Alcohol Reform Bill

Members, the next debate is on new Part 2A and new Part 7. We come now to a group of proposals that will be taken as one debate, relating to advertising and sponsorship. These comprise Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendments proposing new Part 2A and new clause 58A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81; Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendments proposing new Part 2A, new clause 220, and new Part 7, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91; and Dr David Clark’s amendment proposing a new clause 220A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115.

During the select committee process of the Alcohol Reform Bill there was a significant voice from the submitters that Parliament needed to have a look at how we regulate the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol. In fact, 79 percent of those who submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee advocated for a complete ban on sponsorship. There was considerable discussion around the Health Sponsorship Council proposal, which is what was done with tobacco, where tobacco sponsorship was removed and the Government stepped in and, in a sense, I suppose, weaned those organisations that received sponsorship from the tobacco industry off that sponsorship. Today, of course, Smokefree is still around, but it does not do as much as it used to, and those sports and arts and other groups that relied on tobacco sponsorship have moved on from that. That was the thrust of many of the submissions to the select committee.

There is no doubt that, in trying to find an appropriate position on advertising and sponsorship, this is a balancing act. It is true that many organisations rely heavily on sponsorship, and it is also true that much of the advertising of alcohol that does exist is, I suppose, done in a good-natured way. It is certainly not, on the face of it, designed to encourage binge drinking or the irresponsible use of alcohol. So it is a delicate issue for Parliament, there is no doubt. It is also true that this is one of the issues that the alcohol industry least wants Parliament to move on. Although there are plenty of other measures that are, or could be, addressed in this bill that the alcohol industry has stated that it is reasonably relaxed with, this is one that it is not relaxed about at all, and I can understand that such a level of opposition from an industry as large as the alcohol lobby does make Governments nervous. However, that is not a reason for us not to act.

The Alcohol Reform Bill is certainly very light on the issue of advertising; in fact, it really does not tackle it at all. So what we have seen is a range of proposed amendments from members. I would like particularly to address my own, which I believe does strike a reasonable balance between those who are at the front line, who deal with alcohol-related harm and who want to see alcohol-related harm reduced, and their desire to see a reduction, or even an elimination, of alcohol advertising and those who rely on alcohol sponsorship and those who support the continuation of the advertising of alcohol. All the measures in my Supplementary Order Paper 91 are lifted directly from the Law Commission report, so these have not been dreamt up. These have come from a very strong evidence base. These have come from the months of consultation and the screeds of evidence that has been gathered around alcohol-related harm, and they come from a position where these are the points that have been pulled out as the things that need to be done to actually address advertising’s role in the harm related to alcohol. So what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is, initially, a few things that are targeted and that are easy to achieve in the short term. It would then set up the mechanism by which the Government and Parliament can take a longer-term approach to what is the appropriate way to tackle alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and to see whether we might eventually reach the point where we have the Health Sponsorship Council model, or whether we might reach some other point. But it would be done in a logical and considered manner over a number of years, because what we are trying to achieve here is something that is lasting, something that will last the change of Governments, and something that will not need to be revisited again in the future. My concern is that if we move too far too quickly, then there will be a temptation to reverse that quickly or, indeed, measures that go too far too quickly will not succeed in this House at this time, but also if we do absolutely nothing, then we are not taking the opportunities that we have to address issues related to alcohol advertising.

So what I propose is a number of small measures, mostly directed at children. One measure is to have a zone round schools in which alcohol advertising cannot exist. I think particularly of some of the areas that I visited in Auckland where very, very close to schools we see huge alcohol advertising—particularly advertising of extremely cheap alcohol—all in full view of children, day after day after day, as they are travelling to and from school. What that does is it normalises the idea that alcohol is an important and everyday part of life. In fact, the advertising of alcohol at very cheap prices reinforces the idea that you should get as much of it as possible and that when it is cheap you should buy as much alcohol as you possibly can. That is an environment in which I do not think we need our children to be growing up in. It is an environment that encourages an unhealthy attitude to, and relationship with, alcohol, and it can easily be nipped in the bud with that simple measure.

The second measure is simply to shift the television advertising watershed to 9 p.m. It is not a big shift but a recognition that many young children are awake to a much later hour and are watching television to a much later hour. The measure will remove—as is already the intention from having a watershed in the first place—that advertising from television at a time when young children are likely to be able to see it.

The third measure is to remove alcohol advertising at cinemas where the film being shown is not an R18 film. Again, there is no need for young people to be bombarded with alcohol advertising. There is no need for parents to have to put up with taking their kids to a film—you know, a genuine kids’ film like Finding Nemo, or any of the number of kids’ films that are on during the holidays—and to have themselves and their children bombarded with advertising for alcohol or alcohol outlets at those films.

The fourth measure is to ensure that price and the discounting of alcohol cannot be included in any advertisements. I know from the commentary from people who take an interest in the Alcohol Reform Bill that it is the one aspect of this Supplementary Order Paper that people are particularly interested in, because they know that the advertising of discounted alcohol and cheap alcohol encourages the purchasing of large volumes of alcohol, and that is something that we want to discourage as well. This is all about trying to create the right environment and send the right signals to people in terms of how they develop their alcohol purchasing attitudes and what their relationship is with alcohol.

Finally, what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is to set up an alcohol advertising reform committee, as envisaged by the Law Commission, which would operate over a period of 5 years to look at the bigger picture—whether or not we want to continue with alcohol advertising in New Zealand, whether or not we want to continue with the sponsorship of things like sports groups or teams like the All Blacks. Do we want that close relationship between alcohol and our greatest sporting heroes to be something that children grow up with in New Zealand? What we create through alcohol advertising and sponsorship is a belief that alcohol is closely related to success and social normality. That is something that we want to uncouple. We want children to grow up in New Zealand believing that it is possible to be successful socially, it is possible to engage in sport, and it is possible to go to school without alcohol being all-pervasive around them. That is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to achieve. I know that there are other members who want to move faster, who want to see this happen now, but I believe my Supplementary Order Paper strikes the right balance.

Indeed, picking up from my good friend Iain Lees-Galloway, we do wish to move faster, so the Green Party will be voting in favour, in fact, of Mr Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 but also those from David Clark and Te Ururoa Flavell, because we believe that each and every one of those is better than what stands in the Alcohol Reform Bill currently. Probably our preference of the three would be Mr Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81, because it is the one that is closest, in fact, to the recommendation of the Law Commission.

Right now I have living nearby my place on the West Coast a young French guy in his 20s. He comes to our place to watch the rugby, and one of the things that has astonished him about New Zealand is that when he looks at the rugby on our screens he sees alcohol sponsorship of our teams and he sees alcohol advertising on TV. In fact, in France, the country he is from, in 1991 all television advertising of alcohol was prohibited and all alcohol sponsorship of sporting and cultural events was prohibited. That is one of the reasons why he has been absolutely astonished by what he has seen.

You know, at that same time, 1991, New Zealand actually embarked on a similar kind of measure. It was in 1990 that New Zealand took a step in relation to tobacco advertising and sponsorship, using exactly the same rationale that had been used in France in respect of alcohol, to prohibit advertising and sponsorship by the tobacco industry. We did so for various reasons. We wanted to reduce consumption of tobacco products and all of the harm associated with those. We wanted to reduce the normalisation of tobacco consumption. And, indeed, these have been the effects of that extremely successful policy that we implemented at that time: we have reduced the harm, we have reduced the normalisation, and that has in turn created the environment for us to continue to go further in our ongoing campaign to minimise the harm associated with tobacco consumption. Tobacco companies have been prevented from making the implied claims about positive attributes of their products and of those who consume them. I am sure that all members are familiar with the old-style tobacco advertising, which basically associates consumption of tobacco products with being a happy, relaxed, successful, and sexy member of society. These are precisely the claims that are made by the alcohol industry about its products and about the consumers of its products.

Interestingly, in 1990 we instituted this restriction on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco, but in 1992 we effectively removed all of the controls on advertising and sponsorship of alcohol. This weird dichotomy in the way that New Zealand Parliaments have approached these two products that are both legally consumed, yet each associated with an extraordinary degree of harm, continues to perplex everyday New Zealanders but also members of this House looking for consistency in the approach that we take to such products. Right now every 9 minutes on prime-time television viewers are exposed to alcohol advertising—every 9 minutes. Ninety percent of children and young people aged between 5 and 17 are exposed to television advertising on at least a weekly basis—90 percent. That is the ubiquity of the advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry.

