Alcohol Reform Bill

We now move to new Part 2A. We have a number of amendments that propose new parts and related new provisions. The first of these is an amendment in the name of Hone Harawira set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121. This proposes a new Part 2A, relating to the review of ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol.

I will rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the honourable Hone Harawira. I note the additional elements.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This would be helpful for me. The other elements of a new Part 2A and Part 7, relating to advertising and sponsorship, will be dealt with separately. So this is purely on the amendment moved by the honourable Hone Harawira on Supplementary Order Paper 121?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct. We will move to the others shortly.

That is fine. I will speak on that. I am hoping that the honourable Hone Harawira himself will take a call on his Supplementary Order Paper, but I felt that it was important that we get the debate going on this matter. I felt that I was an appropriate person to speak to it, because I voted for the split age, in terms of the age issue, which we, in fact, dealt with the last time we debated the bill. I want to speak in favour of the amendment, even though I voted for the split age and then ultimately voted to retain the age at 18. The reason that I want to support this amendment is that it will answer, I believe, one of the concerns that the public have around the age question. What it asks the Parliament to do is to amend the Alcohol Reform Bill by inserting provisions for the Ministry of Justice to review the ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of the bill. I think that what the member has been trying to do is to ask the Parliament to have a mechanism where there is an automatic review taking place. There might be a willingness expressed by all parties to review the operation of legislation after a particular period of time, but I believe that to have it written into the legislation would actually be a help, and it would help people understand that the Parliament will not let another 12 years go by before the law is reviewed again. That is because a lot of the public have actually accepted the argument that the purchase age is such a top issue, although I do not believe that any of the evidence presented by the Law Commission and by those who have been advocating for the five-plus-one option has put age at the top of the range of measures that need to be taken. The reason that they have not put it at the top is that it is effective to a certain extent, but it is not the most effective measure that could be taken, and it certainly does not rate in the top three of those measures, but it certainly does warrant the Committee’s ongoing attention.

I think that the public have bought into this issue of the age being so important, because it is the only issue in the legislation that has been the subject of a conscience vote on the part of the Government. The Government has whipped the entire caucus on every other element of the legislation. Something that I had hoped we would get to ourselves is that we were hoping to be able to get rid of the conscience vote. I was the one who actually raised it in the first instance when I was Associate Minister of Justice back in 2008. It occurred to me that the only year when it is absolutely impossible to get any alcohol reform is election year, and it is because of the conscience vote. The huge amount of pressure that came on people to vote in a particular way—certainly, the community’s voice could not match the pressure, really, of big business that was able to, I believe, put a lot of pressure on people in terms of how they voted on particular issues. The purchase age has never been a particular issue for the industry, so that is the one issue that is just not an issue and I think that is why the Government was prepared to give that away. It was not prepared, I think, to let brand new MPs confront the reality of their constituents, who were looking for a lot more from this Parliament than what they are getting from this bill.

I like the idea of reviewing legislation on a relatively fixed date. The reason that I say that is that when I was first elected to Parliament, or some years afterwards in 1993, we had the human rights amendment. I can see Kevin Hague nodding his head sagely, because he knows exactly what I am going to say. Charles Chauvel is also nodding his head sagely because he knows exactly what I am going to say. The law required the Government to go through all of its laws, and to actually work out which laws were in conflict with the changes that were made to the Human Rights Act and to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at that time. So there was an obligation on the Government to do that, and guess what? It did not do it. We actually got to the expiry date, and it had not been done. The expiry date of that particular provision, which exempted the Crown from the new provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, had to be extended, I believe, twice, until we finally got through the statutory references legislation.

