further than the existing law, and I think that for me probably the most significant thing in this bill is improving local control over the number of outlets and the non-sale supply of alcohol to minors.

I rise to speak in favour of the Alcohol Reform Bill broadly, and of Part 1. Part 1 contains the objects, as we all know. I do feel, overall, that the Government is wasting a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put through more pervasive legislation that would address the issues at the heart of the problem that our society has. However, overall I want to signal from the beginning that I will support the legislation, because it takes some steps in the right direction.

I had the privilege in my previous role as head of a university college to be on the vice-chancellor’s alcohol advisory task force at Otago. That experience confirmed for me a number of things that I already understood about alcohol culture, primarily through access to alcohol experts in the field. Primary health experts in New Zealand are pretty much of one mind on this stuff. It is not like the “100% pure” matter, where Mr Key can say: “You find one expert who says we’re no longer 100 percent pure and I’ll find you another one who says we are.” Perhaps that is not a good example, as I do not think that is a fair case, either.

In this area, in primary health, people are of one mind. The research is really clear that alcohol-related harm can best be curbed through the use of mechanisms like pricing, marketing, distribution, and supply. There is no wavering on this. It is not that there is debate around what the best measures are for curbing alcohol-related harm—there is really clear evidence. So I would challenge those members opposite who have not yet sat down with experts in this area to do so, because they are more than willing to share their learnings. The primary health experts in this country are very generous with what they have learnt as a result of their studies and they are keen to see change for the betterment of New Zealand society. This is one area where our universities do take a strong role in being critic and conscience.

Dunedin North, the electorate that I represent, is an electorate that wrestles with alcohol issues in respect of the student population, in particular. I would argue that those alcohol-related issues are no better nor any worse than previous generations. Much media centres on the general concept that the world is going to hell in a handbasket in that respect. I do not buy into that. I think that different generations have treated alcohol in a similar way. This is an intergenerational issue that we are dealing with here. There is some evidence that fewer people are drinking heavily, and those who are, are now drinking more heavily, but, overall, the picture is very similar to what it was a generation ago.

We now know though a little more about alcohol-related harm than we did a generation ago, and that is why it is imperative that we act now in a way that was not clear to us a generation ago. Who knows, if in my day society’s leaders had acted to curb alcohol-related harm when I was a student, whether we would not have solved the problem of world peace by now. Anything is possible. It is certainly the case that generations up until now have had their development impaired in one form or another through the use of alcohol.

We now know, through the use of magnetic resource imaging scanners, that adolescence stretches from 13 to 23, and that frontal lobe development, which happens towards the end of that period, is at its peak between the ages of 18 and 21 when students are undertaking studies—undergraduate studies in particular at university—and that is when they are developing their critical faculties, the powers of rational thought, and laying out an argument.

Those processes are being hardwired into the frontal lobe at that point in their development. But that frontal lobe, we also know, is responsible for addictions. It is the centre in the human body for addictions. So at the same time as those students are studying by day to improve their rational thought processes, many of them are out drinking and creating a lifetime of addiction for themselves.

This is not knowledge that was as immediately clear to us a generation ago, but it is now much, much more evident through advances in science. So it is imperative upon us, as those who have inherited this science, that we speak out about it and make the case for change.

We also know that education does not make a great impact in respect of addictions and in respect certainly of student behaviour. Students drink because it is a risky practice; that is why they drink heavily. They choose to drink heavily because it is a risky practice. Telling students that drinking is a risky practice simply reinforces the reasons why they want to do it. In fact, it increases the incentive and encourages the behaviour. There are studies across the States that demonstrate the way in which education programmes have led to absolutely no change in trends of behaviour in respect of teenage risk-taking.

I am disappointed personally at the way in which the Government has succeeded in framing the alcohol issue as an age issue overall. Personally that is one of the greatest disappointments to me in respect of this legislation. Opposition parties I guess must question themselves—particularly those who feel in conscience educated about this issue and want to speak out about it—about how they have not done better at countering that particular framing. When people think this is an age issue they forget to ask the wider questions about how we make that societal change, and lump the burden of responsibility back on that younger age group, or at least the interest in the debate back on that younger age group and who is in and who is out of the drinking. We know, as I have said earlier, that pricing, marketing, distribution, and supply are well above age in terms of influence and in terms of people’s drinking patterns. I will put forward two Supplementary Order Papers in my name later in the debate in respect of price and marketing.

I do compliment the Government on some of the changes it is making in respect of distribution. I know that local councils are grateful that some changes are being made in that area. It is certainly the case that in Dunedin there are examples of local liquor suppliers setting up business in the middle of town and the council having no redress. Although the public were against those outlets setting up, wholesale outlets, where there are already plenty around, the council was without powers to change it. That will change, as I understand it, if the Government’s legislation succeeds, so I want to compliment the Government on that change.

Some of the changes that are being made are positive. However, overall I feel that this is a real missed opportunity. I am also disappointed that National members are choosing not to exercise their consciences on this issue. I think that conscience, like all human faculties, is a use it or lose it thing, and it is no different in this respect. I think Government members should choose to exercise their conscience on this issue.