I mentioned in an earlier contribution in this Committee stage a health promotion theory that says that if we want to actually improve people’s health then the things that we need to do are to empower communities to take control of their life circumstances, but also to create supportive environments around those communities. With the advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry that is currently permitted, that environment is one in which our communities are pretty much surrounded by, and bathed in, the blue light from the television tube advertising these products. That is the environment that we create. We create an environment that we know, in fact, will lead to harm, and will normalise the excessive consumption of alcohol products.

It is that normalisation of alcohol consumption that we need to tackle, and any of these Supplementary Order Papers would do that better than the current bill. But it is also important to point out that increased consumption is associated with this advertising and sponsorship. The industry would not do it if it did not lead to more people consuming more alcohol. The industry spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year on advertising and sponsorship, which means that the net profit associated with that spend is even greater, which means that the sales of the products are even greater still.

The Law Commission said that it should all go, and that is what we support. Eighty-six percent of the submissions to the commission supported that goal of a total prohibition, and in the 2010 Health Sponsorship Council survey of public opinion 77 percent of respondents were either in favour of a total ban or were agnostic towards it—neutral about it. That is a pretty outstanding majority for that total prohibition. So the reasons for not doing it simply do not apply. I recognise the transition point that Iain Lees-Galloway makes, but I say let us do the same thing that we did around tobacco. Let us create a fund to fund that transition for those community organisations that rely on that sponsorship. Let us do what the Law Commission said, and instead of the first stage of the commission’s three-stage programme, let us implement all three of those stages. That is, I think, probably all I have time for in this call, but if the opportunity arises I will take a further call to make some further points.

I rise to speak to this part, new Part 2A and new Part 7, in particular because I have Supplementary Order Paper 115 in my name to the Alcohol Reform Bill around the issue of advertising. The issue of advertising is one of the top things that can make a difference in this area, as I said in one of my previous contributions in this debate. Price and marketing are the two big levers that can be pulled in the alcohol sphere to effect behavioural change. That is the finding of the Law Commission’s report, to which 3,000 New Zealanders submitted, and those New Zealanders who submitted their concerns will be very disappointed to learn that the National Government is not allowing its own members to exercise their consciences on this issue. It is a terrible disappointment, I think, and a sadness in this Parliament that MPs are not treating this issue as a conscience issue in the traditional fashion, because here we do have the opportunity—an opportunity that does not present itself very often—to make a real change in the culture we have in New Zealand.

Before I go directly on to advertising, I just want to make a brief comparison with the culture in Germany, where I had the good fortune to live as an exchange student many years ago and latterly during some post-graduate study. In Germany the drinking age is a split age, but of a different kind from that which we debated in this Parliament. Beer and wine is able to be purchased at age 16 and spirits at age 18. What happens in practice is that in Germany the young people get access to those drinks roughly 2 years before the official age that is designated by their Parliament. They have a much more permissive culture around alcohol and, indeed, I would argue, a healthier culture around alcohol, because it is something that is consumed with family under supervision and in a way that indicates that those who do experiment with it are younger and, therefore, curiously, more immature, whereas in New Zealand our age of entitlement is often tied up with adulthood in respect of alcohol. That produces a slightly different cultural norm and expectation. People experiment with alcohol when they reach adulthood, and, therefore, it is an adult drink as opposed to Germany where, in my observation, it is considered a drink that is more associated with—

💬 Jonathan Young: A juvenile drink.

—juvenile behaviour. The member opposite makes the point; he is right. So there are different cultures, and we have the opportunity to change our culture for the better.

The debate has focused largely on age up until now, which in my view is a shame, because that is not where the real opportunities lie. I was told by one researcher that the age debate in alcohol was like emptying a bucket with a teaspoon: it does make a difference, but it takes a very long time, and the impact is less noticeable than pulling on levers like advertising and price. So my Supplementary Order Paper, which is in respect of advertising, aims to reduce the amount of advertising available on New Zealand television to promote liquor products, and that is intended to stop the growth of the alcohol market in New Zealand. I am sure that those who already drink will notice limited change in their own behaviour, but those who are new to alcohol will not find the array of colourful advertising that they might otherwise find on television and on radio.

For the benefit of those at home who do not have access to these Supplementary Order Papers and might be watching this, I will read the first subclause of new clause 220A, which states: “(1) No person or entity may broadcast, or arrange for any other person or entity to broadcast, any alcohol product advertisement on television or radio in New Zealand.” The Supplementary Order Paper is modelled on what was done in the tobacco field, where this has become law in a similar way and there are unintended consequences ruled out. Likewise, in the Supplementary Order Paper, in the way in which it is modelled, it makes sure that overseas broadcasts, for example, that are taken through a pay network that has advertising as part of the package are allowed to proceed where it is difficult to weed out that advertising. So it is not intended to make an overly burdensome compliance on local content; it is intended to make sure that no additional advertising is being created.

Likewise, the unintended consequence is alluded to in the final subclause on the Supplementary Order Paper, which states: “(3) Nothing in this subsection (1) applies to—(a) the exhibition, in any museum or art gallery, of any work or artefact:” where an aspect of alcohol advertising is permitted. So the Supplementary Order Paper is designed to make sure that we do not have any silly situations where the law might be called into question or ridicule. It is designed to make sure that we are not creating advertising that is glorifying alcohol in the New Zealand context and making it out to be a particularly healthy lifestyle choice. The majority of New Zealanders, we know, will drink alcohol in a fair way for most of their lives, but what we also know is that the evidence suggests that there are ways in which we can curb alcohol-related harm. There is a lot of science around these things, and the experts in the field are very clear about what we can change and what we should change. The Government’s legislation, as it has proposed it, does not really pull the levers that it can pull in respect of price and marketing. So my Supplementary Order Paper aims to get at the marketing issue. I will also be supporting other amendments in a similar vein being put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell and Iain Lees-Galloway, because they get to the heart of a similar issue and are designed to restrict advertising that will lead to harmful consequences for our people.

As I conclude, I want to say that it is indeed a disappointment that this legislation is not tackling these issues directly, head-on. It is left to Supplementary Order Papers to be debated. It is a shame that the National Party members, we are told, are going to be whipped into exercising their consciences in a particular way, which makes it hard to imagine how those are, indeed, working consciences. This whipping of the vote means that these issues, which are important to New Zealand society, are not getting the opportunity to be properly debated. We are debating them as energetically as we can on this side of the Chamber, but there is not much debate coming from the other side, where those members are succumbing to the pressure put on them to toe the line, to not rock the boat, and to make sure that they do not upset the apple cart or have an opinion of their own.

I really think that that is a terrible shame, because these are issues—Mr Woodhouse is calling out. I know that he will know that in Dunedin this is a very real issue, which the senior members of our community are concerned about, which the council is concerned about—he is nodding; he knows this to be true—and which the university is concerned about. I know he too is concerned about this issue. I think it is a real shame that he is not free to exercise his own vote and his own conscience on this issue, because it is an issue that affects our community. We know from the evidence that there are harms to our community when we do not have effective legislation and that we do have a problem in New Zealand that needs to be addressed.

I want to conclude with that remark. It is a shame that the Government is passing up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make good on the recommendations the Law Commission put forward from the 300 submissions it received, many from experts in the field. I suggest that the Government is tinkering with the law, rather than making the substantive changes that are really needed. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular part, new Part 2A, which is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper 81. Very briefly, I will just cut to the explanatory note. For those who are listening, I point out that my Supplementary Order Paper amends this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, by adding new Part 2A, which bans alcohol advertising and sponsorship with the exemption of on-licence establishments such as bars and restaurants. The ban is intended to come into force in 2 years, and to achieve denormalisation of the drinking culture by removing the glamour promoted by advertising and the sponsorship of events.