I believe that the member Hone Harawira feels very passionately about this issue of purchase age, and I know that not every member has the opportunity to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, but I actually think that we owe it to everyone who supports this amendment to actually debate it. To have a proposal for a review in 5 years, I think, is a very sensible one indeed. So I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I had hoped that the member himself would be able to take a call, and I thought my contributing to the debate in such a reasonable way might have given the member Hone Harawira the idea that perhaps he should take a call on this bill. If that message can get through to his office, I am sure that will assist the debate. It is something that I think is important; sometimes it is important to stand for something. Even though I did not vote for the measure that he was concerned about, I am perfectly happy to support a measure that says that we review the operation of a decision that is made by this Parliament within a reasonable time frame. We simply cannot allow 12 years to go by, and then have somebody else ask why we never had a look at it again. I think if we write it into the law, we will actually get the opportunity—well, more than the opportunity; we have an obligation—to review it and to see whether the concerns that were raised at the time have, in fact, been addressed.

In fact, there are probably other parts of the legislation, which we are going to be passing over the next couple of days, or next three days, or however long it takes—I think that what we might find is that there are other parts of this legislation that might also benefit from such an amendment. I might look at whether we need some additional amendments as we go through the Committee stage, as this is an opportunity to do just that.

So I do congratulate the member on bringing the matter to the attention of the Committee. It is an opportunity for us to talk about whether we have got an opportunity in the future to reflect on decisions that we have made, based on the evidence, because the evidence will be available. I would like to take the opportunity to completely disagree with everything that Trevor Mallard said about my very respected colleagues in Christchurch, who have done nothing but devote—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Sally Casswell used to be very impartial. I used to deal with Sally Casswell. She was terribly impartial!

I am very proud of Sally Casswell and Doug Sellman, and all of the public health people. They are not self-interested. All they care about is the public health of New Zealand. We actually should have people who care about the public health of New Zealand, because if there is one thing that has actually diminished under this Government, it is health promotion. We might talk about operations and various other things, but health promotion has gone down the drain under this Government. It is not playing the leadership position that we ought to be playing in the world. New Zealand led the world on tobacco law reform. We should be leading the world on alcohol law reform as well, and that is what I challenge the Committee to do with this amendment.

I also rise to speak in favour of this new Part 2A in the Alcohol Reform Bill proposed by Hone Harawira in Supplementary Order Paper 121, requiring a review of ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol being written into the legislation and specifying a 5-year period at the end of which the provisions around the age of sale and purchase should be reviewed. I think this is a very sensible measure, not just because I lost on both of the votes that we took on the age. I voted in the first instance for a split age and in the second instance for the age to be raised to 20. The reasons I did that were purely and simply health grounds, and purely and simply because the work of the Law Commission was based on evidence that came before it. It is on that same basis that I would like the age for the sale and purchase of alcohol to be reviewed as of law and as of a specified time, this being 5 years after the commencement of this Act.

It seems to me that with this particularly sensitive piece of what is social legislation, many parts of which have traditionally been subjected to a conscience vote, it is imperative that this House revisit its decisions on this legislation at regular intervals. Hone Harawira has said 5 years. I will support that because we will arrive, after a couple of days of debate, at a piece of legislation that will set down the law surrounding the availability, the promotion, and the sale and purchase of alcohol. I do not believe that our social circumstances will remain the same in 5 years’ time as they are now. In other words, we have waited 12 years for this opportunity to come to this House, and it has been a long time coming, and I am disappointed in many of the provisions in the legislation as it appears now. There is much that I will support because it is an improvement on what we have got, but that is not the highest accolade I could wish for in a piece of legislation of this sort. In 5 years’ time, we will be able to assess the extent to which the alcohol industry, the hospitality industry, and everybody associated with them have been able to find ways around the laws that we are about to pass.

Although I am disappointed about some of the provisions that are in the legislation, particularly around advertising and promotion and so on—and there are amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to address some of these, which I do support—the fact remains that in 5 years’ time we will be in a better place to know whether or not the hospitality industry and all of those industrial giants that benefit from as light-handed a regulatory approach to this issue as possible have been able to find ways of subverting it. In other words, are there new products on the market? Clearly, there are new products on the market now targeted at young people that were not present the last time liquor laws were promulgated by this Parliament. There are new approaches to advertising, there are new risks and dangers attaching to new products, and we need to have the chance to revisit the age of sale and purchase on the basis of contemporary evidence. It is for that reason that I would support Hone Harawira’s new Part 2A, which would seek to embed a 5-year review period into this legislation.