So overall there is an amount of tinkering here. The changes that could be made are not going to be made, but some of those that are worthy of our support will mean that I personally will offer my support to the overall legislation, albeit with some disappointment that some of the bigger levers are being put to one side in favour of what I see as expediency.

I think I will start where my colleague David Clark has left off and say that this Alcohol Reform Bill does not put before the Committee, in a way that I would have hoped, a number of choices for the Committee. I do regret the fact that National has decided to hide behind its whips on this particular issue, but I think that when it does come to the election campaign, people will be asked how they voted on the issues that come up here, and the fact that it was a whipped vote on what has often been a conscience area will not be a protection for those members.

Having said that, and regretted the fact that we have not really got an opportunity to debate and make decisions as a Parliament on this occasion, as we have on every other occasion where we have debated this legislation, I have to say that there are a lot of areas that I disagree with. The last two of my colleagues who have just spoken, David Clark and David Parker, have considered the issues over time, looked at some of the evidence, and come to different conclusions.

I would agree that academics, for example, should play a positive role in informing the debate on liquor legislation, and that they should be the critics and the conscience. But the problem I have, especially with the leading academics in this particular area, the most quoted academics in this particular area, is that they are zealots. I do not think the evidence matters to them and—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Some of them are practitioners.

Some of them are practitioners, but the people whom I am talking about, especially a couple of individuals from the member’s own city, have in fact been shown to twist the evidence in reaching their conclusions. And if anyone has any doubt about that, can I recommend—[Interruption] No, take a call and debate it. Can I recommend that they look at the work of Ruth Laugesen, when she did some work that looked into that area. The name, of course, is not one that is unknown in the public health area, and she is certainly a journalist with a good reputation for analysis.

When people looked at allegations of fact and opinion, what was found was that the evidence that is being presented to the public is not always backed up by the research. I will say also that that was my experience as a member of the select committee when dealing with the Rugby World Cup and the shifts that the people I have described as zealots in the area of alcohol law reform wanted to make as part of that exercise, and that actually their arguments did not stack up.

I want to disagree with my colleague about trends in alcohol use. I do not think there are many people left in the Chamber who can remember seeing—though in my case not being part of—evidence of the six o’clock swill. That was outrageous. The type of drinking that we saw at that time far exceeds—far exceeds—the behaviour that occurs now. It occurred with just about everyone who was in hotels at the time—and there were many more hotels at the time—and people were much more likely to drive after that occurred. I will get back to that.

The other trend was just the practice as to the type—[Interruption] They might have been slower cars, but we did have cars, and they were not like Fred Flintstone’s, either. People used to drink off premises, using flagons. That was the standard measure. I can remember people who thought it was progress when we shifted from flagons to crates as being the standard measure. So for people to argue that there has been a massive decline in the approach to drinking is, in my opinion, incorrect.

I disagree with the comments that David Parker made, and also with the proposals in the bill with regard to closing hours. I have worked on occasions as a shift worker—different sorts of shifts. There was one shift where we worked week-on, week-off, and we finished up at 8 o’clock on a Friday morning, and we used to go to the pub. But there was another job where I worked a 4-to-midnight shift; therefore, our work day and our work week finished at midnight. The idea that we could not go off to the pub then—we worked different hours, we slept different hours. I think one of the good things that has happened is that that has been recognised in the ability of shift workers to socialise.

I do agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and his amendment with regard to drink-driving. I think there has been a major cultural change in that area in New Zealand in my lifetime. I think it is no secret that many people of my generation, especially but not only those who lived in rural areas, used to regularly drive way over the limit. We had mickey mouse testing systems and a lack of policing—and, in fact, in some cases police actively ignoring the law because they themselves used to be involved in the drink-driving. But I think times have changed, and that is a good thing. We are now ready, I think, for a change from a blood-alcohol level of 80 milligrams, back to 50.

I want to make a comment to the amendment that is proposed by my friend the Hon Phil Goff to do with ready-to-drinks, and to say that I disagree with him. I will give an example for myself from last Thursday night. I went to an event at the Civic Theatre and I wanted to have a rum and Coke. I could have had the same alcohol concentration poured out of a bottle and mixed with Coke, or I could have bought it in a little bottle as a ready-to-drink. Why is it that you should be allowed it if it comes in a glass or in a bit of plastic, but not be allowed it if it is the same mixture in a bottle? My view is that there is a degree of overreaction to a format that is more popular with younger people. People go on about drinks being sweet. Well, I happen to like dessert wines, and I do not mind rum and Coke myself, either. They are sweet drinks, and, because they are not fashionable with some generations and more fashionable with others, that might need to be considered when we are looking at this.

There is one other issue for me that I still want to hear evidence on and listen to. I know we have at least two sets of amendments around minimum pricing. I have to say that I am not yet convinced, but I want to listen to the evidence and listen to the debate on these issues as part of this Committee. I would say that I am reluctant, on behalf of my poorer constituents, to have them disproportionately affected by this sort of change, as is being proposed. It was proposed by the Law Commission and it is being proposed by some members.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in her name to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.