When I was a young fella—and I talked earlier today about Wilson Whineray and rugby. Not that I indulged too much after a game, but back in the day there were only about five labels of beer and alcohol that I can recall—maybe seven—and generally people stuck to those. Now you can go to bottle stores and you have got everything ranging from Blonde to Pure. I do not know what the opposite beer might look like—Unpure? But you have all those labels. You have Waikato Draught beer—Waikato, the champion team in a number of codes. You have got to think back and say: “Well, Waikato beer—what’s the link? Is it just because it originated in Waikato, or is there something playing on the name and the identity?”. Certainly somebody had a real good idea way back in the day to take Waikato as a label of beer. But now you have got all sorts, from our own home-made brew in Aotearoa through to those that have been imported from overseas.

One of the things that really whacked me around about 3 years ago—not beer; it was not beer—and really got to me was when I went to the Māori Affairs Committee when it questioned a gentleman from overseas. There was a movie made about him; I think it was called The Informer or something like that. It had Russell Crowe in it, from memory. Anyway, the Māori Affairs Committee brought this person across—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: The Real Deal.

It might have been that one. The select committee brought this gentleman across and what he did was he told the select committee that just in cigarette smoking people market right down to the race, the age, and the gender of people. He talked about marketing to Hispanic women, he talked about marketing to black men, and to young black men—all that was down to the marketing.

It really made me understand the power of advertising and the power of image, and of brand, and how it is used to manipulate in some senses the minds of people. It must be right because obviously there is a big market there called cigarettes and alcohol. That is basically why the Hon Tariana Turia has moved towards plain packaging, which is, I suppose, an endorsement of the idea of advertising, of marketing, as a powerful instrument in terms of drawing people towards a particular product. That is why we have put this Supplementary Order Paper up—to draw attention to it, but also to make it a lot more difficult for those companies to draw people towards the product.

Mr Kevin Hague earlier talked about some statistics that I suppose put it all in context. I heard him talk about the fact that every 9 minutes during prime-time television there is a scene depicting something to do with alcohol. I heard him talk about the fact that 90 percent of New Zealand children aged between 5 and 17 are exposed to alcohol advertising on TV each week. That is a pretty big group of people. And I suppose the evidence that we certainly got from people like the New Zealand Drug Foundation and so on shows that alcohol advertising, one, encourages people to start to drink at a younger age; two, encourages people who already drink to drink more; and, three, makes it harder for problem drinkers to abstain.

Against all that background, the general view that they provided as information to us as the Māori Party was that the regulation of alcohol advertising, marketing, and promotion is considered the second most effective way to reduce problem drinking and alcohol-related harm. If that is the case, that is the motivation behind this particular amendment—this particular Supplementary Order Paper.

Some might suggest alcohol marketing has no effect on who drinks and how many people are drinking. Some might suggest that it just helps people who do drink to know what is available and to encourage them to pick one product over another. That is one argument, but the rebuttal of that would be that if advertising and marketing had no impact on people’s drinking, then the alcohol industry would not be wasting about $400,000 a day or $150 million a year on it. There is the background on that and the rebuttal to that discussion.

The evidence clearly shows that exposure to alcohol advertising, particularly at a younger age, makes people more likely to start drinking earlier and become heavy drinkers, and marketing methods—as you know, no doubt, as you watch TV—have become more sophisticated and subtle than the ads that we see on TV or in magazines. Through sponsorship of youth events like music festivals, the utilisation of social media, and the creation of products such as ready-to-drinks, alcohol companies are clearly and deliberately targeting young people.

For those who suggest that we already have a code of liquor advertising and the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that alcohol advertising conforms to standards, the downside is that it is really voluntary self-regulation. It is not a model that is working well in any country that we understand. In fact, in New Zealand the people responsible for upholding the standards are the Advertising Standards Authority—a private sector body representing the advertising and media industries. Against that background you would have to say they are not exactly independent.

Just to conclude, the Advertising Standards Authority relies on public complaint. So if there is no complaint, then, technically, no standard has been breached. But it is simply not working. Promotion of excessive alcohol consumption continues despite its being illegal since 1999. I appreciate the comments of many other speakers this evening in support of my Supplementary Order Paper. The Māori Party will obviously be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper, as well as Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s, and also—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: David Clark.

David, that is right—sorry, e hoa. I am happy to support those Supplementary Order Papers as well. We hope that one of them gets through, at least, but we do not want to hold our breath too much against the current climate of how this thing is going. But we do hope that the combined views of members in Parliament—the Labour Party and, certainly, I think, the Greens, who are supporting this as well—indicate that advertising and marketing play an integral role in maintaining the whole drinking culture in Aotearoa. We are looking to change that and we would hope that the Minister of Justice looks favourably upon these Supplementary Order Papers, which are presented to the Committee in the spirit of cooperation and of trying to make a real difference to lives of New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou.

I rise just to address the Supplementary Order Papers that have been brought forward by members so far. I think it is important at the outset to speak to a number of ancillary points that have been raised in the course of this debate. The first one, which was raised by the member David Clark, talked about conscience votes. What Mr Clark did not have the opportunity to draw on was the discussions that occurred within the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last term of Government. It is important to note that in the whole course of those discussions, it was accepted by people from across the parties represented there that there would probably be party votes on everything except age. That was very clearly where the select committee members went to, with the knowledge of their wider parties. There was no suggestion that there were going to be conscience votes on anything other than the age question, and that was the recommendation of the Law Commission’s report. This is the same Law Commission report that every spokesman from the Opposition draws out and holds up as the absolute gospel in respect of alcohol debate in this country, and yet they have moved away from a sentinel part of that report: that parties nail their colours to the mast and vote as parties in respect of these matters.

Another point that the Hon Lianne Dalziel raises consistently is what happened to her bill, the bill she introduced when she was part of the last Labour Government prior to the 2008 election. It is important to note this point. Her bill was introduced to the House on 8 August 2008. The House rose on 23 September 2008 for an election. There were only 11 sitting days between 8 August and 23 September. What happened after that was the bill went on to the select committee, and what happened after that was that the incoming National Government, under the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, replaced the bill that we hear about from the Hon Lianne Dalziel with his own bill. That is not unusual. In fact, it certainly happened under the Labour Government, which replaced bills that the then National Government introduced prior to the 1999 election and rewrote them itself. I cite the victims legislation that the Hon Phil Goff, as was his right, replaced the Hon Tony Ryall’s bill with in respect of victims of crime. I lay out for those people who are interested—those people at home who are interested, and those members who are newer to the House—that this is the way it is done, and it is done by Governments of both colour, like it or not.

Another point that is interesting that was made by David Clark was around culture. Whether we want to accept it or not, we have got a horrible culture of binge drinking in this country. It sticks to us like it does to the Aussies, like it does to the North Americans, and like it does to the Poms. But to try to overlay, then, another European culture’s approach to alcohol, such as the Germans’, for instance, and expect that that would be picked up would be exactly the same mistake that this Parliament made in the 1990s, when it decided that we were all going to start drinking like the French, like a friend of Mr Hague over there mentioned. I have some personal experience of this, too. I have shared our house for the last year with my daughter-in-law, who is a Slovakian, who, for some reason, when she is making a coffee in the morning would put a slug of alcohol in it, much to my astonishment. That was the way they did it. At the same time, at 10 o’clock in the morning, she might ask whether anyone else wants a beer. Well, it was not even lunchtime. It was abhorrent to be drinking beer before lunchtime if you have just cut up a cord of wood, as I am sure Mr Chair would attest to. In any event, that is part of the culture. Having said that, I would offer her a glass of wine at night and she would sit on it for 3 hours. It happens to be the culture of the way some countries drink. So to try to overlay those cultures into our culture is something that is totally different, and we cannot do that in this country.