One of the things that I think is a real concern is the area of health promotion, and I do agree with my colleague who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, that health promotion has taken a tumble under this Government. Even though a health promotion agency has recently been established, we have yet to see whether or not it is going to be strong enough to stand up to vested interests of industry. That has yet to be seen. In 5 years’ time, if we have evidence that new products are on the market that are not covered by the legislation, if there are new ways of promoting or advertising or enticing young people into consuming alcohol, and consuming it in a way that is not safe, then this Parliament ought to be given the imperative of a 5-year review period to bring back to the floor of this Chamber the whole question of the age of purchase and sale of alcohol so that it can be debated again and the contemporary evidence, including any evidence that health promotion efforts that have been undertaken have been successful, can be assessed.

I am concerned that we often talk—and there has been talk already in the debate this afternoon—that this is a “once in a generation” opportunity to get our alcohol laws right. I remain disappointed with many aspects of this legislation. I think that Hone Harawira’s amendment is a good halfway house—perhaps that is not the most appropriate expression, either, in the context of this debate. However, this does seem to be a good compromise measure that would compel this House to review the age of sale and purchase again, on the basis of contemporary current evidence and on the basis of whether or not we know that any health promotion and health education messages are, in fact, working for our young people. This is an issue of concern. This is an issue that many out in the general public feel this House has got wrong. I think it is incumbent upon this Committee to put in place a point at which there must be a review. Hone Harawira’s amendment seeks to do this, and for that reason I support it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 121 that Hone Harawira has put up to amend the Alcohol Reform Bill. I have been waiting for Mr Harawira to speak in favour of his Supplementary Order Paper. He has certainly had a lot of help from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Hon Maryan Street, but unfortunately he has, to date, remained silent. The fact is that any member of this House can bring in a member’s bill to change the age for the purchase of alcohol. It does not need a review to do it; it can be done any time. The fact is that this Parliament has recently decided to vote to retain the age of purchase at 18, which I believe was a mistake. I think that as the evidence becomes more obvious to people, particularly, as we know now, around the development of young people’s brains—the frontal lobe—Parliament made a mistake. I do not think we need to have a review committee to tell us that. But the fact is that Parliament has made a decision and I respect it. The amendment proposed by Mr Harawira is something on which I think, if he expects other members to vote for it, he should be able to speak to it himself.

New Zealand First also supports this particular proposal in Supplementary Order Paper 121 for a review in 5 years. We see the proposal as being a positive one. It is a reasonable one, and it is a forward-looking proposal. It is effectively a sunset clause in respect of the purchase age provisions of the Alcohol Reform Bill. We think it would help to unify the community if it knew that there was going to be a review in 5 years to see how the proposed legislation will get on. I think people would accept the decision that has been made about the purchase age more readily if they knew that a review would be coming up in 5 years. I have to say that in my first speech I did refer to one particular period where the purchase age of 20 years had subsisted for a period of, I think, something like 60 years before more recent amendments had been made. It does show, therefore, how time can go on and on without a review of these sorts of provisions. So I think it is a very healthy proposal and it should be supported.

Most particularly, though, it does not attempt to avoid or defeat the decision that has already been made concerning the purchase age. I think that is very important. All it does is ask for a review. It is not an attempt to undo something that has already been voted upon. The review is an independent consideration of all of the other provisions in the bill and all of the Supplementary Order Papers with other proposals that have been put forward, so it should therefore be welcomed by the proponents of 18 years, the proponents of 20 years, and, indeed, the proponents of a split age. All of them, no matter which way they feel is appropriate, should be willing to reassess what has happened after 5 years, to see whether they would change their minds, based on the results. It applies to on-licence and off-licence premises, so those who proposed the split age would get another chance to have a look to see what had resulted and whether any further change was indicated. I think it is particularly positive that a committee would be established and that a report would be provided. So it is not just a simple sunset clause; it is one that requires much more action than that. What I would expect is that the report would provide objective and scientifically based information that a Parliament in 5 years’ time could look at to see whether any further change was then required.