We must remember in considering these Supplementary Order Papers that the biggest encourager in respect of drinking alcohol is personal role modelling that we do within our own homes and within our own environments, and we should not try to walk away from that responsibility.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 91, introduced by Mr Lees-Galloway, which talks about banning billboards and poster advertisements within 300 metres of certain locations, creating a new watershed time for alcohol advertising, banning alcohol advertising in cinemas, etc., it is important to note that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Whereas we know that during the course of the select committee debates on both bills that were considered in the last term of Government there was a significant push against alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorship, it is also important to recognise that the evidence we were confronted with was also countered by others as well. I believe that it is an important thing for us to establish our own forum, to report back initially within 12 months, to have a look at how alcohol advertising influences the way people drink and their purchase behaviours in this country, rather than overseas. What we know, for instance, within this country in respect of the rapid take-up of technology is that although there may still be advertising on our television screens at regular and frequent intervals after certain times, people are watching less and less advertising, as we have the ability to screen past it.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 115, from Dr David Clark, the Government will not support this Supplementary Order Paper, because, as mentioned, the Government is setting up its own expert forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and it will consider whether further restrictions are needed to reduce alcohol-related harm. The forum will be established after the bill is passed, and it will report back to the Minister of Health within a year.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 81, from Te Ururoa Flavell, the Government does not recommend supporting this proposal, because there is little research about the effectiveness of these restrictions at reducing alcohol-related harm. Most of us would—

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Oh, come on!

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Ka pai, bro.

—give him a smack—agree that the advertising we see in respect of alcohol is ludicrous. We wonder how it can possibly be affected. But the point that he made quite well in his speech was that the alcohol companies would not be spending $150 million a year if it was not making some difference. However, they tend to do that as they continually make the point that they are trying to establish a brand, as opposed to starting people drinking. Well, none of us are too sucked in by that. However, I return to the fact that this Government wants to be able to have a look at its own research and create its own response to that.

The member’s Supplementary Order Paper would also have a significant consequence for many clubs and organisations, which would lose income. The responsibility for making transitional funding—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: We’ve heard all this before. Benson and Hedges, Rothmans—they all ran this argument, every single one of them.

—will be very expensive to a Government at a time when there is not a lot of money about. I do not know whether the member interjecting would even concede that, bearing in mind that a lot of that money is going to parts of her electorate.

These restrictions would be premature ahead of recommendations from the expert forum, and that will be established after the passing of this bill.

I want to respond to a number of the issues that the Associate Minister of Justice, Chester Borrows, has raised. First of all, I want to remind him that the legislation that was introduced by the Labour Government in 2008, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, was a baseline bill. It was the bill that contained the baseline for the changes that we were going to implement, to be supplemented with a substantial root and branch exercise—actually to be done by the Law Commission at the same time. In fact, I announced the Law Commission review—the referral to the Law Commission that my colleague Annette King was responsible for as the Minister of Justice—on the same day that I lodged that bill. That bill and the Law Commission report were hand in hand, and designed for the urgent stuff to be got on with. One of the urgent things that was to be got on with was the introduction of local alcohol plans to give local communities an opportunity to have a say about what was happening in their own neighbourhoods. That was a direct response to the demands from communities throughout New Zealand who were sick and tired of so many licences being issued, regardless of the situation that they were in.

I think it is a bit unfair to describe this bill as something that had just been replaced by the Government, as something that Governments always do. This bill was designed to be introduced as baseline legislation. In fact, the National Government had the first reading after its 100 days of action, where it referred it to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It did not tell all of the people who submitted on that bill that their submission was going to be a complete and utter waste of time because it was going to discharge the bill once it was reported back to the House. I actually do not believe that the Government intended to do that, until after it got the Law Commission report. There were two things that Minister Borrows did not point out. One was that we required the Law Commission to write a bill. We always said to the Law Commission that not only did we want it to come back with the evidence that we need to make real law in this area and respond to the real issues but also we wanted it to come back with a bill. We would introduce that bill to Parliament, we would let the evidence speak for itself, and then we would have submissions on the bill that the Law Commission wrote. We had committed to that. And what did National do when it become Government? It thought it would just truncate the time that the select committee had for reporting back, which meant that the Law Commission would not have time to write that bill.

When the Government actually saw what the Law Commission had recommended in its substantial report Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm, I believe that the problem that arose at that point for the Government was that it did not want a bar of many of the recommendations to be going before the House. So what it did was it made sure that a number of the amendments would be outside the scope of the bill, and it also made sure that the bill that we had introduced would have no further truck at all. So it discharged the bill in December 2010, just after referring this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, to the select committee on 11 November 2010. In November the Government introduced its own bill to replace a bill that was coming back from the select committee after it had heard all of the submissions, after it had put all of that effort into it. No, it was not going to be; the Government had simply decided that the bill was going to be discharged. So I think that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is something that ought to be spoken of in this regard, and I believe that there has been, really, an unfair representation of how we have got to the situation that we are in today.

To criticise my colleague for his views on the conscience issue, when we honestly believed that the Government was committed to introducing a second bill—not to replace the bill that all of the submissions had been heard on—that did not contain the major recommendations of the Law Commission, well, I think that that is not an accurate reflection of the position that we have ever had on it. I was the first person who raised the question of the conscience vote disappearing, and I believe that we should ultimately have the position where we are able to take principled positions on legislation based on the evidence—I really like evidence-based policies in these areas—but sometimes these are really hard issues and the reason that I raised the conscience vote in 2008 was because it was an election year. People do not have the courage to face up to some of these really hard issues in an election year, and I am not going to comment on the “why for”, it is simply a matter of fact that we cannot get real change in these fundamental areas in an election year for that reason.

I want to talk about the advertising sponsorship and promotion of alcohol in the context of chapter 19 of the substantial report of the Law Commission. I want to remind the Committee that the Law Commission, when it had put out its original issues paper, had taken the view that the existing system of self regulation was generally sufficient, and it said that it proposed leaving the bulk of alcohol advertising regulation to the Advertising Standards Authority. I remember when that change was made, and I remember who was in Government when that change was made, because I was here and I saw the unfortunate correlation of two portfolios in one person. The Minister of Broadcasting was the Associate Minister of Health, and that was the Hon Maurice Williamson, who, unfortunately I think, was enamoured of some of the advertising that he had seen in Australia, which apparently was very funny advertising, very humorous. He felt that it was not fair that in New Zealand those who were promoting those products were not able to advertise these products in such a cheerful and positive way. So the law was changed to remove it from the broadcasting standards area into the Advertising Standards Authority—an industry-based body with the responsibility for regulating brand advertising.

The Law Commission listened to the submissions. I think members in this Committee should realise just what they are doing in voting against these Supplementary Order Papers. Almost every submitter had something to say about advertising and sponsorship. Out of 2,939 submissions, 2,281 commented on the policy options about advertising and marketing. Of the 2,281 submissions, 86 percent supported banning or restricting all advertising of all alcohol in all media. That is how the people feel about it. That is how people want us to respond as a Parliament. The reason that it is hard for us to respond to this issue is because of who pays for the advertising, who benefits from the payment of the advertising, and what other elements that might affect the work that we do in this Parliament have to do with that, i.e. the media have a lot of influence in terms of public opinion over politicians and politics generally, and, obviously, they stand to benefit from the advertising dollar. There is a multiple layer of effect that actually prevents this Committee doing the courageous thing that in this case is the right thing, which is to find a way of reducing the amount of alcohol advertising in our country. The Law Commission said to do it over a period of time and that will be OK, and these Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee also say to do it over a period of time.

I have made submissions to the Advertising Standards Authority on the alcohol code of practice over the years since I have been in politics—obviously not when I was a Minister, as I did not have a relevant portfolio, but when I was an MP in the early 1990s, I submitted twice to that body. On both occasions I supported a complete prohibition on the television broadcast advertising of alcohol. Often the point was made “But that’s freedom of speech. It comes under the Bill of Rights Act. We have got the freedom to speak on these matters.”, and my argument was that sometimes it is better not to have things promoted in a way that undermines a health promotion message.

I am sure my colleague who has just resumed her seat, Lianne Dalziel, will continue this debate, because she has probably more knowledge on this issue than any other member in this House and feels very passionately about it. I would like to continue from where Lianne Dalziel left off, and that is in terms of having a principled position on alcohol in New Zealand. I am absolutely amazed that the members opposite are not participating in this debate. This is the first big opportunity we have had in over 12 years to debate an issue of major importance to New Zealand, but they sit with their heads down and are not prepared to get up, even if it is to disagree, and at least participate in a major issue of importance to New Zealanders. New Zealanders have made it clear that they do believe it is an issue. As a former Minister of Police I have never forgotten the police coming to me and saying that in just over 70 percent of crimes there is an alcohol component. We have members opposite who stand up and talk about law and order, but are not prepared to address one of the key issues related to crime, and that is the control of the sale and purchase of alcohol.