I disagree thoroughly with the Minister of Justice, who says that anyone can do any of this at any time. What we know actually happens is that these things drift, and they drift and they drift, and no genuine review takes place. Any future proposal would, presumably, not have the benefit of the deliberations and the fact-finding functions of a committee of this kind. I think that is a very positive part of the proposal. We do need a Government to take this seriously in the future. Five years covers two parliamentary terms, so that would mean that it may well not be this Government. It may well be a totally different Government altogether, which may well wish to have the benefit of a committee’s deliberations and a committee’s fact-finding function to put before it some really important facts and assessments, which could then be used to see whether the law requires further review. So I think that the 5-year period is a particularly appropriate period. I think that the review is likely to bring forward some very interesting information. I think that the public does actually want to see the results of those sorts of investigations.

We have had investigations by some parties—the Law Commission and others—but what we have not had is a Parliament-directed review that targets the purchase age provision specifically. That, I think, despite what some people think, really is an important part of the current legislation, and I would certainly like to see that reviewed in the full course of time. As I have said, I think 5 years is an appropriate period. That review will be useful only if the Government puts forward sufficient resources to ensure that the review is meaningful. Those resources would enable the committee to carry out investigations and, as I have said, bring forward objective and scientifically based information, which would require, I think, surveys and the collection of data and so forth, so that Parliament in the future would get a genuine opportunity to look at objective information acquired through parliamentary procedure itself and not be reliant on outside parties. It could then make a full and comprehensive review as to whether or not the current decision for 18 years was appropriate and should be continued.

I think it is possibly one of the best Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us to consider as part of this particular bill. The purchase age should certainly be reviewed. It is not a decision to do one thing or another. It is a decision to make it possible for a future Parliament to make a better decision than has been available to us, because we have not had the sort of information that I would expect to come forward as a result of this review. New Zealand First supports this proposal enthusiastically, and recommends it to the rest of the members of the House.

When Parliament debated the purchase age for alcohol, I voted for change. I voted for the split age. When that failed, I then changed my vote to support a purchase age of 18, but I really wanted to see us change to a split age. I thought there was a lot of merit in the split age proposal. However, members may recall that I said during that debate that we were placing far too much emphasis and far too much focus on age as the sole source of redemption for Parliament when it comes to trying to address alcohol harm. The Government has done a very good job of singling out that issue and framing the debate around alcohol reform as a debate about age. I congratulate the Government on the framing, the messaging, and the marketing that it has done around that, because it has been a superb effort on its part to distract the debate and the public from the weakness and the timidity of other parts of this so-called Alcohol Reform Bill.

Although I voted for change when we had the opportunity to vote on the age, I will not be supporting Hone Harawira’s Supplementary Order Paper 121, which seeks a 5-year review of the purchase age of alcohol, because I think we have had that debate and it is done. It may be a good principle to review all legislation every 5 years. That may be a good principle. I know that other members have discussed that as being something that we ought to do. If that is a good principle, then we should apply it to all legislation. It may be that we need to review this legislation specifically after 5 years. Indeed, I think that once we have a stronger and more visionary Government than we have at the moment, alcohol law will be reviewed by a future Government. It may be appropriate to apply that 5-year review to all of the changes that are being made or are being proposed and may fail during this debate.

But to single out this single issue of age I think continues that framing of this debate around alcohol harm as being one about age. I think it would be unfortunate for us to continue along in that vein, because this is not solely about age, which is the whole point of the debate we are having this afternoon. This is not just about age. It is about advertising, it is about drink-driving, it is about the supply of alcohol, it is about parental responsibility, and it is about the price of alcohol—it is about all sorts of factors. Age is not the only one, and it should not be top of the list. It certainly is an issue that we could have addressed, and we could have done something, but we chose not to, and if we chose not to and we are not going to review any other parts of the legislation, then I do not see why we should review this particular part of the legislation.

I was concerned at Denis O’Rourke’s comment that this is one of the best Supplementary Order Papers, one of the best amendments, we will consider today. It is not. It is absolutely not one of the best amendments we will consider today. There are many more meaningful, purposeful, evidence-based amendments that we will consider—[Interruption]—I may have a couple in there, but there are others as well that are not in my name that I will be looking forward to supporting and debating. Age is not the most important issue, but that is the message the public is getting—that age is the most important issue—and we need to move on from that. We need to move on from that, and that is why we cannot support this amendment and we cannot put up with comments like that about this being the most important Supplementary Order Paper. We need to actually focus on the other things that members are proposing in this legislation that will actually do something about our alcohol harm problem that we have in New Zealand.

So although I think we are going to need to review this legislation, and although I think a 5-year statutory review of the Alcohol Reform Bill might be a good way forward, I cannot support singling out the issue of age any further.

Can I say to my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, who has just resumed his seat, that I agree that Supplementary Order Paper 121 is not the only important Supplementary Order Paper to the Alcohol Reform Bill. In fact, there are some very good ones, which I intend to support. But it is a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Hone Harawira, and deals with, I think, his passionate concern around the age at which alcohol can be bought and consumed. In that spirit, I am going to support this amendment.

I am one of those who have never changed their mind in terms of what the drinking age should be. I was the Minister of Health who voted to retain the drinking age at 20, based on what I believe was good health background and evidence. In every vote since, I have not been persuaded that we ought to change the age.

This particular provision deals with our looking once again at the age and the Ministry of Justice reviewing it in 5 years’ time. I think that is a very good suggestion indeed, because the last review we had of alcohol, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out, took 12 years. It went to the Law Commission. It was a major piece of work and took a considerable amount of time. The only concern I have is that the Law Commission was not given the opportunity to write this bill, because I am sure that if it had written this bill, we actually might have had a more comprehensive one than this and many more of its recommendations would have been agreed to. But it took 12 years for that review, and I do not believe we should wait another 12 years, or longer, before we look at particular issues. Lianne Dalziel has already signalled that there may be other issues that ought to be up for review in a shorter time frame. What this amendment does is say that we will relook at ages for purchase and sale on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of this Act. It is not the big bells and whistles of the Law Commission; it is done by the Ministry of Justice.

Why I support it is because you do need to base your policy on ongoing evidence and research, and things do change. I am very persuaded by Dr Peter Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, who is constantly telling the Government that it ought to provide policy based on research and evidence. I think that in the next 5 years there will be considerable research gathered. For example, the World Health Assembly now issues a global status report on the harm of alcohol, and its first major report came out last year. It arose out of a global strategy from the World Health Organization, because nations wanted to look at strategies and approaches to reduce the harm of alcohol. In fact, my understanding is that New Zealand was one of the hundred nations that supported a global strategy on alcohol, and one of their recommendations was to raise the age for sale of alcohol. So I would like us to be always looking at what the latest evidence is, and what the research shows in terms of changing patterns, the impact on health, and the different issues that arise out of the consumption of alcohol.

I also think the public would like us to relook at the age issue in 5 years’ time. They would support, as we saw in a poll last week, the age being 20 years. I know that many here voted for that. I know that others voted for the split age. I know that others voted for 18. I accept people’s votes; I just wish other people would remember how they voted. But the public—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Brain fade.

Brain fade. Well, what does it come from? This is what we need greater research on. Does brain fade come from too much consumption of alcohol?

The public have made it clear that they would like the age to be 20. I think that with the ministry undertaking this review of it in 5 years’ time, we can base decisions on the latest research and evidence, and not just licking—

I was one of the members in the House who, throughout, supported retaining the purchase age at 18. I believe that I reached that position on the basis of the evidence that I heard in the Justice and Electoral Committee in the previous Parliament. As I said in my earlier contribution, the experts who came independently to the committee, who were not from the industry, identified a number of factors where if we tightened regulation we could make a difference to our binge drinking culture. It is true that age was one of those, but it was never the most significant or the most important. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, the issues of availability, of advertising, and of pricing were seen as much more significant influences.