I notice that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, said that the Government wants to look at its own research. Well, I say, Minister, that I am in favour of looking at your own research, but look at the research that was provided to the Government by the most comprehensive work that has been done in many years—the Law Commission report of 2010. It is an absolutely amazing piece of work, where the commission went out and spoke to the people in a way that a select committee cannot do in the brief time that it has to hear submissions. You heard from Lianne Dalziel that the people said overwhelmingly that they wanted a ban or restriction on alcohol advertising. Does that count for anything? Do the over 2,281 submissions, 86 percent of which supported a ban on advertising and restrictions on advertising, count for anything to the members opposite? Do the members opposite think it is even worthwhile making a submission on an important piece of work like the Law Commission’s, or even to a select committee for that matter, if it does not count for anything? So I say to the Minister, yes, look at the research. Plenty of it was offered in the Law Commission’s report, but it seems to me that in this area it has been ignored, and continues to be ignored.

I am going to support the amendment from my colleague Dr David Clark, Supplementary Order Paper 115. This is not some piece of amendment that he has got from a German model. This is based on the restriction and banning of the advertising of tobacco. We know that since 1990, when the Smoke-free Environments Act was brought in, with a ban on advertising, in combination with a number of other public health programmes and education, we have seen a drop in tobacco consumption. We have seen the number of people smoking reduce considerably, and we have had members opposite proudly saying “Look how the smoking rates have dropped in New Zealand.” That came from a menu of things, including a ban on advertising. So why can members support it for tobacco, which is another dangerous product if it is not handled properly—in fact, probably with tobacco, none of it can be handled properly—and why can they see that it is OK for tobacco, but they cannot see it for alcohol? It just does not make sense to me.

And we know the power of advertising. Why else do they advertise? I find it fascinating that we have got the British American Tobacco company advertising on television at the moment, in a very discreet way, against plain packaging of tobacco, and this week they started on alcohol. They are using an advert that I think is just a scare tactic to say to the public “They’re coming for alcohol next. Look out. You don’t know what’s going to happen to your alcohol.” You see, they know that the public are influenced by advertising, and particularly young people. We ought to have the courage to make some decisions for the benefit of New Zealanders and young New Zealanders. So will members opposite get on their feet and debate this issue, or are they just going to sit as if they have been muzzled, as if they do not care about what is a massive debate that we ought to be having?

I do not believe in a conscience vote on alcohol. I think we are gutless in this Parliament, because this is not a conscience issue. This is a public health issue. This is an issue that affects New Zealanders. This is an issue that affects the health of our young people. This is an issue that costs this country millions of dollars a year, not because everybody abuses alcohol, but because there are enough people who are affected by alcohol even when they are not abusing it, because alcohol is a substance that affects the body. This is a public health issue. When are we going to have the courage and the guts in this place to say that this an issue we treat as a Parliament?

What we have got now is a dog’s breakfast. This bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, is a dog’s breakfast. At least if we had picked up the Law Commission and allowed it to write the legislation, we could have gone out and debated it and made the change as a sensible Parliament. But what we have got now is a whole lot of amendments as people try to fix up a bill that does not do what it ought to do. I am really disappointed that we as a Parliament have not taken this opportunity. We will not get the opportunity to follow a big report like the Law Commission’s one for many, many years to come. We are squandering that opportunity because we do not have the courage in this Parliament to make the decisions that we ought to. I just think, if members have got a conscience at all on this issue, at least vote for some changes that are going to strengthen the bill that is there and maybe make a difference for young New Zealanders in particular. But I fear that that will not happen.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the three members who proposed these particular Supplementary Order Papers. I think they are all worth considering, and I thank them for the efforts they have put into it. I would also like to acknowledge the Government for its willingness to further examine with an expert panel the law regarding the advertising of alcohol. However, New Zealand First does want to see some advertising restriction, but we think it must be reasonable, it must be practical, and it must be effective. So for those reasons, we would oppose Supplementary Order Paper 81, regarding advertising and sponsorship, and also Supplementary Order Paper 115, relating to TV advertising, both of which we see as being too extreme. We would support, however, Iain Lees-Galloway’s “small measures” proposals in Supplementary Order Paper 91.

Dealing first with Supplementary Order Paper 81, general advertising prohibitions are not appropriate, and that is what it is, with four relatively minor exemptions: one relating to price lists, another relating to adverts in media from overseas, a third one to advertisements in magazines for employees of manufacturers only, and another exemption relating to material in museums and art galleries and videos, that sort of thing. So apart from that, it is a pretty extreme measure in prohibiting advertising at all for alcohol, and that is not appropriate. The amendment to prohibit advertising of alcohol in that way is misdirected because it misses the point. It is not about no use of alcohol, and it is probably not even about an overall reduction in alcohol; it is specifically about the misuse of alcohol.

I would have to disagree with those speakers who try to use smoking and tobacco as a comparison, because alcohol is not inherently dangerous. It is potentially dangerous if misused, whereas tobacco is inherently dangerous no matter how little smoking one does. So I do not see that there is a good comparison between those.

There is no clear connection between appropriate advertising and the abuse of alcohol. One other speaker adverted to the fact that there is, in fact, very little evidence to connect the two and we would need to do a great deal more research to know whether more advertising would cause more harm or, indeed, whether a general prohibition on the advertising of alcohol would actually have much effect at all.

The restriction on the use of trademarks is another provision that seems inappropriate. That will have very little positive effect, unduly restrict commercial interests, and would damage unnecessarily commercial operations, especially, for example, wineries. The advertising of wine does not seem to me to be necessarily an encouragement of the consumption of alcohol or the abuse of alcohol. Trademark restrictions are not practical, they are not effective, and they are not necessary. New Zealand First does accept that some control on sponsorship by alcohol interests is appropriate, but not this general prohibition on it. And we do take notice of the fact that such a prohibition would damage the ability of clubs and non-profit organisations to earn income without any correlative worthwhile benefit.

But New Zealand First does accept that some additional advertising restriction is necessary. So we looked at Supplementary Order Paper 91 and we saw in that some significantly more modest provisions that are capable of support. The first of those relates to the publishing of alcohol products and advertising on posters and billboards within 300 metres of any school or early childhood centre. That seems to us to be perfectly acceptable. Similarly, no person may broadcast, or arrange for anyone else to do so, any alcohol product advertisement before 9 p.m. You can see the logic of that. Young children are not likely to see advertisements after that, but are likely to see them before that time of day. And, thirdly, that no person should screen any advertisement concerning alcohol unless all films screened have been classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as restricted to audiences of 18 years and over. So, similarly, that is a modest provision that is targeted at the protection of children. It is practical, it is effective, it is not a great imposition on those who wish to advertise alcohol, and it is a modest and acceptable provision, we feel. Those are the sorts of provisions that New Zealand First does accept as being appropriate and as being effective but not so extreme that they are unnecessary, in terms of a general prohibition. We would support those sorts of provisions.

We also do not support a general prohibition of television advertising, for the same reasons: too extreme, unnecessary, not well targeted, and without any real information being provided that it would make any difference at all. The cost-benefit ratio or the benefit to avoiding alcohol abuse is not demonstrated. For those reasons the proposal should not be supported.

New Zealand First, therefore, does want to see the investigation that the Government proposes, with its expert panel. We want to see the results of that. In the meantime, we feel that those modest provisions proposed by Iain Lees-Galloway should proceed, but the general prohibitions are not appropriate, are not demonstrated to be effective, and should not be supported.

I rise to respond mainly to a couple of comments made by the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, which I want to debate a little. He challenged a view that he suggested I was taking, that the German cultural system be overlaid in the New Zealand situation in respect of our understanding of alcohol.

I just want to be clear in my intention in speaking of the German situation in respect of alcohol. They have a drinking age that is much younger and a culture that reflects an understanding of alcohol as a social lubricant in a similar way to us, but with an understanding that those who experiment are much younger and therefore experimentation with alcohol is considered a more juvenile thing, whereas in New Zealand it is often associated with adulthood, which has its own complications. In raising that whole issue I was really wanting to say that there are other ways of having a culture around alcohol.