I just want to make a brief call in this part of the debate to say this: we should base our decisions on the evidence. We should not fear reviews. I think that Supplementary Order Paper 121 is an appropriate Supplementary Order Paper, because we should always be looking at the evidence and whether or not, as the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Annette King, said, best practice, international research, and the experts tell us that there are new factors that we should be considering. We should always be keeping an open mind on this issue.

What I just want to say is this: since I first became a member of this House I have served, on and off, on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and that has been a rewarding experience, but we have a tendency in this place to assume that certain matters ought to go to that committee as a matter of course. I, in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper—and I hope it will pass—would make this plea to the House: if it does pass, let us think about some Standing Orders or some sessional orders around how this review should work. Why should it go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? This is a health issue, just as all of our regulation of potentially hazardous substances like alcohol ought to be, just as drug law reform ought to be, just as prostitution law reform ought to be, and just as abortion and the issues surrounding that issue ought to be. These things should not be considered always in a justice framework. That is, with respect, an old-fashioned way of thinking about these issues.

If we are thinking about these matters going forward, we should be considering them in a health paradigm. It is health that matters when it comes to these issues. We should be sending it off to the Health Committee, not to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and not to one of the law reform - related committees just because historically that is where these sorts of things went. The best place for these sorts of things to be considered by our Parliament is the Health Committee. I would just want to end my contribution on this new part with a plea that when we deal with these sorts of issues in future we send them to the right committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do intend to seek a call in this debate, but can I first of all seek your guidance about a matter that has been raised in the debate on this Supplementary Order Paper 121 today, which is around the suggestion of a wider review, indeed, of the Alcohol Reform Bill once it is enacted. In the lead-up to this Committee of the whole House debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill, there has been a procedure followed through the Business Committee whereby a deadline was set for the submission of Supplementary Order Papers. It seems to me that in the debate that we have heard over the last half an hour or so, there have actually been some interesting points made about a wider review of the bill as enacted, and I wonder whether it would be in order for the Committee to receive further Supplementary Order Papers on that matter.

The short answer to that is no. If you wanted to broaden the scope, then you would have to do it by way of an instruction when the House was sitting as opposed to being in the Committee, and there has been no instruction. So in answer to your question, the only way that you could broaden the scope of the bill is by way of instruction, when the House is sitting as opposed to in Committee, if you wanted to broaden the scope of the bill, because anything that is within the scope of a bill can be changed only by amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper process. It is not to say that you cannot debate on the points that have been made about broadening the scope later on—that is fine—but at this stage the answer to your question is no, it cannot be included.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that the agreement of the Business Committee around amendments to the bill in the Committee stage was that Supplementary Order Papers that sought to extend the scope of the legislation were to be tabled by a particular time, but I did not understand that there was any further extension.

Yes. That is substantive amendments by a certain date.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr Nathan Guy for supporting this Supplementary Order Paper 121. Thank you, Nathan. It is most appreciated. I have heard many of the arguments both for and against my Supplementary Order Paper for a review of the ages for sale and purchase of alcohol on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of the Alcohol Reform Bill. I thank all of the members for their consideration. But I simply ask: what could be wrong with a review? It is not an overturning of the age, for those who support the 18-18 scenario. It is simply a review of the situation. I am not going to relitigate all of the debate that has been had in the past couple of hours—excellent kōrero. Suffice to point out that when I spoke to a number of MPs after the vote was taken on this issue some weeks ago, some of them told me that they actually voted for the 18-18 scenario not out of a deeply held conviction that it was the right thing to do but because they thought that in an environment where 18 to 20-year-olds have so much voting power it might be a bit risky to vote against something that 18 to 20-year-olds patently wanted so much.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: That’s cynical.

Cynical? That is also true. One of the MPs—so that you know—was a member of the National Party. I will not tell you who. It was not Minister Collins. But this issue is not one where we should be wavering, nor is it one where we should be necessarily accommodating to people just because of age. I am comfortable with the votes of those who genuinely think the age should be 18-18, but I know that the vote on the night was not what many members wanted, so I simply want to provide the opportunity to revisit this matter at the earliest opportunity.

I took note of one comment, though, from Mr Lees-Galloway, who felt that he could not bring himself to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper, because he thought that any review should cover a wider range of issues. Well, all I can say to that is that if he wanted to put forward some of the other issues, then I would have been happy to support them. But I sincerely hope that he can still see the value in supporting something because it is right, rather than opposing it just because it does not cover all of the things that he necessarily wanted it to say.

But coming back again to my first point, this Supplementary Order Paper is not to change the law. This Supplementary Order Paper is not an attempt to overturn what this House has already determined. This is simply providing an opportunity for all members to reconsider in 5 years’ time the vote that was taken on the issue of age some weeks ago. Ka nui tērā māku. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[That is enough from me. Thank you to us all.]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw your attention to what I think is a gap in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings when it comes to split party votes. I would like to refer you to Speakers’ ruling 66/6 from Speakers O’Rorke and Lang, who were distinguished Speakers of the House, and 66/7 from Mr Ian Revell, who, I think it is fair to say, was a less distinguished Chairperson of the Committee. What they indicate when taken together is that there does not appear to be provision for members who are personally voting as part of a split vote but who hold the proxies for a split vote to call for a party vote on a particular issue. I think it was highlighted in one of the earlier votes when, notwithstanding the fact that I was voting for something and that was a declared vote, I asked for and got from the Chairperson a ruling that there could, in fact, be a party vote. What I am looking for is a ruling from you that where a member is holding the proxies for a split vote, they can in fact call for a party vote, notwithstanding the fact that they do themselves agree with the ruling that you have made as to the result.

I am a little perplexed by the member’s point of order, in this regard: you call for a party vote, but then if a member is holding proxies on both sides of the argument, why could they not call for a party vote? The member means party vote, not personal vote?

No. I will give you a bit more of a hand, if you like. I think if you look carefully at Speaker’s ruling 66/7 and what that indicates—and I will say that it is one of the less distinguished rulings in the Speakers’ rulings—what it indicates is that if a member themselves is voting in a way that agrees with the ruling of the Speaker or the Chairman, they are not allowed to call for a party vote. My view is that in fact in these circumstances, where there is a split vote, it would be helpful if you indicated that in those circumstances, they can. I think you might have just about done it already, but it would be good if you did it in a more formal way.

I have two quick points. Firstly, Speaker’s ruling 66/7 relates to personal votes, and as the Speaker has clarified earlier today, there are only two types of votes: one is a personal vote, and one is a party vote. It has been this party’s experience on a number of occasions in the 50th Parliament where I on behalf of other parties vote in a way different from that which I would myself vote, because I hold the proxies. This is quite a simple equation. It is articulated in McGee, pages 206 and 207. Any member is entitled to call for a party vote, and the whips can then vote according to the proxies that they hold. That is called a split vote.

Look, I think I am on top of it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve read further into it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, I have. When you look at it in some depth, there are two contrary points of view here. I think that is the point that the member is alluding to. I have indicated quite clearly at the end of question time that we want to get the best possible outcomes for this. So in terms of calling for a party vote for the purpose of this piece of legislation, the Alcohol Reform Bill, I am prepared to let any member, whatever proxies they are calling, call for the vote. I think the inconsistencies between these are for another time, and maybe for the Standing Orders Committee. A considered opinion needs to be given, but in terms of getting the right outcomes here, I think I understand the point that the member has made, and I will permit that to happen.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just briefly, by way of summary, I thank you for your conclusion and suggest that both you and the senior Government whip could look to the midpoint of 66/7, which makes it clear that that is not about personal votes, it is about party votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And also time-wasting.

Not at all—this is not time-wasting. This is making sure that we do not have things ruled out later and cause a lot of wasted time.

Sorry to interrupt the member also, but my interpretation of this was that it was to deal with a separate issue, which may well have been time-wasting at the time. That is not in the purview of what we are doing here.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of Hone Harawira to insert new Part 2A be agreed to.