I was not wishing to suggest that we should adopt wholeheartedly the German situation, nor that ours in its own way is completely faulty either. What I was wishing to suggest was that there are other ways of conceptualising alcohol culture, and that we have in this legislation, the Alcohol Reform Bill, an opportunity to actually make a measurable difference in our own society and in the culture around alcohol through pulling the levers that are at our disposal, as recommended by the Law Commission in its report. Those levers that are most effective, according to the Law Commission report, are the levers around price and marketing. Those are precisely the levers that this Government is refusing to go near.

My Supplementary Order Paper 115 aims to address the issue of marketing. It deliberately sets out—modelled on the tobacco legislation—to ensure that new advertising is not created to entice people to drink alcohol who would not otherwise be drinking alcohol, recognising that there are harms associated with alcohol. When the research is looked at, that is pretty evident to anybody who looks at it with a dispassionate eye. It is not something that needs to be encouraged. It is part of our culture, and not all aspects of alcohol are bad for our culture, in my view.

I want to suggest that we could, however, make a measurable difference, as suggested by the science, through adopting some of the more sensible Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. There are three that have been put forward in this area: my one, Supplementary Order Paper 81 by Te Ururoa Flavell, and Supplementary Order Paper 91 by Iain Lees-Galloway. These three make some steps in that area. They would make a measurable difference to the culture of alcohol in New Zealand over time, when alcohol ceases to be glamorised in the way that it is currently. That is worth doing. I do not see how the Minister could argue otherwise.

The other point that the Minister in the chair made, as I understand it, was that the Law Commission had recommended in one of its reports that voting in respect of alcohol issues be along party lines. That might very well be true, if the legislation that was put before the House was in line with what the Law Commission was recommending. I contend that the law that has been proposed to the House to adopt is not along the lines of what the Law Commission was recommending in all aspects.

Some aspects—and I concede that there are some useful aspects, and that is why I will be supporting the legislation—address issues of distribution, which are usefully addressed and do make a difference, according to the evidence. But other major changes that could be made to effect positive change in our alcohol culture are not being considered. Instead, we are being railroaded primarily into a debate on age, which, in my view, is largely a sideshow. Changing the age does make a difference. The evidence suggests that changing the age is like starting to bail out a bucket with a teaspoon, but that is still a change and over time it does make a difference.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that pulling these bigger levers does make a difference. The distribution lever, which the Government is pulling, will make a difference. Our local councils support the particular change that is proposed, because they have examples where that particular lever has not been available to them and they would have liked it to be. It could have made positive change in our community in Dunedin.

I want to follow on from those thoughtful remarks from Dr Clark, and perhaps make an initial point that what he is saying about culture is very interesting. What we know about culture is that culture changes over time, so it is entirely relevant to draw examples from other cultures about how we could aspire for our culture to be.

I want to pick up on the remarks made by the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, and to cite the World Health Organization—in particular, its comment that “Exposure of young people to alcohol marketing speeds up the onset of drinking and increases the amount consumed by those already drinking.” There is no question at all that alcohol advertising and sponsorship works. It gets people drinking earlier and actually increases the amount that they drink. In particular, it increases the amount drunk by those who are already heavy drinkers. In other words, it fuels the binge drinking culture that we have now. And it is interesting to me that the Government is placing the entirety of its defence of what is currently in the Alcohol Reform Bill on the shoulders of Chester Borrows, and that none of the other members of the Government—some of whom were lions in the debate on the age provisions—seem to have anything at all to say about this issue, despite the fact that there is considerably more evidence about the effectiveness of the measures that are promoted in the Supplementary Order Papers on this particular issue than there was around age.

The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Government’s wish to have New Zealand research and said that is why it was not moving on this right now. I found that a little surprising, because there is a wealth of New Zealand evidence available to the Government on this point already. I will cite just a few examples of that. For example, penetration of alcohol advertising to minors was illustrated by research on the Chin Heads ad. Some members of the House will remember the Chin Heads ad, and I see people nodding around the Chamber. Indeed, that is evidence of the pervasiveness of that advertising. Research showed that 97 percent of minors recalled the Chin Head advertisements, 71 percent of those young people—those minors—knew that the ad was for Lion Red, 92 percent had positive views about the ads, and 64 percent thought the Chin Head humour would appeal to minors, and, indeed, that is whom it was aimed at. So that is a piece of New Zealand research that we already have. For me, that is evidence enough to move.

In another piece of research, New Zealand boys aged between 10 and 13 said that they knew more about drinking from watching ads, but none of that alcohol advertising, of course, depicted any of the harms. The 10 to 17-year-old New Zealanders who recalled the most alcohol ads were more likely to think that it was OK for kids their age to get drunk, to think that their friends drank frequently, and, consequently, to drink more themselves. Again, that is New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship.

The highly internationally respected Dunedin multidisciplinary study found an impact and response to advertising on later consumption. Numbers of alcohol ads recalled at age 15, in response to a question about the portrayal of alcohol in the media, significantly predicted heavier drinking among males at the age of 18. Those who responded positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were heavier drinkers and reported more alcohol-related aggression at the age of 21. By the age of 26 the amounts drunk, but not the frequency of drinking, had declined for most of these young people. Those who had responded most positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were the most frequent drinkers at the age of 26.

I could go on. There is no shortage of New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry on problem drinking. The jury is absolutely in; it is simply that this Government is choosing not to respond to that evidence. The evidence is there. If the Government was seriously interested in doing what the object of this bill was, which is to minimise harm, it would be taking the steps advocated by the commission.

I listened earlier to the remarks of the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, about the discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee concerning the way in which votes were likely to occur on this issue. I am not sure that we share a recollection of the way in which that discussion proceeded. That is probably the fairest way to put it. In saying that, I will repeat what I have said on earlier occasions. I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister—then the member—did chair the committee. It was a courteous exercise in which all submitters were heard, I think, carefully. But I think it is important that we do not make assumptions on the basis of discussions in the committee as to how the Committee of the whole House ought to act. I certainly repeat my earlier plea to National Party members to think about these Supplementary Order Papers on their merits.

The evidence, as I said at the select committee, was overwhelming from all players other than those directly representing the industry. There was a real desire to see controls around the advertising, the pricing, and the availability of alcohol. What I want to do, if I may, is just take the Committee of the whole House through what we know is the advice that the Government received from the officials concerning each of the Supplementary Order Papers, and discuss that advice, starting with what I think is the excellent and far-sighted Supplementary Order Paper 81 from the Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell.

The first thing that his Supplementary Order Paper would do would be to bring in a prohibition on advertising of alcohol products and alcohol sponsorship, and introduce an offence for breaching advertising and sponsorship restrictions. The officials—and we know this because the Minister circulated this advice to every member of Parliament—gave advice that that part of the Supplementary Order Paper should not be supported. The advice conceded that there was strong public support for a complete ban, but little research regarding its effectiveness, and said that some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. Well, I would say particularly to those members who were emphatic in their support for either a split purchase age or a uniform age of 20 that even a modest decrease in youth drinking, surely, in your view, members, would be a good thing. I would ask that, on the basis of the official advice, those of you who did vote for other than a uniform age of 18 look again at this Supplementary Order Paper. Even the advice received from the officials indicates that it would go some way to achieving the aims that you were so keen to see at an earlier stage of this debate.

There is also some concern expressed around transitional funding—the same sorts of concerns that were expressed at the time that the Health Sponsorship Council had to look at replacement advertising and funding for tobacco. But that was something this Parliament showed it had the ability to deal with and overcome. I am confident that we would be able to rise to the same challenge on this occasion, if there were a will from the Government and the Minister of Finance to look carefully at this issue.

Finally, there is the response that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship to reduce alcohol-related harm. There is the advice that the forum will be set up once the bill is passed, and is due to report back to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health within a year. Well, the question has to be, on that point, how long do we want to wait. We have got the opportunity now to legislate and to deal with these problems. Why would we kick something off to yet another so-called expert committee when, as the previous speaker, Kevin Hague, noted, there is actually sufficient evidence before the House for us to act now?

The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper is new clause 35B, which would establish a sinking lid on off-licence premises where 85 percent of the annual sales revenue is expected to come from alcohol sales, unless the premise is replacing another identical or larger premise in the same territorial authority—termed a relocation—and the premise is not located within a 5-kilometre radius of any existing bottle stores. The advice here concedes that there is a definite link between outlet density and alcohol-related harm, and notes that reducing density would, therefore, reduce alcohol-related harm. Again, that is a good reason to look at the Supplementary Order Paper on its merits. The advice goes on to note that local alcohol policies, something that we will deal with in debate on a later part, can limit the density of licences without contravening certain other—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is Part 3.

I am aware of that, but I am dealing with the officials’ advice on this Supplementary Order Paper, and one of the components of the advice is that it should not be supported, because the local alcohol policies, which we deal with in a later part, deal with the issue. So I would appreciate it if you would just let me complete the point.

The problem, of course, with that part of the advice is that the local alcohol policies, which we will come to deal with later, are not mandatory. So they might well provide a mechanism to deal with the explosion of liquor outlets that we have seen since 1989, but the trouble is many local authorities simply will not operate them, because they are not required to—at least, in terms of the legislation as it stands.

Then Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper would add a power to the bill to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol sold on licensed premises, and would introduce an offence of the sale of alcohol at below minimum price. Basically, the advisers say to the Minister and thence to MPs: “Well, that is premature because the Government is already investigating a minimum pricing regime for alcohol.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is definitely Part 3.

I am aware of that, but, as I said, what I am doing—with respect—is running through the advice from the officials, which the Minister has published to members of Parliament, as to why this Supplementary Order Paper should be opposed. What I am inviting members to do is look at that advice and consider why it should not be taken on board.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we have got—with all respect to the member—three amendments under new Part 2A and new Part 7, and that is really what I ask the member to come back to. Tie in what you are saying, but we are really concentrating on those. What you are saying is fine, but all that should be covered in debate on Part 3.

Clause 44 on the Supplementary Order Paper would change the national minimum trading hours to 10 a.m. to 3 a.m., with a compulsory one-way door from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. for premises that have an on-licence or a club licence, and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. for off-licences. Again, the advice that is received—this is in Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that it is in his Supplementary Order Paper. What you are saying is correct—it is in the Supplementary Order Paper—but we are not dealing with that part, which is in Part 3. We are dealing only with what is in new Part 2A and new Part 7. So if you could just—

In that case, what I will do is I will move to the other two excellent Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee in this part of the debate—that of Iain Lees-Galloway and that of Dr David Clark. Supplementary Order Paper 91 would insert a new Part 2A banning billboard and poster advertising within 300 metres of schools and early childhood centres, creating a 9 p.m. watershed for alcohol advertising on TV, and banning alcohol advertising in cinemas and public screenings for all films that are not rated R18. The advice, again, is not to support that, because there is this expert forum that is going to be convened, and it is premature to move in that area. Again, I would simply say what I said in respect of the earlier part and the earlier Supplementary Order Paper: we have the evidence about the harm, we need not wait, this is the opportunity to legislate, and we should proceed.

Finally, Supplementary Order Paper 115 from my colleague Dr David Clark would add restrictions on the advertising of alcohol on television and also on radio. Again, the officials say there is strong public support for a complete ban, but little research regarding its effectiveness, and some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. So the same point arises as in respect of the first part of Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81: if we can, as the officials concede, have some effect on drinking, particularly by young people—irresponsible drinking—we ought to take it. This is the opportunity that we have. There is no benefit in further delay. We have heard the strong public urging that we ought to legislate more strongly in these areas. Here is an example of strong legislation that could make a real difference. And then there is the chestnut around the expert forum. Well, again, I think that has been comprehensively dealt with in the debate.

These are three excellent Supplementary Order Papers. They do tighten up on advertising and on availability, and they do deserve careful consideration and, certainly in my view, support by the Committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill. There is no question, as many of those who have contributed to the debate so far today have acknowledged, that alcohol has become—if, indeed, it has ever ceased to be—a most insidious influence on society and in our community. Part of the problem, as we have all acknowledged, is that we continue to debate alcohol law reform as if it were a moral issue or as if it were something other than what it actually is, which is a health issue. Alcohol is a drug. It is a drug that has won considerable social acceptance over decades—indeed, centuries—so we confer upon it a status that we would not give any other comparable substance. And, indeed, we eschew other substances that have as much of, if not a greater, impact as alcohol. So we debate this in a funny context and at a difficult time.

Perhaps the other thing that has happened more so in the last 20 years than prior to that is the considerable financial stake that many businesses and individuals now have in the peddling of this particular drug under the cover of it being socially acceptable. In that respect, the Supplementary Order Papers that go to new Part 2A, particularly Supplementary Order Paper 91 from Iain Lees-Galloway, and Supplementary Order Paper 115 from my other colleague Dr David Clark, provide restrictions on the marketing of alcohol that are, in my submission, absolutely critical. If we are serious about alcohol sale and distribution and we wish to do something that is meaningfully going to address the serious problems that all the evidence tells us now prevail—the problem of a growing number, an excessive number, of people turning up at our emergency departments every weekend seeking care and help because of their alcohol-related and alcohol-inflicted wounds; because of the number of young people who are falling prey to the blandishments of alcohol and brewing companies, and suffering the health effects as a consequence, and not just young people but the older people who continue or who have embarked on habits that are causing major health effects, and other costs in the health system. If we are serious about addressing those and accepting those as a social problem, then it is incumbent on this Parliament to regulate appropriately and accordingly.

When it comes to marketing and advertising, this Parliament can provide leadership, can discharge its responsibilities as a tribunal of the people, and can do something meaningful about it. That does mean confronting some of those large and wealthy vested interests, and saying that we do not wish to continue the social problems that prevail and that we do not wish to decline to do something in the face of something we know we can do something about. Regulating the advertising and the marketing is a response that this Parliament can make that will confront the vested interests, and it is vital if we are going to address and meet those public health demands that are on us.

Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81 and his proposed amendment, which is the ban to take effect in 2 years, is a very harsh initiative. That is a very harsh initiative. The sad reality, as he points out in his own explanatory note, is that there are many sports clubs and similar organisations that have become dependent on the support they get from the brewing companies and other marketers of alcohol, if not for their survival, then to at least provide them with a source of support and finance that enables them to function in the way that they do. It would be most desirable, in my submission, to remove alcohol, and alcohol branding and marketing, from sports activities and sports functions, but at the moment we need to focus on those things that are achievable, and possible, and credible. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers of my colleagues Mr Lees-Galloway and Dr Clark, because they focus on the very immediate and very insidious advertising and reach that the alcohol companies currently engage in. They have an obvious target, and it is the young. The style of the advertising is so often clearly aimed at those who are on the precipice of making, or those who are just starting to make, their decisions and choices about alcohol.

There is no matching or corresponding advertising—public-good advertising, you might say—about the deleterious effects of alcohol, apart from perhaps on the traffic front. Certainly, our Ministry of Transport has spent a large amount of money on the drink-driving issue. But in terms of providing that information that enables particularly young people embarking on their life habits, including habits around the consumption of alcohol, there is no social-good advertising that informs people or educates people about making an informed choice about the consumption of alcohol—about the impact, for example, of the hard liquors; about the impact of volumes of alcohol, and the impact that they can have; and about the long-term consequences on the organs of the body. So I think that in that context, and knowing the vast sums of money that get spent to pitch to young people—and to other sectors of the community too, but predominantly to young people, which is why they get into the sports clubs and the sports activities—that calls out for a responsible approach from this Parliament.

That should be underscored by the very call that members of the public have been making, that submitters to the bill made, and, indeed, members in the last few hours this afternoon have been making, for this Parliament to do something meaningful and, therefore, substantial. The “frilly bits” approach that has been taken by the bill to date is clearly not intended, on the face of the bill to date, to have any meaningful impact at all. If it is intended to, the reality is that the legislation as it currently stands, and without the sorts of amendments that we are currently debating, is not going to have any impact. So I simply record my views and my intentions in this regard. I do so because I consider, like all of us, that I am responsible in my representation role and in discharging my responsibilities as a member of this Parliament. Knowing the social ill that now sits at the feet of the alcohol industry, we are called upon to respond and to react, and to provide proper and meaningful regulation of this part of this industry, without depriving those who can consume responsibly and all the injunctions we get about that. These types of measures that are provided for in these two Supplementary Order Papers are crucial and necessary. I will be supporting those.

I do want to take another call, because there have been a number of comments made that I wish to respond to, but I also want to pick up where I left off in respect of the public health message that we want to have here. I was making the point that in some jurisdictions there have been cases taken where big tobacco have argued that they have the right to advertise under the Bill of Rights freedom of expression because advertising a legal product is a matter of freedom of speech. Well, I reject that because I think there are times when freedoms have to be subservient to the greater public good, and the public good is what health promotion is all about. I used the example of the manufacturers of a perfectly legal product, which is baby bottles. Baby bottle manufacturers and their suppliers have taken a deliberate decision not to advertise their products on television, not because their product is illegal but because their product undermines the public health message, which is to promote breastfeeding. That is the only reason they do not advertise on television. It is not something they have to do; it is something they choose to do because they are behaving in a responsible way. I believe that with regard to all organisations that are involved in the sale and supply of a product that causes significant cost to the country, let alone the human cost on top of the financial cost, there is a responsibility to take a responsible attitude towards it.

I have made the point that this is something that the public of New Zealand want, but I think we should remember a few things about the alcohol industry. One is that it spends millions of dollars annually on alcohol advertising. I just want to quote from a couple of the submissions to the Law Commission report: “The ads promote alcohol consumption and associate drinking with having fun, partying, confidence, success, sophistication, and desirability. The ads normalise drinking and sustain our current drinking culture.” and “[The aggressive marketing] of alcohol is a huge driver of the heavy drinking culture with its clever and sometimes witty advertising creating a false impression and seek[ing] to promote the sale of alcohol whilst totally ignoring the dangers of this drug … the advertising of alcohol should be severely reduced in NZ and it should not be allowed without a warning regarding the dangers.”

Those examples go on, but here is the response from the producers, the retailers, the broadcasters, and the people involved in regulation: “The purpose of liquor advertising is to influence brand choice, not to increase per occasion or total consumption.” We just saw a young man miss out on a trip to the UK that he had won as a result of the multiple entries into a competition that he applied for on the basis that the more often he applied for it the better his chances were of being drawn. Hey, guess what? He was drawn, but they would not give him the prize. Actually, I agree with them for not giving him the prize. They should have actually been quite up front from the start and said “If you have been convicted of an alcohol-related offence, then you are not the sort of person that we are going to give this trip to.”, because, of course, it involved buying alcohol. To advertise a prize on the basis that the more you buy the more likely you are to get a prize—I mean, how is that a responsible campaign? How is that just about brand consumption?

In the report the producers, the retailers, the broadcasters, and the people involved in regulation said: “This is no different to the advertising of, say, shampoo,”—well, yes, alcohol and shampoo; I can see an immediate similarity—“where the objective of the advertising is not to encourage people to wash their hair more often, but rather to choose one brand over another …”. They said: “We have no commercial interest in marketing our products to people who are not legally able to buy them—ie people under 18 years old.” Well, I just want to use an alcohol advertising slogan to respond to that and say “Yeah, right!”. I mean, if you look at the ads on TV, they are marketing to a younger culture all the time. That is what the ads are about. They are supposedly ads that are minimising the risks that alcohol is involved in. Actually, I was just thinking of the—

I move, That the question be now put.

I just wanted to mention a particular brand of alcohol, and now I cannot remember the name of it, but it comes in a can and it is something to do with Woodstock. The advertisement talks about whether it is OK if your friend’s mother gives you a “woody”. Am I getting this right? And are we all actually slightly revolted by what I just said? Because there is an implication of sexuality around that, which it is designed to do. The advertisement stops and everything is freeze-framed in order to make the point that this is OK to have on our televisions. But it is OK; that has got through the self-regulatory thing.

They said in the report: “We never encourage rapid, excessive or irresponsible consumption in any of our marketing or promotions …”. Well, I am sorry, but whenever one looks at the advertising that is on television, we see those very direct linkages to sexuality, to good times, and, actually, to not being able to have a good time without having alcohol involved. I think all of us have at different times got ourselves involved in the FebFast campaign, where we take a month off from drinking. Some have not done that, but—

💬 Charles Chauvel: Unpatriotic!

Some think it is unpatriotic—that is fine—but I have certainly done that and I know that others in the House have done that, as well. But what struck me the first time I got involved in that campaign was the number of occasions where I said “I’m not drinking this month.” and the people who said “Well, have one anyway.” or “We’ll buy you a night off.”, when they realised that there was a buy-out provision in the campaign. I just think we have got ourselves into a habit of drinking on all sorts of occasions when, in fact, it is not necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the occasion.

I think this link between drinking and advertising and sponsorship is compelling, particularly with regard to young people. That was the finding of the Law Commission. It has looked at the evidence. I do not think the jury is still out on this. I think there are, indeed, some self-interested people in the industry, and that is not just the liquor industry. People have to remember that it is the advertisers and it is the media that are dependent on the alcohol advertising dollar that will, in fact, try to push public opinion in a particular way. But no matter how much they push it, the public want to see change, and I do not know how anyone in this Committee can vote against some of the amendments that we are considering here today. All of them pick up a gradual move towards change that the public have been demanding for some time.

We have never had the, I think, courage to look at the Loi Evin, which is operating in France. Of course, the Law Commission said that that is a long way from where it thinks we could be, but it was passed in 1991, and despite the many challenges that have been brought against that law—which allows for no advertising targeted at young people, no advertising on television or in cinemas, no sponsorship of cultural or sports events, and advertising permitted only in the press for adults, on billboards, or on radio channels under very precise conditions, and its content is very controlled—it has worked. A health message is included on each advertisement, to the effect that alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.

It should go without saying, but alcohol is actually dangerous to the purse of the New Zealand taxpayer. I do not know why people do not understand that for every person who takes up a hospital bed as the result of a crash caused by a drunken driver, that is somebody who is not getting an elective surgery, and for every person who cannot get the police officer to come after they have had a burglary, because that police officer is in town dealing with a fight that has broken out in the early hours of the morning, that is because of alcohol-fuelled harm. I cannot see why the people of New Zealand cannot see that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a total free-for-all in all of these areas and have alcohol advertising to the extent that it does dominate public opinion. I think it is time for real change in this House.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 2A and new clause 58A be agreed to.

We now move to Part 3. This is debate on clauses 12 to 284. I will just explain the procedure that we will be following. The debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: licensing requirements and conditions, subpart 1 other than minimum pricing proposals—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for clarification, because I am trying to mark things off on this as we go through, was the new Part 7 dealt with at that time, or will that be voted on later?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That part has been defeated. We have just had that. That was part of new Part 2A and new Part 7. We have dealt with that. We are now on Part 3.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I had different votes for the two parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Would you like to explain your position?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Well, for Part 2A, the amendments in the name of Mr Flavell, we had 26 to 7, which is what I cast. For new Part 7, which was the alcohol advertising reform committee, on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Lees-Galloway, I had 32 in favour, one opposed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So you are wishing to change your votes?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No—well, how can I split the vote when they have been put together?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This was an agreement of the Business Committee, so—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, but not the votes. Certainly the debate was put together, but I did not think the votes were put together.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So what you are asking for is that on Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendments, you wanted to separate out new Part 2A, relating to advertising, and have a separate vote on new Part 7, establishing an alcohol advisory reform committee—is that what you are asking?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You need to seek leave for that.

💬 Louise Upston: I thought we voted on Supplementary Order Paper 91, both of those components. Can you clarify whether we did or not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are right; that is what we were doing. But what the member is asking for—in Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendment there is actually two parts to it. There is new Part 2A and new clause 220, relating to advertising. That is what they are suggesting shall be one question, and the second question is on new Part 7, which establishes an alcohol advisory reform committee. That would be a second vote. To do it, the member has to seek leave, because I have already put the vote and I cannot change it unless the Committee approves that we go back to it and have the vote again.

I seek leave that a vote be taken on new Part 7, to establish an alcohol advertising reform committee, on Iain Lees Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 91.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. So we go back to new Part 7.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to insert new Part 7 be agreed to.